Final Environmental Impact Statement: Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority and Borough of Nazareth Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Northampton County, PA


United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 3
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
August 1980
Final Environmental
Impact Statement
Bushkill-Lower Lehigh
Joint Sewer Authority
and Borough of Nazareth
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
Northampton County, PA.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                        REGION 111
                 GTH AND WALNUT STREETS
            PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19106
                                                                  JUL  '.  81S80
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)  prepared
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  on the proposed construction
of Federally funded wastewater management facilities for the Bushkill-Lower
Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority and Borough of Nazareth, Northampton County,
Pennsylvania.

I wish to thank the applicant for the assistance provided to EPA's staff
during this EIS process.  In addition, I wish to commend the performance of
each Township and Borough representative for the guidance they provided EPA
throughout this decision-making endeavor.  Finally,  I want to especially
recognize the strong commitment of local citizens  throughout the study.  Their
participation has contributed to the development of  responsive solutions to
sewage needs of the area.

This Final 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, Part 6, November 6, 1979).  Comments or inquiries concerning
this EIS should be submitted to the attention of Ms. Rochelle Volin (3IR61) at
the above address by October 5, 1980.

The Final EIS has determined that the Applicant's  Proposed Action is  unaccept-
able for Federal funding due to its potential to cause significant adverse
environmental impacts.  The preferred project (Alternative 9)consists of
conveyance of flows from portions of Plainfield Township, Stockertown and
Tatamy Boroughs, and Palmer Township to the Existing Easton sewage treatment
plant; conveyance of flows from Upper Nazareth Township and the Borough of
Nazareth to a new sewage treatment plant in Nazareth Township:   the use of
multi-family filter fields (cluster systems) in portions of Plainfield and
Bushkill Townships and individual on-site systems  throughout the rest of the
service area.  This action complies with the President's energy conservation
directive by minimizing the total energy demand of the service area and
minimizing construction in streams thus decreasing potential adverse  impacts
to a popular local trout stream.

A public meeting regarding the Final EIS will be held on September 18, 1980,
at 7:30 p.m., in the Nazareth Junior High School.   Both the public and representa-
tives of organizations are encouraged to attend and  express their comments and
opinions on the Final EIS.


 Sincerely  Vours,
          Jl
 JAck
 Regional Administrator
           V
 Enclosure

-------
                            FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL  IMPACT  STATEMENT
                                                 on
                                    BUSHKILL-LOWER LEHIGH JOINT
                               SEWER AUTHORITY AND BOROUGH OF NAZARETH
                                   WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
                                  NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                            Prepared by:
                                 US ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
                                             REGION III
                                     PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

                                 Rochelle B.  Volin, Project Monitor

                                  Prepared with  the Assistance of:
                                            WAPORA, Inc.
                                           Washington  DC
                                  Eric M.  Hediger, Project Manager
Type of Action:
  Legislative (
  Administrative
X )

-------
LIST OF PREPARERS This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with
assistance from WAPORA, Inc.

Key personnel from EPA include:

Rochelle B. Volin Project Monitor

Contributors from WAPORA were:

Eric M. Hediger Project Manager
E. Clark Boli Senior Project Advisor
Gerald 0. Peters, Jr. Technical Advisor
James C. Varnell, P.E. Senior Environmental Engineer
J. P. Singh, P.E. Senior Environmental Engineer
Nowzar Dinyarian Associate Environmental Engineer
Henri D. Bartholomot Assistant Environmental Engineer
Wu-Seng Lung, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Water Quality Scientist
J. Ross Pilling, II Associate Environmental Planner
Wesley R. Horner Associate Socioeconomist
Melissa J. Wieland Graphics Specialist
Teresa F. McCue Quality Control Specialist

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Applicant
conclusions of
Final EIS
Draft EIS
EIS issues
This Final Environmental  Impact Statement (EIS)  has  been  prepared  by  US
Environmental  Protection  Agency (EPA)  Region  III.   It concerns  the Bushkill-
Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer  Authority's  proposed plan  to construct a  regional
collection system to serve the wastewater management needs  of the  following
municipalities1  in Northampton County,  Pennsylvania:
                            •  Bushkill Township
                            •  Upper Nazareth Township
                            •  Nazareth Borough
                            •  Plainfield Township
                                          •   Stockertown  Borough
                                          •   Tatamy  Borough
                                          t   Palmer  Township.
The Bushkill-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority  (B-LLJSA)-has  requested  the
participation of EPA in the funding of this  plan,  hereafter  referred  to  as
the Applicant's Proposed Action (APA), under the Construction  Grants  Program.
In most cases, the conclusions of the Final  EIS  confirm  those  of  its  predeces-
sor, the Draft EIS.  Major findings are listed below.

•  The APA does not represent an appropriate strategy  to  serve the waste-
   water management needs of the seven municipalities  listed abovel based on
   considerations of the need (as defined  by the Construction  Grants  Program)
   for sewerage facilities, its induced growth potential,  and  its impacts
   (via the Bushkill Interceptor) on the naturally reporducing trout  fishery
   of Bushkill Creek.

a  The Modified Applicant's Proposed Action  (MAPA)  is  not  an acceptable  waste-
   water management plan for funding under the Construction Grants Program
   on the basis of need (as defined above),  cost-effectiveness, induced  growth
   potential, and impact on the naturally  reproducing  trout fishery of Bushkill
   Creek.

•   EIS Alternative  9 is  determined  to be the most cost-effective and environ-
    mentally  acceptable approach  to  serve the documented wastewater  management
    needs of  the  EIS Phase  I Service Area.   Therefore,  it has been selected as
    the EIS Recommended Action.   Growth induced by this alternative  is reasonable,
    and associated secondary impacts are not excessive.  Trout production and
    recreational  areas along Bushkill Creek downstream from Tatamy Borough
    would not be  disturbed  by construction  activities as would be the case if
    the MAPA  were built.  The alternative involves  the replacement of the
    existing  Nazareth sewage treatment plant (STP)  with a new treatment facility
    and the construction  of pump  stations and force mains to avoid the install-
    ation of  gravity sewers in the floodplain of Bushkill Creek.

EPA published the Draft  EIS during December 1979.   The primary purposes of this
document were to review  and analyze the B-LLJSA's application for EPA funding
of  the APA and to develop  and evaluate alternatives in view of the  public issues
surrounding  the  project.   These  issues include (see Section I.C., Draft EIS):

    Need documentation
   Cost-effectiveness2
    Induced growth and secondary  impacts
   Groundwater supplies
   Public participation.
                            ^These municipal ties are known collectively as the EIS Service Area.

                            2EPA's review of the cost-effectiveness of the APA and the development of
                             potentially cost-effective alternatives was conducted under the precept
                             that cost-effective wastewater management plans minimize the total cost
                             of water pollution control to the public.

-------
documentation of
need by EPA
wastewater management
approaches for Phase I
and Phase II areas
ten EIS alternatives
MAPA
purposes of Final EIS
In response to the first issue, EPA devoted a substantial  effort to document
existing water quality problems and potential public health hazards that are
associated directly with malfunctioning on-site wastewater management systems
in the EIS Service Area.  This effort included an aerial  survey and field
investigation of residential  areas, sampling of streams and wells for pol-
lution indicators, and interviews with municipal  sewage enforcement officers
and other local health officials.  EPA concluded that an immediate need
for sewers or other off-site facilities exists in the following communities:
the Belfast-Edelman area, east Pen Argyl,  and Rasleytown in Plainfield
Township; Rismiller in Bushkill Township;  Stockertown Borough; Tatamy
Borough;'Nazareth Borough; suburban areas  and Christian Springs in Upper
Nazareth Township; and the Newburg Homes  subdivision in Palmer Township.
The following areas that were proposed to  be sewered by the Applicant do not
have documented needs for off-site wastewater management facilities:
Jacobsburg State Park and Cherry Hill  in  Bushkill  Township; Route 115 north
of Belfast in Plainfield Township; and the sparsely populated Northern Cor-
ridor of Palmer Township (with the exception of Newburg Homes).

The results of the needs documentation effort were integral to the develop-
ment of cost-effective, alternative wastewater management approaches  for
areas with immediate need for off-site facilities  (Phase I areas)  and for
areas in which limited wastewater management problems can be solved best by
on-site system replacement or rehabilitation (Phase II areas).  Technologies
that might reduce project costs or minimize adverse impacts (excessive
induced growth, diminished groundwater suppl ies,  etc.), while still  solving
existing problems, were examined first.  Four categories  of alternative
technologies — flow reduction, low-cost  sewers,  decentralization, and land
application -- were considered.  In addition, several specific areawide
alternatives to the APA were developed, combining  the alternative technolo-
gies into complete wastewater management  systems  that would meet the  needs
of the EIS Service Area.

A total of ten alternatives and a "no-action" plan were developed by  EPA and
the public during the EIS process.  Five of these  alternatives proposed the
use of the up-graded and expanded Easton STP, and  four alternatives involved
the upgrading and expanding,  or replacement,  of the existing Nazareth STP.

In order to compare the APA to feasible alternatives developed in this EIS
with respect to costs and environmental impacts,  certain basic assumptions
used by the Applicant in the design of the APA 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 design (final) year
of the project.J  This plan is referred to as the  MAPA.

The primary purposes of this Final EIS are to respond to  all  substantive public
and Agency comments on the Draft EIS and  to present new,  or revised,  informa-
tion that has been made available, or was  developed, since the Draft  EIS was
published.   Modifications to some of the  information contained in the Draft EIS
have been required as a result of changing conditions in the EIS Service Area
or because of public comments.

Major public comments received on the Draft EIS include the following:
                            3Under the MAPA, wastewater flow per capita is 60 gallons for residential
                             areas and 70 gallons for residential/commercial areas; the northern ex-
                             tension of the Bushkill Interceptor (through Jacobsburg State Park) is
                             removed, and the design year is 2000.  With the exception of these design
                             parameters, the MAPA is identical to the APA.

-------
evaluation of
Alternatives
significant decision
factors
need for project
segmental
cost-effectiveness
analysis
9  zoning ordinances that prevent development in floodplains

9  unit prices for sewerage components

9  costs of the Nazareth plant

9  the Boston treatment plant

9  gravity sewer versus force main/pump stations

9  induced growth estimates and impacts

9  energy requirements.

The evaluation of alternatives focuses  on the MAPA and  EIS  Alternative  9
because the MAPA is a redesign of the APA,  which is the subject  of  this EIS,
and because Alternative 9 is the Draft  EIS  Recommended  Action.   Two  versions
of Alternative 9 with slightly different engineering designs  have been
included in this final evaluation:

•  Alternative 9 (RBC)   a new rotating biological  contactor  treatment  plant  to
   replace the existing Nazareth STP; the wastewater conveyance  system  re-
   quires nine pump stations.  This version was  ultimately  dropped  from
   further consideration due to higher  costs and energy impacts.

•  Alternative 9 (Modified; OP)   a new oxidation ditch (OD)  treatment
   facility to replace the existing Nazareth STP; the wastewater conveyance
   system requires six pump stations.  This version is  hereinafter  referred
   to as Alternative 9.

The selection of Alternative 9 over the MAPA as  the Final EIS Recommended
Action is based on significant decision factors  re-evaluated  since  the
publication of the Draft EIS including  the  need  for the project, cost-
effectiveness, energy (electric power)  requirements, and induced growth
potential.  Their significance was highlighted during the public comment
period, which terminated 24 March 1980.

EPA considers Alternative 9 to be an acceptable  wastewater  management plan
from the standpoint of needs documentation.  This alternative serves only
those areas where documented on-site system problems exist.  The entire
capacity of the Schoeneck Interceptor under the  MAPA does not justify Federal
funding under the provisions of EPA's Construction Grants Program.   EPA would
fund only interceptor capacity to serve the existing wastewater  management
needs of Nazareth Borough, Christian Springs and suburban areas  (East Lawn)
in Upper Nazareth Township, Newburg Homes in Palmer Township, and  a reasonable
rate of growth.

A  segmental cost-effectiveness analysis, independent of the  alternatives cost-
effectiveness analysis, was  performed.    It  compared  sewage treatment by a new
Nazareth STP, conveyance  to  the Easton STP  by a  gravity interceptor, and
conveyance to the  Easton  STP  by a force  main/pump  station  system.    Flows
originate at  the Nazareth STP  and end  at the Penn  Pump manhole.  A  new
Nazareth STP  is less  expensive than  a  gravity interceptor  along Schoeneck
Creek; the cost savings are  equivalent to  approximately $0.70/month/family.
A  comparison  of wastewater conveyance  by gravity sewer and by a force  main/
pump station  system  (Tatamy  Borough  to Penn Pump  Park manhole) also was
performed.  The pressurized  conveyance along Tatamy  Road is  only slightly
more expensive than  gravity  conveyance along Bushkill  Creek.  The  difference
in cost between the  two conveyance methods  is equivalent to  $0.15/month/family.
This represents the  cost  of  insuring the preservation  of the trout  fishery in
Bushkill Creek, as well as other  recreational activities.

-------
energy requirements
•induced growth
final EIS
Recommended Action
fund-ing of EIS
Recommended Act-ion
final public meeting
In view of significant public concern expressed during the Draft EIS comment
period that EPA recommend a wastewater management plan that complies with the
President's energy conservation directives, EPA considers it necessary to
present a realistic energy evaluation of the MAPA and its EIS Alternatives.
This evaluation includes energy consumption by project-associated residents
as well as by project-associated wastewater conveyance and treatment compo-
nents -- the Second Street pump station and Delaware Drive pump station in
Easton and the Easton STP.  These additional  facilities are essential to the
implementation of any alternative involving wastewater conveyance to the
Easton STP, and should be considered in the comprehensive energy evaluation.
Electric'power requirements of the MAPA are five times larger than those of
Alternative 9 on the basis of the following comprehensive energy budget:
                            B-LLJSA/EIS Service Area-associated
                            wastewater conveyance and treatment
                            components

                            Electric  power consumption by induced
                            residential development @ 21,600 kwh/
                            yr for  single family homes and
                            16,900  kwh/yr for multi-family homes

                            Total estimated energy requirements
                                                MAPA
                                              (kwh/yr)

                                               723,860
                                            29,872,000
                                            30,595,860
Alternative 9
   (kwh/yr)

     461,004
   6,263,000
   6,724,004
Implementation of the MAPA would induce the construction of approximately five
times the number of dwelling units (1,515 units)  beyond the baseline than
would be the case under Alternative 9 (311  units).   These estimates of induced
growth include development that could occur in the  designated 100-year flood-
plains of streams in Stockertown Borough and Tatamy Borough.  Recently adopted
floodplain management ordinances for these  municipalities limit and condition,
but do not prohibit, development in the 100-year floodplain.

The Applicant's proposed action is neither  cost-effective nor environmentally
acceptable and is therefore, not eligible for Federal  funding.  Alternative 9
has been determined to be the most cost-effective wastewater management plan,
with a total present worth cost of $10.0 million.  The MAPA, with a total
present worth cost of $12.2 million, is $2.2 millionr(22%) more costly than
Alternative 9 and is not acceptable for Federal  financial assistance.

The responsibility for final decision-making on funding eligibility rests with
the EPA Regional  Administrator.  Following  the close of the 30 day comment period
on the Final EIS, EPA will prepare a formal Record  of Decision, which will be
distributed to the public.  'This Record will  set forth the conclusions of the
EIS process, the  decisions made by EPA on funding of the EIS Recommended Action,
and the actions by the Applicant that are eligible  for Federal funding.

