United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 3
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
December 1980
xvEPA Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
Gettysburg, PA Area
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 111
6th AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106
December 12, 1980
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
wastewater management facilities in the Gettysburg, Pennsylvania area.
The EIS was initiated after EPA determined that a regional sewerage project
proposed for Federal funding by the Gettysburg Municipal Authority could
have an adverse impact on historic and archaeologic resources associated
with the Gettysburg National Park.
The purpose of this EIS is to inform you of the potential impacts of that
project and discuss alternative solutions which were developed through the
EIS process. Also discussed are measures which can be taken to minimize the
impact of any wastewater treatment facilities on historic/archaeologic
resources.
I want to thank everyone who has participated in this EIS process, especially
members of a local Public Advisory Group who have monitored EIS progress
and helped determine its direction by meeting periodically and raising
important questions and comments. Their involvement is reflective, I think,
of a desire on the part of local citizens to become part of the decision-
making process.
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. Thomas Slenkamp at the above address by February 10, 1981.
A public hearing to solicit testimony concerning the Draft EIS will be held
on January 28, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. in the new Adams County Courthouse.
Individuals or organizations wishing to testify at the hearing are requested
to furnish a copy of their proposed testimony (if possible) along with their
name, address, telephone number, and organization represented (if any) to
Mr. Slenkamp by no later than the close of business on January 26, 1981.
Everyone wishing to testify will be given an opportunity to do so at the
public hearing.
I welcome your interest and encourage your continued participation in the
EIS process.
S:"
ctVr amm
Jack J. Schnramm
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
on
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
IN THE GETTYSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA AREA
Prepared by:
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Thomas A. Slenkamp, Project Monitor
Prepared with the Assistance of:
WAPORA, inc.
CHEVY CHASE, MARYLAND
Wu-Seng Lung, Project Manager
Type of Action:
Legislative ( )
Administrative ( X )
-------
LIST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Impact statement was prepared by US Environ-
mental Protection Agency - Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
with assistance from WAPORA, Inc.
Key personnel from EPA included:
Thomas A. Slenkamp
Rosemarie Baldino
Project Monitor
Public Participation
Key personnel from WAPORA, Inc. included:
Wu-Seng Lung, PhD.PE
Wesley R. Horner
Henri D. Bartholomot
J. Charles Varnell
Elizabeth Righter
Steven P. Kunz
Gregory L. Seegert
John W. Munro
Roger D. Moose
Ross Pilling
Steven Wolf
Judith Wrend
Melissa J. Wieland
Gerald O. Peters
Project Manager/Water Quality
Specialist
Assistant Project Manager
Project Engineer
Senior Project Engineer
Archaeologist
Socioeconomist
Aquatic Biologist
Terrestrial Biologist
Manager, Geology
Environmental Planner
Noise Specialist
Graphics Specialist
Graphics Specialist
Technical Advisor
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents i
List of Tables iv
List of Ficures Y
List of Appendixes vi
Abbreviations v;j-i
Foreword i*
Summary XI
CHAPTER I. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION 1
Introduction 1
Public Advisory Group 1
Newsletters 2
Public Meetings 2
Interagency Coordinating Group 2
Ad-Hoc Committee for Facilities Planning 4
Individual Contacts 4
CHAPTER II. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 11
Introduction 11
Framework of Construction Grants Program 11
Project History 13
Facilities Plan Proposed Action 14
Decision to Prepare EIS 16
Els issues, Scope, and Goals 16
EIS Planning Area and Subareas 17
CHAPTER III. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 21
Air Quality 21
Earth Resources 22
Topography 22
Geology 22
Soils 22
Water Resources 25
Hydrology 25
Wastewater Discharge 27
Water Quality Criteria 28
Water Quality of Rock Creek and Lake Heritage 28
Groundwater Quality 29
Water Supply 30
Biological Resources 30
Aquatic Biota 30
Terrestrial Biota 31
Threatened or Endangered Species 32
Environmentally Sensitive Areas 32
Flood-Prone Areas 32
Steep Slopes 32
Prime Agricultural Lands 35
Aquifer Recharge Areas 35
Wetlands 35
Wildlife Habitats 35
Popupulation Trends and Projections 37
Land Use 40
Existing Land Uses and Trends 40
Land Use Controls 43
Future Land Use 44
Socioeconomic Conditions 47
Demographic 47
Economic Conditions 49
i
-------
Employment Projections 50
Municipal Revenues and Expenditures 50
Housing 51
Community Services 51
Archaeological and Historical Inventory 54
Background and Issues 54
Historic Sites 56
Archaeological Sites 58
Aesthetic Values 63
Existing Wastewater Management Facilities 66
Cumberland STP 66
Gettysburg STP 69
Lake Heritage Package Plant 70
Schaff's Trailer Park Package Plant 71
On-site Wastewater Disposal Systems 71
CHAPTER IV. ALTERNATIVES FOR WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 77
Introduction 77
Development and Screening Process for Wastewater
Management Alternatives 77
Wastewater Management Systems in the Study Area 79
Funding for Systems in the Study Area 81
Analysis of Data (By Segment) 82
Needs Documentation 82
Nature of Need for Improved Wastewater Management 82
Summary 84
Selection of Alternatives 85
Design for Alternatives 88
Population and Wastewater Flows 88
Sewage Treatment Plants 96
Overland Flow Systems 96
On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems 96
Cost of Alternatives 99
Present Worth Analysis 99
Cost by Municipal Authority 100
Cost by Municipality 103
Small Waste Flows Districts 107
Authority 107
Management 108
CHAPTER V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE
MEASURES HI
Air Quality 111
Earth Resources 111
Erosion and Sedimentation 112
Conversion of Open Land 112
Groundwater Supply/Recharge 112
Mitigation 113
Water Resources 114
Surface Water Quality 114
Groundwater Quality 116
Biological Resources 116
Aquatic Biota 116
Terrestrial Biota 119
Population and Land Use 119
Population 119
Land Use 123
Compatibility with Local Plans and Policies 125
Traffic Patterns 126
Community Services 126
Schools 127
ii
-------
Public Safety 127
Health Services 127
Solid Waste Disposal 127
Energy Supplies 128
Water Supply 128
Archaeological Sites/Historic Sites/
Aesthetic Resources 128
Archaeological Sites 128
Historic Sites 130
Aesthetic Resources 134
Economic Conditions 137
Introduction 137
User Charges 137
Mitigation 139
Summary 139
CHAPTER VI. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 141
Additional Screening/Modified Alternatives 141
Feasible Alternatives 142
Impact Considerations 153
Cost Comparison 154
Alternative Selection Process 156
References 157
Glossary 163
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 The Offices, Agencies, Companies,
Citizen's Committees, and Individuals
Contacted
Page
III-l Comparison of Site Characteristics for
Land Treatment Process 25
III-2 Drainage Areas and 7-Day 10-Year Low
Flows in Rock Creek and its Tributaries 27
II1-3 Effluent Characteristics at Cumberland
and Gettysburg STPs and Effluent Limi-
tations 28
II1-4 Water Quality Criteria for Rock Creek
Watershed 28
II1-5 Population Trends (1950-1976) and
Projections (1980-2005) 38
II1-6 Existing Land Use by Municipality 42
II1-7 Age Characteristics of Study Area Total
Municipalities, Adams County, and Penn-
sylvania 1970 48
