United States Region 3 Environmental Protection Sixth and Walnut Streets Agency Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 May 1981 ^yPPA Draft Environmental Impact Statement Buckingham, Pennsylvania Wastewater T reatment Facilities ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 111 6th AND WALNUT STREETS PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106 TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS: Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) in relation to a request submitted by the Buckingham Township Board of Supervisors for Federal funding to plan for wastewater management facilities for the Buckingham area of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. This Draft EIS is 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 and 40 CFR Part 35, September 27, 1978). Comments or questions concerning this Draft EIS should be submitted to the attention of Mr. Richard V. Pepino at the above address by July 27, 1981. The purpose of this EIS is to inform you of the potential impacts of this project and to discuss alternative solutions which were developed through the EIS process. A number of significant environmental issues along with public controversy within the planning area prompted US-EPA to initiate an Environmental Impact Statement for this project. This issue~oriented Draft EIS concentrates on the following topics: the land application of treated wastewater; groundwater availability and quality; preservation of prime agricultural land; and the primary and secondary impacts of providing expanded wastewater service to the planning area. I want to thank everyone who has participated in this process, especially members of the EIS Coordination Committee, who have monitored the EIS progress and helped determine its direction by meeting periodically and raising important questions and comments. A public hearing to solicit testimony concerning the Draft EIS will be held on July 9, 1981 at the Buckingham Elementary School beginning at 7:30 p.m. Individuals and representatives of organizations wishing to testify at the public hearing are requested to furnish a copy of their proposed testimony (if possible) along with their name, address, telephone number and the organization represented, if any, to the EIS Preparation Section not later than the close of business on July 7, 1981 . Witnesses should limit their oral presentation to a five-minute summary of their written testimony. Everyone wishing to testify will be given an opportunity to do so at the hearing. I welcome your interest and participation in the EIS process. Jack J. Schr linm Regional Administrator Enclosure ------- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES BUCKINGHAM TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA AREA Prepared Bys US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA Richard V. Pepino, Project Monitor WAPORA, Inc. BERWYN, PENNSYLVANIA Valdis Jurka, Project Manager Type of Action: Legislative ( ) Administrative ( X ) ------- SUMMARY ------- This Executive Summary is prepared to focus the reader's attention on vital issues contained in the Draft Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS). The topics previewed in this summary merely highlight the more detailed discussions presented in the Draft EIS. We encourage the reader not to formulate conclusions based on the Executive Summary, but rather to read the expanded text in order to establish a sound rationale for analysis of the alternatives presented in the Draft EIS. ------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY National The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires all Federal Environmental agencies to prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) on each Policy Act major Federal action that has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. A major purpose of an EIS is to explain the environmental consequences of pending Federal actions, such as funding for construction projects, in order that government officials and the public can make responsible decisions. Federal funding for wastewater treatment facilities through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (US-EPA) Construction Grants Program is one of the Federal actions subject to the requirements of NEPA. Buckingham Township Priority Funding of Wastewater Facilities Identified Problems Alternatives Developed This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared by US-EPA in relation to a request submitted by the Buckingham Township Board of Supervisors for Federal funding to plan for wastewater management facilities for the Buckingham area of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Each of the projects that competes for US-EPA Construction Grant Funds is assigned a Priority Point ranking by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Projects become eligible for Federal funding based on their priority ranking. The State is currently reevaluating its ranking. Depending on the "new" ranking assigned to Buckingham Township, its likelihood for funding may increase or decrease. It is important to note that at the time the Facilities Plan was initiated the project did have sufficient priority points to qualify for US-EPA funding eligibility. Though Buckingham Township has traditionally maintained a rural/ agricultural character, the changing land use patterns associated with increased urbanization have become apparent. Since Federal funds were utilized for the preparation of the wastewater manage- ment plan (Facilities Plan), a review of the project was conducted in accord with NEPA. US-EPA's evaluation concluded that sensitive environmental features, such as surface and groundwater quality, Township water supplies, and prime agricultural land, should be given special attention during the preparation of the Facilities Plan. These environmental concerns coupled with the existing development pressures prompted US-EPA to prepare an EIS concur- rently with the facilities planning activities. The Red Gate Farms (Argus Drive Section) and the Buckingham Village sections of the Township were identified in the Draft Facilities Plan as experiencing individual septic tank malfunctions. Apple Hill and Canterbury Estates, which have community subsurface systems, received citations during the Facilities Plan's prepara- tion requiring appropriate corrective measures to be taken. Also, scattered throughout the Township are a significant number of individual malfunctioning on-site systems. Estimates of the failures on a Township-wide basis are in the range from 12 to 15 percent. This means that the total number of individual failures could easily exceed 300 homes. In response to these identified problem areas the following alter- natives were presented in the Draft Facilities Flan: Alternative 1. The no-action alternative describes the continued utilization of existing wastewater treatment facilities in conjunction with current management practices. ------- Alternative 2. Spray irrigation of wastewaters collected from Red Gate Farms and Central Buckingham Village. The design average wastewater flow under Alternative 2 is 12,800 gpd. Alternative 3. Use of an upgraded and expanded package treatment plant at Buckingham Elementary School to accom- modate Red Gate Farms and Central Buckingham Village (16 ,800 gpd). Alternative 4. Spray irrigation of wastewaters collected from Red Gate Farms and Buckingham Village (44,600 gpd). Alternative 5. Use of an upgraded and expanded package treatment plant at the Buckingham Elementary School to accommodate Red Gate Farms and Buckingham Village (48,600 9Pd) • Included with Alternatives 2 through 5, which solely address Red Gate Farms and Buckingham Village, are the following proposed act ions: • Apple Hill would rehabilitate its community subsurface system or connect to the Red Gate Farms/Buckingham Village solution. • Canterbury Estates would rehabilitate its community subsurface system. • Scattered malfunctioning on-site systems throughout the Township could take remedial measures consistent with appropriate land disposal technology. • Areas to be developed would apply site specific non-sewered techniques as determined by the existing soil conditions. • The Township's existing sewered area, which is located in the western corner of the Township adjacent to the Cross Keys area and has its wastewater conveyed to and treated at the Chalfont- New Britain wastewater treatment plant, is to have additional connections if and only if land disposal techniques are neither cost-effective nor environmentally sound. Land Based In the Draft Facilities Plan the Buckingham Sewer and Water Commis- Treatment Approach sion emphasizes the collection of wastewater through a non-sewered approach and the treatment of wastewater by land disposal tech- nology. These approaches to wastewater management are in contrast to the concept of regionalization whereby all wastewater is centrally collected and treated. The land disposal, non-sewered methods of wastewater handling allow for development in accordance with existing zoning and rely on the following approaches to solve present and future wastewater management needs: • limited expansion and/or upgrading of existing wastewater facilities as necessary; • future needs to be accommodated at a decentralized level of wastewater treatment (no stream discharge)? • wastewater recycling to be accomplished as much as possible by septic tank systems and other wastewater renovation techniques using land as part of the treatment process. ii ------- Management Plan In order to be eligible for Federal funding on a Township-wide rehabilitation program for individual on-site system failures, a State and US-EPA approved Management Plan is required. The approach endorsed in the Draft Facilities Plan retains ownership, operation, and maintenance functions with the individual. However, a Township authority must oversee the administration of the Manage- ment Plan. The Water and Sewer Commission proposes that individual on-site subsurface disposal systems be inspected every three years with more frequent inspections scheduled for community and commer- cial wastewater treatment systems. Such an inspection program would be phased during a 3 year period. Properties in excess of 10 acres would be exempt from the inspection program. A permit inspection system would be established at the Township level, and paid for by all residents with an annual fee of $12. The obvious economic advantage of having an approved Management Plan is that US-EPA will fund up to 85% of eligible costs to repair the 300 to 400 individual residences currently experiencing septic mal- functions. Curative Amendments Evaluation of Alternatives US-EPA's Preferred Alternative Seven landowners filed amendments to the Buckingham Zoning Ordi- nance in 1974. These curative amendments collectively amount to 8,095 additional dwelling units, or an equivalent population of nearly 26,000 or three times the preliminary 1980 census count for the entire Township. These projected developments, if constructed as proposed, have the potential to adversely affect the water resources of Buckingham Township. In addition they would place a severe strain on the existing public and community services of the Township. The Buckingham Township Facilities Plan evaluated several alterna- tives for meeting the wastewater needs of these developments. This evaluation concluded that stream discharge alternatives are undesirable for serving the curative amendment developments. Stream discharge alternatives have the greatest potential to adversely impact the Township's water resources. The Commission acknowledges that the land disposal treatment of wastewater would not permit the complete development of all proposed units unless additional lands were secured. The most significant issue addressed in the Draft Facilities Plan and Draft EIS is the land disposal method of wastewater treatment. As a result of the EIS investigations, US-EPA clearly supports this approach of wastewater management for Buckingham Township in order to maintain the Township's rural/agricultural character, as well as minimize the likely development pressure. US-EPA's analysis of these land application techniques for Buckingham Township indicates that they are environmentally sound and cost-effective. Of the five alternatives presented in the Draft EIS, only alterna- tives 4 and 5 are eligible for Federal funding consideration within EPA's Construction Grants Program. Alternative 1, the no-action alternative, can be dismissed because it does not address the existing water quality needs of the Township. Alternatives 2 or 3, which address the wastewater needs of Red Gate Farms and Central Buckingham Village, can be eliminated because they are too costly to implement and do not allow for reasonable growth. Alternative 4 is US-EPA's preferred choice as a wastewater solution to meet the current and projected needs for Red Gate Farms and Buckingham Village^ This alternative Is most consistent in supporting US-EPA's goals of encouraging land application of waste- water and preserving prime agricultural land. Alternative 5 will meet similar wastewater needs for these sections of the Township iii ------- but will utilize a more centralized approach which will involve a stream discharge to Mill Creek at the Buckingham Elementary School. Though this alternative does not present any major environmental problems, the stream discharge approach is inconsistent with the Township's and US-EPA's primary goals for this type of community. Federal Funding Since Alternative 4 conforms to US-EPA's guidelines for small and User Charges community systems, US-EPA will provide funding up to the 85% level for much of the alternative's implementation; while, Alternative 5 will be funded only at the 75% level. The net result to the user of the system will be lower charges to individual residents of Red Gate Farms and Buckingham Village. US-EPA's projection indicates that Alternative 4 will cost customers $30 less per year than Alternative 5. The following table compares some of the key economic features of Alternative 4 and 5: Alternative Alternative 4 5 Estimated Total Capital Cost 1,104,000 766,000 Buckingham Portion of Costs 188,900 191,500 Cost Per Year (1980) Per User Without US-EPA Funding 1,015 741 With US-EPA Funding 294 324 Potential Because different technologies, such as spray irrigation, are asso- Health Effects ciated with the land disposal approaches to wastewater management, residents are suspicious that additional health hazards may be inherent with such systems. However, no evidence currently exists that supports these claims, providing that the implemented land disposal techniques are properly managed and maintained. Conclusion In conclusion, the Draft EIS findings strongly support the land application method of wastewater treatment for Buckingham Township. This approach will surely supply the greatest protection to the Township's water resources and prime agricultural land. iv ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary i Table of Contents v List of Tables vii List of Figures viii CHAPTER I. The Project's Background 1 Step X Grant Issued 1 EIS Issues 1 Buckingham Township Background 2 History of Wastewater Management Planning 4 CHAPTER II. Environmental Inventory 7 General Setting 7 Geology 7 Soils 8 Hydrology 8 Water Quality 11 Climate 11 Air Quality 11 Existing Land Use 12 Curative Amendments 15 Population 15 Existing Wastewater Systems 17 On-Site Systems 17 Malfunctioning Septic Tank Systems 19 Treatment Systems with Stream Discharge 20 Collection and Conveyance for Treatment Outside 20 the Township Community Sub-Surface Disposal Systems 21 CHAPTER III. Alternatives for Wastewater Management 23 Structural Alternatives 23 Non-Sewered Approach 27 Alternatives 30 Summary of Alternatives 34 Privately Owned Treatment Plants 34 Scattered On-Site Systems 34 Areas to be Developed 34 Sewer Extensions 34 Alternative Management Options 34 CHAPTER IV. Comparison of Alternatives 41 Component 1 - Existing Clustered Service Area 41 Alternatives Costs of Alternatives 41 Cost-Effectiveness of Subsurface Disposal Options 44 Environmental Evaluation 44 Component 2 - Existing Scattered Needs and Future 51 Development Component 3 - Management Programs 52 CHAPTER V. Option Areas 57 v ------- Page CHAPTER VI. Curative Amendments 59 Background 59 Impacts 59 Non-Sewered Approach 63 Connection to Chalfont-New Britain 64 Possible Wastewater Management Alternatives 64 Impact Mitigation 65 Federal Role 65 References 67 Preparers 69 Buckingham EIS Distribution List 71 vi ------- LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Estimated available groundwater 10 2 Estimated groundwater budgets 10 3 Land use distribution 12 4 Population growth 15 5 Disaggregated populations 16 6 Population projections 17 7 Wastewater treatment facilities with stream 20 discharge 8 Community subsurface systems 21 9 Wastewater management needs 24 10 Screening of wastewater management techniques 25 11 Individual system alternatives 28 12 Individual-community system alternatives 28 13 Community system alternatives 29 14 Summary of alternative wastewater management plans 36 15 Management function options 37 16 Management functions performed 38 17 Costs of alternatives 43 18 User costs 45 19 Spray irrigation land requirements 46 20 Construction noise 51 21 Cost of septic tank rehabilitation 55 22 Curative amendments 61 vii ------- LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Problem areas 3 2 Drainage basins 9 3 Land cover 13 4 Zoning 14 5 Existing wastewater treatment facilities 18 6 Types of wastewater systems 26 7 Alternative 2 31 8 Alternative 3 32 9 Alternative 4 33 10 Alternative 5 35 11 Option areas 58 12 Curative amendments 60 viii ------- CHAPTER I The Project's Background ------- CHAPTER I. THE PROJECT'S BACKGROUND Statutory Authority Step 1 Grant Issued and EIS Decision EIS Issues Title II, Section 201(g)(1) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (US-EPA) Administrator to make grants to any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or inter- state agency for the construction of publicly-owned treatment works. US-EPA regulations for implementing this section of the Clean Water Act appear in 40 CFR 35, Subpart E, Grants for Con- struction