A public information meeting to discuss the recommendations presented in the
Final  EIS will be held in the EIS Service Area during the comment period on
this document.  The site of the meeting will  be the Nazareth Junior High School.
The date and time of the meeting are announced on the cover letter of this
document.

-------
            Summary of beneficial environmental impacts  of alternative wastewater management  plans evaluated  in
Beneficial
Environmental Impact
(by Environmental Category)
Earth Resources
1. Preservation of prime
agricultural land
Water Resources
1. Improvement in quality
of Schoeneck Creek
below existing Nazareth
STP
2. Recharge of groundwater
resources
3. Reduction in ground-
water quality problems
resulting from
malfunctioning on-lot
sewage disposal systems
Socioeconomic Conditions
1. Increase in long-term
employment in EIS
Service Area
Type of Impact
Primary
ST2 LT3


•






Secondary
ST2 LT3
•



•

• •


Probability of
Impact Occurrence
High Moderate Low
•

•

t

•
•

MAPA


X



XX
XX

Alternatives
123456789 10,
XX XX X X

XXXXXXXXXX

XX XX XX XX X X XX X X X

xxxxxxxxxxx


1 "XX" denotes very significant impacts; "X" denotes less significant impacts;  a dot  (•)  indicates that a type, or level, of impact is expected
  to occur.

2 ST = Short term
 LT = Long term

-------
Adverse
Environmental Impact
(.by Environmental Category)
Earth Resources
1. Conversion of prime
agricultural land to
developed uses
2. Inducement for develop-
ment on steep slopes,
with subsequent erosion
of soils
3. Inducement for develop-
ment in flood-prone
areas^
4. Disruption and erosion
of soils as a result of
project construction
Water Resources
1. Sedimentation of surface
channels during project
construction
2. Reduction in Schoeneck
Creek flow induced
by elimination of
Nazareth STP discharge
3. Potential to disrupt
groundwater movement
patterns and stream
hydraulics
4. Potential reduction in
water quality through
sewer system malfunctions
Type of Impact
Primary
ST2 LT3











•



•


•



0



•


Secondary
ST2 LT3

t


•



•




















Probability of
Impact Occurrence
High Moderate Low

•


•



•


•



•


0



•



•


MAPA

X


X



XX


XX



XX


X



XX



X


Alternatives
123456789 10

X


X XXX



XXXXXXXXXX


XXXXXXXXXX






X X X X XX










  "XX denotes very significant impacts; "X" denotes less significant  impacts;  a  dot  (•)  indicates that a type, or level, of imapct is expected
  to occur.
2ST = Short term
  LT = Long term
^Except  in flood-prone areas where development is specifically prohibited by  municipal ordinance.

-------
Summary of adverse impacts (continued).
Adverse
Environmental Impact
(by Environmental Category)
Biotic Resources
1. Disruption of wild trout
habitat
2. Loss or disturbance of
wetlands through induced
development
3. Loss or disruption of
wildlife habitats
Land Use
1. Inducement for conversion
of undeveloped land to
developed areas
2. Increase in residential
density and changes in
community character
Population
1. Project-induced growth to
exceed baseline population
in year 2000
2. Financial burden on resi-
dents imposed by estimated
local user charges
3. Expenditure of public
funds for sewerage needs
not documented
Public Services
1 . Induced need for school
desk space in excess of
baseline requirements
Type of Impact
Primary
ST2 LT3

• •




•












•


•






Secondary
ST2 LT3

• •

•


•


•


•



•









t


Probability of
Impact Occurrence
High Moderate Low

t




•


•


•



i


•


•



t


MAPA

XX




XX


X


X



XX





X



X


Alternatives
123456789 10



X


X


XXXX XXX X


XXXX XXX X



XXXX XXX X


X X


X XXX X



XXXX XXX X

-------
Summary of adverse impacts (concluded).
Adverse
Environmental Impact
(by Environmental Category)
Public Services (continued)
2. Induced need for police
and fire protection in
excess of baseline
requirements
3. Increased traffic volumes
to require region-wide
highway improvements
4. Induced need for more
extensive or improved
recreational resources
" Energy
1 . Increased consumption of
energy by wastewater
management system
components (kwh/yr)
Type of Impact
Primary
ST2 LT3












• •



Secondary
ST2 LT3

•



•


•



• •



Probability of
Impact Occurrence
High Moderate Low

•



•


•



•



MAPA

X



X


X







Alternatives
123456789 10

XXXX XXX X



XXXX XXX X


XXXX XXX X



XX XX X X X X XX X X X

-------

-------
Page

TALLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables xvii
List of Figures xvii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xix
Introduction xxi

Chapter I: Public Participation 1

Chapter II: Summary of Draft EIS 7

A. Background 7
B. EIS Assumptions - 7
C. Alternatives 10
D. Draft EIS Conclusion 10
E. Draft EIS Recommendation 10

Chapter III: Evaluation of Alternatives 13

A. Existing Environment 13
B. Applicant's Proposed Action and Impacts 14
C. Alternatives 22
D. Impacts 28

Chapter IV: Comparison of Alternatives 35
s-

A. Modified Applicant's Proposed Action 35
B. Alternative 9 36

Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations 41
.j
A. Description of £he Final EIS Recommended Action 41
B. Impacts and Mitigative Measures of the Final EIS 46
Recommended Action
Chapter VI: Implementation of Final EIS Recommended Action 53

A. Bushkill Creek Watershed 53
B. Schoeneck Creek Watershed 53
C. Small Flows District 53

Chapter VII: Public and Agency Comments on Draft EIS 55

A. Issue: Need for Project 57
B. Issue: Water Quality 59
C. Issue: Land Use 61
D. Issue: Alternatives 62
E. Issue: Induced Growth 71
F. Issue: Energy 73
xv

-------
APPENDICES                  APPENDIX
                            A        Draft EIS included by reference                                        75
                            B        Recreation and wastewater management plans for Jacobsburg              77
                                    State Park
                            C-l      Induced growth potential in 100-year floodplains of Stocker-           82
                                    town Borough and Tatamy Borough
                            C-2      Induced growth associated with substitution of gravity sewer           83
                                    for pump stations/force main in Palmer Township, year 2000
                            C-3      Induced dwelling units for alternate wastewater management             84
                                    plans, year 2000
                            C-4      Sewer-induced growth in EIS Service Area                               85
                            D-l      Summary of additional  construction costs associated with APA           90
                            D-2      Energy analysis of APA, MAPA,  and EIS alternatives                      94
                            D-3      Engineering evaluation of Draft EIS included  by reference            125
                            D-4      Electric power consumption by  residential  development,  year 2000     126
                            D-5      Advantages and disadvantages of oxidation  ditches and rotating       128
                                    biological contactors
                            D-6      Design, operation, and maintenance of cluster systems                129
                            E        Letters of comment on  Draft EIS                                      133
                            F        Transcript (copy) of public hearing on Draft  EIS, 21  February  1980    213
                                                      xvl

-------
                                                                                                          Page
LlST OF TABLES             III-l    Updated cost summary of APA                                           19
                           III-2    Estimated local user charges ($) associated                           19
                                    with APA
                           III-3    Significant financial burden and displacement                         20
                                    pressure associated with APA
                           III-4    Expansion costs for Second Street pump station,                       20
                                    Delaware Drive pump station, and Easton STP that
                                    should be added to APA costs
                           III-5    Revised energy budget for APA                                         21
                           III-6    Total estimated energy requirements of APA                            22
                           III-7    Segmental cost-effectiveness analysis of                              26
                                    Alternates A, B, and C and Alternates D and E
                           III-8    Cost-effectiveness analysis of the APA, MAPA,                         29
                                    and Alternative 9
                           III-9    Estimated local user charges for the APA, MAPA, and                   30
                                    four versions of Alternative 9
                           111-10   Dwelling units induced under MAPA and EIS Alternative 9               31
                           III-ll   Financial burden and displacement pressure associated                 32
                                    with MAPA and Alternative 9
                           111-12   Revised energy budget for MAPA:  conveyance and                       33
                                    treatment systems
                           111-13   Energy budget for Alternative 9 (Modified; OD):                       33
                                    conveyance and treatment systems
                           111-14   Total estimated energy requirements for the MAPA                      38
                                    and Alternative 9 (Modified; OD) in the year 2000
                           IV-1     Significant factors considered in the selection of                    38
                                    the Final EIS Recommended Action
                           VII-1    Comparison of B-LLJSA and EIS construction costs for                  67
                                    sewers, stream crossings, and manholes
LlST OF FIGURES            1        Location of the EIS Service Area in Northampton
                                    County, Pennsylvania
                           2        Municipalities in the EIS Service Area
                           II-l     Applicant's Proposed Action
                           III-l    Applicant's proposed stream crossing (manhole
                                    210 to manhole 211) approximately 1 mile below
                                    Tatamy Borough
                           III-2    Applicant's proposed stream crossing (manhole 219                     14
                                    to manhole 220) approximately 1.5 miles below
                                    Tatamy Borough
                           III-3    Location of stream crossings associated with the                      15
                                    APA, MAPA and EIS Alternative 9 (Modified)
                           III-4    Forks Township Interceptor (east side of Bushkill                     17
                                    Creek)
                           III-5    Forks Township Interceptor (east side of Bushkill                     17
                                    Creek)
                           III-6    Subareas associated with segmented cost-effectiveness                 23
                                    analysis
                           III-7    Pump stations associated with EIS Alternative 9                       25
                                    modified conveyance system
                           IV-1     Nazareth oxidation ditch sewage treatment plant                       37
                                    (revised)
                           V-l      Final EIS  recommended action                                          43
                           V-2      Capital costs, present worth, and estimated user                      44
                                    charges associated with APA, MAPA, and four
                                    versions of Alternative 9
                                                         xv 1

-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AND ABBREVIATIONS
APA
B-LLJSA
BOD
DER
EA

EIS
EPA
EPIC
FM
GAI
gpm
i/a
JPC
kwh/yr
LF
LT
MAPA
mgd
Mg/1
MOD

N/A
OD
O&M
PS
PSI
PVC
RBC
ROW
SCS
SFD
STP
ST
ST/SAS
Applicant's Proposed Action
Bushki11-Lower Lehigh Joint Sewer Authority (the Applicant)
Biochemical oxygen demand
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental  Resources
Environmental Assessment for Bushki 11-Lower Lehigh Joint
Sewer Authority and City of Easton (GAI,  1976)
Environmental Impact Statement
United States Environmental Protection Agency (Region  III)
Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
Force main
Gilbert Associates, Inc.
Gallons per minute
Innovative/alternative
Lehigh-Northampton Counties Joint Planning Commission
Kilowatt-hours per year
Linear  feet
Long term  (impacts)
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action
Million gallons per day
Milligrams per litre
Modified (refers to wastewater conveyance system comprising 6 pump
stations)
Not applicable
Oxidation  ditch sewage treatment plant
Operation  and maintenance  (costs)
Pump  station
Pounds per square inch
Polyvinyl  chloride
Rotating biological contactor sewage treatment plant
Right of way
US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
Small Flows District
Sewage treatment plant
Short term (impacts)
Septic tank/soil adsorption system
               xix

-------
INTRODUCTION

-------
INTRODUCTION               Tn1s Final Environmental  Impact Statement (EIS)  has been  prepared  by the
                             US Environmental Protection Agency, Region III  (EPA).   It addresses  the
                             availability of Federal  funding for the construction of wastewater manage-
                             ment fac-jntl-es as proposec] by the Bushkill-Lower Lehigh  Joint  Sewer
                  ,           Authority (B-LLJSA), representing the following  municipalities  of
mmwpaiee under         Northampton County, Pennsylvania (Figures 1  and  2):  Bushkill Township,
    ^                        Plainfield Township, Upper Nazareth Township, Stockertown Borough, Tatamy
                             Borough, and Palmer Township.  These municipalities are charter  members  of
                             the B-LLJSA.  Although not a member of the B-LLJSA, Nazareth  Borough has
                             been included in this study because wastewater  conveyance and treatment
                             capacity for its approximately 5,700 residents  was provided  in  the Applicant's
                             Proposed Action (APA).

                             The application was submitted by the B-LLJSA for financial  assistance to
                             resolve the existing wastewater management problems of its  participating
                             municipalities.  The cost for the project as proposed  by  the  Applicant  is
                             estimated to cost $16,800,0,00 in 1980 dollars.

-------
 PENNSYLVANIA
         PHILADELPHIA
                                                                                                      •H
                                                                                                      •H
                                                                                    MILES
Figure  1.   Location of the EIS Service  Area in Northampton County,  Pennsylvania.

-------
FIGURE 2   MUNICIPALITIES  IN  THE EIS  SERVICE
——SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
	MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY

-------
CHAPTER I
Public Participation
                       4UU

-------
CHAPTER  I:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
public participation
methods
chronology of
public participation
activities
The participation of the public has been sought continuously throughout the
preparation of this EIS,  Suggestions and criticisms generated by local, state,
and Federal agencies, citizen associations, private concerns,  and individual
citizens have been given full consideration in the following EIS processes:

•  Documentation of need for sewerage facilities
•  Development of alternative wastewater management strategies
•  Assessment of environmental, economic, and social impacts
t  Selection and implementation of an EIS Recommended Action.

Public participation methods utilized during preparation of the EIS included
newsletters, public information meetings, workshops, interviews, and telephone
contacts.  These techniques insured involvement with as many citizens as
possible at critical EIS decision points.

A chronology of EIS public participation activities is listed  below:
8 November 1978
15 December 1978
18 December 1978
20 December 1978
January 1979
17 January 1979
28 February 1979
9 March 1979
April 1979
25 April 1979
14 June 1979
29 August 1979
18 September 1979
September 1979
24 September 1979
11 October 1979

18 December 1979
December 1979
January 1980
7 February 1980
21 February 1980
24 March 1980
March 1980
3 April 1980
7 April 1980

22 May 1980
18 July 1980
August 1980
August 1980
September 1980
Preparation of EIS begins
Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS issued by EPA
Meeting with B-LLJSA
Meeting with Plainfield Township Taxpayers Association
EPA pamphlet discussing EIS published in newspaper
EIS Public Information Meeting No. 1
Meeting with Bushkill  Township
Meeting with Bushkill  Township
EIS Newsletter distributed
EIS Public Information Meeting No. 2
EIS Workshop No. 1
EIS Workshop No. 2
EIS Workshop No. 3
EIS Newsletter distributed
EIS Public Information Meeting No. 3
Meetings with Nazareth Borough, B-LLJSA, and Palmer
  Township
Meeting with B-LLJSA and Bushkill  Township
Draft EIS published and distributed
Summary-of-Draft-EIS pamphlet distributed
Meeting with B-LLJSA
Public Hearing on Draft EIS
End of public comment period on Draft EIS
EIS Newsletter distributed
Meeting with B-LLJSA
Meeting with B-LLJSA,  Palmer Township, and Congressman
  Donald Ritter
Meeting with B-LLJSA
Meeting with B-LLJSA and Nazareth Borough
Final  EIS published and distributed
Summary of Final EIS pamphlet distributed
EIS Public Information Meeting No. 4
                            The  remainder  of  this  chapter  identifies  the  agencies, elected officials,
                            media,  citizens groups,  libraries,  and citizens which are on the EIS mailing
                            list.