II1-8 1969 Income Characteristics for Selected
Study Area Total Municipalities and Adams
County 49
II1-9 Sections of Interceptor Corridor
Adjacent to Rock Creek 60
III-10 Archaeological Sites on Federal Holdings
in the Study Area 62
IV-1 Components of a Waste Management System 80
IV-2 EPA Grant Eligibility Rules for the
Construction of Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works 81
IV-3 Summary of Segment Analysis 83
IV-4 Economic Analysis of Sewers vs. On-Site
Systems for Segments 12, 14, 15, 16, and
20 (Total Present Worth) 86
IV-5 Potential Wastewater Management Systems 87
IV-6 Gettysburg EIS Alternatives 88
IV-7 Populations Used for Analysis of
Alternatives 95
IV-8 Wastewater Flows used for Alterna-
tive Analysis 97
IV-9 Present Worth Cost of Alternatives 100
IV-10 Capital Costs of Alternatives by
Municipal Authority 101
IV-ll Annual O & M Costs of Alternatives
by Municipal Authority 102
IV-12 Federal and Local Shares of Alterna-
tives by Municipality 104
IV-13 Estimated 1985 Annual User Charges by
Municipality 106
IV-14 Small Waste Flow Management Functions
by Operational Components and by Basic
and Supplemental Usage 109
V-l Relative Ranking of the Gettysburg
Alternatives 118
V-2 Effects of the EIS Alternative on the
Human Environment 121
V-3 Estimated 1980 Median Household Income 138
V-4 Financial Burden (% of households) 138
V-5 Displacement Pressure (% of house-
holds) 139
VI-1 Present Worth Costs of Alternatives 149
VI-2 Estimated 1985 Annual User Charge by
Municipality 149
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
11-1 Facilities Plan Proposed Action 15
II-2 Planning Area 18
III-l Geology 23
II1-2 Rock Creek Watershed, Pennsylvania 26
II1-3 Flood-Prone Areas 33
II1-4 Steep Slopes 34
II1-5 Prime Farm and State Farm Land 36
111-6 Existing Land Use 41
III-7 Future Land Use Baseline 2005 45
III-8 Historic Sites in the Study Area 57
III-9 Historic sites and Structures Inventoried
in the Study Area 59
IH-10 Archaeological Sites within Federal
Holdings and Areas Surveyed fpr
Archaeological Resources by Kinsey 61
111-11 Scenic Views from Photographic
Stations in Gettysburg National
Historic District, June 1979 65
in-12 Existing Wastewater Treatment
Facilities and Serviced/Sewered
Areas 67
111-13 Segment Map 73
III-14 Sanitary Survey Area 74
iv-l Method Used to Develop Wastewater
Management Alternatives 78
IV-2 Alternative A - Limited Action 09
IV-3 Alternative B 90
IV-4 Alternative C 91
IV-5 Alternative D 92
IV-6 Alternative E 93
IV-7 Alternative F 94
V-l Projected Dissolved Oxygen Profiles
under 7-Day 10-Year Low Flow Conditions 115
V-2 Projected Total Phosphorus Concentra-
tions under 7-Day 10-Year Low Flow
Condition 117
VI-1 Alternative A 1*3
VI-2 Alternative B 145
VI-3 Alternative C 147
VI-4 Alternative D 149
VI-5 Alternative E 150
v
-------
LIST OF APPENDIXES*
A. Engineering Cost of Alternatives
B. Air Quality
C. Soils
D. Water Resources
E. Aquatic Biota
F. Population, Land Use, and Socioeconomic Conditions
G. Cultural Resources
I. Existing Wastewater Management
*A separate bound volume containing the above Appendixes was only
provided to a limited number of those on the mailing list. It
will, however, be provided to anyone who requests a copy from the
Environmental Protection Agency at the address listed on the front
of this volume.
vi
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
ACPC Adams County Planning Commission
AQCR Air Quality Control Region
BODj- Five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
cfs cubic foot per second
BAQNC Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GASD Gettysburg Area School District
GFCC Gannett, Fleming, Corddry, and Carpenter, Inc.
GMA Gettysburg Municipal Authority
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
HGAC Historic Gettysburg-Adams County
HUD Housing and Urban Development
I/I Infiltration/Inflow
LASD Littlestown Area School District
LHMA Lake Heritage Municipal Authority
mgd million gallons per day
mg/1 miligrams per liter
msl mean sea level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NBOD Nitrogenous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NPS National Park Service
0 & M Operation and Maintenance
PA-DER Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
PAG Public Advisory Group
PIHP Pennsylvania Inventory of Historic Places
PSD Prevention of significant Deterioration
SEO Sewage Enforcement Officer
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
ST/SAS Septic Tank-soil Absorption Systems
STP Sewage Treatment Plant
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TSP Total Suspended Particulates
TSS Total Suspend Solids
USDA US Department of Agriculture
USDOC US Department of Commerce
USGS US Geological Survey
7Q10 Seven-day ten-year low flow
vii
-------
Gettysburg EIS The Gettysburg, Pennsylvania area has had for some time a
Foreword significant water pollution problem. Existing wastewater
treatment plants and many individual wastewater treatment
systems are not performing effectively and must be renovated or
replaced in order to comply with State and Federal water
pollution control laws.
The Gettysburg area has also had for some time a National Park
commemmorating a most significant battle of the American Civil
War. The Park has become increasingly susceptible in recent
years to developmental intrusions brought about by continuing
growth in the area combined with an absence of any formalized
control over how and where this growth is to be accommodated,
i.e., land use planning.
Enhancing and protecting the quality of these two resources -
water quality and the National Park - and at a cost which
represents the least burden to local communities is the central
problem which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
addressed through this Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). To do this, the nature and extent of existing water
quality problems were carefully studied and then several
alternative ways of addressing the problems were developed,
taking into account the existing environmental conditions and
sensitive resources, including those associated with the
National Park.
The EIS process is described in detail in the chapters that
follow. EPA is seeking public comments on the alternatives and
other information included in the Draft EIS. Following a 45-day
comment period, during which a pubic hearing will be held, a
Final EIS will be completed which will respond to the comments
received and indicate a recommended wastewater treatment
alternative.
ix
-------
SUMMARY
-------
GETTYSBURG CRAFT
EIS SUMMARY
Background The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires each
Federal government agency to prepare an Environmental Impact
statement (BIS) on every major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment. The major
purpose of an EIS is to explain the environmental consequences
of pending Federal actions, such as funding for large
construction projects, so that government officials and the
public can make responsible decisions. Federal funding for
wastewater treatment facilities through EPA's Contructior Grants
Program is one of the Federal actions subject to the
requirements of NEPA.
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been
prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in relation
to a request submitted by the Gettysburg Municipal Authority
(GMh) for EPA funding to design and construct a regional
sewerage system in the Gettysburg area of Adams County,
Pennsylvania.
Based upon the recommendations of a "Facilities Plan" report
completed in 1976, GMA's proposal consisted of an interceptor
sewer adjacent to Rock Creek conveying wastewater from
Cumberland and Straban Townships and Gettysburg into a new
regional treatment plant located near the intersection of Rock
Creak and Route 15. Wastewater would also be conveyed to the
new plant from the Lake Heritage community.