of Treatment Works. These regulations define the three- step process that the applicant must comply with to qualify for Federal funding in support of the public works project. The three-step process is divided into planning, design, and con- struction phases. As the applicant completes each step in the process, their submissions are reviewed, commented upon, and approved by the State and US-EPA. The lead State agency in Pennsylvania for the Construction Grants Program is the Department of Environmental Resources (PA-DER). The initial grant application describing the project dimensions is evaluated by PA-DER. Once PA-DER determines that the project has met the eligibility requirements for financial assistance, a prior- ity point ranking is assigned with respect to all other qualified statewide projects. The individual projects then receive Step 1 - planning grants from US-EPA according to the State's priority point ranking scheme. The Step 1 process culminates in the production of a Facilities Plan. This planning document details the existing and projected wastewater needs for the municipality during the twenty year period ending in the year 2000. The Facilities Plan, commonly referred to as the 201 study, must include a systematic evaluation of all feasible alternatives to meet the existing and projected wastewater management needs in the municipality. The munici- pality's preferred alternative must be demonstrated to be cost- effective and environmentally sound. During 1977, PA-DER certified Buckingham Township for Federal funding eligibility. A Step 1 grant was subsequently issued to Buckingham by US-EPA giving the financial assistance needed to initiate the Planning Phase of the Construction Grants Program. US-EPA evaluated Buckingham Township's Step 1 grant application pursuant to P.L. 91-190, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality and US-EPA's Prime Agricultural Lands policy. US-EPA determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required. An EIS is required whenever major Federal actions may significantly affect the quality of the human environ- ment. The EIS is a decision-making document of US-EPA to assure that Federal funds will produce a project which will have maximum beneficial effects and minimum negative impacts on the planning area's natural and socioeconomic environment. US-EPA's decision to prepare an EIS was based on the significant social and environmental concerns listed belows • identification of existing and future wastewater treatment needs • the maintenance of high quality surface and groundwaters • safeguarding the Township's current and future water supplies • identification of potential changes in land use caused by increasing development pressures on rural and agricultural sections of the Township 1 ------- Coordination Between EIS and Facility Planning • evaluation of general environmental effects such as air quality, vegetation, wildlife and aesthetics This Draft EIS contains US-EPA's analysis, evaluation, and recommendation on the alternatives proposed in the 201 Study. At the conclusion of the EIS process, US-EPA will render its decision upon which alternatives will be eligible for funding in the Step 2 (design) and Step 3 (construction) phases of the project. In December 1980, the Buckingham Water and Sewer Commission, the group charged by the Township's Supervisors to prepare the Facili- ties Plan, released a draft 201 study to obtain public comment on the proposed solutions to wastewater management. Technical assist- ance in wastewater management planning is being provided by Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc., who were selected in accordance with US-EPA procurement requirements for consulting engineering services. The EIS and facility planning process have been a concurrent, coordinated effort. Through such coordination the design and construction of selected actions can proceed most expeditiously. BUCKINGHAM TOWNSHIP BACKGROUND Planning Area Boundaries Problems Areas Buckingham Township is located in Central Bucks County in south- eastern Pennsylvania and encompasses nearly 33 square miles. The Township is adjacent on its northwest border with Doylestown Borough, the county seat. The Cities of Philadelphia, PA and Trenton, NJ are approximately 20 miles south and east of Buckingham Township, respectively. The Facility Plan identified specific problem areas within Bucking- ham Township for which detailed wastewater management solutions were sought. These areas (and their problems) are shown in Figure 1 and include: • Red Gate Farms (malfunctioning residential septic tank systems) • Central Buckingham Village (holding tanks and malfunctioning septic tank systems) • Apple Hill (malfunctioning community septic tank system) • Canterbury Estates (malfunctioning community septic tank system) • Buckingham Elementary School (existing wastewater treatment plant may need upgraded treatment levels) • Central Bucks East High School (existing wastewater plant may need upgraded treatment levels) Throughout the remainder of the Township, additional septic tank systems have been identified or are suspected of malfunctioning. Because these systems are dispersed throughout the Township, the Facility Plan addresses solutions for improvement of these systems on an individual basis. Water Quantity and Throughout the facility planning process, special consideration has Quality Concerns been accorded the water resources of the Township. There are number of creeks originating in Buckingham Township which have relatively small water flow. This condition has significant con- sequences affecting wastewater treatment facilities which require 2 ------- Figure I PROBLEM AREAS 3 ------- discharge to surface waters. Water supplies within Buckingham Township are principally derived from groundwater aquifers. Recent investigations regarding chemical contamination in neighboring communities of the groundwater by trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) have raised the consciousness of all people involved regarding the importance of protecting groundwater quality. In addition, other concerns considered in the Facility Plan included preservation or enhancement of open space, agricultural land, scenic areas, limestone areas, small village centers, recrea- tional facilities and historical facilities. Also considered were multiple use of wastewater treatment facilities and requirements for satisfying recreation, aesthetic, and fish and wildlife pro- tection objectives. History of Waste- Wastewater management planning for Buckingham Township has been an water Management on-going process. Important factors in its evolution are described Planning in the following chronology: 1967 The first major water quality evaluation of the Neshaminy Creek Basin was conducted in 1967 by the Pennsylvania Depart- ment of Health. The 1967 report evaluated waste discharges into Neshaminy Creek and their effect on water quality. The report concluded that water quality was depressed throughout the Basin. The study further defined "B" and "C" water quality standards above and below the proposed PA Dam No. 614 which is located along the southern boundary of Buckingham Township. 1970 The 1960 Bucks County Master Sewerage Plan was updated (Albright and Friel 1970). This plan called for interim plants to be constructed prior to 1980 at Lahaska, Bucking- ham, and Wycombe. After 1980, these facilities were to be phased out and replaced by regional sewage treatment plants at New Hope and Solebury. 1973 A feasibility report for Buckingham Township was prepared (Roy P. Weston, Inc. 1973). This report recommended a combination of gravity sewers, pumping stations, force mains, a sewage treatment plant, and connection to existing and proposed facilities beyond Buckingham's boundaries. 1974 The Bucks County Department of Health conducted an on-site sewage disposal survey for Buckingham Township. There were 161 properties surveyed with 23 confirmed malfunctions of on-site sewage disposal systems. 1976 All or portions of Buckingham Township were delineated by PA-DER as a facility planning area. 1977 PA-DER certified to US-EPA a 201 Step 1 grant application for wastewater facilities planning. 1978 The priority points used by PA-DER to determine funding of Buckingham Township's application were revised and a grant was made to the Township. As part of the special grant conditions, the grantee was to meet with US-EPA to initiate a concurrent EIS process. 1978 Buckingham Township received a Step 1 planning grant to initiate the 201 study. US-EPA began preparation of a joint EIS for both Buckingham Township and the adjacent Chalfont- New Britain planning area. 4 ------- 1979 The joint EXS process was segregated into separate EIS's for Buckingham Township and the Chalfont-New Britain area due to significant differences in the facility plan schedules. 1980 A Draft Facility Plan for Buckingham Township was released for public comment in December. 5 ------- CHAPTER II ------- CHAPTER II. ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY The existing and future environments of Buckingham Township are described in this section. These environmental conditions will serve as the baseline against which the alternative wastewater management plans will be evaluated for both adverse and beneficial impacts. The existing and future environment without the proposed action have been discussed extensively in the draft Facility Plan prepared by Tatman and Lee Associates (1980). The EIS incorporates this information by reference only. This section presents a synopsis of the salient features of the natural and human environments of Buckingham Township. The purpose is to quickly orient the reader, so that the appropriateness and impacts of the alternative waste- water management plans can be readily understood. This approach allows the EIS to be concise and issue-oriented. General Setting Physiography and Topography Buckingham Township (33 square miles) has a rural/agricultural character. About one-half of the Township's land area is divided into eight Village Centers (Buckingham, Buckingham Valley, Forest Grove, Furlong, Lahaska, Mechanicsville, Pineville, and Wycombe) as well as the Township's designated Development District. The remaining portion of the Township's land is predominately agricul- tural in nature. The 1970 census identified the population of the Township to be 5,150; a special 197 5 census indicated that the Township had grown to 6,956 persons. Because Buckingham Township is located within the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area (20 miles north of Philadelphia), the Township is subject to increasing urbanization pressures caused by migration from the city. Buckingham Township is within the Triassic Lowlands of the Piedmont physiographic province. The Township is characterized by rolling topography. Slopes greater than eight percent occur on approxi- mately one-third of the land area. Slopes greater than twenty-five percent are limited to Buckingham Mountain and various stream corridors. The physiographic features of Buckingham Township do not present unusual conditions which affect planning for wastewater facilities. Buckingham Mountain is the highest point (520 ft) within the Town- ship. The minimum elevation (140 ft) occurs along Neshaminy Creek at the southern boundary of the Township. Geology Most of Buckingham Township is underlain by gently inclined sedi- mentary rock strata. Buckingham and Little Buckingham Mountains punctuate this pattern. These mountains were created by faulting, raising older rocks from below the sedimentary strata. The sedi- mentary strata which underlay nearly 85% of the Township are classified into three formations; (in order of decreasing areal coverage) the Stockton, Brunswick, and Lockatong Formations. The remaining 15% consist of limestone, quartzite, and phylite rock types. These geologic units have different physical and chemical charac- teristics that can affect siting of a facility, construction tech- niques used, and other activities. Of particular significance are the water-bearinq characteristics of these rock types (discussed further in Water Resources). Within the Township subsidence of the ground surface has occurred in some areas because of the solubility of the underlying lime- stone. In these areas the location of on-site disposal systems require special precautions to avoid contamination of the aquifers. 7 ------- These precautions require more data collection and evaluation before the construction of on-site systems in limestone areas is allowed. Soils There are four major soil associations within Buckingham Township: Chester, Duffield-Washington, Abbottstown-Readington-Reaville, and Lansdale-Lawrenceville. Each association is comprised of several soil types. Each soil type has different suitability for on-site disposal of wastewater and for agricultural use. The soils suita- bility for conventional septic tank-soil absorption systems was mapped within the Township. There are several categories of agricultural land that US-epa recognizes as unique resources. The lands, classified as prime farmland (i.e. land with the best physical and chemical character- istics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and seed crops), are accorded special consideration by US-EPA. Surface Water There are six drainage basins within Buckingham Township (Figure 2): • Mill Creek Basin • Pidcock Creek Basin • Paunnacussing Basin • Pine Run Basin • Country Club Run Basin • Neshaminy Creek Basin Except for Neshaminy Creek, the headwaters of these streams are located within the Township. Consequently, the flows of these streams and, thus, their assimilative capacity to meet water quality standards are limited because of their small drainage areas. Groundwater Buckingham Township water needs are met through public/private wells. Water useage is predominantly residential and commercial. The draft Facility Plan estimates that approximately 600,000 gpd are withdrawn for use in the Township. Most of this groundwater withdrawal (400,000 gpd) is returned to the groundwater system (principally through on-site sewage disposal systems). The Facility Plan further identifies Buckingham as an area of moderate groundwater pumpage that has yet to alter significantly flow patterns and quantity. In the undeveloped portions of the Town- ship, the groundwater resources basically are untapped, whereas in developed and developing portions, the groundwater resources are affected. The future population growth and concommitant development will increase the demand placed on water supplies. At the same time the amount of impervious surfaces — roads, parking lotB, etc. — serve to decrease the amount of recharge to the groundwater system. As a consequence, a groundwater budget was prepared for current and predicted future demands (see Table 1). This budget is based on total population, population density, water demand, impervious areas, and estimates of lost infiltration, recharge reduction, net recharge, total safe yield, and estimates of the excess or deficit in the groundwater resource. As such the groundwater budget presented is a simplified analysis that serves as an indicator of the adequacy of groundwater resources to meet future water supply needs in years of average precipitation. Because of the low popu- lation density, Buckingham Township appears to have adequate groundwater resources to satisfy expected demands providing the aquifers remain ui\contaminated. Localized problems may develop in some areas of concentrated pumping. 8 ------- Figure 2 DRAINAGE BASINS 9 ------- Table 1. Estimated available groundwater (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1980). Rock Unit Brunswick Frm. Lockatong Frm. Stockton Frm. Limestone Hardyston Frm. Others TOTAL Allowable Withdrawal (Q 50% Allocation) Areal Extent 150,000 to 200,000 gpd/sq. mi. 150,000 to 200,000 gpd/sq. mi. 250,000 to 300,000 gpd/sq. mi. 350,000 to 500,000 gpd/sq. mi. 150,000 + gpd/sq. mi. 100,000 + gpd/sq. mi. 10.35 sq. mi. 3.40 sq. mi. 13.50 sq. mi. 4.15 sq. mi. 0.75 sq. mi. 0.45 sq. mi. 32.60 sq. mi. Projected Withdrawal 1.5 5 to 2.05 mgd 0.50 to 0.70 mgd 3.40 to 4.05 mgd 1.45 to 2.1 mgd 0.1 + mgd 0.05 + mgd 7.05 to 9.05 mgd Table 2. Estimated ground water budgets for Buckingham Township for the years 1970, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000. Budget is determined for average precipitation YEAR 1970 1980 1985 1990 1$$5 2666 Population 5,148 7,828 8,729 9,619 10,495 11,363 Density (persons/mi2) 158 240 268 295 322 349 Impervious cover (%)a 4.18 5.40 5.77 6.12 6.44 6.75 Recharge Reduction (000 gpd/mi2)b 20.6 26.6 28.4 30.2 31.8 33.3 Net recharge (000 gpd/mi2) 472 466 464 463 461 460 Net recharge in excess of safe yield (000 gpd/mi2)c 225 219 218 216 214 213 Demand (000 gpd/mi2)^ 11.1 16.8 18.7 20.7 22.5 24.4 Excess (000 gpd/mi2) 214 203 199 195 192 188 Excess (mgd) 6.99 6.60 6.48 6.36 6.25 6.14 aThe percent of impervious cover is estimated by an exponential equation which varies as a function of population density (Stankowski 1974). bAssumes 494,000 gpd/mi2 recharge on undeveloped land. Based on the Groundwater Resource Evaluation report prepared as part of the facility planning efforts. eSafe yield assumed to be 50% of average annual recharge with 50% allocated to maintenance of natural discharge. ^Assumes a 70 gpcd consumption rate. 10 ------- Surface Water Quality The water quality information summarized in the Facility Plan was limited to data collected in 1971 at one site on Mill Creek. These data indicated that there were no obvious or excessive pollutant source. Groundwater Quality Regional Climate Air Quality and Noise PA-DER has conducted water quality surveys in the Neshaminy Creek Basin during the late summer or early fall of 1980. The analyses are not yet available. These surveys will evaluate water quality in relation to effluent discharge requirements from wastewater treatment facilities. No sampling stations are located in Bucking- ham Township. The results of the survey of the mainstream of Neshaminy Creek may influence the effluent discharge requirements for wastewater treatment facilities within Buckingham Township because of PA-DER's policy of uniform discharge standards for all wastewater treatment facilities in the Neshaminy Creek Basin. The