-------
                                        EIS MAILING LIST
 FEDERAL AGENCIES

 Advisory  Council on Historic
   Preservation
 Council on  Environmental
   Quality

 Federal Emergency Management
   Agency
 National  Agricultural Lands
   Study

 National  Environmental  Health
   Association
 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 Helath, 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 Water  Resource
          Analysis Group/Eastern
          Land Use Team
     National Park Service
     Heritage Conservation and
       Recreation Service

 US  Department of Justice
     E. MacTroutman, Esquire
     Ronald H. Gluck, Esquire
     Robert N. de Luca,   Esquire
     Robert S. Forester,  Esquire

 US  Department of Transportation
     Federal  Highway Administra-
      tion
    Marine Environmental Pro-
      tection Division
US Department of Treasury

US General Services  Administra-
  tion

Water Resources  Council
 PENNSYLVANIA  STATE AGENCIES

 Department of Agriculture

 Department of Commerce
 Department of Community Affairs

 Department of Environmental
  Resources
    Bureau of Air Quality and
      Noise Control
    Bureau of Community Environ-
      mental  Control
    Bureau of Occupational
      Health
    Bureau of Radiological
      Health
    Bureau of Solid Waste
      Management
    Bureau of State Forestry
    Bureau of State Parks
    Bureau of Topographic and
      Geological Survey
    Bureau of Water Environ-
      mental  Resources
    Bureau of Water Quality
      Management
    Coordinator for Environ-
      mental  Protection &
      Regulation
    Division  of Solid Waste
      Management
    Division  of Water Supply
      & Sewerage
    Environmental Hearing Board
    Regional  Director, Reading
      Region
    Sewage Facilities Consul-
      tant
    State Conservation Commis-
      sion

 Department of Health

 Department of Transportation
 Environmental Hearing Board
 Fish Commission

 Game Commission

 Historical and Museum Commission
 State Clearinghouse
LOCAL AGENCIES

Blue Mountain Consolidated
  Water Company
LOCAL AGENCIES  (continued)

Bushki11-Lower  Lehigh Joint
  Sewer Authority

Bushkill Township
    Board of Supervisors
    Engineer
    Planning Commission
    Secretary-Treasurer
    Solicitor

City of Easton
    Mayor
    Area Joint  Sewer Authority
    Suburban Water Authority

Delaware River  Basin Commission

Joint Planning  Commission,
  Lehigh-Northarnpton Couties
Nazareth Sewerage Company

Nazareth Borough
    Council
    Engineer
    Mayor
    Secretary
    Solicitor
    Treasurer
Northampton County Conserva-
    tion District

Palmer Tonwship
    Board of Supervisors
    Engineer
    Planning Commission
    Secretary
    Solicitor
Plainfield Township
    Board of Supervisors
    Engineer
    Planning Commission
    Secretary-Treasurer
    Solicitor

Stockertown Borough
    Council
    Mayor
    Planning Commission
    Secretary
    Solicitor
    Treasurer
Tatamy Borough
    Council
    Mayor
    Planning Commission
    Secretary
    Solicitor
    Treasurer

-------
 LOCAL AGENCIES  (continued)
MEDIA (continued)
CITIZENS GROUPS
 Upper  Nazareth Township
     Board  of  Supervisors
     Engineer
     Planning  Commission
     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  Donald T.  Ritter,
   United States  House of  Repre-
     sentatives

 Honorable  Jeannette  D. Reibman,
   Senate of Pennsylvania, Easton

 Honorable  George J.  Kanuck,
   Pennsylvania House  of Repre-
     sentatives,  Bethlehem

 Honorable  Russell  Kowalyskyn,
   Pennsylvania House  of Repre-
     sentatives,  Northampton

 Honorable  James  P. Ritter,
   Pennsylvania House  of Repre-
     sentatives

 Honorable  Michael  J.  Schweder,
   Pennsylvania House  of Repre-
     sentatives,  Bethlehem
 Honorable  Edmund J. Sieminski,
  Pennsylvania House  of Repre-
     sentatives,  Easton

 Honorable Joseph R. Zeller,
  Pennsylvania House  of Repre-
     sentatives,  Emmaus

 Honorable Kurt D. Zwikl,
  Pennsylvania House of Repre-
    sentatives, Allentown
MEDIA

Newspapers
    Allentown Morning Call
    Bulletin
    Easton Express
    Emmaus & Allentown Times
    Evening Chronicle
    Globe Times
Newspapers (continued)
    Herald
    Home News
    Nazareth Key
    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 Associa-
  tion, Pittsburgh PA
America the Beautiful Fund,
  Washington DC

Appalachian Mountain Club,
  Easton PA

Audubon Naturalist Society of
  the Central Atlantic States,
  Inc. , Washington DC

Brandywine River Conservancy,
  Chaddsford PA

Bushkill Anglers Chapter,
  Trout Unlimited, Nazareth PA

Bushkill Watershed Association,
  Easton PA

Bushkill Township Concerned
  Citizens Committee,
  Nazareth PA

Citizens' Advisory Council to
  the Pennsylvania Department
  of Environmental Resources,
  Harrisburg PA

Citizens Environmental Task
  Force, Pittsburg PA

Concerned Laymen for Environ-
  mental Action Now  (CLEAN),
  Hellertown PA

Cooks Creek Watershed,
  Hellertown PA

Environmental Defense Fund,
  Washington DC
Environmental  Defense Fund,
  Washington DC
Group Against Smog and Pollution
  (GASP), Pittsburgh PA
Leagure of Women Voters of PA,
  Philadelphia PA
  Easton PA
Lehigh Valley Conservancy,
  Bethlehem PA

Monocacy Creek Watershed
  Association, Bethlehem 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 Environment,
  Washington DC

Saucon Creek Watershed Associa-
  tion, Hellertown PA

Sierra Club
    PA Chapter, Philadelphia  Pa
    PA Chapter, Pittsburgh PA
    Governor Pinchot Group,
      Mohuton PA
    Southerwestern Group,
      Pittsburgh PA

Trout Unlimited, Indiana  PA

Upper Nazareth  Citizens League,
  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


CITIZENS

Ms. Betty Abel
Mr. Robert Achenbach
Mr. Elwood Acherman
Ms. Mary Ann Achweitzer
Ms. Claire Adamson
Mr. Bernie Agner
Mr. William Agnew
Ms. Ruth Anderson
Mr. Sherwood Ashenfolder
Mr. Edwin Averback
Mr. L. R. Barlich
Mr. Paul Beahn, Jr.
Mr. Frederick C. Benfield
Ms. Joan Benter
Mr. John S. Bert
Mr. Dennis Bickirt
Mr. Wayne Billings
Mr. Lester Blean
Mr. Paul Bohlander
Mr. David Boskirk
Mr. Jeffrey C. Bosserman
Mr. R. Botrowsky
Dr. P. T. Bradt
Mr. Peter D. Bringham
Mr. Andrew W. Brock
Mr. Donald Burley
Ms. Virginia Buskird
Ms. He!da Buss
Mr. Sidney R. Butler
Mr. Joseph Butz
Mr. K. N. Butz
Mr. Warren R. Buzzard
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Cartright
Mr. Luke F. Chelnis
Mr. Gregory Chrin
Mr. Jim Claire
Mrs. B. H. Cohen
Mr. Edward S. Cole
Mr. Mr. Harold Coleman
Mr. & Mrs. Edward Colleflower
Mr. John J.  Correll
Mr. Gerald Crabtree
Ms. Carol Crane
Mr. Delbert Grossman
Mr. Maynard Crouse
Ms. Ellie Cyr
Mr. Sammual  Damofre
Mr. Pete E.  Deni
Mr. John H.  Hetiveiler
Mr. Reg Dewalt
CITIZENS (continued)

Mr- Franklin D. Dieter
Mr. Cosmo DiGerlando
Mr. Dominic DiGerlando
Mr. Joseph J. Danner
Ms. Marge Darker
Mr. Joseph Dorner
Mr. J. Michael Dowd
Mr. & Mrs. Rookant Doyle
Ms. Frances T. Dreisback
Mr. John P. Durr
Mr. J. Easton
Mr. Vergil Easton
Ms. Margaret Edis
Mr. Dick Ehlert
Mr. R. A. Elbe
Mr. Richard Englet
Ms. Anna Erdie
Mr. Matthew Erdiep
Mr. Dominic Fararo
Mr. John Feack
Mr. Raymond Fennel
Mr. Frank Ferguson
Mr. John Ferrette
Mr. John Filonge
Mr. Larry Finnegan
Mr. Donald J. Fischl
Mr. James T. Fish
Mr. Robert Fisher
Mr. Keith Fling
Mr. Robert Fostenbader
Mr. Allan Frantle
Mr. Francis Franusiszen
Mr. F- Fraunfieder
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Frey
Mr. Roger B. Frey
Mr. Joseph Frisch
Mr. Joseph M. Fruhman
Mr. Paul Fundarish
Mr. Woodrow W. Fuls
Mr. Wesley Garr
Mr. Dwight 0. Gelser
Mr. & Mrs. Quentin Gilbert
Mr. James Godisha
Mr. John E. Godsker
Mr. Russell S. Gordon
Ms. Ellen Gradwokl
Mr. Lee Graver
Mr. David Grayson
Mr. Stephen Greyus
Mr. Dennis A. Grube
Mr. John Gruff
Mr. John T. Guiffre
Mr. Gordon Habrial
Mr. & Mrs. John Hale
Mr. Joseph M. Hale
Mr. Charles Holm
Mr. Terry Hannold
Mrs. Esther Harris
Mr. William Heard
Mr. Michael Heberling
Mr. Thomas Heckman
Mr. J. E. Heller
CITIZENS (continued)

Ms. Catherine M. Herkman
Mr. Thomas C. Herkman
Mr. Edward C. Hess, Assoc.
Mr. J. H. Hildenhand
Ms. Margarit Hill
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Hopper
Mr. Joseph Hopple
Mr. Lee House
Mr. Fred Houser
Mr. & Mrs. George T. Hower
Ms. Nancy Hower
Mr. Ronald & Arthur Hower
Mr. Joseph Hull
Ms. Ricki Hurwitz
Mr. Charles Janec
Mr. Lawrence P. Janett
Mr. R. Jarrow
Ms. Barbara Jeninko
Mr. Michael Jones
Ms. E. Joan Johnson
Ms. Louise Johnson
Ms. T. W. Johnson
Mr. Harold S. Kahler, Sr.
Mr. Tony Kagmakeis
Mr. & Mrs. D. G. Kamback
Mr. Ronald Kaviah
Mr. Tony Kazmakites
Mr. Milton Kelchner
Mr. George Kelchner
Mr. & Mrs. Ben Kehler
Ms. Hilda Keppel
Mr. & Mrs. David Kern
Mr. Kermit Kessler
Mr. Willard J. Kickline
Mr. Lester Kilbanks
Mr. William Kilpatrick, Sr.
Mr. & Mrs. Richard King
Mr. Harry Kirchgassner
Mr. Carl Kislan
Mr. Elwood Kocher, Jr.
Ms. Sherry A. Koehler
Mr. William Konkel
Ms. Linda J. Kortz
Mr. Stanley S. Kratze
Mr. & Mrs. Lester Kratzer
Mr. Kenneth Kromer
Ms. Diane Kullman
Mr. Stephen Lakatos
Mr. Alfred Lankics
Mr. Karl Lausehack
Mr. James Lee
Mr. Harvey F. Leedwig
Mr. Richard S. Lerback
Mr. Sherwood Lessig
Ms. Nancy Lieberman
Mr. Kermit G. Lilly
Mr. Joseph A. Lopresti
Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Lukaez
Mr. James E. Lutz
Mr. R. Lynn
Mr. Robert L. Lynn
Mr. & Mrs. David Mack

-------
CITIZENS (continued)
CITIZENS (continued)
CITIZENS (continued)
Mr. Glenn D. Macker
Ms. Evelyn Mann
Mr. S. L. Makart
Ms. Anna Mann
Mrs. Mary Manning
Mr. Randolf Markovitz
Mr. Don McCabe
Mr. Alan B. McFall
Mr. Ulin MeGill
Mr. Thomas McGrass
Mrs. Mary J. McHan
Mr. Henry R. Mebus
Mr. George C. Meiser
Mr. R. Bernard Merwarth
Mr. Ed Messanlehner
Mr. Raymond Messinger
Mr. Vernon L. Messinger
Mr. Ralph Z. Metz
Mr. & Mrs. Tim Meyer
Mr. Floyd Michael
Mr. & Mrs. Henry Milrus
Mr. Lawrence Monaghan
Mr. John Moore
Mr. M. Morin
Mr. William B. Morman
Mr. Robert J. Muglone
Mr. & Mrs. Bob Nagel
Mr. Russel H. Naubold
Mr. & Mrs. Gregory Neff
Mr. Michael D. Neiser
Mr. Joseph Nemeth
Mr. Raymond Nenette
Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Newhad
Mr. Frank J. Nikles
Mr. Tom O'Brien
Mr. George Odenwelder
Mr. John A. O'Hagen
Mr. A. J. Oplinger
Mr. Howard J. Overholt
Mr. Joseph Pail
Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Papuak
Mr. Wayne Parry
Mr. Phillip C. Parsons
Mr. Vincent Paukovitch
Mr. Robert Peters
Mr. Ralph Pidcock
Mr. George D. Plowman
Mr. Joseph Pompom'
Mr. Martin Ponist
Mr. Ben Presby
Mr. Dale W. Prinkey
Mr. Walter C. Quier
Mr. & Mrs. S. P. Raisner
Mr. Donald A. Ramaley
Mr. Nicholas Rampulla
Mr- Gary Rapp
Mr. Robert Rapp
Mr. & Mrs. Claude Rathe
Mr. William D. Raumsey
Mr. Donald Raymes
Mr. & Mrs. Earl A. Reade           Mr.
Mr. John W. Reed                   Mr.
Mr. Clayton T. Reese               Mr.
Mr. William Remaly                 Mr.
Mrs. Paul D. Repohen               Mr.
Mr. Dale Resmiller                 Mr.
Mr. Frank Ressler                  Mr.
Mr. Conrad M. Rice                 Ms.
Mr. Robert A. Richard              Mr.
Mr. Harry Richebacher              Mrs
Mr. H. Riefenstahl                 Mr.
Mr. Robert Robert                  Mr.
Ms. Elaine Rodger                  Mr.
Mr. Ronald Rodger                  Ms.
Mr. Arthur Safass                  Mr.
Mr. Joseph Saftman                 Mr.
Mr. Ernest Safgent                 Mr.
Ms. Maryann Sargent                Mr.
Mr. Charles Scabo                  Ms.
Mr. David T. Schell                Ms.
Mr. V. Schirvon                    Mr.
Mr. Daniel Schneck                 Mr.
Mr. Francis J. Schweitzer          Mr.
Mr. Arthur Siefasr                 Ms.
Mr. R. S. Serifass                 Mr.
Mr. & Mrs. Douglas Seyfried        Mr.
Mr. John Shaddle                   Mr.
Ms. Claude Shappelle               Mrs
Mr. Joanne Sherman                 Mr.
Mr. Robert P. Shively              Mr.
Mr. Stephen Shockos                Ms.
Mr. Carl Shmitz                    Mr.
Mr. & Mrs. George W. Shook         Mr.
Mr. & Mrs. Lester Shook            Mr.
Mr. Harold E. Simons               Mr.
Mr. & Mrs. Peter H. Slavish
Mrs. Claire K. Smith
Ms. Darvine Smith
Mr. & Mrs. Roy Smith
Mr. R. W. Smith
Ms. Shirley M. Smith
Mr. William G. Smith
Ms. Patricia Snyder
Mr. William Spafford
Mr. & Mrs. Sparrow
Mr. Charles Spohn
Ms. Carol Sprague
Mr. & Mrs. Allen Stahl
Mr. F. E. Stannard
Mr. Robert Starke
Mr. Douglas T. Stechl
Mr. Wayne M. Steinmetz
Mr. & Mrs. Richard Stine
Mr. A. Stirba, III
Ms. Mary L. Stracko
Mr. Donald Strockoz
Mr. Leo Suprye
Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Sutter
Mr. R. Tenges
Mr. D. L. Thew
    E. J. Trinkley
    & Mrs. Conrad Tripy
    James Unger
    Robert Vanon
    Karl K. Vinger
    Charles F. Voda
    Dale Wade
    Barbara Wagner
    D. D. Wallers
   ,  Jeanette Walters
    Russell Wambold
    Edward Warmbald
    Harold G. Warner
    Michele C. Warner
    Rick Warner
    Mil lard Weave
    Ed Welchner
    Martin M. Wenfield
    Jan Werkheiser
    Evelyn Werkheizer
    Edward A. Werner
    Melvin 0. Werner
    Donald White
    Maureen White
    John Wikles
    Ed Wilchner
    Dale R. Williamson
   .  Ann Woehrle
    Joseph J. Worner
    Francis Wunderly
    Jane Yeakel
    M. A. Yeakel
    Ronald M. Yeakel
    Robert A. Young
    Grant Zilena

-------
CHAPTER II
Summary of Draft EIS

-------
CHAPTER  II:   SUMMARY
OF DRAFT  EIS
 BACKGROUND
 EIS  ASSUMPTIONS
 Assumption  1
 action being  studied
 Assumption  2
 EIS Service Area
 Assumption  3
 Nazareth Borough
 Assumption  4
 status  of ownership;
 Nazareth wastewater
 collection  and treat-
 ment facilities
 Assumption  5
 purpose  of EIS
This chapter briefly summarizes the Draft EIS (Appendix A).

