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

-------