EPA's environmental review of the GMA application determined
that the proposed project might have an adverse impact on
archaeologic/historic resources associated with the Gettysburg
National Parle. As a result, EPA formally issued a Notice at
Intent to prepare an EIS on February 16, 1979; work began in
April 1979 with the assistance of a contractor, WAPORA, Inc.
Public Participation by the general public and coordination with
Participation/ involved government agencies has been continuously encouraged
Coordination throughout the EIS process. Methods used to involve the public
have included newsletters, pamphlets, public informational
meetings, media contacts, interviews, meetings with local
officials, and telephone calls.
In addition, EIS progress has been monitored and influenced by a
local Public Advisory Group which consists of Individual
citizens> representatives of public interest groups,
organizations with economic interest, and public officials,
(See Chapter 1 for list of members). Through periodic meetings
this group has served as an SIS informational source for the
respective organization/constituency each member represents, as
well as providing suggestions and specific questions for the EIS
from each member's particular perspective. The group has
provided direction and focus to the process by determining the
nature and depth of issues investigated in the EIS. For
xi
-------
example, it was upon the suggestion of the PAG that wastewater
treatment needs in the area were further investigated and that
modifications to initially developed wastewater treatment
alternatives were made. Although the Group has purposely
avoided trying to reach unanimous opinion or consensus, their
presence has provided a most important public forum in which to
discuss any wastewater management related issue.
Also formed was an Interagency Coordinating Group which consists
of involved local, State, and Federal government agencies. This
group also monitored EIS progress with specific interest
regarding the impact of various solutions on historic and
archaeologic resources and methods by which these impacts can be
minimized.
Both the Public Advisory Group and Interagency Coordinating
Group will be especially important between the Draft and Final
EIS stages when an alternative will be recommended for
implementaton.
EIS Findings Although any EIS must address a variety of environmental
concerns, most of the Gettysburg EIS effort has been directed
towards three key areas:
o Defining existing and expected need for improved wastewater
management
o Developing and analyzing alternative ways of meeting those
needs
o Investigating measures which will minimize the potential
adverse impact to the resources of the Gettysburg National
Park and Historic District.
Documentation In response to a number of public and government agency comments
of Need questioning the extent of need for improved wastewater
treatment, EPA devoted a significant effort in the EIS to
analyzing existing water quality problems that are associated
with inadequte performance of either sewage treatment plants or
individual on-site treatment units. This effort included an
inspection/analysis of four STP's, a review of aerial
photographs and soils maps, interviews with municipal Sewage
Enforcement Officers and local health officials, and conducting
of a sanitary survey which included field inspection of
individual septic systems and sampling of streams and wells for
pollution indicators.
To accomplish this in an effective way, "segments" were
delineated within the larger planning or study area, which
contained major population concentrations and areas of
documented septic system failures (see Segment Map).
EPA concluded that there is a substantiated existing need for
better wastewater management in most of the segments studied,
including all presently sewered areas, segments north and east
of the Borough of Gettysburg in Cumberland and Straban
Townships, the Lake Heritage community, and segments along Route
97 south of Gettysburg. (See Chapter 3 for further details).
Based on these findings, and consideration of future growth and
constraints posed by natural or man-related environmental
features, a set of alternative solutions were developed.
xii
-------
H-
H-
S //18
/->
\
}
-4v_
r—*i
J 8 SEGMENT
SEGMENT MAP
-------
Alternatives When the EIS was initiated, GMA's proposed project appeared to
Analysis Approach represent the best overall sollution; also, there were no
alternatives which would altogether eliminate potential adverse
impacts on historic/archaeologic resources.
However, early during the EIS process, it became clear that (1)
the originally proposed project had lost local support due to
high costs and questionable impacts, and (2) other alternatives
might now be possible based on updated information concerning
demographic conditions and revisions to Federal pollution
control laws and EPA's grants program. Rather than having the
applicant (GMA) reapply for another planning grant, EPA agreed
to fully investigate other possible alternatives through the EIS
process which might solve the problems but at a reduced cost
burden to local communities.
An alternative consists of an action or actions which can be
taken to eliminate water quality problems and address needs as
described above. The actions can be non-structural (e.g. water
conservation, revised sewer rates) or structural (physical
construction/repair of a system which will effectively collect,
transport, and treat the wastewater generated).
The two basic structural alternatives examined were (1) sewering
an area with conveyance and treatment at a central sewage
treatment facility, and (2) constructing or _ improving the
operation of individual on-site treatment units without sewers.
To begin developing alternative solutions, those segments
identified as having need for improved wastewater management
were evaluated on an independent basis to determine which
wastewater treatment technologies would be feasible given the
environmental characteristics of the segment (population
densities, soils, etc.). In segments where existing projected
population densities were fairly low, a cost comparison was
performed to determine whether sewers or on-site systems would
be the less expensive solution. Those segments which had a
substantiated need, but where sewers were determined to be too
costly (Segments 12, 14-16) were analyzed separately as to
available non-sewering alternatives. Marginal cases were
included for further analysis. Feasible options for the
remaining segments (Segments 1-4, 7-11, 17, 18, 20) were then
selectively combined to avoid an unmangeable number of
alternatives.
The resulting twelve planning area alternatives were presented
at a public meeting held on June 12, 1980, and then further
developed and screened based on public comments, costs and
environmental considerations. Six remaining planning area
alternatives were then evaluated in detail in terms of costs and
environmental impacts. These six were presented to local
officials and the Public Advisory Group at separate meetings
during the summer. Again, modifications were made to reflect
comments received. Three of the six alternatives were
eliminated and were replaced by two "hybrid" alternatives,
representing combinations of components of previous alternatives.
The following table indicates the major features of the
remaining five feasible alternatives. They are listed in order
of increasing centralization, i.e., more sewers, less treatment
plants.
xiv
-------
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Maior Components
Segements Served
Sewered?
A
Upgrade Gettysburg STP
1,3
Yes
Upgrade Cumberland STP
2
Yes
Construct New STP for Schaff's Trailer
Park
Part of 4
Yes
Construct NEW STP for Lake
Heritage
holding tanks
7-11
No
Improve on-site systems as
needed
4,7-12,14-17,18,20
No
B
Upgrade Gettysburg STP
1,3,4
Yes
Upgrade Cumberland STP
2
Yes
Construct New STP for Lake
Heritage
holding tanks
7-11
No
Improve on-site systems as
needed
7-12,14-17,18,20
No
C
Upgrade Gettysburg STP
1,3
Yes
Upgrade Cumberland STP
2
Yes
Construct Land Application
system for
Segment 4
4
Yes
Construct New STP for Lake
Heritage
holding tanks
7-11
No
Improve on-site systems
7-12,14-17,18,20
No
D
Upgrade Gettysburg STP
1,3,4,18
Yes
Upgrade Cumberland STP
2,17
Yes
Construct New STP for Lake
Heritage
7-11
No
Improve on-site systems
12,14-16,20
No
E
Upgrade Gettysburg STP
1-4,17-18
Yes
Construct New Lake Heritage STP
7-11,20
Yes
Improve on-site systems
12,14-16
No
-------
Estimated Costs A number of different types of costs associated with each
alternative were calculated in the Draft EIS. These are
detailed in Chapter 4 and Appendix A. The most important of
these are the total costs for each planning area alternative,
the percentage of available Federal funding, operation and
maintenance costs (funding entirely by local jurisdictions), and
the estimated costs to individual users.