A.  In 1976, the BLLJSA submitted an application for Federal  financial
    assistance for the construction of wastewater management  facilities
    to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental  Resources  and
    subsequently to the EPA.  This application requested money to construct
    a collection system which would convey wastewater from the Boroughs of
    Stockertown and Tatamy, Plainfield, Upper Nazareth, Bushkill  and  Palmer
    Townships and Jacobsburg State Park to the Easton Sewage  Treatment  Plant.
    The plan also proposed to eventually abandon the Nazareth  Sewage  Treat-
    ment Plant and redirect wastewater flows from the already  sewered
    Borough of Nazareth and portions of Upper Nazareth to the  Easton  Plant.
    EPA announced its decision, in December  1978, to prepare  an  Environ-
    mental Impact Statement on the proposed plan prior to any  final action
    concerning the application for Federal money.

B.  Several key assumptions/factors influenced the preparation of the Draft
    E'IS.  The assumptions were formulated to define the scope  of  the  EIS
    and to improve the public's understanding of the Federal  decision-making
    process.  These assumptions have also been determined to  be valid for
    the Final EIS.

    •  The Draft EIS addressed the actions proposed by the B-LLJSA [waste-
       water collection and transport facilities), but not the expansion
       of the Easton Treatment Plant and its enlarged interceptor and pump
       station system.  These facilities were constructed under a separate
       EPA grant; however, the estimated B-LLJSA local share  of the capital
       costs associated with the Easton construction, $1.3 million, is
       addressed in the Draft EIS.

    •  The EIS Service Area includes the B-LLJSA Service Area  (Bushkill
       Township, Plainfield Township, Upper Nazareth Township, Palmer
       Township (unsewered portion only), Stockertown Borough, and Tatamy
       Borough) and Nazareth Borough (see Figure   2).  It is  different
       from the area proposed to be served by the Applicant (see  Figure II-l).

    t  Nazareth Borough was included in the EIS Service area  for  three
       reasons.  First, the privately-owned Nazareth sewage treatment plant
       (STP), which serves most residents in the Borough has  required up-
       grading and expansion for several years.  Second, a significant
       number of citizens throughout the EIS Service Area believe that  the
       Nazareth STP. if upgraded, could offer a cost-effective means  of
       wastewater treatment.  This belief stems from the STP's central
       location in the EIS Service Area and from the public assumption  that
       selected STP facilities can be conserved.  Third, even though  Nazareth
       Borough is not a member of the B-LLJSA, the Applicant  has  provided
       capacity in its conveyance system for wastewater flows  generated by
       Nazareth Borough under the assumption that the STP eventually  wil'l  be
       abandoned.

    •  The purchase of the privately-owned Nazareth sewage collection and
       treatment facilities by Nazareth Borough was considered imminent.  This
       assumption was based on conversations with representatives of  Nazareth
       Borough and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources  (DER)
       Nazareth Borough is listed on the State priority list for  Federal
       construction grant funds (Pennsylvania Bulletin, Volume 9, No. 8,
       24 February 1979) with a rank of 70.

    •  The primary purposes of the Draft EIS were to develop alternative
       wastewater management plans, to evaluate them in comparison to the
       Applicant's proposed plan, and to recommend the plan that  is  environ-
       mentally sound and represents the most cost-effective use  of Federal
       funds.  Although the Draft EIS incorporated the necessary concepts,

-------
FIGURE II- I   APPLICANT'S PROPOSED ACTION
— —SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
11H AREA SERVED BY PROPOSED SEWER

-------
Assumption 6
alternatives approach
Assumption 7
design and costing
Assumption 8
documentation of need
Assumption 9
Jaoobsburg State Park
Assumption 10
Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action
Assumption 11
costs
Assumption 12
user charges
guidelines, and regulations sought in approved wastewater management
facilities plans, it does not constitute a facilities plan by itself.

• Both centralized and decentralized wastewater management approaches
were evaluated. These approaches incorporated innovative and alter-
native technologies, where possible, in accordance with the provisions
of the Clean Water Act of 1977 and other applicable EPA guidance and
regulations.

• The preliminary design and costing of wastewater management alterna-
tives were completed under the assumption that an EIS recommended
action would have to be returned to the Applicant for Step II design
work unless the APA was the recommended action.1 Step II design,
which involves detailed on-site investigations, engineering, and cost-
ing, is outside the scope of a typical EIS. The Applicant, in order
to receive Federal funds, must conform with the requirements of EPA's
Construction Grants Program.

• Federal funding of the APA, or of any alternative, is contingent on
the documentation of need for improved wastewater management facili-
ties. Need is defined when at least one of the following conditions
exists: standing pools of septic tank effluent or raw domestic
sewage, sewage in basements from inoperable sewage disposal systems,
or measured contamination of private wells or surface waters by sewage
disposal systems. Unsuitable site conditions, including high ground-
water, rapidly or slowly permeable soils, or solution channels, are
not sufficient documentation by themselves. Two levels of need were
identified in the Draft EIS. "Phase I" areas demonstrated an immediate
need for off-site wastewater management facilities, whereas low density
"Phase II" areas only required improved on-site facilities.

t Future recreational plans for the 1,170-acre Jacobsburg State Park in
Bushkill Township have been modified. The planned development of
a 300-site camping area, a swimming complex, and a 94-acre lake have
been terminated in response to public complaints that such facilities
would be detrimental to the Park's environmental and historic resources.
Instead, the Bureau intends to provide small-scale recreational op-
portunities at the Park (see Appendix B).

• The APA, by itself, cannot be compared directly to the other alterna-
tives due to differences in design year, estimated wastewater flows
per person, and service area configuration. The Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action (MAPA) was developed to overcome these dissimilarities.

• The costs of the alternatives do not represent absolute construction
costs of systems. Locally obtained estimates of unit costs for sewerage
facilities have been applied uniformly to all wastewater management
plans evaluated in the EIS. The focus of the costing effort was on the
internal comparability of the MAPA and of the EIS alternatives.

• User charges include the following items: debt service (repayment of
principal and interest to cover the after-grant share of capital costs),
operation and maintenance costs, ajid an annual reserve fund assumed to
equal 20% of the annual debt service amount. The charges do not include
front-foot assessments and are not in the true sense "user charges"
because they are not based on actual construction costs. They are,
instead, indexes of economic impact and financial burden.
Detailed design and costing of the APA were completed in 1977.

-------
 Assumption  13
 population  projeat-ions
 Assumption  14
 development in floodplains
      •   Estimates of future population associated with wastewater
          management alternatives were based on the municipal population
          projections developed by the Lehigh-Northampton Counties Joint
          Planning Commission (JPC) in '1973.  The "baseline future" population
          projections for each municipality in the EIS Service Area are
          identical to JPC's 1973 figures.

      •   Future development was not assumed to be prohibited in designated
          floodplains of municipalities with enacted floodplain management
          ordinances unless such ordinances specifically prohibited flood-
          plain development.  The codified limiting, or conditioning, of
          development in the floodplain is not considered equivalent to the
          prohibition of such development.
 ALTERNATIVES
 DRAFT  EIS
 CONCLUSIONS
DRAFT EIS
RECOMMENDATIONS
C.   In response to public concern over such issues as need documentation,
     cost-effectiveness, water quality and induced growth, EPA developed
     eleven alternatives to the Applicant's proposed action.  On site system
     problems were identified from field investigations of aerial photography,
     groundwater quality, surface water quality, and soil suitability for
     wastewater disposal/treatment.  Alternatives included various combinations
     of stream discharge, land application and decentralized schemes.

D.   After extensive study and analysis, EPA determined that the BLLJSA's
     proposed plan was unacceptable for Federal funding due to the following:

     •  potential for loss of agricultural  land
     •  potential for loss of valuable trout habitat
     •  other alternatives exist  which do not have significant adverse
       impacts

The  need for centralized wastewater collection and treatment facilities was
assessed compared to the need to alleviate existing water quality or public
health problems.  The absence of documented water quality problems for the
areas listed below suggested that centralized treatment and/or increased
sewer service for these areas were not required.

    •  Plainfield Township north of T609 on Route 115 and Route 191  between
       Belfast Junction and Edelman
    t  Jacobsburg State Park
    •  The vicinity of Cherry Hill, Bushkill Township

An existing need for improved facilities was identified in the following areas:

       Belfast area of Plainfield Township
       Stockertown Borough
       Tatamy Borough
       Rasleytown
       an area east of Pen Argyl Borough (Plainfield Township)
       Rismil'ler (Bushkill  Township)
       Christian Springs (Upper Nazareth Township)

E.  Major elements of the plan recommended in the Draft EIS for Federal  funding
    are:

    •  wastewater generated in the corridor running from the Belfast Area
       through Tatamy Borough, and the Newburg Homes area of Palmer
       Township would be conveyed to the Easton Plant for treatment.
                                                    10

-------
    •  wastewater flows  from the  existing  Nazareth  Plant Service  area  as well
       as those from the East Lawn vicinity  of Upper  Nazareth  Township could
       be treated at a new plant  adjacent  to the  existing  Nazareth  Plant
       which would be abandoned

    •  sparsely developed segments along Route 115  north of  the gravity sewer
       and communities of east Pen Argyl and Rasleytown (Plainfield Township)
       and Rismiller (Bushkill Township) would be served by  small collection
       systems and multi-family area fields  (cluster  systems).

    •  the remainder of the area  not served  by a  centralized collection
       system would remain an individual on-lot treatment  systems.

The estimated cost for this project was $11,800,000 in         dollars.  It was
calculated that yearly charges to users of the system would  equal about $110
per household.  Additional charges amounting to about $70  per  household were
calculated to cover previous costs incurred  by the  Applicant.
                         tl

-------
CHAPTER
Evaluation of Alternatives

j
-t,
i
\
1
t

              X  ' /
              lv!r H /

-------
CHAPTER  III:
EVALUATION OF
ALTERNATIVES
Comments and new information received during the Draft EIS  public  comment
period were incorporated into the EIS process.   This  chapter  indicates  the
new information and illustrates the subsequent  evaluation of  alternatives.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
 Inventory of Prime
 Agricultural Land
 60%, not 75%, of EIS
 Service Area in prime
 agricultural lands
 Recently Adopted
 Floodplain Develop-
 ment  Regulations
Plainfield Township

Stockertown Borough and
Tatamy Borough
 A.   The descriptions of the existing environment in the Draft EIS with
      regard to prime agricultural land, floodplain zoning, and recreation
      are updated in this section.  These modifications largely represent
      new information that was not available, or that was in the process
      of being generated, during the preparation of the Draft EIS.

      1.   It was stated on page 45 of the Draft EIS that the Northampton
           County District Soil  Conservation Service (SCS) was in  the
           process of delineating prime agricultural  lands based on the
           1977 guidelines.  Furthermore, it was noted that under  the new
           guidelines, the Comly (CmB) soil  series and the Clarksburg (C1B)
           soil series would no longer be considered prime agricultural
           lands.  The net effect of these changes is that an estimated 60%,
           rather than 75%, of the EIS Service Area is classified as prime
           agricultural  land (By letter, Mr. Graham T. Munkittrick, US
           Department of Agriculture  (USDA)-SCS, 17 March 1980).  This
           reduction in  the amount of prime agricultural land is scattered
           evenly throughout the EIS Service Area.  Another change in the
           inventory of  Class I and Class II soils (Figure III-6, Draft EIS)
           is  that the soils on which Newburg Homes (Palmer Township) was
           developed are no longer considered prime agricultural lands; the
           construction  of homes has foreclosed agricultural opportunities
            (By telephone, Mr. John Bert, District Soil Conservationist,
           USDA-SCS, 16  April 1980).

      2.   The Draft EIS (page 225) indicated that a number of municipalities
           in  the EIS Service Area do not have zoning ordinances that pro-
           hibit development in flood-prone areas.  This statement was based
           on  EPA's interviews with municipal government officials, including
           planners and zoning officials, during the period from December
           1978 through July 1979.  Plainfield Township, Stockertown Borough,
           Tatamy Borough, Upper Nazareth Township, and Nazareth Borough did
           not have prohibitive floodplain development ordinances.

           Three of the five previously identified municipalities recently
           have amended or adopted floodplain regulations.  They are:

           •   Stockertown Borough (Ordinance No. 164)   adopted 6 August 1979
           0   Tatamy Borough (Ordinance No.  110)   adopted 5 November 1979
           •   Plainfield Township   amended 10 January 1980.

           These new floodplain regulations are based on Flooci Insurance
           Studies that were prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration
           during the summer of 1979.  With its zoning ordinance amended,
           Plainfield Township now prohibits development in the 100-year flood-
           plain.  The referenced floodplain management regulations for Stocker-
           town Borough and Tatamy Borough "limit and condition, but do not
           prohibit totally, development within the 100-year floodplain as
           defined by their respective Flood Insurance Studies" (By letter,
           Mr. Walter Pierson, Acting Director, Insurance & Mitigation
           Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 10 March 1980).
Nazareth Borough
Upper Nazareth Township
           Nazareth Borough and Upper Nazareth Township still have not adopted
           floodplain ordinances.  The Joint Planning Commission, Lehigh-

-------
Northampton Counties, reported that these municipalities soon would
have ordinances that will meet the requirements of the National
Flood Insurance Program as well as the Pennsylvania Floodplain
Management Act (By letter, Mr. Allen O'Dell, 6 March 1980). The
above requirements stipulate that structures must be floodproofed
or elevated above flood levels; they do not prohibit development
in floodplain areas.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSED
ACTION AND IMPACTS

Stream Crossings
nwriber of stream
crossings
Modifications have been made to the description and cost of the APA as
stated in the Draft EIS. As a result, the impacts have changed.