quality of groundwater within Buckingham Township is generally satisfactory. Since 1979, the Bucks County Health Department, PA-DER, and US-EPA have been evaluating the extent of trichloro- ethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) contamination in Bucks County's groundwaters. These two organic chemicals are common industrial solvents known to be carcinogenic at concentrations greater than 4.5 parts per billion and acutely toxic at concentra- tions greater than 225 parts per billion, within Buckingham Town- ship's planning area, TCE/PCE contamination has been detected in the Furlong area. The climate in Buckingham is characterized as a modified, humid, continental climate. Most weather systems approach the Township from the midwest or southeast. According to records obtained from Doylestown Borough, average annual precipitation in this area is approximately 43 inches and is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year. Air quality in Buckingham Township is good. The limited resi- dential and industrial development in Buckingham Township minimizes the amount of pollutants from these sources. The most significant air quality problem is the level of photochemical oxidants which is of regional concern. The entire Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has been classified as not in compliance with the standard for photo- chemical oxidants. Aggressive control programs have been mandated by Federal air pollution control regulations. Because air quality problems are regional in scope, five counties (Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Mont- gomery, and Philadelphia) have been designated as the Southeast Pennsylvania Air Basin. Aggressive control programs are being formulated to bring air quality into conformance with standards and to insure that the improved air quality will be maintained. Noise The Buckingham Township Zoning Ordinance has noise standards which limit the loudness at property lines. These standards do not apply to the operation of motor vehicles or other transportation facili- ties, construction or demolition of structures, or emergency alarm or time signals. Wildlife Wildlife populations in Buckingham Township are typical of tradi- tionally agricultural and rural areas in southeastern Pennsylvania. A mosaic of open land, forests, stream valleys, and suburban areas provides food and cover for a variety of wildlife species. Twenty- two species of amphibians and twenty-four species of reptiles are known or deemed likely to occur in Bucks County; most of these species are expected to frequent Buckingham Township on a regular 11 ------- basis for feeding, breeding, or at least intermittent stopovers daring annual migrations. Thirty-six species of mammals are known or expected to occur in the Township. Of the 369 species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals deemed potentially as permanent residents, or migrants in the Town- ship, six species are considered endangered at either the State or Federal levels. These include one amphibian (the coastal plain leopard frog), three reptiles, and two (possibly three) birds. Two other species (both reptiles) of indeterminate status in Pennsyl- vania might inhabit Buckingham Township. No mammal classified as endangered or threatened at the State or Federal level is known or expected to occur in Buckingham Township. Existing Land Use Buckingham Township has a rural/agricultural character as depicted in Figure 3. The percentage distribution of various land use types is depicted in Table 3. The most prevalent land use in the Town- ship is agricultural with residential and undeveloped lands repre- senting the two other categories of significance. Table 3. Land use distribution (BCPC 1977a). Land Use Category Percent of Township Agricultural 54.12 Residential 27.25 Vacant and undeveloped 14.17 Commercial and Trades 1.29 Utilities 1.10 Government and education 0.75 Manufacturing and resource production 0.70 Parks and entertainment 0.62 Buckingham Township's Comprehensive Plan (1974) and Zoning Ordi- nance (1975) serve as the existing basis for future growth (Figure 4). These two land management controls together create a framework for guiding the location and amount of development within the Town- ship. The majority of the Township is designated for agricultural or low density rural residential uses for which a non-sewered approach for wastewater treatment is most appropriate and economi- cal. There also exists a Development District which is intended for higher density residential, commercial, and industrial uses. In this District, a limited amount of sewering already exists. Additional sewering on a small scale, or non-sewered community sep- tic systems are appropriate options for the handling of wastewater needs in this Development District. There is increasing development pressure in Buckingham Township. This growth pressure is likely to influence Buckingham Township's rural character. Subdivision of land for residential use has been occurring at a fast rate (BCPC 1977a). An objective of the Buck- ingham Township zoning ordinance is to curtail sprawl development and focus growth in a defined Development District. There are strict performance standards that maximize open space in agricul- tural areas. Also, Buckingham Township has a system of Transfer 12 ------- Figure 3 LAND COVER ^3 SUBURBAN ¦I URBAN W&h QUARRY f~~l AGRICULTURE 8 OPEN r~l OLDFIELD H3 forest • INCLUDES SUBURBAN 13 ------- Figure 4 ZONING I | AGRICULTURAL I INSTITUTIONAL PC PLANNED COMMERCIAL p, PLANNED n INDUSTRIAL VILLAGE CENTER VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL RX3 NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DEV. DISTRICT, AG. DISTRICT COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL 14 ------- Development Rights (TDR). The TDR program allows property owners outside the Development District to transfer their "development right" to property owners in the Development District. The TDR program is a voluntary program that provides compensation for restrictions on land outside of the Development District (serving to permanently preserve open space). In exchange, the developer in the Development District obtains a density bonus, enabling him to build more units than would be permissible without purchase of the TDR. In 1979 Buckingham Township conducted a referendum vote to decide whether the Township should purchase the development rights to land in the agricultural district, forever preserving open space there. This referendum was defeated by a wide margin. Curative Amendments Within Buckingham Township, there are seven development proposals which are based upon proposed curative amendments to the Township's zoning ordinance. These proposals were filed to "correct" what developers have claimed are exclusionary elements of the Township's zoning ordinance. These seven proposed developments affect 914 acres (about 4% of the Township's land area) and represent a total of 8,095 proposed residential units. There were 2,131 dwelling units estimated in Buckingham Township in 1975 (BCPC 1977). Clearly, the impact of these developments upon Buckingham Township will be significant. These curative amendment developments repre- sent controversial and complex issues that need to be carefully considered. Population The 1970 census count for Buckingham Township was 5,150 persons and a special census conducted in 1975 counted 6,956 persons. Table 4 lists the population of Buckingham Township, a group of Central Bucks County municipalities, and Bucks County itself since 1940. Population growth through these years has been substantial and reflects the suburbanization/urbanization processes that have been centered around the City of Philadelphia. Table 4. Population growth. DATE Area T9T6 1950 19615 1970 1975 Buckingham 2,350 3,007 4,018 5,150 6,956 Central Bucks* 17,927 22,278 32,581 48,927 55,760 Bucks County 107,715 144,620 308,567 416,728 459,491 PERCENT GROWTH PER YEAR OVER PERIOD DATE Area 1940 1950 1960 1970 1975 Buckingham 2.8 3.4 2.8 7.0 Central Bucks — 2.4 4.6 5.0 2.8 Bucks County — 3.4 11.3 3.5 2.1 •Central Bucks includes the Townshipp of Buckingham, Doylestown, New Britain, Plumstead, Solebury, Warrington, and Warwick and the Boroughs of Chalfont, Doylestown, New Britain and New Hope 15 ------- Table 4. Population Growth (concluded). PERCENTAGE DATE Area 1940 1950 1960 1970 1975 Buckingham as a percent of: Central Bucks 13.2 13.5 12.3 10.5 12.5 Bucks County 2.2 2.1 1.3 1.2 1.5 Central Bucks as a percent of: Bucks County 16.6 15.4 10.6 11.7 12.1 The Township has eight Village Centers that represent concentra- tions of population. In addition, Buckingham has a designated Development District. The draft Facility Plan analyzed the 1975 special census in conjunction with the 1978 School Census Report and 1978 Bucks County Land Use Survey to disaggregate the 1975 special census population. Table 5 details the results, showing the population distribution for the various areas. Table 5. 1975 special census population disaggregated. Village Centers Approximate Population Buckingham 151 Buckingham Valley 75 Forest Grove 70 Furlong 107 Lahaska 63 Mechanicsville 56 Pineville 74 Wycombe 74 Total 670 (9.6%) Development District Total District 2,680 (38.5%) District excluding Buckingham Village 2,525 (36.3%) Agricultural & Neighborhood Conservation Districts Remaining population (6,956 - 3,195) 3,761 (54.1%) Future Population Both the EIS and the Facilities Plan reviewed population pro- jections prepared for the planning area. The projections prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) were the most applicable to Buckingham Township. It should be noted that DVRPC's projections were prepared with US-EPA funds in con- junction with areawide water quality management planning (208 study). For consistency, the Construction Grants Program utilized these projections for determining its growth patterns in the planning area. These population projections are given in Table 6. 16 ------- Table 6. Population projections for Buckingham Township (DVRPC 1977). YEAR POPULATION 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 7,828 8,729 9,619 10,495 11,363 Cultural Resources Existing Wastewater Systems On-site Systems These population projections estimate an increase of 3,535 people or 45% over the 20 year wastewater management planning period. Such a growth rate represents an average annual population increase of 1.9% which is greater than the estimated county growth rate of 0.8% for the same period. No prehistoric archaeological sites in Buckingham Township are recorded on the National Register of Historic Places or the Penn- sylvania Inventory of archaeological sites. Review of literature at the Bucks County Historical Society, in Doylestown Pennsylvania, however, identified 24 prehistoric sites which had been located by Henry Mercer in 1891 and were recorded in Ann Shoemaker's, The Red Man in Bucks County. These sites were mapped and most were located adjacent to major streams in Buckingham Township. Many additional prehistoric sites probably occur in this area. There were no historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Buckingham Township. Three historic places were listed on the Pennsylvania Inventory and 14 were recorded on the Bucks County Register. Site forms listing 23 additional sites on the Bucks County Register are presently in preparation. Under supervision of Ms. Linda Loughran, an inventory of all known his- toric structures in Buckingham Township is being prepared by the Buckingham Township Historical Commission. At present 12 historic districts have been studied and evaluated. Holicong Village is listed on the Pennsylvania Inventory. Nomination forms have been submitted for Mechanicsville and Spring Valley. It is anticipated that all 12 villages will be submitted for listing on the Pennsyl- vania Inventory. Additional historic structures in the Township will be studied and mapped by the Township Historical Commission in the near future. There are currently four types of wastewater systems operating in Buckingham Township: • On-site methods using septic tanks and/or cesspools • Community treatment systems with subsurface effluent disposal • Package treatment plants with stream discharge • Conveyance for treatment and disposal outside of the Township. The location of these wastewater systems is shown in Figure 5, with the exception of individual on-site systems. The principal wastewater disposal systems used in Buckingham Town- ship are septic tanks and/or cesspools. It is estimated that there are approximately 2,600 of such on-site systems in use by 17 ------- / / \/ / X / \ Figure 5 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES » PRIVATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY w (STREAM DISCHARGE) ¦ COMMUNITY SYSTEMS (SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL) CANTERBURY- ESTATES / - --'6 I INDIAN ' WALK .PEDDLERS VILLAGE CENTRAL BUCKS EAST> HIGH SCHOOL -SEWERED AREA ''Xv' DURHAM | VILLAGE APPLE' HILL .BilCKINGHAM 'ELEMENTARY SCHOOL / V,, "XJ1 JEHOVAH S| WITNESSES' /*' ' x J '\ / /•* 18 ------- residences with additional systems utilized by commercial estab- lishments in Buckingham Township. It is estimated that nearly the entire population (98%) is served by on-site systems. Malfunctioning The facility planning effort included a 3-phase approach to define Septic Tank Systems the magnitude of malfunctioning septic tank systems within the Township. Phase I - Water Quality Mail Survey: A questionnaire concerning the adequacy of sewage disposal at individual parcels was sent to township property owners. Phase II - Data Verificaton: Parcels where survey data indicated previous problems existed were reviewed with the township engineer and building inspector. Areas requiring additional study were identified. Phase III - Field Survey: Areas indicated by concentrated on-site disposal problems were visited for field verification of data and to quantify the magnitude of parcels requiring other wastewater treatment and disposal methods. These efforts defined Central Buckingham Village and Red Gate Farm areas as concentrated problem areas. On a Township-wide basis, there are scattered malfunctioning systems. The water quality mail survey indicated that 12% of the systems have problems. US-EPA subsequently prepared a Township-wide aerial photographic survey of existing septic tank systems. The basic technique relies on the photo-interpretation of characteristic patterns of plant foliage distress and excessive soil moisture levels utilizing color infrared films. These methods are used to identify those septic tank malfunctions that are noticeable on.the ground surface. Those malfunctions in which sewage backs up into the house or septic tank effluent percolates too rapidly through the soil to be adequately renovated cannot be detected by aerial imagery. The actual causes of septic tank failures may be from one or more of the following (Slonecker 1980): (1) The soil in the absorption field has too slow a percolation rate to allow for adequate assimilation, filtration, and biodegration of sewage effluent flowing into it. (2) The septic system is installed too close to an underlying impervious layer. (3) The septic system may have been installed in an area where the seasonal water table is too high for its designed use. (4) The soil in the absorption field has too high a percolation rate for effective attenuation of the septic effluent prior to its reaching the underlying groundwater. (5) Mechanical malfunctions, or breakage, in the septic tank, distribution box, and/or drainfield pipes have occured. (6) Caustic, toxic or otherwise harmful substances which could kill bacteria in the septic tank and/or absorption field, and cause subsequent clogging, have been introduced into the septic system. (7) All or part of the system has been improperly installed. 19 ------- When the aerial imagery findings (called EPIC data, as this work was done for US-EPA's Environmental Photographic InterPretation Center) is contrasted to the facility planning efforts the following observations can be made: • The aerial overflight used for the EPIC study provided Township-wide overview whereas the facility planning efforts were based on receipt of questionnaires, interviews, and limited field surveys. • EPIC identified problems in areas with a poor questionnaire return rate. This could infer that people are hesitant to report malfunctioning systems. • The percentage of septic systems experiencing problems (as reported by facility planning questionnaires) is 12%. The percentage of malfunctioning septic tank systems identified in the EPIC study is 15%. • The percentage of failures found via questionnaires and by EPIC correlate well. • The EPIC overflight of the entire Township indicated 400 problems throughout the Township whereas the questionnaire indicated 100 suspected or identified problems. Treatment Systems There are three privately-owned wastewater treatment facilities in With Stream Buckingham Township, (also, there is a fourth facility - Peddlars Discharge Village - just outside Buckingham) which have stream effluent dis- charges. These three facilities all discharge into the Mill Creek drainage basin. The Peddlar's Village plant discharges to Aquetong Creek in Solebury Township. All are "package" type treatment facilities with average flows and capacities as given in Table 7. The Jehovah's Witness Assembly Hall is an exception which is a septic tank-sand filter system. Table 7. Wastewater treatment facilities with stream discharge of effluent. Treatment Plant Avg. Daily Flow (qpd) Capacity (gpd) Central Bucks High School - East 12,900 35,000 Buckingham Elementary School 4,000 9,240 Jehovah's Witnesses Assembly Hall ** ** Peddlar's Village 17 ,400 50,000 ~~wastewater flows not monitored. Collection and Conveyance for Treatment Outside the Township In the Cross Keys Areas located in the western corner of the Town- ship, there is approximately 11,400 feet of 8" diameter sewers. The sewers are owned and maintained by the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority. These sewers currently serve 40 residences, 30 commercial establishments, and the Cross Keys Office Complex. These uses contribute an estimated average daily flow of 18,000 20 ------- gpd. These sewers connect to the Chalfont-New Britain system and may accommodate a flow up to 525,000 gpd. It appears that the capacity far exceeds the current estimated flow; however, there are PA-DER imposed restrictions on connections to the Chalfont-New Britain wastewater treatment facility. This facility is operating at its design capacity of 2 mqd and cannot accept any additional wastewater flows until its treatment capabilities are expanded and upgraded to meet water pollution control requirements set by the state. Currently the Chalfont-New Britain Joint Sewer Authority and the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority are conducting a wastewater facility planning effort similar to that of Buckingham Township. Community Subsurface There are four systems that have community treatment and disposal Disposal Systems of wastewater in Buckingham Township. These systems serve subdivi- sions and are summarized below: Table 8. Community subsurface disposal systems. Estimated Number Subdivision Flow (qpd) of Lots Durham Village 13,400 60 Apple Hill 5,600 25 Canterbury Estates 3,800 17 Indian Walk 2,200 10 Two of these community systems (Apple Hill and Canterbury Estates) are currently under orders from the Bucks County Health Department to undertake remedial aciton. The other two systems do not have any orders outstanding, but there are some indication of potential problems which may require corrective action. 