Total alternatives costs are expressed on a present-worth basis
as required by EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E,
Appendix A). The present worth cost is the amount of money that
would have to be placed in an interest bearing account at the
beginning of the design period in order to cover all capital and
operation and maintenance costs throughout the period, assuming
a certain salvage value for the facilities at the end of the
period. By EPA definition, the most cost-effective alternative
is the wastewater treatment management sytem which the cost
analysis determines to have the lowest present worth or
equivalent annual value, unless non-monetary costs are
overriding. Present worth values of the EIS alternatives range
from $15.4 million to $23.1 million (the comparable updated cost
of the Facility Plan proposal was estimated to be $29.4 million).
The amount of Federal funding available for capital costs of the
alteratives depends on (1) the number of cost-eligible features
of each alternative, (2) the percentage of Federal funding
applied to those features, and (3) the availability of EPA
Construction Grant Funds from the Pennsylvania allocation based
on the State Priority List. Although no final eligibility
determination can be made until detailed design plans are
prepared, cost eligible shares were estimated for the EIS in
order to estimate local shares and individual user charges. The
Federal share of eligible costs is normally 75% but can be 85%
for special types of systems termed innovative or alternative.
One important recent EPA determination has been that a
pressurized sewer system for the Lake Heritage area will now be
eligible for Federal funding, which will reduce the previously
estimated user charges for a sewered Lake Heritage alternative
by over 50 percent.
Individual user charges are those costs levied on system users
to cover the local shares of capital costs and total operation
and maintenance costs. They depend partly on the Federal/local
shares described above. For EIS alternatives, they vary greatly
depending on the alternative and the municipality involved.
Gettysburg residents will have the lowest costs ($112-$124
annually) because the Borough is already sewered, while Lake
Heritage residents will pay the highest charges ($461-$548
annually) because of a lack of sewers combined with presently
low population densities.
Environmental Environmental impacts are projected in terms of how the
Impacts alternatives would affect existing environmental condiU'j as
described in Chapter 3. They include both primary (direct)
impacts which result from construction and operation of any
proposed facilities and secondary (indirect) impacts which
accompany the availability of sewerage facilities, such as
induced changes to population, land use, and environmental
quality. Impacts can be either beneficial or adverse.
xv i
-------
While there are some differences in environmental impact among
alternatives, these differences are for the most part
insignificant. Because of the similar impacts, any measures
designed to minimize adverse impacts can usually be applied
equally to all alternatives.
Water Quality In general, all the alternatives excepting No Action would
provide a beneficial effect to water quality by upgrading or
eliminating poorly performing sewage treatment plants and
malfunctioning on-site systems. Concentration of dissolved
oxygen in area streams can be expected to increase to above 6.0
milligrams/liter as a result of plant improvements.
Algae-inducing nutrient loadings in the form of ammonia nitrogen
and phosphorus will be reduced.
Processes for converting ammonia nitrogen to nitrates
(nitrification) and for converting nitrates to simple nitrogen
(denitirification) were included in all upgraded treatment
plants. Although denitrification will provide an effluent
discharge that will protect the receiving stream for use as a
future water supply source, it is not required in order to meet
State water quality standards, and its inclusion will be at the
discretion of local authorities.
Dechlorination of treated wastewater is also assumed as a
process for any improved treatment plant although it is not
required by State standards. This will ensure minimal
detrimental impact to aquatic life.
Groundwater quality should improved somewhat by implementing any
of the alternatives, although it is not clear to what extent
since the EIS analysis did not find any link between the
infrequent cases of polluted drinking water samples and
malfunctioning septic sytems.
Population/Land The effects of the alternatives on population and land use are
Use closely related and occur mainly as secondary impacts as a
result of sewer routings and the amount of treatment capacity
provided (or not provided). The EIS alternatives were carefully
developed to avoid providing excessive capacities for either
treatment plants or sewer lines. However, even if additional
capacity wa provided, the amount of total growth expected in the
planning area under any one alternative would not differ
significantly from "baseline" growth, or that which will oocur
if none of the alternatives are implemented and present trends
and conditions continued. In other words, the introduction of
new sewerage facilities is not expected to generate a large
influx of new growth. The rate of baseline growth is expected
to average 1.6% per year during the 20 year planning period.
While absolute amounts of growth accommodated are similar among
alternatives, the pattern of future growth on the landscape may
differ somewhat among alternatives. Alternatives involving
greater amounts of sewering will generally shift growth away
from projected baseline patterns and channel it into those areas
where sewers are constructed. For example, alternatives which
involve sewering Segment 4 in Straban Township (B-E) will
attract approximately 35% of the baseline growth projected to
occur north of Gettysburg Borough into Segment 4.
xvii
-------
Sewered alternatives will tend to concentrate growth within a
smaller land area due to population densities for sewered
development being generally higher than those for unsewered
development (as allowed by municipal subdivision regulations).
In addition, sewered options or alternatives will tend to
increase population growth within individual segments (as
compared to baseline projections).
The impact of wastewater management alternatives on land use is
heavily influenced by the limited amount of present local
government control over how land is used. If land use plans and
zoning ordinances were already established, the prediction of
location and type of future growth could be more specific.
However, without these governing controls in place, there are a
number of possible ways future growth could materialize, with or
without sewering. Sewered alternatives can help to guide growth
into vaguely defined areas, depending on the size and location
of the sewer lines. On-site system alternatives would influence
patterns of future growth in a less predictable way, with
technical factors such as soils suitability representing the
major constraint to development. Compared with existing growth
policies or desires which have been articulated by local
governments, Alternative B, and to a lesser extent C, appear to
conform the most closely.
Archaeologic and
Historic Sites/
Aesthetics
The two issues of greatest concern regarding cultural resources
are (1) potential impacts on unknown archaeological remains
which may lie beneath the ground in the path of a sewer or
treatment plant site, and (2) a lack of control over the type of
growth which can occur with additional sewage treatment capacity
and which may be incompatible with the historic character or
setting of the Park.
The first concern can be alleviated by conducting an
archaeologic survey prior to or during design of the selected
alternative, which will enable avoidance of construction in
areas which contain valuable resources, or allow for their
salvage during construction.
The second concern, involving visual effects, is more subjective
to evaluate, but represents the greatest potential adverse
impact of sewerage facilities upon the National Park and
Historic District. Simply stated, it is the possibility of
development occurring at an indeterminate location in an
unspecified manner through the provision of additional
wastewater treatment facilities. This development could be out
of character with the setting of the Park and may represent an
adverse visual impact to a Park visitor.
Total avoidance of this potential impact is not possible by
selecting one wastewater management alternative over another.
Even the No Action alternative carries with it the same
potential adverse impact, even though in a non-Federally
subsidized way. Therefore, attempting to solve this problem
strictly within the context of improved wastewater management is
Direct impacts upon identified historic and archaeologic
resources are expected to be minmal and are generally avoidable
by carefully routing sewers and locating treatment facilities
during design.
xviii
-------
unrealistic. Additional measures must be taken in conjunction
with carefully selecting and designing any recommended
wastewater treatment facilities. Some possible mitigating
measures are discussed in Chapter 5 of the DEIS. These include
such things as buffering techniques, conservation (scenic)
easements, purchase of critical lands, and establishment or
modification of land use plans, zoning ordinances, or building
codes. Implementation of some of these measures may be time
consuming and difficult and is dependent on a good deal of local
government responsiveness and local/Federal cooperation.