1. The Draft EIS stated that the APA would require the construction
of 29 stream crossings, six of which would involve the boring, or
jacking, of sewer pipe beneath the streambedJ The remainder of the
stream crossings were to involve the construction of cofferdams and
excavation (including rock blasting where necessary) of the stream
bottom. Subsequent discussions with the B-LLJSA and its engineer
during the Draft EIS public comment period necessitate the following
revisions:

• Inspection of the B-LLJSA plot plans and bid sheets indicated
that only 19 stream crossings were proposed to be bid for con-
struction . The B-LLJSA informed EPA that three stream crossings
in Jacobsburg State Park could be eliminated from the APA
because of objections voiced by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission,
The revised number of stream crossings (16) by channel is as
follows: three on Bushkill Creek, one on a tributary to Bush-
kill Creek, six on Little Bushkill Creek, and six on Schoeneck
Creek. The Applicant's engineer indicated that it might be
possible to eliminate one or two more crossings on Schoeneck
Creek, but the value in doing so is questionable; no stream
crossings can be eliminated on Little Bushkill Creek [By letter,
Mr. Hans Meinig, Jr., Gilbert Associates, Inc. (GAI), 11 April
1980]. Photographs of two of the Applicant's proposed stream
crossings on Bushkill Creek are included as Figures III-l and
III-2. The revised locations of all stream crossings proposed
for the APA are shown in Figure III-3.
Figure III-l

Applicant's proposed stream crossing
(manhole 210 to manhole 211) approxi-
mately 1 mile below Tatamy Borough.
Figure III-2
Applicant's proposed stream crossii
(manhole 219 to manhole 220) appr®
mately 1.5 miles below Tatamy Boroi
Drawings 06-6796 D-601-008 and 06-6796 D-601-009 (dated 1974, revised 1977).

'Drawings 06-6796 C-601-012 through C-601-019.
14

-------
FIGURE 111-3  LOCATION OF STREAM CROSSINGS ASSOCIATED WITH
             THE  APA. MAPA AND EIS ALTERNATIVE 9 (MODIFIED)
-- SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY

  0 APA

 f ELIMINATED UNDER MAPA

  0 EIS ALTERNATIVE 9 (MODIFIED)

    AREA WHERE SPRINGS ARE KNOWN TO EXIST

-------
types of stream crossings
effect of stream crossing
revisions on aquatic biota
wild trout population
None of the stream crossings under the APA will require boring
or jacking of sewer pipe beneath stream bottoms as previously
proposed by the Applicant. Instead, all crossings will be
constructed via cofferdam installation and excavation of stream
bottoms according to procedures prescribed by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (DER) and the Pennsylvania
Fish Commission (By telephone, Mr. Hans Meinig, Jr., GAI, 17
April 1980). According to the Applicant's engineer, jacking of
sewer pipe reportedly would require too much construction time
in comparison to open trench excavation.

The Pennsylvania Fish Commission has described Bushkill Creek as
"one of the better, if not the best, trout streams in eastern
Pennsylvania and as such must be protected" (By letter, Mr. Jack
Miller, Chief, Fisheries Environmental Services, Pennsylvania
Fish Commission, to Mr. Robert Blanco, Chief, Water Planning Branch,
EPA, 15 February 1977). As stated in the Draft EIS, this creek
supports an intensive trout sport fishery. From May through
August 1978, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission counted a total of
1,651 anglers along Bushkill Creek for a distance of approximately
2.3 miles downstream from Tatamy Borough.3 During L980, the fishing
pressure on Bushkill Creek has increased despite a reduction by
8,000 fish in the number of stocked brown trout due to shortages of
the species in the State. This intensive fishing pressure, which
is attributed to current economic conditions that keep anglers
close to their homes, is projected to increase in the near future.

Stocking is conducted to supplement the wild trout population.
The Pennsylvania Fish Commission estimates that the number of
naturally reproduced trout (mostly brown trout, Salmo trutta)
in Bushkill Creek is high, with an average density of 250 trout
per 100 meters^ (By telephone, Mr. Terry Hannold, Waterways Patrol-
man, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, 2 June 1980). In their 1979
inventory of the "Fish for Fun" Area, the Pennsylvania Fish Com-
mission captured brown trout, measuring 3 to 16 inches in length,
and rainbow trout (Salmo gairdnerii), measuring 11 to 13 inches.
As stated in the Draft EIS, the livelihood of the trout fishery
downstream from Tatamy Borough is dependent on the underground
springs known to exist in the vicinity of the Borough and at
the confluence of Schoeneck Creek and Bushkill Creek (see Fiqure
III-3).

The Applicant, in its detailed design of the sixteen stream
crossings that are associated with the APA, has incorporated a
number of measures that will minimize damage to the aquatic
environment. The adverse impacts expected from the construction
of the stream crossings, as well as the structural and non-struc-
tural measures recommended by the Applicant to mitigate these
impacts, are summarized briefly below (By letter, Mr. Hans Meinig,
Jr., GAI, 11 April 1980).
adverse impacts and
mitigative measures
recommended by Applicant
Erosion of stream banks
and siltation of surface
water channels during sewer
installation .
Mitigative Measures

Streams will be crossed in two
stages with water being diverted
(by sand bags) to one side while
sewer pipe is being installed
on the other.
Includes the "Fish for Fun" Area.

^Equivalent to approximately 4,000 naturally reproduced trout per mile.

-------
Mitigative Measures
• Disruption of trout
spawning habitat.
Diversion of spring flow
away from the creek by
gravel-filled trench and
interception of ground-
water.
• Hydraulic erosion around
sanitary sewage pipeline.
Use of silt retention basins
during construction.

Follow soil erosion and sedi-
mentation control specifica-
tions per Pennsylvania Fish
Commission and DER rules and
regulations.

Obtain Section 404 permits
from US Army Corps of Engin-
eers prior to construction.

• Make stream crossings during
time period recommended by the
Pennsylvania Fish Commission.

• Install concrete curtain walls
(seepage stops) approximately
every 1,000 feet in areas where
there is concern that ground-
water will follow trench line
and be diverted away from the
adjacent stream.

• Encase stream crossings in
concrete.
If proper construction methods are enforced, the adverse primary
impacts can be expected to be of relatively short duration. The
Applicant cites the construction of the Forks Township Inter-
ceptor on the east side of Bushkill Creek (Figures III-4 and
111-5) 12 years ago as testimony to the fact that a gravity
Figure III-4

Forks Township Interceptor
* :f^&.^
, * • v J* «w * ' V k(',Z-. "*
§*;*5£
;•* SS '
T%V4 -•&*•«
"B*«-'--s7!:
> -- •
s&^^*«^^--r\> ^ *•
».>-»:-. *?54fe vi/.\:J >v •, •,*£"
Figure II1-5
Forks Township Interceptor
17

-------
 potential for spring/
channel diversion
under APA
 corridor  study
 recommended
 potential for
 additional stream
 crossings
 Prime  Agricultural
 Land Conversion Under
 APA
 Induced  Growth
 Revisions  Under APA
 Costs  of APA
   interceptor along lower Bushkill  Creek will  not affect adversely
   this high-quality aquatic environment.  The construction of
   stream crossings in limestone areas, involving the blasting
   of bedrock, must proceed with caution, because this activity
   could divert surface water and groundwater flow away from the
   stream.  The short- and long-term potentials for such diver-
   sion in the B-LLJSA Service Area exist along Schoeneck Creek,
   atong Little Bushkill Creek in the Stockertown area, and along
   Bushkill Creek downstream from Tatamy.  Construction of sewer
   pipe adjacent to Bushkill  Creek downstream from Tatamy and along
   Little Bushkill  Creek should be permitted only after a detailed
   corridor study is completed.  A qualified geologist and biologist,
   in collaboration with the Applicant's engineer, should determine
   the potential  for spring and channel  diversion and habitat
   disruption.

   Development pressures in the future  may result in  the construc-
   tion of stream crossings in addition  to those proposed for
   B-LLJSA project  start-up.   The establishment of a  permanently
   vegetated  buffer zone adjacent to streams, in which construction
   of any kind would be controlled strictly, may reduce the impacts
   of future  sewerage construction and  non-point pollution.  The
   width of this  zone would be determined during the  corridor study
   discussed  above.

In accordance with  the reduction in  the  inventory of  classified
prime agricultural  land in the EIS Service Area (see  Section III.A.I),
the amount of prime agricultural land converted to residential/
commercial/industrial  uses under the APA is  an  estimated 3,200
acres.  This  is less than the amount of converted acreage reported
in the Draft  EIS (3,735 acres) and is approximately double the
amount of prime agricultural  land that  would be converted to non-
agricultural  uses without the project.

Induced dwelling unit and population estimates  for Stockertown
Borough and Tatamy  Borough under the APA have been revised upward
to reflect the fact that floodplain  management  ordinances recently
adopted by these municipalities limit and condition,  but do not
prohibit, development in flood-prone areas (see Section III.A.2).
Under the assumption that development could  be induced legally in
flood-prone areas,  the revised total induced growth figures for
Stockertown and Tatamy under the APA are:

•  Stockertown Borough =  115 dwelling  units (350 persons)
«  Tatamy Borough      =  252 dwelling  units (756 persons).

This assumption was applied to the MAPA and  the other alternatives.
The derivation of the induced dwelling  units (22 for  Stockertown
Borough, 68 for Tatamy Borough) in the  100-year floodplain for
those alternatives  is included in Appendix C-l.

The capital,  operation and maintenance,  and  present worth costs,
as well  as the salvage value of the APA, as  stated in the Draft
EIS, have been updated to reflect more realistic unit costs.  The
updated cost  summary of the APA is presented in Table III-l.  The
unit costs were adapted from the B-LLJSA project bid sheets and
do not reflect the comparatively low unit costs that were used to
estimate the  construction costs of the APA in the Draft EIS.  The
latter unit costs were obtained from engineer contractor firms
located in the greater Easton area and were used in the costing
of all wastewater management plans evaluated in the Draft EIS.
This universal use of- local unit costs ensured comparability among
                                                   ia

-------
                                            all of  the plans.    The data contained  in the  B-LLJSA project  bid
                                            sheets  represented  the actual 1977 costs for which  the APA would
                                            be constructed.   These detailed  and "realistic" costs were not
                                            applied universally to all  alternatives  in the Draft EIS  because
                                            the site conditions and detailed design  upon which  they were based
                                            were  not commensurate with  the site conditions and  preliminary
                                            designs upon  which  the alternatives were based.
updated aost summary
of APA
Table III-l.   Updated cost summary of APA ($).
                                           Capital
                                            Cost

                                         13.720,337
            Annual
             O&H

            413,985
 Present
  Worth
   O&M
(10.4919)

4,343,489
 Salvage
  Value

4,929,040
Present
 Worth
Salvage
 Value
                                                Total
                                                Present
                                                Worth
                                                                                            (1,244,583)    16,819,243
  Total
  Annual
Equivalent
 (0.0953)

1,602,8/4
                                            The effect  of the  updated  capital  costs  on estimated local  user
                                            charges for the APA is illustrated in  Table  III-2.
estimated  looal user
charges of APA
Table III-2.   Estimated  local  user  charges  associated with  APA  ($),
                                               Capital
                                                Cost

                                              13,720,337
  Local
  Share
  (25%)

3,430,084
                             Annual
                            Equivalent
                             of Local
                              Share
                             (0.0953)

                             326,887
                  Annual
                    O&M

                  413,985
                   Total
                   Annual
                  Cost  to
                   Local
                  Citizens

                  740,872
                 Monthly
                 Cost Per
                 Family6.7

               $13.20-22.40
                                            The monthly  cost  per family for  use of the APA system, $13.20 to
                                            $22.40, represents  an estimated  annual  user  charge  of $158 to $269.
                                            These  estimates contrast  with the Draft EIS  estimated annual user
                                            charge for  the APA of $160.  The calculation of  the user  charge  is
                                            based  on local capital  costs being paid through  the use  of a 30-year
                                            bond  at 7-1/8% interest rate.

                                            The  significant financial burden^ and displacement  pressure^ associated
                                            with  the revised  costs  of the APA, listed  in Table  III-3, have  been
                                  The APA cannot be compared  legitimately with the EIS alternatives,  based on significant differences
                                  in design parameters and Service Area configurations.  The development of the MAPA allows a direct
                                  comparison between the concept of the APA and its ten  EIS alternatives.

                                  This Information is presented for comparative purposes only.  Actual user charges may vary with
                                  prevailing bond rates and market conditions.

                                  7Monthly cost per family = No TFami1?eTx\2°mo/yr; approximately 2,756 families without Nazareth

                                  and 4,677 families with Nazareth (year 1978). The Environmental Assessment (EA), page 1-23, states
                                  that the estimated connected (APA) population Includes Nazareth Borough.
                                  Q
                                  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
                                  Initiative 1970):  1.54 of  median household incomes are less  than $6,000; 2.0% of median household
                                  Incomes are between $6,000  and $10,000; and when 2.5%  of median household incomes are greater than
                                  $10,000.

                                  "Displacement pressure" is  the economic pressure associated with user charges, which are high enough
                                  to cause lower income families to move. It is measured by determining the number of households
                                  having user charges in excess of 5% of their annual income.
                                                            19

-------
                                      estimated  under two  scenarios.   The first scenario assumes a B-LLJSA
                                      Service  Area  population  that includes  Nazareth Borough (population
                                      5,763, year 1978).   The  second  scenario assumes that Nazareth Borough
                                      is  not connected to  the  sewer system.


                                      Table III-3.   Significant  financial  burden and displacement pressure
                                      associated with APA.

                                                                 Significant
                                      Annual User                  Financial                Displacement
                                       Charge                     Burden                   Pressure

                                         $158]?                     10-15%                     5-10%
                                         $269"                     20-25%                     5-10%


Additional Construction          5.    The APA  costs  presented  in the  Draft EIS and in Table III-l are
Costs Associated with APA             those associated with wastewater conveyance facilities in the B-LLJSA
                                      Service  Area  proper.  They do not include the expansion (i.e., con-
                                      struction) of two pump stations in Easton (Second Street and Delaware
                                      Drive pump stations) and the upgrading/expansion of the Easton STP,
                                      both of  which  are prerequisites to satisfy the purpose for which the
                                      APA was  intended: transport of wastewater generated in the B-LLJSA
                                      Service  Area  to the  Easton STP  for treatment.   During the comment
                                      period on  the  Draft  EIS, the B-LLJSA indicated that a deficiency of
                                      the EIS  was the lack of  consideration  of the reconstruction of these
                                      and other  conveyance facilities (interceptors and inverted siphons)
                                      in  the evaluation of the APA and alternative wastewater management
                                      plans.   Costs  that should  be added to  the cost of the APA are pre-
                                      sented in  Table III-4.   These were not included in the cost-effec-
                                      tiveness analysis for the  APA in either the Draft EIS or in Table
                                      III-l because  they are not costs associated with construction of
                                      proposed facilities  in the Applicant's Service Area.  The expansion
                                      of  the Easton  STP and two  pump  stations is preceding under a
                                      separate EPA  grant.  However, these costs are essential to the opera-
                                      tion of  the APA and, therefore, should be considered in addition to
                                      those presented in Table III-l.12  Costs for the reconstruction of
                                      interceptors  and inverted  siphons, which also are essential to the
                                      operation  of  the APA, are  not included in Table  III-4; therefore, the
                                      costs  in that table  are  considered conservative.  This reconstruction
                                      occurred under the Easton  Federal grant mentioned earlier.
                                      Table III-4.   Expansion  costs for the  Second Street pump station,
                                      Delaware Drive pump  station, and Easton STP that should be added to
                                      APA costs.12

                                      Expansion  of  Second  Street Pump Station (B-LLJSA portion)  = $  249,429
                                      Expansion  of  Delaware Drive Pump Station (B-LLJSA portion) =    191,040
                                      Expansion  of  Easton  STP  (B-LLJSA portion)                  =  ] ,592,200
                                          Total Additional Construction Costs                   = $2,032,669
                                          Total Additional Capital Costs (@ 127%)               = $2,581,490

                                      Backup calculations  for  these costs are presented in Appendix D-l-
                             Besed on 1978 B-LLJSA estimated connected  population  including Nazareth
                             Borough (EA, p.  1-23, 1976).