21 ------- CHAPTER III Alternatives for Wastewater Management ------- CHAPTER III - ALTERNATIVES FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT The Buckingham Township Facility Plan describes alternative waste- water management plans to meet the Township's current and future needs. These alternatives were developed in a systematic manner whereby numerous methods to collect, treat, and dispose of waste- water were considered. The appropriateness of different techniques were judged. Those that were inappropriate were screened from further consideration. The most promising techniques were retained. Table 9 details the documented wastewater management needs of Buck- ingham Township. All proposed solutions must satisfy these existing needs. Anticipated growth for the next 20 years in the service area also must be evaluated during the alternative screening process. Prior to developing alternative solutions the following general approaches were considered: • No-action • Optimum operation of existing facilities • Optimum integration of existing facilities The no-action plan does not provide solution for any of the existing needs nor provide an effective plan to deal with future needs. The optimum operation of existing facilities (i.e. sewers, treat- ment plant, and on-site systems) would partially resolve the waste- water management problems in Buckingham Township. Improved mainte- nance of on-site treatment systems would minimize the number of malfunctioning systems throughout the Township. However, improved maintenance of Red Gate Farms and Central Buckingham Village systems would not provide solutions. The optimum operation of existing wastewater treatment plants may not provide the required treatment to meet stream discharge standards. However, the con- tinued use of existing treatment facilities deserves further attention because plant modifications are a feasible means of meeting existing disposal requirements. The optimum integration of existing facilities was considered on a regional scale (i.e. with facilities beyond Buckingham Township's boundaries). The opportunity to regionalize appears minimal due to economic and environmental considerations. Within Buckingham Town- ship, the distance among existing facilities generally makes it uneconomicial to interconnect, except possibly for the Buckingham Village Area, where there are existing on-site systems, community systems, and wastewater treatment plants. Structural There are many ways in which wastewater collection, treatment, and Alternatives disposal can be accomplished. The preliminary screening of alter- natives is presented in Table 10. From this list of remaining options other wastewater system alternatives were developed. The systems developed consist of four categories: • Individual systems • Community systems • Combination of individual and community systems • Integrated community systems Conceptual representations of each of these systems are shown in Figure 6. 23 ------- Table 9. Wastewater management needs of Buckingham Township. Area Summary of Need Extent of Need Red Gate Farms Central Buckingham Village Apple Hill Canterbury Estates Field survey indicated septic tank-soil absorption systems in need of renovation, replacement, or elimination. Field survey indicated malfunctioning on-site systems and the reliance on holding tanks. Community subsurface disposal system serving development has malfunctioned and is under orders from the Bucks County Health Dept. to take corrective action. Community subsurface disposal system has malfunctioned and is under orders from the Bucks County Health Dept. to take corrective action. Existing wastewater flow is estimated to be 3,900 gpd. With adequate treatment facil- ities, wastewater flow is estimated to increase to 4,600 gpd. Wastewater flow is estimated to be 8,200 gpd. All parcels in the needs area are developed. No increase in wastewater flow is projected. Estimated flow from the currently developed lots is 5,600 gpd. At full develop- ment, wastewater flow will increase to 8,300 gpd. There are 17 lots developed, generating an estimated 3,800 gpd of wastewater. Buckingham Elemen- tary School Existing package wastewater treatment plant may need to be upgraded to meet effluent limitations pending State action. Current wastewater generation estimated to be 7,000 gpd. Central Bucks East High School Peddlar1s Village Existing package wastewater treatment plant may need to be upgraded to meet effluent limitations pending State action. Existing package wastewater treatment plant may need to be upgraded to meet effluent limitations. Current wastewater generation is 12,900 gpd. Current wastewater generation is 17,400 gpd. Jehovah's Witnesses The existing septic tank-sand filter system may need to be upgraded to meet effluent limitations. Individual Scattered Lots Areas to be Developed Scattered problems throughout the Township as identified by field surveys, mail questionnaires, and EPIC study. Future development in Buckingham Township will need provisions for wastewater treatement and disposal. Approximately 12-15% of on-site systems are suspected or reported as malfunctioning, Township-wide. 24 ------- Table 10. Screening of alternative collection, treatment, and disposal methods (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1980). ALTERNATIVE APPLICABILITY YES NO COMMENTS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES On-Site Septic tanks Aerobic units Lagoons Physical-chemical systems Wastewater segregation X X X X X With surface application. Basic cost prohibitive. Liquid portion requires treatment. Off-Site Septic tanks Aerobic units (biological treatment) Lagoons (biological treatment) Physical-chemical systems Land treatment COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Conventional gravity sewers Small diameter gravity sewers Pressure sewers Vacuum sewers DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE On-Site Holding tanks Land disposal Subsurface Conventional Alternate Surface Application Stream discharge Reuse Off-Site Holding tanks Land disposal Subsurface Conventional Alternate Surface application Slow rate land application Rapid infiltration Overland flow Stream discharge Reuse X x x X X X X X X X X X X X X Preceed by on-site treatment. Basic costs prohibitive based on topography and area needs. When in conformance with DER regulations. Depending on types allowed by DER. Slow rate land application. Basic cost prohibitive. Indirect reuse only. When in conformance with DER regulations. Depending on types allowed by DER. Based on groundwater protection measures. Using stream discharge. Affects groundwater supply. Indirect reuse only. 25 ------- Figure 6. Conceptual representation of wastewater system alternatives. Individual Systems: Combination of on- Individual and Community Systems: site treatment and disposal alternatives on individual parcels. No collection alternative is included. r /• 9\ U ~) r A v * i \^j) Individual parcels with problems in an area would be combined, parcels without problems, would continue to use individual systems. V 1 Community Systems: A combination of all parcels in an area to provide treatment and disposal of wastewater. Collection alternatives are included in the combination of parcels in the system. Inteqrated Community System: Where other community systems are nearby, several systems may be integrated into a larger system. 26 ------- Non-Sewered Approach The Buckingham Sewer and Water Commission chose to emphasize a "non-sewered" approach in the Facility Plan. A "non-sewered" approach which relies on the maximum decentralization of wastewater management, guided the planning of wastewater facilities in Buck- ingham Township. This approach is in contrast to the concept of reqionalization, whereby wastewater management typically is accom- plished by sewering extensive areas using long reaches of pipe; building a centrally-located treatment plant; and discharging treated effluent to surface waters. The appropriateness of the non-sewered approach to Buckingham's rural agricultural character was established at the start of the Facility Planning process. It should be noted that the non-sewered approach does not preclude additional development. The non-sewered approach as developed for use in Buckingham Township provides the following basis for solving present and future wastewater manage- ment needs: • Limited expansion and/or upgrading of existing facilities as necessary • Future needs to be accommodated at a decentralized level (i.e. individual homeowners and/or developers) where possible • Wastewater recycling to be accomplished as much as possible by septic tank systems and other wastewater renovation techniques using land as part of the treatment process The alternative collection, treatment and disposal options of Tables 11, 12, and 13 were considered with respect to each of the identified needs. A complex alternatives development process was performed by the Townships's consulting engineer. The process was refined and modified as additional information became available on parameters such as soil conditions, groundwater quality, and septic malfunctions. The major steps of the alternatives development process are described below: (1) A total of 53 wastewater management options were created to meet the needs which initially concentrated on Red Gate Farms, Central Buckingham Village, and Buckingham Elementary School. At this time, the Apple Hill problems had not been clearly established as a need nor had all of Buckingham Village been considered as a potential service area. (2) Screening of the 53 options reduced to 25 the number of plans considered for preliminary cost estimates. The preliminary costs indicated that the least cost solutions for Red Gate Farms and Central Buckingham Village were: • A community system for Central Buckingham Village consisting of a central septic tank-soil absorption system. • A combination of individual and community systems for Red Gate Farms where individual septic tanks would be connected to a central soil absorption field. (3) Subsurface testing at potential sites for the soil absorption systems indicated that they generally were unsuitable, contrary to the information derived from the soil survey. (4) Based on the soils testing, wastewater management alternatives were reviewed with consideration of serving Red Gate Farms, 27 ------- Table 11. Alternative wastewater treatment and disposal methods for individual systems (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1980). Continue present practice of individual on-site treatment and disposal (depending on soil and site characteristics). Upgrade individual private systems where conditions require. A - Septic tank - Soil absorption system (SAS) B - Septic tank - Mound C - Septic tank - Sand-lined bed (SLB) D - Septic tank - Shallow placement area (SPA) E - Aerobic unit - SAS F - Aerobic unit - Mound G - Aerobic unit - SLB H - Aerobic unit - SPA X - Aerobic unit - Slow rate land application J - Pond System - Slow rate land application K - Individual holding tank Table 12. Alternative wastewater treatment and disposal methods for individual-community systems (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1980). y Combination of wastewater from several dwellings in collection systems to lands that have suitable soils and size. Lots which could use on-site disposal would not connect to the collection system. A - On-site Treatment with Central Land Disposal 1 Septic tanks - SAS 2 Septic tanks - Alternate disposal systems 3 Aerobic units - SAS 4 Aerobic units - Alternate disposal systems 5 Aerobic units - Slow rate land application B - Off-site Treatment and Central Land Disposal 1 Central septic tank - SAS 2 Central Septic tank - Alternate systems 3 Central aerobic unit - SAS 4 Central aerobic unit - Alternate systems 5 Central aerobic unit - Slow rate land application 6 Package-type treatment unit - Slow rate land application 7 Oxidation ditch - Slow rate land application 8 Lagoon/pond system - Slow rate land application 9 Transport to existing wastewater treatment plant - Upgrade to achieve disposal by slow rate land application C - Off-site Treatment with Central Stream Discharge 1 Package-type, treatment unit 2 Lagoon/pond system - Overland flow 3 Transport to existing wastewater treatment plant - Upgrade to achieve direct discharge effluent limitations D - Central Holding Tank 28 ------- Table 13. Alternative wastewater treatment and disposal methods for community systems (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1980). Wastewater collected within designated service area to a central treatment and disposal area. A - Central septic tank - Soil absorption field B - Central septic tank - Alternate systems C - Central aerobic unit - SAS D - Central aerobic unit - Alternate systems E - Central aerobic unit - Slow rate land application F - Package-type treatment unit - Slow rate land application G - Oxidation ditch - Slow rate land application H - Lagoon/pond system - Slow rate land application I - Transport to existing wastewater treatment plant - Upgrade to achieve disposal by slow rate land application J - Transport to existing wastewater treatment plant - Upgrade to achieve direct discharge effluent limitations K - Holding tank 29 ------- Central Buckingham Village, Buckingham Elementary School, and potentially all of Buckingham Village. (5) The problems of Apple Hill and Canterbury Estates reached the severity where the Bucks County Health Department issued citations requiring appropriate corrective measures to be taken. Access to a new site near Red Gate Farms to perform subsurface soils testing Its granted. Potentially suitable soils for septic tank absorption systems were indicated for this site which upon testing were found unsuitable, but acceptable for other methods of land application of treated wastewater such as slow rate land application (spray irrigation). Alternatives From this alternatives development process, the following five plans were selected for evaluation in the EIS. Alternative 1. No Action. The no-action alternative describes the continued utilization of existing wastewater treatment facilities in conjunction with current management practices. Alternative 2. Spray irrigation of wastewaters collected _fr_om Red Gate Farms and Central Buckingham Village (Figure 7). Thia alternative would serve Red Gate Farms (17 existing lots with provision for 3 additional lots) and Central Buckingham Village (36 provision t dwelling units). The wastewater generated from these' two areas would be collected and conveyed to a storage chlorinated, and applied to the land via spray irrigation. The design average wastewater flow under Alternative 2 is 12,800 gallons per day (gpd). Alternative 3. Use of an upgraded and expanded package treatment It Buckingham Elementary School to accommodate Red Gate FarriTg l^d Central Buckingham Village (Figure_8j. Alternative 3 would collect the wastewaters generated at the.Red Gate Farms and Central Buckingham Village areas and transport it to the Buckingham Elementary School site. The school's existing package wastewater treatment plant would be upgraded and expanded with the treated effluent discharged to Lahaska Creek. The average w " ™!er flow (16,800 gpd) is slightly greater than that of Alternative 2, as the flow from the Buckingham Elementary School ia included. 4. Sorav irrigation of wastewaters collected from r&h G~ate Farms and Buckingham Village (Figure 9 _)_. This alternative would serve the Red Gate Farms area and the Buck- • villaae area. Buckingham Village is significantly larger Jhir and incorporates Central Buckingham Village. A wastewater f!ow of 40,000Ppgd was projected for the village. The facility £ian also indicates that this flow could include the wastewater flow from Apple Hill. The wastewater management of Apple Hill ia flow from APP Chapter V, Option Areas. The total average waBte- «i. «.«o «* m wastewater is to be treated by spray irrigation. 