However, without their implementation, a total solution to the
problem is not possible.
Alternative Through the EIS process, several alternatives for improved
Selection Process wastewater management have been developed and evaluated.
Details about the five most feasible of these, in EPA's view,
are presented for public consideration in the Draft EIS.
Both the costs and en"ironmental impact information should be
carefully reviewed by area residents and other interested
parties to determine w.iich of the alternatives, if any, is
preferable. Reviewers should especially study the support
information and methodology upon which the alternatives are
based. Opinions about this information and the alternatives
themselves should be formulated and comments provided to EPA.
Ample time will be available to study this matter and raise
questions. Following public distribution of the Draft EIS,
there will be a 45 day review and comment period during which
time a public hearing will be held as described in the Draft EIS
cover letter.
EPA will carefully evaluate any comments received and make any
necessary changes to the alternatives analysis based on these
comments. A response to substantive comments will be provided
in the Final EIS, which will be completed following the end of
the Draft EIS review period. Also in the Final EIS, EPA will
identify a recommended alternative for implementation, with
consideration given to public comments, local government
positions, and the cost and impact evaluations described in the
Draft EIS. EPA will also indicate whether other alternatives
may also be acceptable and can be considered for Federal funding.
Following publication of the Final EIS, each local jurisdiction
or municipal authority must decide which course of action they
wish to pursue. If local decisions are consistent with the
results of the EIS, applications for Federal funding to design
and construct wastewater treatment facilities can then be
processed.
xix
-------
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Alternative
Air
Earth
Hater
Population
Land Use
Economic
Historic
Archaeologic
Aesthetics
Quality
Res ources
Quality
Growth
Policies
Conditions
Resources
Resources
No Action
0
0
—
-
-
-
+
+
++
A
0
-
+
0
-
0
+
0
+
B
0
-
+
0
+
+
0
-
-
C
0
-
+
0
+
+
0
-
-
D
0
-
+
0
0
+
-
-
—
E
0
_
+
+
0
+
-
—
~
Facilities
Plan
Key:
++ Significant Beneficial Impact
+ Beneficial Impact
0 Negligible Impact
Adverse Impact
— Significant Adverse Impact
-------
CHAPTER I
Public Participation and Coordination
-------
CHAPTER I. PUBLIC
PARTICIPATION AND
COORDINATION
Introduction
Throughout the preparation of this Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has con-
tinuously sought participation from local, regional. State and
Federal agencies; citizen associations; individual citizens; and
interested environmental groups. EPA has considered suggestions,
criticisms, and objections from the public in documenting the
need for wastewater treatment facilities, in developing alterna-
tive wastewater management strategies, and in assessing environ-
mental, economic, and social impacts. Methods used to involve
the public have included EIS newsletters, pamphlets, advertise-
ment, public information meetings (with the general public and
with specially formed groups), meetings with municipal officials,
conversations with local citizens, interviews, and telephone
contacts; all these methods were used to ensure that as many
residents as possible were involved in this EIS decision-making
process.
Public Advisory Group
During the early stages of the EIS process, a Public Advisory
Group (PAG) was established to provide area citizens an oppor-
tunity to closely participate in the development of the EIS, so
that local decision which are based on EIS results will reflect
local opinions and advice. The Group represents a cross-section
of the general public, consisting of equal representation from
individual citizens, public interest groups, organizations with
economic interest, and public officials. Mr. John Zinn, as
Coordinator for the Group, has served as a liaison between those
preparing the EIS and the members of the Group, as well as ar-
ranging Group meetings, distributing materials, and keeping a
written record of the Group's activities. Mr. Allen Larson, as
Chairman of the Gettysburg Municipal Authority, has provided
invaluable assistance through his knowledge of past planning
efforts and local conditions.
Through periodic meetings, the PAG has provided a local perspec-
tive on many EIS issues, including water supply and conservation,
soil conditions, existing needs, and community growth. Group
members have influenced the content of the EIS by making comments
and raising questions which could be answered through the EIS.
For example, the Group was influential in the decision to conduct
a sanitary survey to document the need for wastewater disposal in
the study area. Also, as a result of a recent Group suggestion,
two revised alternatives were developed.
Since there is a considerable amount of technical and governmen-
tal jargon associated with wastewater treatment planning, members
of the Group were provided with citizen guides on public involve-
ment in municipal wastewater management, as well as brochure on
related wastewater treatment topics. Members were presented with
key materials for the EIS (e.g., population projections, service
areas, alternatives) as they became available, with the goal of
first explaining, and then soliciting comments on the material.
Occasionally, outside people with special knowledge were brought
in to provide advice on public involvement or to present informa-
1
-------
tion on a specific topic (e.g., "innovative" technologies). One
session was photographed and tape-recorded by the Pennsylvania
State Institute of Regional A ffairs for use as training material
for similar advisory groups.
Although at times some group members have undoubtedly questioned
their precise role or their effect on the results of the EI5,
their presence has provided a most important public forum in
which to discuss any wastewater management issue, and has pre-
pared the way for the upcoming selection and implementation of a
solution to a longstanding community problem.
Below is a list of the PAG members and their affiliations.
PUBLIC ADVISORY GROUP
John B. Zinn, Jr., Coordinator
Private Citizens
Charles B. Bender*
Walter I.ane
George N. Mahaffey
Jack R. Corbin
Public Interest Groups
Ruth Gritsch, League of Women Voters
John Earnst, Superintendent, National Park Service
Charles H. Huber, Jr., Taxpayer Association
Rev. James W. Tipton, Historic Gettysburg/Adams County
Organizations with Substantial Economic Interest
Ronald Hankey, President, Gettysburg Area Chamber of Commerce
L. Hartzell, Jr., President, Retail Merchants Association
Charles A. Strayer, Builders Association
George W. Olinger, Landlords
Public Officials
Robert Heflin, Gettysburg Borough Council Member
Fred M. Shealer, straban Township Supervisor
Francis W. Weikert, Cumberland Township Supervisor
Willis 0. Waybright, Mount Joy Township Supervisor
^Deceased
Newsletters/Pamphlets
At the beginning of the EIS process, EPA prepared and distributed
pamphlets about the EIS to the public. The pamphlets were also
inserted into the Gettysburg Times. In addition, public meeting
announcements were advertised in the Gettysburg Times. EPA
prepared periodic newsletters that were distributed to residents,
groups and government officials who wished to be kept advised of
progress, the preliminary technical findings, the completion of
project milestones, and other general information about the EIS.
Public Meetings
Since preparation of the EIS began in March 1979, EPA has con-
ducted three public information meetings in the study area.