                             Based on 1978 B-LLJSA estimated connected  population  excluding Nazareth
                             Borough (EA, 1976).

                           12
                             These additional costs represent only the  B-LLJSA  portion  of  facilities
                             expansion.  B-LLJSA design flow    2.4mgd  (By telephone, Mr.  Lewis  Wolfe,
                             Manager Consultant, B-LLJSA, 9 May  1980).

                                                   20

-------
 Energy  Requirements
 of APA
The Draft EIS estimate of energy requirements associated with the
APA, 5,950 kilowatt-hours per year (kwh/yr) was based on the proposed
wastewater conveyance facilities in the B-LLJSA Service Area.
The only energy-consumptive conveyance facilities in the B-LLJSA
Service Area proper are the proposed Jacobsburg State Park and
Edelman pump stations, with design flows13 of 600 gallons per
minute (gpm) and 180 gpm, respectively (By letter, Mr.  Hans Meinig,
Jr., GAI, 19 May 1980).

Re-evaluation of the APA's energy requirements revealed three
problems with the Draft EIS estimate of 5,950 kwh/yr:

•  The energy requirements of the two pump stations in  the B-LLJSA
   Service Area were underestimated

•  The energy requirements associated with wastewater conveyance
   and treatment facilities that were essential  to the  operation
   of the APA were not included

•  The energy consumption by residential  developments induced by
   the APA was not measured.

The revised energy budget for the proposed Jacobsburg State Park and
Edelman pump stations is 139,991 kwh/yr.   The energy requirements for
the B-LLJSA portion of the expanded Second Street and Delaware Drive
pump stations and Easton STP total 1,365,850 kwh/yr.   The energy re-
quirements directly associated with the operation of the wastewater
management system proposed for the B-LLJSA Service Area are shown in
Table III-5.  Backup data for this table  are in Appendix D-2.
revised energy require-
ments of APA 'a technical
components
                                       Table III-5.   Revised energy  budget  for  APA.
                                            Conveyance

                                            1.    Jacobsburg  State  Park  Pump  Station
                                            2.    Edelman  Pump  Station
                                            3.    Second Street Pump  Station  (B-LLJSA  portion)
                                            4.    Delaware Drive Pump Station (B-LLJSA portion)

                                            Treatment

                                            Easton  STP  (B-LLJSA portion)

                                            TOTAL
                                                             7,938
                                                           132,053
                                                           194,832
                                                           437,290
                                                           733.728

                                                         1,505,841
                                      A  comprehensive  evaluation of  the energy requirements  of  the APA  and
                                      its  alternatives should  include an  estimate of  the energy (electric
                                      power)  consumed  by  residential development associated  with  the  project
                                      under construction.  This comprehensive approach  to  estimating  the
                                      energy  budgets for  the APA and its  EIS alternatives  was precipitated
                                      by the  significant   public criticism  of the Draft EIS  for recommending
                                      the  implementation  of an alternative  that required 93  times the amount
                                      of energy required  by the APA.  It  is emphasized  that  the Draft EIS
                                      energy  evaluation of alternative wastewater management plans considered
                            13
                              Design peak flows.
                                                    21

-------
                                      only the  sewerage  system components in the B-LLJSA and EIS Service
                                      Areas.  Given  the  public emphasis on implementing a Federally
                                      funded  wastewater  management plan that complies with the President's
                                      energy  conservation  directives..  EPA believed it necessary to present
                                      a  realistic  energy evaluation1^  Of the APA and its alternatives in
                                      this EIS  --  one  that includes energy consumption by project-associated
                                      residents as well  as project-associated design components.

electric power oonsump-               The  estimated  average electric power consumption by residential
tion by residential                   development15  that is associated with the APA in the year 2000 is
development under APA                 as follows:  247,810,000 kwh/yr  for single family dwelling units
                                      and  49,488,000 kwh/yr for multi-family dwelling units; total electric
                                      power consumption  by residential  development is 297.2 million kwh/yr.

                                      Projected electric power consumption by residential development with-
                                      out  the APA  is as  follows:   165,570,000 kwh/yr for single family
                                      dwelling  units and 23,069,000 kwh/yr for multi-family units; total
                                      electric  power consumption  by residential  development is 188.6 million
                                      kwh/yr.

                                      Assuming  that  energy requirements of the conveyance and treatment
                                      systems in Table III-5 remain constant over the 20-year project
total energy requirements             planning  period, the total  energy requirements of the APA are those
of APA                                included  in  Table  III-6.


                                      Table III-6.   Total  estimated energy requirements of APA.

                                      B-LLJSA-associated wasteawter conveyance and       1,505,841 kwh/yr
                                      treatment components

                                      Total electric power consumption  by residential  108,619,000 kwh/yr
                                      development  induced1" by APA

                                      Total estimated  energy requirements of APA       110,124,841 kwh/yr


ALTERNATIVES                C.    A detailed review of  the  design  and costing of the wastewater management
                                 plans under  study during  the EIS process is embodied in the "Engineering
                                 Evaluation of  the Bushkill  Draft EIS"  (Appendix D-3).  Key tasks1? under-
                                 taken during this evaluation included:

                                 •  An assessment  of the conveyance systems presented in the Draft EIS
                                    that incorporated  the  use of  force  mains and pump stations

                                 •  Segmental cost-effectiveness  analysis comparing a total of five
                                    alternative wastewater conveyance  and treatment options for two
                            14
                              This evaluation does not include the electric power requirements of project-
                              associated commercial  and industrial development.
                            15
                              Electric power consumption by single family detached units   21,600 kwh/yr;
                              Electric power consumption by multi-family units = 16,900 kwh/yr.

                              Project electric power consumption by development with APA minus projected
                              electric power consumption by development without APA (see Appendix D-4).

                              While these tasks involve a more detailed approach to evaluating the EIS al-
                              ternatives in light of critical  public comment and input received on their
                              design, cost, reliability, and,energy requirements, EPA has not departed from
                              its commitment to conduct such analysis within the framework of the Agency's
                              Construction Grants Program guidelines and regulations for Step I-level
                              projects.

                                                   22

-------
    ana Subarea 1
    oooo Subarea 1

    ••• Subarea 2
    • ••• Subarea 2
         Gravity  interceptor
         Force  main  - pump
          stations
         Gravity  interceptor
         Force  main  - pump
          stations
                            OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOnnnooo
NEWBURG
 HOMES
                                                                PENN
                                                                PUMP
                                                                PARK
Figure  III-6.  Subareas associated with  segmented cost-effectiveness  analysis.
                                    23

-------
Assessment of Pressurized
Wastewater Conveyance
Systems
Alternative 9 (Modified)
Segmental Cost-Effective-
ness Analysis
Alternate A
Alternate B
subareas in the EIS Service Area. The first subarea extends from
the exsting Nazareth STP to the connection point with the Forks
Township/Bushkill interceptor at Penn Pump Park in Palmer Township
(hereafter referred to as Penn Pump Park). The second subarea
extends from the southeast corner of Tatamy Borough at Bushkill
Creek to Penn Pump Park. The two subareas are illustrated in
Figure III-6.

• A reanalysis of the Draft EIS design and cost for the Nazareth RBC
STP

• A review of the cost-effectiveness analysis presented in the Draft
EIS, focusing on the APA, MAPA, and Draft EIS Alternative 9.

1. As assessment was made of the pump stations that were proposed for
Alternative 9, the Draft EIS Recommended Action, because of critical
public comments on the selection of a pressurized wastewater convey-
ance system. No major discrepancies were found.

For the force mains associated with pump stations (PSs) #1 and #4,
it was determined that the pressurized piping could be replaced by
gravity sewers for a moderate distance, resulting in a more econom-
ical design (see Section III.D.2). Pump stations #3, #4, #7. and
#8 involved successive lifting or pumping of sewage. A study was
made of the Tatamy Borough/Stockertown Borough area to see if a more
economical conveyance system was possible. The use of a gravity
sewer along the right-of-way (ROW) of the Lehigh Valley Railroad
between Stockertown Borough and Tatamy Borough would permit the
elimination of PSs #4, #7, and #8, but would require enlargement
of PS #3.18 The enlarged PS #3 is termed PS #3 (Modified), and the
conveyance system design using only six pump stations in lieu of
nine is referred to as Alternative 9 (Modified). The substitution
of a gravity sewer system for these three PSs reduced the energy
requirement of the conveyance system as presented for Draft EIS
Alternative 9 by nearly 50%.

2. A segmental cost-effectiveness analysis was made, which was totally
independent of the analyses performed during the preparation of the
Draft EIS. The study was conducted to determine the most cost-
effective method to convey and to treat sewage generated in two of
the subareas in the EIS Service Area.

Subarea 1 comprises Nazareth Borough, Upper Nazareth Township, and
Newburg Homes in Palmer Township (see Figure III-6). Three alter-
nates were developed for this area:

• Alternate A features a sewage treatment plant to handle waste-
water flows from Nazareth Borough and Upper Nazareth Township.
Four treatment plant options were analyzed: (a) a RBC plant
with Lamella Settlers (see Appendix D-3), (b) an RBC plant with
a conventional final clarifier, (c) a conventional activated
sludge (AS) plant, and (d) an OD plant. Newburg Homes is served
by pump station/force main and gravity sewer to Penn Pump Park.

t Alternate B includes gravity sewers along Schoeneck Creek serving
Nazareth Borough and Upper Nazareth Township, and gravity sewers
serving Newburg Homes.
This railroad ROW is the same one through which the B-LLJSA proposed to con-
struct interceptors under the APA.

-------
FIGURE IH-7 PUMP STATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH EIS ALTERNATIVE 9
                       MODIFIED CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
    SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
    PUMP STATIONS INCLUDED IN MODIFIED
       CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
    PUMP STATIONS ELIMINATED UNDER
       MODIFIED CONVEYANCE SYSTEM

-------
 Alternate C
 Alternate D



 Alternate E
 t  Alternate C features a pump station/force main system,  con-
    structed along public roads, to serve Nazareth Borough,  Upper
    Nazareth Township, and Newburg Homes.

 Subarea 2 comprises the area between southeastern Tatamy Borough
 at Bushkill Creek and Penn Pump Park.  Two alternates were  developed
 for this area.

 •  Alternate D would convey all sewage generated north of Tatamy
    Borough to Penn Pump Park by gravity sewer along Bushkill Creek

 •  Alternate E would convey all sewage generated north of Tatamy
    Borough by means of a pump station/force main system down
    Tatamy Road to Penn Pump Park.

 Separate cost-effectiveness analyses that compare Alternates A,  B,
 and C,  and Alternates D and E have been developed (see Table III-7).
                                       Table  III-7.   Cost-effectiveness  analysis  of Alternates A, B, and C,
                                       and Alternates  D  and  E.
Alternate
Schoeneck Creek Watershed
Aa
Ab
Ac
Ad
B
C
(RBC/L5)
(RBC/CONV)
(AS)
(OD)
(Gravity)
(FM/PS)
Lower Bushkill Creek
Watershed
D
E
(Rushkill Creek
Gravity System)
(Tatamy Road
FM/PS System)
Capital
Cost

$3,491,913
3,551,913
2,521,913
1,492,913
1,760,000
1,714,694

$ 740,913
790,575
Annual
O&M

$145
149
165
57
81
101

$ 4
9

,620
,620
.620
,620
,480
,071

,150
,691
Present
Worth
O&M
(10.4919)

$1,527,830
1,569,798
1,737,669
604,543
854,880
1,060,427

$ 43,511
101,677
Salvage
Value

$ 996,939
1,046,939
776,939
486,939
700,000
461,327

$ 295,698
234,250
Present
Worth
Salvage
(0.2525)

($251
( 264
( 19fi
( 122
( 176
( 116

($ 74
( 59

,727)
,352)
,177)
,952)
,750)
,485)

,664)
,148)
lotal
Present
Worth

$4,768
4,857
4,063
1,974
2,438
2,658

$ 709
833

,016
,359
,405
,504
,130
,636

,790
,104
Total
Annual
Equivalent
(0.0953)

$454,39?
462, 906
387,243
188,170
232,354
253,368

$ 67,643
79,395
                                                  r^'rnlnnnln.c0"^^^6 ^ IJ1!"1™ a^owable expenditures to keep the system
                                                                                  j. 2Q yegrg flre no£ included.
Comparison of
Subarea 1
Alternates
Comparing Alternates Aa and B is equivalent  to  comparing Alter-
native 9 (Draft EIS recommended alternative)  and  the  MAPA with
respect to serving the western portion of  the EIS Service Area.
The comparison indicates a gravity sewer  (Alternate B)  is less
expensive than a treatment plant at Nazareth  (Alternate Aa).
The additional expense of the treatment plant is  calculated as
follows:

((capital $ Alternate Aa   capital $ Alternate  B) x  (25% local
share capital $) x discount factor) +  (annual O&M $ Alternate Aa
annual O&M $ Alternate B)) -= number of families x 12  month/year.
                                                    26

-------
Comparison of
Subarea 2
Alternates
extra monthly east to
avoid Buahkill Creek
     (($3,491,913 - $1.760.000) (2.5) (.0953)) + ($145,620 - $81,480)
                      3,754 families x 12 month/year

                                     = $2.34/month per family.

     Alternate Ad -- treatment of wastewater via an OD plant -- however,
     is the least expensive option.  Using the preceding formula, it
     is estimated that an OD plant represents a savings of $0.67/month
     per family over the gravity sewer (Alternate B).

     The comparison of Alternate D (gravity system from Tatamy Borough
     to Penn Pump Park) and Alternate E (force main/pump station system
     from Tatamy Borough to Penn Pump Park) also is shown in Table III-6.
     The total annual equivalent cost of Alternate E is $11,752 more than for
     Alternate D.  Therefore, it would cost $11,762/year for a conveyance
     system that would avoid a State-proclaimed trout stream -- Bushkill Creek

     There are 11,263 persons, or approximately 3,754 families, in the
     EIS Phase I Service Area that would pay the cost.  On a monthly
     sewer bill basis, the added cost for avoiding Bushkill Creek down-
     stream from Tatamy Borough would be:

     ((capital $ Alternate E   capital $ Alternate D) x (25% local
     share capital $) x discount factor) + (annual O&M $ Alternate E
     annual O&M $ Alternate D)) T number of families x 12 month/year.