30 ------- Figure 7 ALTERNATIVE 2 / / x/ / v / v. / X / X / X X / X 31 ------- Figure 8 ALTERNATIVE 3 32 ------- Figure 9 ALTERNATIVE 4 /n / / \/ / X / s /¦ x/ REDC GATE -BUCKINGHAM VILLAGE , / POTENTIAL Trrig SPRAY IRRIGATE SITE V v/ \ \ / /< A / /~ \ I 1 /s> / N sT » — v V/ "A I •*/ / / Al ' J / v 1 / . / \ 33 ------- Summary of Alternatives Privately Owned Treatment Plants Scattered On-Site Systems Areas To Be Developed Sewer Extensions Alternative 5. Use of an upgraded and expanded package treatment plant at the Buckingham Elementary School to accommodate Red Gate Farms and Buckingham Village (Figure 10). Alternative 5 is similar to Alternative 4 in the amount of waste- water to be treated. The wastewater flows from Red Gate Farms and Buckingham Village would be collected and conveyed to the Bucking- ham Elementary School for treatment. The existing package treat- ment plant would be greatly expanded and upgraded to accommodate an average wastewater flow of 48,600. The treated effluent would be discharged to Lahaska Creek. The alternative wastewater management plans are summarized as to areas served, type of wastewater treatment and design average wastewater flows in Table 14. Canterbury Estates, Peddlar's Village and the Jehovah's Witnesses facilities are privately-owned and not in proximity to areas having the potential for public sewerage. Consequently, site-specific solutions to their needs were not developed at this time. However, the screening of alternative collection, treatment, and disposal options (Table 10) provides a framework from which appropriate alternatives can be identified for site-specific evaluation. Because these problems are scattered, it was not feasible to provide a single structural alternative to remedy the problems. However, a general evaluation methodology was developed (Table 11) which outlines site-specific measures that are available to address the needs. The measures available to individual homeowners include repair or replacement of malfunctioning systems, use of an alterna- tive subsurface disposal method (such as aerobic treatment units or elevated sand mounds), and use of holding tanks. In most cases the individual homeowners would not need to utilize holding tanks as a remedy. The wastewater treatment needs of future development are to be evaluated by the same general evaluation methodology for the scattered problem areas. If individual solutions are not feasible, then the individual-community systems (Table 12) or community systems (Table 13) need to be explored. A small portion of Buckingham Township is already sewered. There are some adjacent areas that could be sewered by extension of existing sewer system. These extensions would require no pumping of wastewater and would have a depth of not greater than 25 feet below ground surface. In areas adjacent to existing sewers, the construction of extensions would be permissible, if the site~ specific costs for doing so were less than other alternative methods. Alternatives in order to implement the alternative Alternative A 8e"*®nt' options were developed. The varied approaches to Management Options "'"StiOT and maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities are operation ana Thege tions range from comprehensive presented n ownership of the system (Option 1) to minimum JSSSS? ,P«t=ttn9 regulations ordi™,c. (Option 5). l. inns reoresent altststions and/ot additions to These management options represen ^ ^ g teU^ the e*^ting The current management functions relating to wastewater collection, treatment and disposal are presented in Table 16. 34 ------- Figure 10 ALTERNATIVE 5 /\ / / \/ ' / X / \ / - M ' /' * ' / ARMS \. -v 'BUCKINGHAM VILLAGE -BU1 JCKtNGHAM .EMENTARY SCHOOL /// /' /<' I 1 \ V /Ss / V. r l- // // / / /•- // A' 35 ------- Table 14. Summary of alternative wastewater management plans. Red Gate Alternative Farms Central Buckingham Village Buckingham Village Buckingham Elementary School Wastewater Treatment Method Design Average Wastewater Flow (gpdj^ Spray Irrigation Package Treatment Plant Spray Irrigation Package Treatment Plant 12,800 16,800 44,600 48,600 36 ------- Table 15. Operation and maintenance management function options (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1980). Option No. 1 Public Ownership/Public Operation and Maintenance - Township ownership of all wastewater treatment and disposal systems? - Operation and maintenance function the responsibility of the Township - not the property ownerj and - Property owner is a customer or user of the system. 2 Private Ownership/Public Operation and Maintenance - System ownership by the property owner? - Township responsible for operation and maintenance functions? and - Property owner is a customer of the system. 3 Private Ownership/Private Operation and Maintenance With Public Assurance Program and Pump Out - System ownership by the property owner; - Property owner responsible for system operation and maintenance? and - Township inspects, and monitors operation, and requires proof of pump out of septage once every three years. 4 Private Ownership/Private Operation and Maintenance With Public Assurance Program - System ownership by the property owner? - Property owner responsible for system operation and maintenance? and - Township inspects and monitors operation. 5 Private Ownership/Private Operation and Maintenance (Present ordinances are implemented) - System ownership by the property owner? - Property owner responsible for system operation and maintenance? and - Township receives from owners of community and spray irrigation system monitoring reports. 37 ------- Table 16. Management functions performed (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1980). GOVERNMENT ENTITY MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS Planning System Design Subsurface - Individual on-site - Community Land Disposal (Surface) Stream Discharge Permitting Construction Review/Inspection Subsurface - Individual on-site - Community Land Disposal (Surface) Stream Discharge Operation and Maintenance Systems Inspection/Monitoring Subsurface - Individual on-site - Community Land Disposal (Surface) Stream Discharge Maintenance^ - Cleaning - Rehabilitation/Repair Financing5 Subsurface - Individual on-site - Community Land Disposal (Surface) Stream Discharge PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 02 02 BUCKS COUNTY • 1 • 1 BUCKINGHAM TOWNSHIP 0 0 02. 3 02, 3 02, 3 Public Education •6 • = Function performed. 0 = Function not performed, but enabling legislation passed. 1 This function is only performed by Bucks County when a possible malfunction has been brought to its attention. 2 These functions are not being performed because of budget constraints. 3 The present ordinance only considers the monitoring aspects of the operation and maintenance function. 4 This is the responsibility of the Owner. 5 The financing function as presented relates to the establishment of an escrow account f specified time period to cover the construction and operation and maintenance costs. 0t • 6 Bucks County only performs the public education function as related to subsurface individual on-site systems. 38 ------- In addition to the alternative management options set forth in Table 15 (which focus on the operation and maintenance of systems), Buckingham Township has enacted the following ordinance:; strengthening other aspects of local wastewater management: • individual on-site system bonding • community subsurface absorption systems • slow rate land application systems (spray irrigation), and • package wastewater treatment facilities These ordinances would complement the alternative operation and maintenance options. The ordinances would increase controls for planning, design, and monitoring of community systems whether they utilize subsurface disposal, spray irrigation, or stream discharge. With respect to new individual on-site systems a bond of $2,500 on the installation cost (whichever is greater) would be posted for two years to insure that the system operates properly. For new developments using community subsurface or spray irrigation facilities, a construction escrow account (120% of estimated construction cost) and an operation and maintenance fund (three times the estimated annual operation and and maintenance costs) would be required. The unused funds would be returned to the home- owner association two years after all units are sold and an operat- ion permit has been issued by the Township. 39 ------- CHAPTER IV Comparison of Alternatives ------- CHAPTER IV. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES Organization This chapter compares the alternative elements of the overall of Chapter wastewater management plan. It is subdivided into the following components: Component 1 — Existing Clustered Service Area Alternatives The costs and environmental evaluation of the site-specific structural alternatives for the Red Gate Farms and Buckingham Village areas are analyzed. Component 2 — Existing Scattered Needs and Future Development Needs The "non-sewered" approach is considered to meet existing needs scattered through the Township as well as to meet the needs of future development. Component 3 — Management Programs The different options for managing wastewater collection, treat- ment and disposal are evaluated. COMPONENT 1 —EXISTING CLUSTERED SERVICE AREA ALTERNATIVES Costs of The costs of the alternative wastewater management plans were Alternatives presented in Buckingham's Facility Plan for those alternatives requiring land (2 and 4); land values of $3,000 and $11,000 per acre were evaluated. US-EPA in this EIS considered land value costs at $15,000 per acre, based on experiences in other Environ- mental Impact Statements prepared for wastewater facilities in the vicinity of Buckingham Township. Table 17 presents the costs of the alternative wastewater manage- ment plans and includes the capital cost to implement the alterna- tive, the annual cost of operation and maintenance and the salvage value at the end of the planning period. The following definitions explain the different cost elements and their significance: Present Worth; The sum of money (which if invested now at a given rate) would provide all necessary expenditures over the life of the project. The present worth is used to compare projects on an equal basis. It enables a parallel comparison of alternatives which may cost more initially but are more economical to operate and maintain as contrasted with alternatives that are less costly to construct but more expensive to operate and maintain. In the case of Buckingham Township wastewater management alterna- tives, those alternatives with stream discharge (3 and 5) are less expensive to construct but more costly to operate (electricity, chemicals, labor) than land treatment alternatives. Capital: The costs necessary to construct wastewater treatment facilities. These include both the costs of construction and non- construction costs (e.g. engineering, legal, and administrative costs). 41 ------- Operation and Maintenance: (frequently referred to as O&M) The costs of normal operation and maintenance of facilities, including electricity, chemicals, labor and other consumable items. Land application systems (Alternatives 2 and 4) have lower operational costs than similar sized package wastewater treatment facilities (Alternatives 3 and 5) Salvage; The mandated planning period for wastewater facilities is 20 years. At the end of the planning period, most components are still useful. The salvage value is used to represent the dollar value of still useful components at the end of twenty years. With respect to land costs, US-EPA permits an appreciation rate of 3 percent compounded annually based on historical differences between local land cost escalation and construction cost escalation. For the two land application alternatives (2 and 4) the salvage value of the land due to the 3 percent appreciation rate more than offsets the depreciation of the remaining components. The costs were compared on the basis of present worth per equiva- lent dwelling unit (e.d.u.) served because each alternative had a different number of users. Alternatives 4 and 5 both had the lowest present worth per e.d.u. and either alternative would be cost-effective. However, if the cost of land were less than $15,000 per acre and/or some benefits (sale of crops grown, leasing of land for secondary uses) were realized, Alternative 4 would become more cost-effective. If there were no Federal cost-sharing provisions or if the Township chose not to seek Federal assistance, the costs to the users could be estimated based on equal shares per equivalent dwelling unit for: • amortizing capital costs at 1 percent over a 20 year period • operation and maintenance costs • administration costs ($l,500/year for Alternatives 2 and 3; $2,000/year for Alternatives 4 and 5) • 50 feet of laterals from house to sewer These estimated costs are: Annual User Alternative Cost Per e.d.u. 1,095 640 604 499 . r> ¦ aeeififthe dnitual user costs ar© all Without federal sw9 . $l,095/year). The least expensive rather high user costs) would be Alternative 5. , It should project (in terms ^ ^ ^ ianfl were $9,160 per acre instead of then the user costs tor both Alternatives 4 and T ^uld be S499 per e.d_.u. per year. «. -varinn orovisions are applied, US-EPA will fund ih fof eeriaigible costs of conventional wastewater facilities and the Tnino 25% must be funded locally. To encourage the development ™£li«tiJn of "non-conventional" approaches to wastewater and *P^lc^e_EPA will fund 85% of the capital costs for systems are a. -innovative" or -alternative.- In the case 42 ------- Table 17. Costs of alternative wastewater management plans. Alternative 1 No. of e.d.u. Served Annual Total Present Capital Operation & Salvage Present Worth Cost Maintenance Value Worth Per e.d.u. 2 56 565,000 6,500 599,000 482,000 8,610 3 72 324,000 14,000 199,000 521,000 5,840 4 194 1,104,000 11,000 1,302,000 891,000 4,593 5 211 766,000 31,000 480,000 970,100 4,598 43 ------- Cost-Effectiveness of Subsurface Disposal Alternatives Environmental Evaluation Land Use and Population of the alternative wastewater management plans (2 and 4) it was assumed that the land application systems would qualify for 85% funding while the other components would be eligible for 75% funding. The user costs for Alternatives 4 and 5 are presented in Table 18, as these are the two alterantives that are the most cost-effective and therefore the only ones eligible for federal cost sharing. User charges are the costs periodically billed to the customers of the wastewater system. They consist of three parts: debt service (repayment of principal and interest), operation and maintenance costs, and administrative and supporting services. The user charges (Table 18) are presented on an average annual charge per e.d.u. basis. However, there are many different ways in which user charges can be set. There may be an initial assessment or hook-up fee which would reduce the amount to be financed lowering the annual cost. The user charge system is not set by US-EPA or PA-DER but are locally established. Because US-EPA is encouraging land based wastewater treatment systems with increased financial assistance, cost savings may be realized by users of such systems. In considering the homeowner's costs for sewerage service, the cost of land in Alternative 4's spray irrigation system could be priced at greater than $30,000/ acre and still have user costs no greater than Alternative 5. The development of alternative wastewater management plans has been an evolving process during facility planning. The alternatives developed were shaped by the availability of land and suitable soils. Preliminary planning indicated that subsurface disposal of wastewater via community soil absorption systems was most cost- effective. However, subsurface soil testing indicated that no suitable sites were available. If suitable sites for subsurface application of wastewaters from Red Gate Farms, Central Buckingham Village and/or Buckingham village were available, then a re-evaluation of the selected plan would be warranted. Existing land uses in the central area of Buckingham Township include medium and low density residential, commercial, institu- tional, and agricultural uses. With the exception of a few scattered farmhouses and residences, most of the developed uses are located within the Development District zone. Similarly, most of the future development for this area of the Township is expected to be confined to the Development District, according to both the zoning ordinance (1975) and the comprehensive plan (1974) for the Township. Lands adjacent to the proposed service areas, and along the pro- posed sewage conveyance routes, primarily are undeveloped farmland and forest. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 the proposed treatment facilities will be sized to accommodate only the wastewater flows from existing subdivided lots within the service areas. This includes all existing development, along three lots in Red Gate Farms which currently are subdivided, but undeveloped. Under Alternatives 4 and 5, which include the entire Buckingham Village area, the design flows reflect existing flows plus a defined amount of additional flows. The additional flow equals that which would be associated with complete development of the Buckingham Viliage area in accordance with the present zoning of the Development District. However, these additional design flows potentially could be utilized in part by an "option area" (Chapter V) such as Apple Hill. The actual allocation would be determined by the local authority. 44 ------- Table 18. User costs for Alternatives 4 and 5. ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE 4 5 Estimated Total Capital Cost 1,104,000 766,000 Portion of Total Classified as alternative 871,000 EPA Grant, if Eligible Alternative Portion^ (85%) 740,350 Conventional2 (75%) 174,750 574,500 TOTAL 915,100 574,500 Local Portion of Costs 188,900 191,500 1980 2000 1980 2000 Number of EDU 112 194 130 211 Estimated Annual Cost Capital O & M Administrative TOTAL Cost per Year per User Without EPA Funding With EPA Funding 17,832 7,500 2,000 a?,334 1,015 294 17,832 11,000 2,000 604 159 18,078 22,000 2,000 42,078 741 324 18,078 31,000 2,000 51,078 499 242 1 calculated at 2calculated at 3calculated at 85% funding 75% funding 7% over 20 years 45 ------- None of the proposed alternative systems are anticipated to induce secondary development. The treatment capacity of each alternative system is designed to handle only existing development, or, in the cases of Alternatives 4 and 5, a small amount of future develop- ment. This future development will not be substantial (at most approximately 250 persons), will occur within the township's Development District, and will be subject to the regulations of the township's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. This level of development could reasonably be expected to occur without the project and is therefore not considered as induced development. The goals and objectives of Buckingham Township relate to the preservation of the rural nature of the area and a "non-sewered" approach in managing its wastewater needs. Federal, State, and regional policies also encourage the use of a "non-sewered" approach, where feasible, in order to take advantage of the asso- ciated environmental benefits. US-EPA, PA-DER, and the DVRPC each support land application of wastewater as a viable alternative to traditional treatment processes. US-EPA policies require the consideration of land treatment alternatives and encourage the implementation of such systems which have lower operation and maintenance costs and require less energy. The DVRPC in its 208 Water Quality Plan similarly recommends the use of a non-sewered approach where cost-effective. Both the Buckingham Township zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan are compatible with the non- sewered concept as a local goal and objective for land use and water quality considerations. In this specific portion of central Buckingham Township, the proposed alternatives which involve traditional stream discharge (Alternatives 3 and 5) are less compatible with these local and regional policy objectives. Alter- native 1 (No Action) is incompatible with water quality objectives at all levels of government since existing wastewater problems remain unsolved. Alternatives 2 and 4 closely conform to the stated policies and goals of the Township and other agencies with respect to water quality considerations and open space preser- vation. However, all of the Alternatives (except No Action) are compatible with the goals and policies for a non-sewered approach for the remainder of the Township through the proposed implemen- tation of a general management plan for handling scattered existing and future wastewater needs. Spray Irrigation The spray irrigation facilities proposed for Alternatives 2 and 4 Land Requirements will preserve as open space between 15 and 37 acres of land (Table 19). The land requirements associated with spray irrigation include sites for actual irrigation of the land based on the absorption capablity of the soils and vegetative cover. Also included is land needed for associated facilities (such as a holding pond) as well as a minimum 200 foot buffer zone around the spray site in accordance with PA-DER regulations. Alternatives 1 3, and 5 will not directly preserve land as an open space use because no land aquisition is proposed under these alternatives. Table 19. Land requirements for the operation of proposed spray irrigation facilities. Land Acreage Needed Alternative Spray Site Total 1 2 5.5 15 3 4 19.5 37 5 46 ------- Physiography, Topography, and Geology Soils Vegetation The proposed spray irrigation sites under Alternatives 2 and 4 may be located in an area of limestone formations. At least two sink- holes are known to have occurred in the vicinity of the spray sites (Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1978). According to the PA-DER Spray Irrigation Manual, In fields where the overlying soils are thin and bedrock occurs near the surface and particularly where sinkholes have developed, the application of additional water by spray irrigation is likely to cause accelerated sinkhole development and surface collapse (PA-DER 1972). This potential for surface collapse is associated only with Alter- natives 2 and 4 and requires greater consideration before plan selection. If the specific location of the spray site is deter- mined to be unsuitable during the design phase because of under- lying limestone, there are nearby areas that could be used, not underlain by limestone, without significant increases in the project costs. Most of the undeveloped land adjacent to the proposed service areas are either prime farmland or qualify as "additional farmland of Statewide importance" (Munkittrick 1978). Within the Development District, some of this land is expected to be converted to developed uses in the future. Such conversion, however, will occur whether or not one of the proposed alternatives is implemented. Both Buckingham Township and OS-EPA recognize the importance of prime and unique farmland as a special environmental resource, and endeavor to prevent the conversion of such land to other uses. The Township's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan are structured to protect and preserve the maximum amount of prime agricultural land while allowing for a reasonable amount of development. Within the context of the entire Township, the amount of prime farmland adjacent to the proposed service areas which may be converted to other uses is minimal and will not directly result from the implementation of any one of the proposed alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 4 propose the location of a spray irrigation site on prime agricultural soils. This action will result in a beneficial effect whereby that land will be unavailable for development and may continue to be used for agricultural purposes, at least for the life of the system. None of the other alterna- tives are associated with this beneficial preservation of prime agricultural land. Land application of wastewater effluent is a means, not only of treating and disposing of wastes, but also of utilizing the water and nutrient content of those wastes to enhance soil fertility and crops. It has been concluded by most users of effluent on crops "that marked increases in yield resulted and that the quality of product was not sacrificed" (US-EPA 1973). An increased produc- tivity of the land used as a spray site is a primary beneficial effect associated with Alternatives 2 and 4, at least during the lifetime of the spray system. The loss of forest and other vegetation in conjunction with the construction of wastewater facilities is assessed as a primary adverse impact. If the construction of collection and conveyance facilities primarily is confined to the existing rights-of-way of roadways, the expanded rights-of-way will require a minimal amount of forest removal. If, however, a new corridor needs to be cut through forest, more forest removal will be required. 47 ------- Some loss of forest edge may occur in the vicinity of the Bucking- ham Elementary School wastewater treatment plant during construc- tion activity to expand that facility under Alternatives 3 and 5. In addition, each of the proposed alternatives, except No Action, will require some forest removal along existing road rights-of-way. The total amount of forest removed by any alternative will be minimal. None of the alternatives will require new construction through forested areas. Alternative 1 (No Action) will result in no forest or vegetation impacts. Rights-of-way cleared for sewer construction will be kept cleared for maintenance and access purposes. During the life of the facilities, this will preclude successional stages of vegetation from being reestablished under Alternatives 2 through 5. A secondary effect on vegetation would relate to loss of forest due to development induced by the proposed action. None of the alter- natives is expected to induce development; therefore, no secondary effects on forests are anticipated. Wildlife Since a minimal amount of vegetated cover is expected to be disturbed by each of the proposed actions, no significant impacts on wildlife are expected to occur due to implementation of any of the alternatives. Groundwater Supply Buckingham Township's groundwater reserves have been estimated at between seven and nine million gallons per day. This supply far exceeds the projected needs of the Township's population (approxi- mately 1.14 mgd by the year 2000). Alternatives 2 and 4 ensure that groundwater supplies will be recharged through land appli- cation of treated wastewaters. Most water removed from the ground at the proposed service areas is returned to the ground at the treatment site under Alternatives 2 and 4, and remains within the "central groundwater basin" of the Township. Water from the service areas in Alternatives 3 and 5 is removed from the ground- water supply and discharged into the Mill Creek Basin. These stream discharge alternatives could reduce the local amount of groundwater in this basin, but will not effect adversely water supply. Groundwater Quality Existing data on the quality of the groundwater in Buckingham Town- ship is limited. Implementation of any of proposed alternatives is expected to have both beneficial and adverse effects on the ground- water quality. The beneficial effect of every alternative (except Alternative 1) relates to the elimination of malfunctioning on-site systems iden- tified within the proposed service areas. The result of the failure of these systems is that untreated wastewater is leached into the ground, typically through soils which are unable to purify it before it reaches the groundwater. All of the residents in the proposed service areas rely on private wells for their drinking water supply. Contamination of the groundwater supplies poses a certain health hazard. Alternatives 2 through 5 each eliminates this hazard in the areas to be served by wastewater treatment. Under Alternative 1, however, this adverse condition of groundwater contamination will continue and possibly will worsen due to additional failures. Surface Water Surface water is not a major water resource in Buckingham Township? since, with the exception of Neshaminy Creek, all streams originate within the Township. Consequently, the natural flows in these streams are limited by the small size of their catchment areas. 48 ------- The service areas of Alternatives 2 through 5 are entirely confined to the Mill Creek drainage basin. Each of the proposed alternatives (except No Action) will alter the existing flow in Mill Creek to varying degrees. Alternatives 2 and 4 will eliminate from the flow of Mill Creek an amount equal to that currently discharged into it by the Buckingham Elementary School wastewater treatment Plant (approximately 4,000 gpd). This reduction in flow is expected to be negligible. Alternatives 3 and 5 will increase the flow of Mill Creek downstream of the Buckingham Elementary School wastewater treatment facility by 12,800 gpd and 44,600 gpd, respectively. This translates into a volume of 8.9 gallons per minute for Alternative 3, and 31.0 gallons per minute for Alternative 5, or approximately 0.02 and 0.07 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. Since the estimated average flow in Mill Creek at the elementary school is approximately 4.25 mgd (6.55 cfs), the additional flow would not be significant (only 1.0% at most). Surface water quality data, like that for groundwater quality, is limited. The most recent available information was collected in 1971. These data indicated that there was no obvious or excessive pollution of Mill Creek. Effluent data collected between 1976 and 1978 indicate, however, that the Buckingham Elementary School plant exceeded total nitrogen effluent limitations all year, and ammonia- nitrogen levels during the warm weather period. As a result of the implementation of Alternatives 2 through 5, this stream discharge will either be eliminated or upgraded, a beneficial effect for surface water quality in the area. The No Action Alternative will result in an adverse water quality effect for Mill Creek Basin, since the current loadings of ammonia and total nitrogen in the effluent discharged from both the elemen- tary and high school plants will not be reduced. Primary, construction-related effects on surface water quality will occur as a result of Alternative 2 and 4. Both of these alterna- tives involves construction activity required to install a sewer line across Mill Creek along PA 413 near the Buckingham Elementary School. Such construction will cause a temporary increase in sedi- ment downstream of the activity, and will present a disruption to the natural streamflow. Each of these consequences, although temporary, can be adverse to aquatic biota inhabiting the stream. Mitigation for these effects will require that the construction of a sewer line across the stream be done as quickly and efficiently as is feasible, and sediment control methods be utilized. Flood Hazards The proposed location of the spray site in Alternatives 2 and 4 is near, but not within, the floodplain of Mill Creek. Flooding of land used for spray irrigation of wastewater due to a prolonged rainfall can make the process ineffective and potentially could contaminate groundwater resources. Such adverse effects are possi- ble, but not probable, under these alternatives since the spray site is not located within the 100-year floodplain. As pointed out previously, Alternatives 3 and 5 will increase the flow of Mill Creek downstream of the elementary school by 12,800 gpd, and 44,600 gpd, respectively. Since these additional flows represent an estimated increase at that point of 1.0% at most over average flows, the potential for downstream flooding under these alternatives is insignificant. Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 also will not increase the risk of flooding, since no additional flows will be discharged into the creek. 49 ------- Air Quality Air quality impacts of the proposed alternative systems relate to both the construction and operation of the systems and therefore are primary in nature. The primary effects related to the con- struction of the system include a localized increase in air contam- inant emissions. Such emissions include suspended particulates (fugitive dust from clearing rights-of-way, excavation, and filling; smoke from the exhaust of diesel-powered equipment) and gases (nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, organics, and odors from diesel-powered equipment; hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide from interrupted roadway traffic). These short-term air quality effects are anticipated to be negligible, since site preparation and con- struction activities will be of limited duration at any specific location for any of the alternatives. Aerosols The primary effects related to the operation of the systems concern potential aerosol emissions and odors from the spray site (Alter- natives 2 and 4 ). Municipal wastewaters have been applied to the land for over 100 years in the United States. Public Law 92-500 (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments) emphasizes land treatment and recycling of resources. US-EPA requires evaluation of land treat- ment in every wastewater facility plan. Spray irrigation is a potential source of aerosols which contain bacteria and viral pathogens. However, no incidents of disease have been documented from a properly planned and maintained land treatment system (US-EPA 1977). Alternative control measures include the use of buffer zones, control of sprinkling operations to minimize the production of fine droplets, elimination of sprinkling during high winds, and sprinkling only during daylight hours. Another US-EPA report (1979) compared both conventional and land treatment wastewater systems and land treatment wastewater systems and found that they both provide a large measure of safety for public health. Futhermore, land treatment systems (spray irriga- tion) provided greater protection than conventional systems against parasites, viruses, trace metals, trace organics, nitrate, and halogenated organics. A recent investigation by WAPORA, Inc. (unpublished, 1981) con- cluded that spray irrigation systems in residential areas pose no health or odor problems, provided the systems are properly operated and maintained. Therefore, no adverse effects in these areas are anticipated under the proposed alternatives which involve spray irrigation. Example of operating spray irrigation systems include Longwood Gardens and Hershey Mill Estates in Chester County. Noise The construction of collection and conveyance sewers, as well as treatment and spray facilities, can be expected to cause short-term increases in noise levels. Such construction would involve the use of dozers (for right-of-way clearance), front loaders and dump trucks (for debris removal), and heavy trucks, backhoes, cranes, and other equipment for sewer pipe installation. The operation of various pieces of equipment used in sewer construction will create public annoyance at certain distances, as shown in Table 20. Actual levels of noise emitted during construction will vary depending upon the number and mixture of equipment items being used at a given time and the schedule of activity. No data exists for present sound levels in the vicinity of the proposed service areas, but the low density, rural nature of the Township in general suggests that the proposed construction areas would be sensitive to the introduction of construction noise. Sensitive noise receptors 50 ------- Socioeconomic Impacts Property Values in the area of proposed construction activity under each Alterna- tive include residences along Route 263, Central Buckingham Village, and Red Gate Farms; the Buckingham Elementary School; and the Township Building. Residences through the Buckingham Village area represent additional sensitive noise receptors under Alterna- tives 3 and 5. Alternative 1 entails no construction and therefore no noise effects. Table 20. Distances from construction equipment at which annoyance occurs due to sound level (EPA 1975). Socioeconomic impacts likely to result from implementation of any proposed alternative action relate to employment, property values, and user costs. No effects on municipal services, schools, or police and fire protection are anticipated since no additional development will be induced under any alternative plan. Employment effects, although minimal, would be short-term and beneficial and relate to the construction phase of the wastewater systems. The property values of residents who will be served by the sewerage facilities likely will increase as a result of the proposed action. Sewering is viewed as an amenity, particularly when the previous condition was that of a malfunctioning on-lot system. Sewered land value on the average has been found to be four times higher than the value of unsewered property (US-EPA 1978). Consequently, Alternatives 3 and 5 are expected to increase the value of land of those property owners who will be served by the system. The property value of the few residences in close proximity to the spray site proposed for Alternatives 2 and 4 will likely be unaffected. The WAPORA, Inc. study previously cited (unpublished, 