These meetings were designed to involve the public in all deci-
sions as fully as it was practical to do. The information that
EPA obtained from the people familiar with the local situation
and with particular problems of the community contributed a great
2
-------
deal to the preparation of this EIS. During the EIS process, the
public has participated enthusiastically: to make their concerns
known, and to offer information or suggestions that improved the
solution to this wastewater management problem. The following
three public information meetings generated considerable dialogue
between EPA and the general public:
Date
Location
Topics discussed
May 23, 1979
November 1, 1979
Adams County Court-
house, Gettysburg
Adams County Court-
house, Gettysburg
EIS process, scope,
and issues
Proposed service area
and preliminary waste-
water alternatives
June 12, 1980
Adams County Court-
house, Gettysburg
Sanitary survey results
and wastewater manage-
ment alternatives
Interagency Coordinat-
ing Group
An Interagency Coordinating Group was established to monitor
progress on the Gettysburg EIS and additional Step I planning
efforts, and to expedite negotiations for the required Memorandum
of Agreement. The "Memorandum of Agreement" is a formal agree-
ment between EPA, the President's Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, the National Park Service (NPS), the Pennsylvania
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (PA-DER), and local offi-
cials. This agreement is to outline the measures that will be
taken to preserve the historical and cultural resources of the
Gettysburg area. These measures will be based on the selected
wastewater management plan that results from the EIS. The fol-
lowing people are members of this interagency coordinating group:
Thomas Slenkamp EPA — EIS Preparation Section
Steven Torok 6th and Walnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dennis Capella
John Earnst
Joseph Karban
Amy Schlagel
EPA — Construction Grants Section
6th and Walnut St.
Philadelphia 19106
Superintendent, NPS
Gettysburg National
Military Park
P. 0. Box 70
Gettysburg, PA 17325
NPS (Philadelphia Regional Office
Dept. of Interior
143 S. 3rd St.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Advisory Council on
Historical Preservation
1552 K St., NW
Washington, DC 20005
3
-------
Allen Larson
Fred Marrocco
Edward Corriveau
Brenda Barrett
Gettysburg Municipal
Authority (GMA)
223 Baltimore St.
Gettysburg, PA 17325
PA-DER
407 South Cameron St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
State Historic Preservation Office
Penn. Historical and Museum Commission
P. 0. Box 1026
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Ad-Hoc Committee for
Facilities Planning
Individual Contacts
During the Facilities Planning period (1975-1976), public parti-
cipation and coordination effort was provided by an ad-hoc com-
mittee. The ad-hoc committee consisted of representatives from
the five municipalities, the Adams County Planning Office, the
National Park Service, and the four municipal authorities in-
volved in the Rock Creek Basin area prescribed by PA-DER. During
a period of eleven months in 1975 and 1976, the ad-hoc committee
provided many suggestions and recommendations to the Facilities
Planning effort.
Agencies, offices, companies, and committees, as well as indivi-
duals' names and expertises, are presented in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. The Offices, Agencies, Companies, Citizens Committees,
and Individual Contacted
Agency/Office
Individuals
Contacted
Topic
Citizen's Utility Co.,
Reading, PA
US Geological Survey,
Harrisburg, pa
Lake Heritage
PA-DER, Community Envi-
ronmental Control
PA-DER
Riordan Materials
Cumberland Sewage
Authority
Bill Reitmour
Chuck Wood
Eugene (Bud) Larson
Daryl Mong
Jim Fleischer
Tom Schell
Lawrence Heltzel
Lake Heritage water
pumping records
Groundwater
Lake Heritage
Water Quality
Nitrate standards
for drinking water
Sewage treatment--
Schaff Trailer Park
Information on
RBC's for upgrad-
ing Gettysburg
and Cumberland
STP's
Number of customers
and copies of blue-
prints of Cumberland
STP, new effluent
requirements on
Cumberland STP
4
-------
Stonehenge Restaurant, Roy Sonthermer
Rt. 97, Gettysburg, PA
Soil Conservation
Service (SCS),
Gettysburg, PA
Gannett, Fleming,
Corddry and Carpenter,
Inc. (GFCC)
Len Bentz
Victor Krea
Stonehenge motel/
restaurant septic
system
Frost depths in
the Gettysburg
area
Results of infil-
tration/inflow study
of Gettysburg sewer
systems, Excavation
costs of gravity
sewers, Unit costs
of sewers
A & P Water & Sewer
Supplies, Middletown,
PA
Young's Sanitary Mr. Young
Service, Dillsburg, PA
Adams County Planning John Callenbach,
Commission Planning Director
PA-DER
Ed Corriveau,
Sanitary Engineer
Maitland Brothers, Cyril Schuchert
Rt. 1, Littlestown, PA
Gettysburg Travel
Council
Mrs. Blucker
C. E. Williams & Sons, Mr. Williams
Inc.
Conewage Contractor,
Hanover, PA
Fred Shealer, RD-4,
Gettysburg, PA
Lake Heritage
Association
Mr. Feaser
Fred Shealer
David Lewis,
Chairman
Lake Heritage Property Barbara Heromin
Owners Association
Unit costs for
sewers (material
only)
Unit costs for
on-site systems
Plans for the
partially com-
pleted Holiday
Inn along Rt. 30
Permit capacities
of Schaff's Trailer
Park and Lake Heritage
sewage treatment plants,
water quality survey and
modeling of Rock Creek
Unit prices for exca-
vation and sewer in the
Gettysburg Area
Number of hotels, room-
ing houses, and campsite
units in the Gettysburg
area
Unit costs for exca-
vation in the Gettys-
burg area
Unit costs for exca-
vation, backfill, and
pipes
Unit costs for on-site
systems
Lake Heritage Package
Plant, malfunctions
and holding tank
flows, holding
tank pumping costs
Lake Heritage resi-
dence and resident
breakdown, in terms
of municipalities
-------
Buchart-Horn, Inc.
Gettysburg Municipal
Authority
Gettysburg College
David Boyer
Allen Larson,
Francis Albert
Charles Glassic
Discussion of
Buchart-Horn1s
study of infil-
tration/inflow
in Cumberland's
sewers systems
Discussion of infil-
tration/inflow analy-
sis done for the
Gettysburg sewer
system, number of
customers and
blueprints of the
Gettysburg STP
Current and future
wastewater needs,
plans for expansion,
etc.
Lutheran Theological
Seminary
Clarence Benson
Current and future
wastewater needs,
plans for expansion,
etc.
Adams County Director Irma Ogburn
of Assessments
PA-DER, Bureau of Water Daniel Trawbough
Quality
PA-DER, Topographic A1 Gyer
and Geological Survey
Adams County Sanitation Lee Yohn
Building permits
issued, time
Land treatment
criteria
Groundwater systems
Soil capability
criteria
SCS Adams County
Lee Benz
Soils capabilities
Pennsylvania Office of Natalie Sato
State Planning and
Development
Pennsylvania Department Steve Fehr and
of Community Affairs Thomas Kuhn
Cumberland STP
John Klunkel
Population projec-
tion methodology
Cumberland and
Borough compre-
hensive plans
Arrange plant
visit
Lake Heritage Package
Plant
PA-DER Sewage Enforce-
ment Officer (SEO) for
Mt. Pleasant, Mt. Joy,
and Straban Townships
Buchart-Horn, Inc.
Robert Bachman
Dean Schultz
Raymond Best
Arrange plant
visit
Needs documenta-
tion, project
history, project
costs
Study of Cumberland
STP upgrade costs
6
-------
GFCC
Jay Africa
Lake Heritage Cost
Comparison Study
PA-DER
Joseph P. Galant
Supervising Sani-
tarian
Wastewater-related
public health pro-
blems, septic tank
malfunctions
Public Advisory Group John Zinn,
Coordinator
PAG meetings
National Park Service
John Earnst,
Superintendent
NPS concerns
on the projects
7
-------
GETTYSBURG EIS MAILING LIST
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation
Council on Environmental Quality
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Agricultural Lands Study
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Bureau of Persons
US Department of Agriculture
Cooperative Extensive Service
Soil Conservation Service
US Department of Commerce
Office of Environmental Affairs
US Department of Defense
US Department of Energy
Office of the Secretary for the
Environment
US Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
US Department of Housing and Urban
Development
US Department of the Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Water Resource Analysis
Group/Eastern Land Use Team
National Park Service
Heritage, Conservation and
Recreation Service
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Marine Environmental Protection
Division
US Department of Treasury
US General Services Administration
Water Resources Council
PENNSYLVANIA STATE AGENCIES
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
PENNSYLVANIA STATE AGENCIES (Cont.)