                                                        U54)
(($790,575 - $740,913) (.25) (.0953)) + ($9,691  -
             3,754 families x 12 month/year

                              $0.15 month per family.

The additional capital cost to EPA, through the  75% Construction
Grant Program, would be:

             ($790,575.,-  $750,913) (.75)   $37,247.
Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis
focus
     The additional capital cost to the B-LLJSA would be:

                      ($790,575   $750,913) (.25)   $9,916

3.    The review of the Draft EIS cost analysis focused on the APA, MAPA,
     and Draft EIS Alternative 9 for the following reasons:

     •  The APA is the subject of this EIS
     a  The MAPA is a redesign of that action             ,.g
     •  Alternative 9 is the Draft EIS Recommended Action.'

     The costs associated with the above alternatives have been updated to
     reflect more realistic unit costs.  The units costs used to revise
     these wastewater management plans were adapted from actual bid data
     upon which the original costs of the APA were based.  The rationale
     behind using relatively lower unit costs during the costing of the
     Draft EIS alternatives is identical to the one given for use of these
     unit costs in the costing of the APA for the Draft EIS (see page
     18    of this EIS).
                             19.
                               Two  types  of wastewater treatment facilities  were considered to meet the needs
                               of the  Nazareth  STP  Service  Area  under Alternative 9.   Combination with the
                               modified conveyance  system (Section  III.C.I)  results  in four versions of
                               Alternative  9.

-------
Draft EIS costs too low
Alternative 9 RBC plant
Alternative 9 OD plant
local user charges
          The present worth costs  of all  the alternatives reported in the Draft
          EIS consistently were found to  be approximately 10% to 22%  lower
          in relation to present worth costs based on construction bid costs.
          However,  the cost ranking of the alternatives,  as determined by the
          cost-effectiveness analysis, remains valid.   The revised cost-effec-
          tiveness  analysis is  presented  in Table III-8.

          Alternative 9 (RBC) has  incorporated the use of conventional treat-
          ment components (preliminary treatment and primary clarifiers) to
          a greater extent than was the case in Draft EIS Alternative 9, which
          recommended the use of several  innovative/alternative (i/a) tech-
          nologies  (wire screen in lieu of conventional  preliminary treatment/
          primary clarification).   Alternative 9 (Modified; RBC) further incor-
          porates the modified  conveyance system (six pump stations) that was
          discussed in Section  III.C.I.  Outside of these modifications, the
          remainder of Phase I  is  served  as reported in  the Draft EIS under
          both scenarios.

          The least costly alternate treatment facility  to replace the existing
          Nazareth  STP is an OD plant.  It can achieve the same effluent quality
          as the previously proposed RBC  plant -- 10 mg/1 BOD, 15 mg/1 suspended
          solids, and 2 mg N/l  ammonia.  These levels are well within the
          effluent  standards set by DER for discharge to  Schoeneck Creek --
          20 mg/1 BOD, 25 mg/1  suspended  solids, and 3 mg N/l ammonia.  Except
          for the substituted treatment scheme to meet the needs of the Nazareth
          STP Service Area, Alternative 9 (OD) is identical to Draft EIS Alter-
          native 9  in configuration.  Alternative 9 (Modified; OD) includes the
          modified  conveyance system described in Section III.C.I.

          Estimated local user  charges for the APA, MAPA, and the four versions
          of Alternative 9 are  presented  in Table III-9.   This information is
          presented for comparative purposes only.  Actual user charges, once
          a system  is operable, would depend on prevailing bond rates, bond
          life, and other market conditions.
IMPACTS
Conversion of Prime
Agricultural Land
Under MAPA and
Alternative 9
secondary -impacts
Induced Growth Under
MAPA and EIS Alter-
native 9
D.   New or revised impacts associated with the implementation of the MAPA and
     EIS Alternative 9 (including its four versions) are discussed in this section
     in light of modifications  described in Sections III.A, B, and C.  As stated
     previously, the impacts associated with the APA cannot be compared to those
     associated with the EIS alternatives because of dissimilar design assump-
     tions and service area configuration.  The MAPA serves as a redesign of
     the APA that can be compared directly to the EIS Alternatives.

     1.   Implementation of the MAPA would induce the conversion of  14% more
          prime agricultural land to residential/commercial/industrial uses
          than would occur without its implementation.   Implementation of EIS
          Alternative 9 would induce the conversion of less than 1%  more prime
          agricultural land to developed uses than would occur without its
          implementation.  These estimates account for the reduction  in the
          amount of classified prime agricultural land in  the EIS  Service Area
          (Section III.A.I).

     2.   The revised numbers of dwelling units  induced  by implementation of
          either the MAPA or Alternative 9 are presented in Table  111-10.  Revi-
          sions have been required as a result of the adoption  by  Stockertown
          Borough and Tatamy Borough of floodplain management ordinances which
          limit and condition, but do not prohibit, development in the 100-year
          floodplain.  Further revisions of  induced growth estimates under
          Alternative 9 have been made to reflect the substitution of gravity
          sewers for force main/pump stations at two locations  in  the EIS Service
          Area:
                                                    28

-------
Table III-8.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of APA, MAPA, and four versions of Alternative 9.
      Alternative
 Capital
   Cost
Annual
  0&M1
 Present
  Worth
   O&M
(10.4919}
Salvage
 Value
Present
 Worth
Salvage
(0.2525)
 Total
Present
 Worth
  Total
  Annual
Equivalent
 (0.0953)
Applicant's Proposed
 Action (APA)

Modified Applicant's
 Proposed Action (MAPA)

Alternative 9 (RBC)
Alternative 9 (Mod;  RBC)
Alternative 9 (OD)
Alternative 9 (Mod; OD)
13,720,337   413,985     4,343,489   4,929,040  (1,244,583)  16,819,243   1,602,874


11,143,977   194,212     2,037,653   3,994,280  (1,008,556)  12,173,074   1,160,094


11,553,579   238,934     2,506,872   3,565,566    (900,305)  13,160,146   1,254,162


11,228,395   233,863     2,453,667   3,513,166    (887,074)  12,794,988   1,219,362


 9,553,489   150,934     1,583,584   3,055,566    (771,530)  10,365,543     987,836


 9,229,575   145,863     1,530,380   3,003,166    (758,299)  10,001,656'    953,168
1
 The values in this column represent the minimum expenditures necessary to keep  the corresponding system
 operating.  Replacement costs for system components, such as gravity sewers and force mains  that  have
 service lives of more than 20 years were not included.  Preferred O&M costs,  which reflect replacement
 costs for all components, are presented in Appendix D-3.  Regardless, the relative  rank of the alternatives
 does not change.

-------
    Table  III-9.   Estimated local  user charges for the APA, MAPA, and four versions of Alternative 9.
Alternative
Alternative 9 (RBC)
Alternative 9 (OD)
Alternative 9 (Mod; RBC)
Alternative 9 (Mod; OD)
Modified Applicant's
Proposed Action
Applicant's Proposed Action
(without Nazareth)
(with Nazareth)
Capital
Cost
$ 11,553,579
9,553,489
11,228,395
9,229,575
11,143,977
13,720,337
13,720,337
Local Share
(25%)
$ 2,888,395
2,388,372
2,807,099
2,307,394
2,785,994
3,430,084
3,430,084
Annual
Equivalent
of Local
Share (0.0953)
$ 275,264
227,612
267,517
219,895
265,505
326,887
326,887
Annual O&M1
$ 238,934
150,934
233,863
145,863
194,212
413,985
413,985
Total Annual
Cost to ?
Local Citizens
$ 514,198
378,546
501 ,380
365,758
459,717
740,872
740,872
Annual Cost
Per
Family
$140.88
103.68
137.40
100.20
126.00
268.80
158.40
Monthly
Cost Per
Family2
$ 11.74
8.64
11.45
8.35
10.50
22.40
13.20
                                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                                                CO
 These values represent the minimum expenditures  necessary to  keep  a  system
 operating.   They are not the recommended amounts.   Replacement  costs for
 system components, such as gravity sewers and pressure  pipes  that  have  ser-
 vice lives  of more than 20 years,  were not included.  O&M costs  in Appendix
 D-3 reflect replacement costs for  all  components.

o
 This information is presented for  comparative purposes  only.  Actual  user
 charges may vary with prevailing bond  rates,  bond  life, and market conditions.
       ALT.
        9
       MPA
APA (without Nazareth)
APA (with Nazareth)
NO. OF FAMILIES
     3,650

     3,650

     2,756

     4,677

-------
substitution of gravity
sewers for force mains/
pump stations
Palmer Township develop-
ment induced by gravity
sewer under Alternative 9
   •  Northwood Avenue from its intersection with Van Buren Road east
      to Penn Pump Park (Palmer Township)

   •  Tatamy Road approximately 2,000 feet south of its intersection
      with Stocker Mill Road south through its intersection with
      Northwood Avenue east (on Northwood Avenue) to Penn Pump Park
      (Palmer Township).

   Under the assumption that gravity sewers induce more growth than
   force main/pump station sytsems (see Appendix C-2), Palmer Town-
   ship20 Was allocated an additional 192 dwelling units (592 persons)
   in addition to the Draft EIS induced growth rate estimate of zero
   (under Alternative 9).  The derivation of these revised estimates
   of induced growth in Palmer Township under Alternative 9 is included
   in Appendix C-2.  The revised estimates of induced growth for all
   alternatives are listed in Appendix C-3.
                                      Table 111-10.   Dwelling units induced under MAPA and  EIS  Alternative  9.
Municipality
Bushkill
Nazareth
Palmer
Plainfield
Stockertown
Tatamy
Upper Nazareth
TOTALS
MAPA
S*
0
0
395
128
115
252
158
1,048
M*
0
0
395
32
0
0
40
467
Alternative 9
S*
0
0
96
25
47
47
0
215
M*
0
0
96
0
0
0
0
96
                                         S   single family units

                                         M   multi-family units
Surface Water  Quality
Impacts
3.    Induced growth revisions for Alternative 9 that were described in
     Section III.D.2 result in the consumption of 90 more acres of land
     than the 16 acres estimated in the Draft EIS.  This increase is
     relatively insignificant in terms of non-point source pollution,
     particularly stormwater runoff from potential development.  There-
     fore, the revised induced growth for Alternative 9 still  is not
     expected to affect water quality adversely in terms of dissolved
     oxygen, bacteria, and phosphorus.
                            20
                              Portion  of Palmer  Township  currently  not  sewered.
                                                    31

-------
Impacts on Aquatic
Environment
Tatamy-Penn Pump Park
corridor' study
five stream crossings
under Alternative 9
(Modified)
Economic Impacts of MAPA
and Alternative 9
There are 16 stream crossings associated with the MAPA  (Figure
III-3).  Like the APA, all of them would involve the temporary
diversion of stream flow and excavation (blasting where necessary)
of the streambed for pipe installation.  The primary impacts and
mitigative measures related to the construction of these stream
crossings are identical to those described for the APA  in Section
III.B.I.  A study of the Tatamy-Penn Pump Park corridor by a
geologist and a biologist, in concert with the Applicant's engineer,
is recommended for the MAPA as well as the APA, because both waste-
water management plans involve the construction of interceptors
through limestone soils and through areas where springs are known
to exist.  There is the potential for spring diversion and/or stream
diversion to occur as a result of sewer construction which involves
blasting of hard rock to facilitate pipe installation.  Blasting
may possibly enlarge or close up solution channels, thereby altering
groundwater flow.

There would be five stream crossings (none on Bushkill Creek down-
stream from Tatamy Borough) under Alternative 9 (Modified); one
less than under Draft EIS Alternative 9.  Adverse impacts that are
associated with these five crossings would be minimal and of
relatively short duration.  Following the acquisition of Section
404 permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers, all  crossings would
have to be made according to stipulations prescribed by the
Pennsylvania DER and Pennsylvania Fish Commission.  A corridor study
(Tatamy Borough to Penn Pump Park) is not recommended for Alternative
9 because wastewater conveyance is by a system of force mains and
pump stations down public roads, not by gravity sewer along Bushkill
Creek.

The potential for future stream crossings is minimal  under Alter-
native 9.  Residential areas in the vicinity of Nazareth Borough,
Stockertown Borough, and Tatamy Borough are practically at develop-
ment capacity.  Future connections would be made to force mains and
pump stations, which generally are located away from streams.

The financial burden and displacement pressure (see footnotes 8 and
9, page 19. related to the MAPA and four versions of Alternative 9
are presented in Table III-ll.
                                      Table  III-ll.   Financial  burden  and  displacement pressure associated
                                      with MAPA and  Alternative 9.
                                      Alternative

                                      Alternative 9 (RBC)
                                      Alternative 9 (OD)
                                      Alternative 9 (Mod.;  RBC)
                                      Alternative 9 (Mod.;  OD)
                                      Modified  Applicant's
                                       Proposed Action
                           Annual User
                            Charge  ($)

                              141
                              104
                              137
                              100
                              126
 Financial
Burden (%)

   10-15
    5-10
   10-15
    5-10
   10-15
Displacement
Pressure  (%j

    5-10
    1-5
    5-10
    1-5
    5-10
Energy Requirments of
MAPA and Alternative 9
The energy requirements of the MAPA, like the APA,  have  been  updated
to account for the expansion of the Second Street and  Delaware Drive
pump stations as well as the Easton STP.  As indicated in  Sections
III.B.3 and III.B.4, the expansion of these facilities is  essential
                                                   32

-------
to the operation of any alternative involving the conveyance of
wastewater from the B-LLJSA area to the Easton STP. Updated MAPA
energy requirements also include a modified energy budget for the
Edelman pump station and an estimate of energy consumption by
residential development (Section III.B.6) induced by the MAPA.
The energy requirements directly associated with the operation of
the wastewater management system under the MAPA (Phase I area only)
are listed in Table 111-12.
conveyance and treatment
system energy requirements
of MAPA
Table 111-12.
posed Action:

A. Conveyance
Revised energy budget for Modified Applicant's Pro-
conveyance and treatment systems.
1. Edelman Pump Station 14,576
2. Second Street Pump Station (modified B-LLJSA flow) 100,176
3. Delaware Drive Pump Station (modified B-LLJSA flow) 224,840
Treatment

1. Easton STP (modified B-LLJSA portion)
2. Cluster Systems
TOTAL
377,258
7,010

723,860
electric power consumption
by residential development
under MAPA
conveyance and treatment
system energy requirements
under Alternative 9
Backup data for all energy evaluations performed during the prepara-
tion of the EIS are included in Appendix D-2.

The estimated average electric power demand by residential development
associated with the MAPA in the year 2000 is as follows:21 187,550,000
kwh/yr for single family dwelling units and 30,961,000 kwh/yr for multi-
family dwelling units; total electric power consumption by residential
development is 218.5 million kwh/yr."

The energy requirements of Alternative 9 (Modified; OD) were examined
because this version of Alternative 9 was the least costly of all
considered (see Table III-8). The analysis also includes energy demand
by expanded conveyance and treatment facilities outside the EIS Service
Area. The requirements are shown in Table 111-13.
conveyance and treatment
system energy requirements
under Alternative 9
Table 111-13. Energy budget for Alternative 9 (Modified; OD):
veyance and treatment systems.

A. Conveyance ]<
con-
1. EIS Service Area Pump Stations (see Appendix D-2) 91,592
2. Second Street Pump Station (EIS Service Area flow) 20,701
3. Delaware Drive Pump Station (EIS Service Area flow) 46,462
23
21

22
23
See footnote 15, page III-ll.