1981) found that the location of spray irrigation facilities in residential areas had no negative effect on property values pro- vided the system was properly operated and maintained. In fact, that investigation revealed a positive attitude existed among many homeowners adjacent to spray irrigation facilities towards the long term amenity of an undeveloped, open space use alongside their properties. The value of the land actually used for a spray site under Alterna- tives 2 and 4 also is expected to increase. The increased agricul- tural productivity which the spray irrigation method will import to the land (see the discussion on Vegetation, above), can increase the value of the land. COMPONENT 2 - EXISTING SCATTERED NEEDS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS. The 1979 Water Quality Mail Survey and Field Survey and the EPIC aerial infrared surveys identified that 12-15% of on-lot sewage Equipment Item Distance (ft) Dozer Dump Truck Backhoe Rock Drill Crane Concrete Mixer 100 100 500 >2000 2000 500 51 ------- disposal systems scattered throughout Buckingham Township are not L properly. To correct these individual system mal- function!, the Facility Plan recommends the "non-sewered" approach. The construction of a Township-wide sewer system to serve the needs nf these widely scattered problems is inappropriate. Not only would that solution have adverse environmental impacts, but the costs of providing centralized treatment across such an extended area are prohibitive. The recommended "non-sewered" approach involves solving the existing wastewater needs of individual malfunctions on a case-by- basis A list of potential methods, to be used in selecting he one most suitable for a particular site, is included in the Facility Plan. Each of the methods is compatible with the Town- ship's goals and objectives for a "non-sewered" solution to scattered on-lot system failures. The list provides the flexi- bility to select the most effective method given the wide variation in site characteristics that exists throughout the Township. Consequently, an existing problem can be corrected m an environ- mentally acceptable and cost-effective manner. <-=i The environmental effects of this policy are almost entirely bene- Environmental No development will be induced. Groundwater quality will Effects and recharged at the point of withdrawal. A limited amount of construction or rehabilitation would be required to noarade or replace existing systems. This activity will result in localized adverse air and noise effects. Those effects will be short-term and relatively insignificant. The construction also may have a short-term beneficial effect on local employment. No loss of forest or wildlife habitat are anticipated. Existing odor and health problems associated with some of the malfunctioning systems will be alleviated. m t-hP wastewater needs of future development in the Township, Future Needs Facility Plan similarly offers a variety of options, empha- sizing "non-sewered" methods. This policy for handling future sewerage requirements by individual or community "non-sewered" mlthSd! is compatible with the goals and objectives of the Township to maintain its rural character. Future development will largely he concentrated within the Development District in accordance with the Township's zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The environmental and economic effects of this policy action win vary depending upon which specific treatment method is utilized and the location where it is utilized. Generally, the effects will be minimal, as in the case of those described above for correcting scattered on-site problems. i-riMPrlNfiNT 3 - MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Management Programs Operation and Maintenance Options 1 and 2 t0 Wr=.c». I" .upport <* the need to be geareu v. , assurance program is necessary to management program,^^ dispogal systems encouraged under the non-sewered approach function properly. v were investigated for controlling operation Five faciiities (Table 15). The degree of control rangJs^from comprehensive Township control to continuance of existing measures. . . _ „an for public operation and maintenance of wastSwa'S 'treatment facilities including residential septic tank 52 ------- systems. Option 1 differs from Option 2 as it calls for public ownership to supplant existing private ownership. Both Options 1 and 2 would place Buckingham Township in the business of operating and maintaining individual systems. Home- owners would become customers and be assessed user charges. Additionally, under Option 1 , the Township would need to obtain easements which poses a significant legal effort. Furthermore, the public acceptability of these programs is highly questionable because they would require increased levels of regulatory involve- ment which must also be financed. Option 3 This option retains ownership and fiscal responsibilities in the hands of the property owner. In this case the Township would establish a comprehensive inspection program which would require proof of septic tank pumping or determination that pumping is not needed once every three years. The alternative would provide for a strong public assurance program. The program must also include, as a minimum, periodic testing of water from existing potable water wells in the area with additional aquifer monitoring potentially required in order to be eligible for Federal grants to individual systems. The administration of this option would be financed by an annual fee based on the yearly cost apportioned among all the users. The public acceptability of such a program is unknown, but may be established during the review of both this Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Draft Facility Plan. Option 4 Option 4 is similar to Option 3 except that proof of pumping would not be required. This option's success is premised that the physi- cal inspection would determine if septage pumping were required. This type of operation and maintenance program is patterned after the Stinson Beach, California on-site wastewater management district. Stinson Beach's program is one of the documented case studies of on-site management districts prepared for US-EPA (Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1979). The Stinson Beach homeowner is required to provide access to the tank (via risers) through which the scum thickness and sludge level are recorded. In addition, the inspection procedures record the septic tank dimensions, tank condition, inlet/outlet height, household size, and water consump- tion. Option 5 This option represents the minimum operation and maintenance program based on the use of existing regulations and ordinances with the present institutional relationships. Recently enacted Township ordinances have increased local control over new community systems. However, these ordinances do not provide for on-site inspection of systems after construction, nor require regular pumping of septic tanks, nor involve existing systems. Of the various options. Options 3 and 4 appear to be the best in terms of being able to meet wastewater management needs through new means of local control, and yet have an opportunity to be accepted by the public. Costs of Wastewater The draft Facility Plan recommends Option 4 as the lowest level of Management Options management that would be adequate. The management efforts were estimated to cost approximately $30,000 per year or for the 2,500 units to be affected - $12 annually. The costs of Option 4 are expected to change as it is further refined and developed during implementation of the Buckingham Township Management Program. The Stinson Beach on-site wastewater management district previously 53 ------- alluded, has a significantly higher cost - $120 annually per house- hold without demonstration grants. Stinson Beach conducts an ex- tensive water quality monitoring program and has far fewer homes to inspect. These two factors as well as others would make the Stinson Beach costs higher per household and not directly compar- able to Option 4 for Buckingham Township. The costs of the other management options would be greater than Option 4 except for Option 5. Option 5 would not require any significant additional expenditures as it represents a continuation of existing practices. However, Option 5 does not provide the comprehensive program of inspection of individual systems and potable well water testing needed to be eligible for Federal grants for individual systems. Rehabilitation of The Buckingham Township Management Program will identify the mal- Existing Systems functioning systems (estimated to be 12 to 15% of all systems). Without the management program, these systems would then need to be corrected with the property owner responsible for the costs. However, with the Township management program, 85% of the repair and/or rehabilitation costs will be eligible for funding by US-EPA. To be eligible for such funding the criteria established in US-EPA Program Requirements Memorandum 79-8, Small Wastewater Systems are met. It should be noted that one of the key eligibility criteria is that the principal residence or small commercial establishment was constructed before December 27, 1977. Thus, homes built after this date including new homes to be built during the planning period would not be eligible for 85% funding — the premise being that US-EPA will help remedy existing problems, but will not spend water pollution control funds to solve future problems. With 85% funding available, the costs of repairing or rehabili- tating existing failing systems would be significantly reduced for the property owner. Table 21 presents the estimated cost for the repair/rehabilitation program using 400 suspected problems identi- fied by the EPIC aerial infrared survey. It is estimated that with US-EPA funding the rehabilitation costs per homeowner would be approximately $660. 54 ------- Tifrle 21. Cost oE rehabilitation program for individual on-site systems with US-EPA funding. General sites surveys 16 wks ($200/day) Sites evaluations (400 locations) Enq ineering Soils analyses Rehabi1itation Soil absorption field (330 ft2/bdrm) (3 bdrm) ($2/ft2) (75 Mounds (25 sites) ($5,000/site) Contingencies (25%) Engineering/Administrative (20%) 85% Funding Local Portion Cost Per Homeowner $263,175 = $658 5150 locations $ 16,000 20,000 80,000 sites) 594,000 500,000 $1 ,210,000 302,500 242,000 $1 ,754,000 1 ,491 ,325 263,175 55 ------- CHAPTER V Option Areas i ------- CHAPTER V. OPTION AREAS There were four areas (Figure 11) of Buckingham Township that received special consideration: • Buckingham Elementary School • Central Bucks East High School • Apple Hill • Canterbury Estates Schools The first two are schools which have their own package wastewater treatment facilities. They are well operated plants which are meeting their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. The present designs of these facili- ties do not allow them to remove significant ammonia nitrogen or total nitrogen from the influent wastewaters. However PA-DER has not yet required that any upgrading take place. Until such time that upgrading is required, no specific plans will be made. When upgrading is required, then several opportunities could be avail- able to each school. Each school could upgrade its own facility or each school may elect to abandon its facility and convey its waste- water for treatment at the spray irrigation site under alternatives 2 or 4. If the schools choose not to upgrade their facilities and elect to participate in Alternatives 2 or 4, then the user costs presented for those alternatives in Chapter IV may be reduced through economies of scale. Apple Hill The Apple Hill development may choose to provide a long-term solu- tion to its wastewater management problems by participation in Alternatives 4 or 5. (Currently the Apple Hill development is under orders from the Bucks County Health Department to take remedial action regarding its community septic tank system). The connection of Apple Hill into Alternatives 4 or 5 may be accom- plished easily by connection with a short length of 8 inch gravity sewer to Buckingham Village. If such an option were chosen then the user costs under Alternatives 4 and 5 may be reduced through economies of scale. However, because remedial action is now required, Apple Hill will need to solve its problems prior to the implementation of Alternatives 4 and 5. Such remedial actions may pre-empt Apple Hill's participation in joint treatment of waste- waters under Alternative 4 or 5. Canterbury Estates Canterbury Estates also has its community septic tank system under orders from the Bucks County Health Department to take remedial action. Unlike the two schools (Buckingham Elementary School and Central Bucks East High School) and Apple Hill, Canterbury Estates is in another drainage basin than the alternatives presented in this draft Environmental Impact Statement. Because Canterbury Estates is not proximate to the integrated systems proposed in the EIS alternatives, it would not be economically viable to include Canterbury Estates as part of the integrated systems. Therefore, Canterbury Estates could best resolve its problems by taking the non-sewered approach alternatives (Table 13) and implementing the most cost-effective alternative. 57 ------- Figure II OPTION AREAS /v ~ / x/ / \ / \ / V / / 58 ------- CHAPTER VI Curative Amendments ------- CHAPTER VI. CURATIVE AMENDMENTS Background In 197 4, development interests filed amendments to the Buckingham Township zoning ordinance. The landowners challenged the zoning ordinance (enacted 1951) because it restricted new residential development to single-family units with minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet. In 1975 after adoption of a new zoning ordinance, the Township rejected the amendments on the grounds that the new zoning ordinance essentially "cured" the problems cited by the landowners' curative amendments. The courts have supported the zoning appeals of the seven land- owners, but the Township may be allowed to impose reasonable restrictions on the implementation of the proposed developments. The court decision stated that the zoning ordinance prevented the construction of apartments, townhouses, and a mobile home park. The current status of the curative amendments still is uncertain. In 1980, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed Act 249 which requires that a developer must sign a statement that he was unaware of a pending ordinance when the curative amendment was filed. The effect that this Act, passed after the curative amendments were submitted, has on the amendments has not been resolved. Further- more, the "reasonable restrictions" have not been established, but they may affect the total number of units proposed. Location and Size The seven curative amendment sites are presented in Figure 12. A of Projects summary of the acreage, number of units, and projected wastewater flows for the proposed developments is given in Table 22. These seven proposals would add 8,095 new dwelling units to Buckingham. At 3.2 persons per dwelling unit, this represents a population increase of 25,904. The 1970 population was 5,150 and in 197 5 it was 6,956. Preliminary reports from the US Census indicate that the 1980 population was 8,817. During the past 20 years the popu- lation of Buckingham Township approximately doubled. These seven proposed developments alone would triple the population during the next 20 years. This level of growth far exceeds populations pro- jections for the Township prepared by the Bucks County Planning Commission and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Impacts If fully developed as proposed, the seven curative amendment developments are certain to have significant adverse effects on the environment and on community services in and about Buckingham Town- ship. This is the basic conclusion reached by the Bucks County Planning Commission in its comprehensive Growth Impact Study for Central Bucks (BCPC 1977b). The Study focused on 47 residential and 5 non-residential developments proposed for the nine municipal- ities which comprise Central Bucks County. The seven curative amendments plus the Apple Hill development (34 units which sub- sequently have been constructed) were evaluated in the Study for Buckingham Township. Since the status of the curative amendments, in terms of the type and number of dwelling units proposed, has not changed since the publication of the Study, the conclusions then reached essentially are valid now. The implications for Buckingham Township of full development of the proposed developments are summarized below. Agriculture The loss of land in agricultural use and prime agricultural soils was one serious impact identified in the Study. Virtually all of the land proposed for development in Buckingham Township were in agricultural use as of October 1975. These losses are in addition 59 ------- Figure 12 LOCATION OF CURATIVE AMENDMENTS / 60 ------- Table 22. Summary description of the seven curative amendments in Buckingham Township, PA (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1980). SITES ACREAGE Northern Sites 1 Enders 58.12 2 Yaroshuk 92.10 3 Barness 346.66 4 Schlanger 53.85 5 Enders/Sheddon 85.31 Sub-Total, Northern Sites 636.04 Southern Sites 6 Fairway-Smith 158.00 7 Ciccone 120.23 Sub-Total, Southern Sites 278.23 sassaa TOTAL, ALL SITES 914.27 DWELLING PROJECTED WASTEWATER UNITS FLOWS (gpd)* 612 137,000 893 200,000 3,023 677,000 524 118,000 840 188,000 5,892 1,320,000 1,001 224,000 1.202 269,000 2.203 493,000 S3K3K SSSSSS3SS 8,095 1,813,000 *Based on 3.2 persons per dwelling unit and residential wastewater flow of 70 gpcd. 61 ------- to 945 acres of agricultural land which had been lost to develop- ment between 1970 and 1975. Furthermore, approximately 70% of the land area of the developments studied consist of prime agricultural soils. Traffic Serious congestion on local roadways also would occur as a result of developing the proposed subdivisions, unless major improvements are made to the existing highway system. The improvements required were judged in the Study as highly unlikely to occur given the level of funding that would be needed. Among the most seriously impacted roads are: • the entire length of Route 202 through Central Bucks • Route 313 • Cold Spring Creamery Road • Route 413 south from its intersection with Cold Spring Creamery Road Each of these roadways will be overloaded resulting in forced flow operations at low speeds where traffic volumes are conveyed less efficiently due to stop and go conditions. Schools The Central Bucks School District will be seriously strained by the proposed new development. Approximately one-third of the projected additional school population districtwide would be attributed to the seven curative amendments in Buckingham Township. The Bucking- ham Township Elementary School was cited by the Study as the most severely affected school in the District, with a projected 2,153-seat deficit. The junior and senior high school needs also would be affected significantly, although to a somewhat lesser degree than Buckingham Elementary School. Wastewater Disposal The problems of sewage disposal also were addressed by the Study. The worst deficiencies, evaluated in terms of access to existing or proposed interceptor systems, were found in Buckingham Township and Warwick Township. Options considered for dealing with the waste- water needs of the curative amendment sites included connection to the Cooks Run interceptor or spray irrigation. The draft Facility Plan considered potential wastewater management techniques for the curative amendments and are presented after the conclusions of the Growth Impact Study. Groundwater An adequate amount of ground water was found to be available over- all to supply water to all of the Central Bucks proposed develop- ments. However, it was noted that Buckingham does not have a municipal authority nor does it have control over its water supply resources. The northern curative manements are located over the Stockton Formation which, at 50% allocation of safe yield, may supply 250,000 to 300,000 gpd per square mile. The five proposed developments are clustered in an area of less than two square miles. The maximum allowable withdrawal from a two square mile area would be 600,000 gpd. The total estimated water requirements of these five developments is 1.32 mgd, or more than double the safe avail- able supply. A very serious negative impact on the local ground- water table would result from the use of wellB to supply water to these developments. Such an impact may be mitigated by careful well development over an area larger than two square miles and/or by using a land based wastewater disposal system which would replenish groundwater supplies. 