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Contol
Bureau of Community Environmental Control
Bureau of Radiological Health
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Bureau of State Forestry
Bureau of State Parks
Bureau of Topographic and Geological
Survey
Bureau of Water Quality Management
Division of Coordination
Division of Solid Waste Management
Division of Water Supply & Sewerage
Regional Sanitary Engineer
State Conservation Commission
Department of Health
Department of Transportation
Environmental Hearing Board
Fish Commission
Game Commission
Governor's Office of the Budget
Historical and Museum Commission
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin
State Clearinghouse
CITIZENS GROUPS
Air Pollution Contol Association
America the Beautiful Fund, Washington, DC
Audobon Naturalist Society of the Central
Atlantic States, Inc., Washington, DC
Citizens' Advisory Council to PA Dept. of
Environmental Resources
Citizens Environmental Task Force
Environmental Defense Fund
Group Against Smog and Pollution
Lake Heritage Property Owners
League of Women Voters, Gettysburg, PA
League of Women Voters, Philadelphia, PA
National Audobon Society, Harrisburg, PA
National Parks and Conservation Association,
Washington, DC
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Washington, DC
PA Forestry Association, Mechanicsburg, PA
PA Horticultural Society, Philadelphia, PA
PA Lung Association, Hershey, PA
PA Roadside Council, Inc., Philadelphia, PA
PA State Fish and Game Protective Assocation,
Philadelphia, PA
Rachel Carson Trust for the Living Environment,
Inc, Washington, DC
8
-------
CITIZENS GROUPS (Cont.)
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Sierra Club, PA Chapter
Sierra Club, Southwestern Group,
Pittsburg, PA
Water Pollution Control Association,
Washington, DC
Wilderness Society
Wildlife Society
LOCAL AGENCIES
Cumberland Township
Chairman
Engineer
Planning Commission
Solicitor
Cumberland Township Authority
Gettysburg Borough
Council
Engineer
Planning Commission
Solicitor
Gettysburg Municipal Authority
Lake Heritage Municipal Authority
Mt. Joy Township
Chairman
Planning Commission
Solicitor
Mt. Pleasant Township
Chairman
Engineer
Straban Township
Engineer
Planning Commission
Solicitor
Supervisors
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Honorable Richard Thornburgh
Governor of Pennsylvania
Honorable H. John Heinz, III
United States Senator
Honorable Richard S, Schweiker
United States Senator
Honorable William F. Goodling
United States Representative
Mr. & Mrs. Chris H. Walters
(Congressman Goodling's Staff)
Honorable William J. Moore
Senate of Pennsylvania
Honorable Ralph W. Hess
Senate of Pennsylvania
Honorable John D. Happer
Senate of Pennsylvania
Honorable Kenneth J. Cole
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Honorable A. Corville Foster, Jr.
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Honorable Eugene A. Geesey
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Honorable Fred C. Noye
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
PUBLIC ADVISORY GROUP
Jack A. Corbin
John Earnst - Superintendent, National Park
Service
Ruth Gritsch - League of Women Voters
Ronald Hankey - President, Gettysburg Area
Chamber of Commerce
Crosby L. Hartzell, Jr. - President, Retail
Merchants Association
Charles H. Huber, Jr. - Taxpayers Association
Walter Lane
George N. Mahaffey
George W. dinger - Landlords Association
Charles A. Strayer - Straban Township
Builders Association
Rev. James W. Tipton - Historic Gettysburg
Adams County
John B. Zinn, Jr.
MEDIA
Newspapers
Five Star News, Manchester, PA
Gettysburg Times, Gettysburg, PA
Hanover Sun, Hanover, PA
Patroit News, York, PA
Sunday News, York, PA
York Daily Record, York, PA
York Dispatch, York, PA
York News Agency, York, PA
RADIO
WGCB, Red Lion, pa
WGET, Gettysburg, PA
WHVR-AM, Hanover, PA
WNOW AM-FM, York, PA
WSBA, York, PA
WZIX, York, PA
TV
Cypress Cable TV, Reedville, pa
TV Host Inc., Harrisburg, PA
WHP-TV, Harrisburg, PA
WITF-TV, Hershey, PA
WLYH-TV, Lebanon, PA
WSBA-TV, York, PA
WTPA-TV, Harrisburg, PA
9
-------
CITIZENS
CITIZENS (Cont.)
Mr. Francis B. Alberto
Mr. and Mrs. Marvin L. Anderson
Ms. Jane Boblitz
Ms. June Boherg
Mr. Jack Carhon
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Chatelain
Mr. David Clark
Ms. Gloria Clark
Mr. H. Wayne Cluck
Mr. and Mrs. David Cobb
Mr. Joseph L. Cole
Mr. Phillip Cole
Mr. Irvin S. Conover
Mr. Bruce C. Cooper
Elwyne C. Cooper
Mr. William E. Craumer
N. M. Cullison
Ms. Louise F. Daves
Mr. Walton V. Davis
Ms. Ruth M. Detwiler
Mr. Mark A. Eckert
Mr. Frank Ferguson
Mr. Harry Frankhouser, Jr.
Mr. Edwin Frownfelter
Mr. Joseph Galant
Ms. Kathleen A. George
Mr. and Mrs. Bob Greer
Mr. Paul Grumbine
Ms. Bonnie J. Hammond
Mr. J. G. Haney
Mr. Milburn J. Harris
Mr. and Mrs. Clarence H. Hauson
Mr. William F. Hill
Ms. Eileen S. Holmes
A. B. Inskip
Mr. Jordan
Ms. Diana S. Kasu
Ms. Barbara A. Klindt
Mir. Victor Krea
Mr. John K. Latt
Mr. Robert T. Lawn
Mr. Leroy Lesan
Mr. Eugene S. Long
Mr. Harvey F. Ludwig
Mr. Harvey 0. Lytle
Mr. Charles Marass
Mr. Edgar May
Mr. Hugh C. McAllheny
Mr. Ed Merrell
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Miller
Mr. Roger C. Mitterling
F. J. Montgomery
Mr. Phillip 0. Neth
Mr. Lonny Nummet
Mr. Joseph J. Pellegrini
Mr. Thomas Phillip, Jr.
Mr. A. F. Premo, Jr.
Mr. Richard C. Price
Mr. Raymond C. Protzman
Mr. clay Rebert
Mr. and Mrs. M. J. Rockey
Ms. Paula Rubuer
Mr. Michael Rura
Mr. John K. Salt
Mr. Byril Sanders
Mr. Micheal E. Sanders
Mr. Frank Sheak
Mr. Dean A. Shultz
Mr. Edward Slening
Mr. Edward Smith
Mr. Randy Smith
Mr. J. C. Sneeringer
Ms. Sharon Sontheimer
Ms. Susan Stan
Ms. Pearl Steinour
Mr. John A. Stemen
Mr. Carl T. Swinn
Ms. Peggy Taughenbaugh
Mr. Roy E. Thomas
Mrs. Dorothy Thompson
Ms. Ethel W. Thorniley
Mr. Dave Walters
Mr. John D. Warner
Mr. Allen Weikert
Mr. Leo Weiner
Mr. Steve Wennberg
Mr. Glenn Whaley
Mr. and Mrs. Roger D. Williamson
Mr. Clifford Yarwood
Mr. Lee A. Yohn
Mr. Gary L. Yount
OTHERS
Adams County Library
American Water Works Company, Inc.