Energy consumption by residential development includes both baseline
and project-induced development (see Appendix D-4).

Equivalent to electric power consumed by four single family dwelling
units @ 21,600 kwh/yr per dwelling unit.
.3.3

-------
Table 111-13 (continued).

B. Treatment

1. Nazareth STP (OD)
2. Easton STP (EIS Service Area flow)
3. Cluster Systems
TOTAL:
215,900
77,959
8,390

461,004
el&etv-le power consump-
tion by residential
development under
Alternative 9
total energy require-
ments of MAPA and
Alternative 9
Electric power consumption by residential development associated with Alter-
native 9 in the year 2000 is as follows:24 170,210,000 kwh/yr for single
family dwelling units and 24,692,000 kwh/yr for multi-family dwelling units;
total electric power consumption by residential development is 194.9 million
kwh/yr.

The estimated total energy requirements of the MAPA and Alternative 9 (Modi-
fied; OD) in the year 2000 are presented in Table 111-14. It is assumed
that energy requirements of the conveyance and treatment systems included
in this table remain constant over EPA's 20-year project planning period.
Table 111-14. Total estimated energy requirements of the MAPA and
Alternative 9 (Modified; OD) in the year 2000.
Essential wastewater conveyance and
treatment components

Total electric power consumption by
induced*^ residential development
MAPA
(kwh/yr)

723,860

29,872,000
Alternative 9
(Modified; OD)
(kwh/yr)

461,004

6,263,000
Total estimated energy requirements 30,595,860
6,724,004
24

25
See footnote 15, page 30; footnote 22, page 41.

Project energy consumption by development with MAPA or Alternative 9
(Modified; OD) minus project energy consumption by development without
MAPA or Alternative 9 (Modified; OD). See Appendix D-4.

-------
CHAPTER IV
Comparison of Alternatives

-------
 .CHAPTER  IV:
  COMPARISON
  OF
  ALTERNATIVES
MODIFIED APPLICANT'S
PROPOSED ACTION
Significant factors that were considered by EPA in  the  final  selection  of an
appropriate wastewater management plan for the EIS  Service Area  are presented
in this chapter.   Because the APA provides sewerage to  areas  for which  there
is not sufficiently documented need,  the EIS focuses on the MAPA and EIS
Alternative 9.  This  process  included consideration of several key factors.


•  Need for the project:  Which wastewater management plan, the  MAPA or Alter-
   native 9, represents the best solution to existing documentable problems
   associated with on-site disposal/treatment systems in the  EIS Service Area
   (see Assumption 8, page II-3)?  In the absence of existing wastewater
   management needs, business development needs are not fundable under EPA's
   Construction Grants Program.

t  Cost-effectiveness:  The selected plan must minimize the cost of water
   pollution control to the public -- Federal taxpayers as well  as sewerage
   system users -- and to the natural environment.

t  Energy (electric power) requirements:  The EPA-recommended plan should
   minimize energy consumption by project-associated residents as well  as
   project-associated wastewater conveyance and treatment components.

•  Degree of induced growth:  The selected plan should  provide for a reasonable
   rate of growth beyond existing wastewater management needs in the interest  of
   floodplain protection (see Assumption 15, page 10),  water  quality,  preser-
  vation of open space and prime agricultural land, and maintenance of the
   quality of existing public services.

t  Aquatic environment:  The intrinsic value of Bushkill Creek as a high quality
   stream capable of supporting a naturally-reproducing trout population should
   be weighed carefully in selecting the most appropriate wastewater management
   plan.  Springs, which are essential to the continued presence of a  large
   wild trout population, are an important element in this decision.

0  Wastewater management:  What are the operation and maintenance requirements
   (including staffing) of the selected wastewater management plan?

•  Engineering:  Although not determinative in the selection  of an appropriate
   wastewater management plan, consideration should be  given  to  Step II require-
   ments and their effect on the timing of the project  given  the immediate
   needs of the Service Area.

A.   As described on page 166 of the Draft EIS, the MAPA is similar to the APA
     in concept but is different in terms of design year, estimated wastewater
     flows per person, and service area configuration.' It provides for cen-
     tralized collection of wastewater in the Belfast-Edelman area of  Plainfield
     Township, the Cherry Hill area of Bushkill Township, Stockertown  Borough
     Tatamy Borough, the East Lawn area of Upper Nazareth Township, and the
     Northern Corridor of Palmer Township.  Capacity for wastewater generated
     in the Nazareth STP Service Area is provided by the Applicant's proposed
     Schoeneck Interceptor.  Wastewater collected in Phase I  communities listed
     above is conveyed, predominantly by gravity flow,  to the upgraded and
     expanded Easton STP for treatment.  Under the MAPA, cluster systems are
     provided in the following communities:  east Pen Argyl and Rasleytown
     (Plainfield Township), Rismiller (Bushkill Township), a.nd Christian Springs
     (Upper Nazareth Township).  The MAPA's design flow of 1.234 million gallons
     per day (mgd) was estimated on the basis of a year 2000 service population
     and on the following per capita flows:  60 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
     for residential areas and 70 gpcd for residential/commercial areas.  A
     small waste flows district would be organized to manage the on-site systems
     in the outlying Phase II areas.

-------
ALTERNATIVE 9 B. Under EIS Alternative 9,1 Phase I area wastewater management needs are
served by two STPs and twe'lve cluster systems. A new oxidation ditch
(OD) treatment plant (0.85 mgd) replaces the existing Nazareth STP (see
Figure IV-1), serving Nazareth Borough and the presently sewered East
Lawn area of Upper Nazareth Township. Residents in the Belfast-Edelman
communities of Plainfield Township, Stockertown Borough, and Tatamy
Borough are served by the Easton STP (0.26 mgd). Wastewater conveyance
is achieved by a combination of gravity sewers and six pump stations
(including force main). Cluster systems serve the same communities
served by cluster systems under the MAPA as well as other low-density
areas north of Belfast in Plainfield Township. Outlying Phase II areas
are served by new or rehabilitated on-site systems.

Note that the exact location of the new OD treatment facilities would
be determined by Nazareth Borough officials during additional Step I
efforts. Locations of these facilities, illustrated in Figure IV-I
are only approximate.

The advantages and disadvantages of the MAPA and of Alternative 9
are summarized in Table IV-1. Data presented in this table were screened
in the selection of the EIS Recommended Action, which is described in
Chapter V.
The components of Alternative 9 are described in detail in Appendix D-6.
The version of this Alternative utilizing an RBC plant was eliminated
from further evaluation due to higher costs.

-------
Legend:

1. preliminary treatment
2. oxidation ditch
3. clarifier
4. chlorine contact chamber
5. chlorine storage bldg.
6. dechlorinator
7. sludge storage
8. sludge loading platform
(contract hauling)
9. administration bldg.
10. laboratory
lla. outfall
lib. alternate outfall
12. sludge return pump
Proposed treatment units
"j Existing units
ALTERNATIVE
OF OXIDATION DITCH
TRICKLING
ILTER
DISCHARGE
SLUDG
LAGOON
DOSING
SIPHON
TRICKLING
5 FILTER
CONTROL BUILDING
CHLORINATOR
SLUDGE PUMP1
SETTLING TANK
AERATION
PONO
FLOOD
PROTECTION
DIKE
AERATION
POND
NAZARETH
.SLUDGE
^LAGOON
AERATION
POND
Figure IV-1.
(revised).
Nazareth oxidation ditch sewage treatment plant

-------
TabTe IV-1 .   Significant -factors to be considered in selection o-f Final EIS R.
                                                                             Lecommended Ac~ti on .
                       MAPA
       Advantages
    Disadvantages
                  NEED FOR PROJECT
                          •  Entire  capacity  of
                             Schoeneck Interceptor
                             is  not  justified for
                             Federal funding under
                             EPA Construction
                             Grants  Program.   EPA
                             would fund  only  ca-
                             pacity  for  Nazareth
                             Borough, Upper
                             Nazareth Township,
                             Newburg Homes,
                             (Palmer Township),
                             and a  reasonable
                             rate of growth.
                 COST-EFFECTIVENESS
                           • Ranks second;  22%
                             less cost-effective
                             than Alternative 9
                             with total  present
                             worth of $12.2
                             million".
                 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
 i Requires one pump
   station (14,576 kwh/yr).
• Requires over 1.6
  times as much energy
  as Alternative 9
  for essential  waste-
  water conveyance
  treatment facilities,
                           • Induced residential
                             development requires
                             5 times as much elec-
                             tric power as Alter-
                             native 92.


                           • Total requirements
                             (year 2000)= 5 times
                             as much as Alterna-
                             tive 9.
                                                                                       Alternative 9
       Advantages
       Disadvantages
                                                                                                                      NEED FOR PROJECT
                                                                              Serves only those
                                                                              areas whore document-
                                                                              able need exists
                                                                              (Phase I).
                                                                                          COST-EFFECTIVENESS
                                                                           • Ranks first, with
                                                                             total present worth
                                                                             of $10.0 million.
                                                                                          ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
• Essential wastewater
  conveyance and treat-
  ment facilities1
  require 461,004 kwh/yr.

• Induced residential
  development requires
  6,263,000 kwh/yr.2

• Total requirements
  (year 2000) =
  6,725,004 kwh/yr.
• Requires six pump
  stations (91,592
  kwh/yr).
 ^Facilities include pump stations in B-LLJSA/EIS Service Area,  Delaware  Drive/Second Street Pump Stations, and Easton STP  (MAPA/EIS flow).

 ^Does not include electric power requirements of residential  development without  project.

-------
Table IV-1.  Significant factors to be considered  in selection of Final EIS Recommended Action  (continued).
                       MAPA
        Advantages
      Disadvantages
                         I	
                  INDUCED GROWTH
 • Would provide capacity
   for commercial and
   industrial development
   in Palmer Township.
                AQUATIC E
                            Would  induce  construc-
                            tion of approximately
                            5  times more  dwelling
                            units  (1,515  units)
                            beyond baseline than
                            Alternative 9
                            Zoning challenges could
                            be initiated.
WIRONMENT

   Involves  construction
   of  16  stream  crossings,
   two  of which  are  down-
   stream from Tatamy
   Borough in the  "brown
   trout  nursery and prob-
   able spawning area."
   Blasting  and  excavation
   in this area  may  dis-
   rupt channel hydraulics.

•  Sewers  parallel  streams,
   increasing the potential
   for  streambank  erosion,
   and  non-point pollution
   of streams.
                                                                                         Alternative 9
Advantages
Disadvantages
                                                                                             INDUCED GROWTH
                                                                              • Would induce construc-
                                                                                tion of 311  dwelling
                                                                                units beyond  baseline

                                                                              • Growth would continue
                                                                                along recent past
                                                                                trends.

                                                                              • Relative less
                                                                                development pressure
                                                                                on Palmer Township
                                                                                RA zoning district.
                     Would  limit  growth  in
                     PIC  zoning district
                     in  Palmer Township.
                                                                                                                     AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
                                                                                                        t  Involves construction
                                                                                                          of 5  stream cross-
                                                                                                          ings;  relatively less
                                                                                                          disruption  of  stream
                                                                                                          habitat than MAPA.

                                                                                                        •  Sewers parallel roads
                                                                                                          as much as  possible
                                                                                                          to avoid  siltation
                                                                                                          of streams  during
                                                                                                          construction and nor-
                                                                                                          point  source pollu-
                                                                                                          tion as a result of
                                                                                                          construction.

-------
Table IV-1.   Significant factors to be considered in selection of Final  EIS Recommended Action.(concluded).
                       MAPA
       Advantages
Disadvantages
               WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
                          • Wastewater management
                            system is relatively
                            simple, consisting of
                            collection and con-
                            veyance (but no treat-
                            ment) facilities
                            in B-LLJSA Service
                            Area proper; therefore
                            wastewater management
                            staffing requirements
                            are relatively minor.
                    ENGINEERING
 • Requires relatively
   less Step II (de-
   tailed) design than
   Alternative 9.
                                                                                   Alternative 9
Advantages
Disadvantages
                                                                                     WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
                                                                       • See Appendix D-5 for
                                                                         advantages of ODs.
                   •  See  Appendix  D-5  for
                     disadvantages of  ODs.

                   *  Wastewater management
                     system  1s more complex
                     than MAPA; therefore,
                     staffing requirements
                     are  relatively more
                     complex than  those
                     associated with MAPA.
                                                                                         ENGINEERING
                                                                                                •  Requires  relatively
                                                                                                  more  Step II  (de-
                                                                                                  tailed) design  than
                                                                                                  MAPA.
                                                                                                                            c
                                                                                                                            -3

-------
CHAPTER V
Conclusions And Recommendations

-------
CHAPTER V:
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
DESCRIPTION OF THE
FINAL EIS RECOMMENDED
ACTION
Bushkill Creek
Watershed Phase I
The Final EIS has found that the B-LLJSA's proposed action (APA) as well as the
Modified Applicant's Proposed Action (MAPA) and ten of the alternatives developed
in the EIS are neither cost-effective nor environmentally acceptable. Therefore,
these are not acceptable for Federal funding under EPA's Construction Grants
Program. An alternative wastewater management scheme, EIS Alternative 9 (Figure
V-l) is acceptable for funding. This alternative plan was determined to be the
most cost-effective (Figure V-2) and environmentally acceptable approach to serve
the documented wastewater management needs of the EIS Phase I Service Area
(Figure V-2). Growth induced by this alternative is reasonable, and associated
secondary impacts are not excessive. The total energy requirements of the plan,
including those of its wastewater conveyance and treatment components, as well
as its induced residential population are less than for the MAPA. Trout pro-
duction and recreational areas along Bushkill Creek downstream from Tatamy
Borough would not be disturbed by construction activities as would be the case
if the MAPA were built.

A. This section describes the EIS Recommended Action as it would serve both
Phase I areas (i.e., community need areas which require off-site facilities)
and Phase II areas (i.e., need areas which require only improved on-site
facilities).

1. Under the modified conveyance system^ (See Section III.C.I) the
Bushkill Creek watershed is served predominantly by gravity sewers
(See Figure V-l). Gravity interceptors will serve the following
areas: School Road, Route 115 from its intersection with T609
south of Stockertown Borough, LR48040, and Route 191 from its
intersection with LR48040 south to Belfast Junction. A pump station
and force main will transport wastewater flows from Edelman along
Route 191 to a point just above its intersection with LR48040. The
gravity interceptor then will parallel the main artery through
Stockertown Borough and Tatamy Borough until it reaches PS #3
(MOD) southeast of Tatamy Borough. From PS #3 (MOD), wastewater
generated in the Bushkill Creek watershed is transported under
pressure along Tatamy Road until a point approximately one-third
of a mile above Northwood Avenue. From this point, all sewage flows
by gravity to the Penn Pump Park manhole. Flows will be treated at
the upgraded and expanded Easton sewage treatment plant.

The sparsely developed segments along Route 115 north of the gravity
sewer and the communities of east Pen Argyl and Rasleytown (Plain-
field Township) and Rismiller (Bushkill Township) will be served by
small collection systems and multi-family filter fields (cluster
systems). If geohydrolic site analyses do not confirm SCS soils
ratings for indicated sites, other sites should be sought or marsh/
pond systems should be considered.
modified conveyance system includes six pump stations within the EIS
Service Area, instead of nine as presented in the Draft EIS.
41