62 ------- Fire Protection Police Protection Recreation A similar situation involves the two southern proposed develop- ments. Each of these is located on an area less than 0.5 square mile, over the Brunswick Formation which has an allowable with- drawal of 150,000 to 200,000 gpd per square mile. Again, the water requirement of each of these developments is more than double the available supply, which could create a serious local groundwater impacts if wells were used. A potential solution to the water supply issue frequently offered is the use of water from the Delaware with the Point Pleasant diversion facilities. However, arrangements for implementing the propsed diversion by the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority have been surrounded by much controversy and debate. Litigation proceedings could delay the system's operation beyond the scheduled 1984 target date. Further- more, the 1.8 mgd water needs of the seven curative amendments were not included as part of Buckingham Township's (or Bucks County's) allocation from the project. Such an additional allocation would need to be negotiated. Sufficient fire protection capabilities do not currently exist in Buckingham to meet the needs of the curative amendments of developed as proposed. These sites are away from existing fire stations and would necessitate one, and possibly two, new stations. Also^ needed would be two or three engine companies with a total pumping capacity of 2,500 gpm, a water storage system of at least 276,000-gallon capacity, and an aerial ladder company. Police protection was another identified problem area associated with full development of the Buckingham curative amendments. Based on an accepted minimum criteria of 1.9 officers per 1,000 resi- dents, Buckingham would need to increase its police force by 15 (there were 6 full time and one part time officers at the time of the Study). Furthermore, 10 new vehicles would have to be purchased. The final service impact evaluated by the Study for Buckingham Township was recreation. The increased need for recreational facilities in conjunction with the large projected population increase would necessitate the establishment of two to three additional community parks. Development Control The Growth Impact Study concludes that the municipalities definitely must exercise greater control over development. "While their construction will generate higher assessments and increased tax revenues, it is questionable whether funds would be available to deal with all of the potential impacts." One of the major problems is a function not only of the location, but of the abso- lute and relative amount of development proposed. The seven curative amendments alone would almost triple the current popula- tion of Buckingham within the next two decades and is greater than the level and rate of growth for which services are planned, by local and regional planning agencies. Non-Sewered Approach The "non-sewered" approach does not preclude development. The non-sewered approach encourages land based decentralized wastewater treatment. With respect to the curative amendments the land based treatment methods (i.e. spray irrigation) would not be able to accommodate the total proposed number of units because of the on-site land requirements. In order to utilize land treatment, the number of units could be reduced to match the needed land require- ments or if the total units are to be accommodated additional land is needed. 63 ------- Connection to The non-sewered approach recognizes centralized wastewater treat- Chalfont-New Britain ment as a technique that may be appropriate under certain circum- stances. The Chalfont-New Britain facility planning efforts have indicated that the wastewater flows from the curative amendments (i.e. 1.3 mgd from the five clustered sites in the northern portion of the Township) should be treated at the Chalfont-New Britain plant site. The acceptance of wastewater flows at the Chalfont-New Britain facility would be dependent on several factors including: • the necessary improvements (expansion and upgrading) at Chalfont-New Britain facility need to have been made — currently it is estimated that the Chalfont project is at least 46 months away from being operational without any contributions from the curative amendments, • approval by the US-EPA Regional Administrator to approve the additional needed capacity in the Chalfont-New Britain facility, and • agreements among representatives of the curative amendments and the Chalfont-New Britain and Bucks County Sewer and Water Authorities. Possible Wastewater The Draft Facility Plan (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1981 ) Management examined both on and off-site wastewater treatment options for the Alternatives curative amendments. On site treatment and disposal alternatives were not considered applicable largely due to the proposed develop- ment densities which leave insufficient area for wastewater facili- ties. Viable alternatives considered consist of spray irrigation and stream discharge and were divided into those applicable for the Northern sites and for the Southern sites, as follows: NORTHERN SITES • stream discharge at one central point for all five curative sites. • stream discharge by sewering to Chalfont-New Britain waste- water treatment plant. • land disposal (spray irriga- tion) on other parcels in area for all five curative sites. • land disposal (spray irriga- tion) on curative sites. SOUTHERN SITES • stream discharge at one central point (Mill Creek) for both curative sites. • stream discharge at each curative site. • land disposal (spray irriga- tion) on other parcels in area for both curative sites. • land disposal (spray irriga- tion) on curative sites. Northern Sites The stream discharge alternatives were found less compatible with a land based non-sewered approach adopted by the Township, as well as more costly and less environmentally sound. The Northern sites do not have sufficient land adjacent to the pro- posed sites to serve all 5,892 units. Three other options for spray irrigation were considered. These include various combina- tions of spraying on one or more of the curative amendment sites and developing correspondingly fewer numbers of units. Based on soil suitability for spray irrigation the following combinations were evaluated for the Northern sites: 64 ------- • Spray maximum flow fo 0.53 mgd on Sites 1, 2, 4, and 5 and build 2,3430 units on Site 3 (Barness). Southern Sites • Spray maximum flow of 0.66 mgd on part of each site and build 2,950 units on the remainder of each site. • Spray maximum of 0.60 mgd on Site 3 (Barness) and build 2,675 units on other sites. For environmental reasons and operational efficiency, the last of the three options above is considered most feasible and is recom- mended for the Northern sites by the Facility Plan. For the Southern sites spray irrigation in various combinations was considered preferable to stream discharge. Principally considering wastewater and water supply factors, a ranking of four favored variations was developed in the Facility Plan. In order of preference, this includes: (1) spray maximum of 0.5 mgd on other parcels in the area and build 2,203 units on Sites 6 and 7. (2) spray maximum of 0.2 mgd on Site 7 and build 892 units on Site 6. (3) spray maximum of 0.25 mgd on each site and build 760 units on Site 6 and 350 units on Site 7. (4) spray maximum of 0.37 mgd on Site 6 and adjacent parcels and build 1,651 units on Site 7. Impact Mitigation Federal Role Only Number (1), the most preferred, permits complete construction of all units as proposed. Other advantages include conformance with the non-sewered approach and recharge of groundwater supplies. However, the developers must work together and additional land for spray must be located and purchased. The impacts resulting from the seven curative amendments would be reduced if fewer units are constructed. Coupled with this, some type of land application of wastewater could be utilized (spray irrigation, subsurface disposal, etc.) which would help to preserve open space, recharge groundwater supplies, and preserve prime agricultural land. In addition, the developments would then be in closer conformance with the non-sewered goals and objectives of the Township. The wastewater facilities to be constructed to serve the curative amendments will not be eligible for Federal funding. Since Federal funds otherwise are not involved, resolution of the curative amend- ment issues ultimately must be made between Buckingham Township and the landowners. 65 ------- Albright and Friel, Inc. 1970. Bucks County, Pennsylvania Sewerage Facilities Plan. Philadelphia PA, variously paged. Buckingham Township. 1974. Comprehensive Plan. 44p. Buckingham Township. 1975. Zoning Ordinance. 133p, BCPC. 19 77a. 1975 land use report, Bucks County PA, Doylestown PA. 137p. BCPC. 1977b. Central Bucks growth impact study. Doylestown PA. 95p. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. 1977. Interim projections report - Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery, Philadelphia Counties, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia PA, variously paged. Duffield Associates. 1980. Feasibility evaluation of proposed effluent disposal sites, Buckingham Township - 201 Facilities Plan. June 12, 1980. Submitted to Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 26p. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 1979a. National Register of Historic Places. 44 FR No. 26:7573? 6 February 1979. Washington DC. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 1979b. National Register of Historic Places: additions, deletions and corrections, 6 March 1979-5 June 1979. Washington DC. Katzenelson, E. and B. Teltch. 1976. Dispersion of enteric bacteria by spray irrigation. J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 48(4):710-716, April 1976. Munkittrick, Graham T. 1978. Letter, Graham T. Munkittrick, USDA-SCS, to all district conservationists, 26 April 1978, 3p. PA-DER. 1972. Spray irrigation manual. Publication No. 31. Harrisburg PA, 49p. Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission. 1978. Pennsylvania Inventory of Historic Places: Bucks County. Harrisburg PA. Shoemaker, Ann G. 1919-1944. The red man in Bucks County. Bound unpublished manuscript. Bucks County Historical Society, Doylestown PA. Shuval, H. I., E. Katznetson, and I. Butum. Risk of communicable disease infection associated with wastewater irrigation in agriculturalk settlements. Science, 194:944-946, November 16, 1976. Slonecker, Terrence. 1980. Septic systems analysis Bucks County PA, Chalfont-New Britain EIS, Buckingham EIS. Bionetics Corp. Warrenton VA. 15p. 67 ------- Sorber, C. A., and S. A. Schaub, and H. T. Bausum. 1974. An assessment of a potential virus hazard associated with spray irrigation of domestic wastewaters. In: Virus survival in water and wastewater systems. J. F. Molina, Jr. and B. P. Sagik, eds. University of Texas at Austin, Center for Research in Water Resources. pp.241-352. Stankowski, S. J. 1974. Magnitude and frequency of floods in New Jersey with effects of urbanization. US Geological Survey. 46p. Tatman and Lee Associates Inc. 1980. Draft 201 Facilities Plan Study, Buckingham Township, Bucks County PA. Wilmington DE, variously paged. US-EPA. 1973. Survey of facilities using land application of wastewater. EPA-430/9-7 3-006 July 1973. 377p. US-EPA. 1975. Background document for proposed portable air compressor noise emission regulations. EPA-550/9-76-004, Washington DC. US-EPA. 1978. Manual for evaluating secondary impacts of wastewater treatment facilities. EPA-600/5-78-003, Washington DC. US-EPA. 1979. Health effects associated with wastewater treatment and disposal systems; state-of-the-art review. Volume I. EPA-600/1-79-016a. 689p. Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1978. Environmental assessment for on-lot sewage system suitability in the carbonate valleys of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. West Chester PA, 92p. 68 ------- PREPARERS This Environmental Imact Statement was prepared by US Environmental Protection Agency - Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with assistance from WAPORA, Inc. Key personnel from EPA included: Richard V. Pepino Evelyn Schulz Rosemarie Baldino Key personnel from WAPORA, Inc. David J. Lechel Valdis Jurka Stephen P. Kunz John Munro Elizabeth Righter Project Monitor Assistant Project Monitor Production Advisor included: Project Administrator Project Manager Planner Terrestrial Biologist Archaeologist 69 ------- BUCKINGHAM EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST FEDERAL AGENCIES US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Marine Environmental Protection Division Council on Environmental Quality US Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service US Department of Treasury US Department of Defense US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare US Department of Interior Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Fish and Wildlife Service National Water Resource Analysis Group/Eastern Energy Land Use Team National Park Service US Department of Commerce Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Water Resources Council us Department of Housing and Urban Development US Department of Energy Office of the Secretary for the Environment US General Services Administration National Agricultural Lands Study US Bureau of Prison Federal Emergency Management Agency PENNSYLVANIA STATE AGENCIES Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Water Quality Management Bureau of Air Quality State Health Center Department of Health ^ Department of Community Affairs Department of Commerce State Clearinghouse PENNSYLVANIA STATE AGENCIES (Cont.) Historical and Museum Commission Fish Commission Game Commission LOCAL AGENCIES Buckingham Township Supervisors Sewer and Water Commission Planning Commission Zoning Hearing Board Park and Recreation Board Historical Commission CITIZENS GROUPS Bucks County Farmers Association Buckingham Village Neighborhood Association Durham Village Neighborhood Association Wycombe Residents Association Buckingham Township Civic Association Buckingham Taxpayers Association Buckingham Business Association League of women Voters Wycombe Village Association Bucks County Conservancy Bucks Township Civic Association Board Bucks County Builders Association ELECTED OFFICIALS Honorable Richard Thornburgh Governor of Pennsylvania Honorable H. John Heinz, III United States Senator Honorable Arlen Spector United States Senator Honorable James K. Coyne United States Representative Honorable Edward L. Howard Pennsylvania Senator Honorable James Greenwood Pennsylvania Representative MEDIA Newspapers Daily Intelligencer Today's Post North Penn Reporter Time Herald 71 ------- MEDIA Citizens (Cont.) Newspapers (Cont.) Bulletin Daily News Inquirer Montgomeryville Spirit Bucks County Courier Times Beacon News Bucks County Tribune Today's Spirit New Hope Gazette Bucks County News Bureau Radio WCSD-FM WKYW-AM WCAU-AM WDAS-AM WFIL-AM WFLN-AM WHAT-AM WZZD-AM WIP-AM WRTI-FM WXPN-FM TV WCAU-TV WKBS-TV WPHL-TV WTAF-TV CITIZENS Aunqst, Robert E. Beddington, Tom Boerneer, Rich Boyle, Rich Bready, Ed Coburn, Forrest Denoon, Jr., C. F. Driedant, Charles E. Eisner, Judy Ely, Ms. France, Howard B. Givertletz, Earl Huang, Susan James, Tom Kinney, Charles K. Kizer, Warren Knight, Ernest II Long, Judy McKinney, Mary McNeely, Stephen Malriat, J. P. Morris, John R. Niedhardt, Dave Pierce, E. Taylor Salvadore, Tome Sharp, Jamie Smith, Kinney Smith, Mikle Warren, Hazel Week, Dan Weisel, Don Wnukowski, Linda Wojcik, John Wydro, Walter Ziesel, John G. OTHER WAPORA, Inc. International Research & Evaluation Tatman and Lee Assoc., Inc. 72 ------- |