Carroll Valley Sewer and Water Authority
Century 21 Real Estate
Environmental Consultant and Testing
Services, Inc.
Gannett, Fleming, Corddry & Carpenter
International Research Evaluation
10
-------
CHAPTER II
Purpose of and Need for Action
-------
CHAPTER II. PURPOSE OF
AND NEED FOR ACTION
Introduction
The GMA initially requested Federal financial assistance from EPA
in 1976 in order to carry out their proposed plan for a regional
wastewater treatment system for Gettysburg and surrounding town-
ships in Adams County, Pennsylvania. Under the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA), EPA is responsible for making the
public aware of any significant environmental consequences that
may occur as a result of any proposed project involving a Federal
government action. Because questions have been raised about the
impacts that this project may have on the local communities and
the Gettysburg National Park, EPA decided to prepare an EIS.
EPA's Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS with regard to this
grant application was issued on February 16, 1979.
The following parts of this background section describe:
o The statutory and regulatory framework of the Federal Con-
struction Grants Program
0
The
history of the project
o
The
Facilities Plan proposed action
o
The
decision to prepare the EIS
o
The
issues, scope, and goals of the
EIS
o
The
planning areas and subareas for
this
Framework of Construc-
tion Grants Program
Title II, Section 201 (g)(1) of the Clean Water Act authorizes
the EPA Administrator to make grants to any State, municipality,
or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the construction of
publicly-owned treatment works. EPA regulations about implement-
ing this section of the Clean Water Act appear in 40 CFR 35,
Subpart E, Grants for Construction of Treatment Works. These
regulations define:
o Allocation of construction grant funds—These funds are State
allotments that come from EPA.
o Responsibility of the State water pollution control agency—
In this case, the State agency is the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources (PA-DER) which determines pro-
ject priority among its list of eligible projects in the
State. The State priority rating system takes into account
the severity of the pollution problem, the existing population
affected, and the need to preserve high quality waters.
o Facility Planning requirements for grant applicants—Faci-
lities Planning consists of those necessary plans and studies
that directly relate to the construction of treatment works
and that verify the need for proposed facilities. These plan-
ning studies must include a systematic evaluation of feasible
alternatives. The selected alternative must be demonstrated
to be cost-effective.
o Construction grant application requirements—There are sepa-
rate, but related, requirements for facilities planning (Step
I Grant), preparation of construction drawings and specifica-
tions (Step II Grant), and building and erection of a treat-
ment works (Step III Grant).
11
-------
• Stipulations from on EPA in awarding construction grants--
Among these stipulations are: satisfactory compliance with
EPA facilities planning requirements, consistency with 208
water quality management plans, proven eligiblity for priority
funding, agreement to pay non Federal costs, and compliance
with requirements to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
• Grant conditions—Construction grant regulations identify
twenty categories of treatment works grant conditions that
address grantee responsibilities; acquisition of real pro-
perty; access to the project; assurance of efficient, economic
operation and maintenance of the treatment works; and other
issues.
• Determination of allowable costs to be covered by grants--
There are nineteen categories of allowable costs.
The construction of Federally financed waste treatment works is
generally accomplished m three steps:
• Step I—Facilities Plans and related documents. Information
provided by this step includes preliminary engineering data,
a description of the complete waste treatment system; infil-
tration/inflow documentation analysis of the cost-effective-
ness of the alternatives for the treatment works, evaluation
of compliance with effluent discharge limitations, required
approvals of government agencies, a summary of the public
participation plan, and estimates of project costs and cus-
tomer charges.
• Step II—Construction drawings and specifications.
• Step III—Fabrication and building of a treatment works. The
actual scope of the project must be defined initially by PA-
DER, when priority for the project is established, or by the
EPA Regional Administrator, when grant assistance is awarded.
First, construction grant applications must first be submitted to
PA-DER. Then, PA-DER determines if the grant application meets
the eligibility requirements for a project. PA-DER forwards to
EPA the complete project applications for which priority has been
determined. Generally, grant assistance for projects will not be
awarded until the EPA Regional Administrator determines that the
Facilities Planning requirements and grant assistance require-
ments defined in the regulations have been met. In making this
determination, the Regional Administrator must assess at least
the following factors:
• The conformance of the proposed facilities with area-wide and
basin-wide water quality management plans
• Entitlement of the proposed project to Federal funding (based
on the state's priority rating system) and conformity with the
overall State allocation plans
0 The applicants' agreement and ability to pay non-Federal pro-
ject costs
• The capability of the applicants to ensure adequate construc-
tion, operation, and maintenance of facilities
• The conformance of the proposed wastewater treatment faci-
lities with State and Federal discharge permit requirements
12
-------
• The cost-effective design of the proposed wastewater treatment
facilities
• The conformance of the application with NEPA requirements for
environmental review
• The eligibility of proposed sewage collection systems (if any)
for Federal construction grants
• The compliance of the application with the Clean Air Act and
other environmental laws.
Project History
Gettysburg is primarily a rural community, with approximately
8,000 people, serviced by a limited, relatively old, sewerage
system. The community had remained virtually unchanged for fifty
years until the early 1960's, when the trend of second home
ownership, either for recreation or retirement use, caused the
greater Gettysburg area to become a more developed area.
One particular result of this development was an increasingly
overloaded Gettysburg sewage treatment plant (STP). By 1973 this
plant was treating an average flow of 1.86 million gallons per
day (mgd); it had been designed and built twenty years earlier to
handle an average flow of 1.0 mgd. In addition, the performance
of the plant in terms of pollutant removal was inadequate to meet
the discharge limitations stipulated by the PA-DER. The most
significant result of this situation was degraded water quality
in Rock Creek, which serves as the receiving stream for the
Gettysburg STP. The dissolved oxygen level in Rock Creek has
been depleted, particularly in areas immediately below the dis-
charge site of the plant. This, in turn, has reduced the qua-
lity, quantity, and diversity of aquatic life in Rock Creek.
Meanwhile, growth outside Gettysburg led to increased pressures
for additional conventional centralized treatment plants. One
such plant, the Cumberland North plant, constructed in 1964, soon
became overloaded because excessive storm and groundwater leaked
into the sewer system. Other "package" plants were planned or
built to serve various sewage disposal needs; these plants range
from isolated businesses to the large Lake Heritage development.
As a result of the overloaded STP's, State officials have banned
all new connections to the existing wastewater collection sys-
tems. All new growth has to be accommodated by on-lot systems in
the Borough of Gettysburg and portions of the surrounding town-
ships. This has resulted in bringing new construction to a near
standstill and limiting the economic growth and development of
central Adams County.
On April 6, 1972, the PA-DER issued an order to GMA to upgrade
treatment at the Gettysburg STP so that it would comply with new
water quality criteria for treatment requirements in the
Pennsylvania portion of the Potomac River Basin. Subsequently,
active planning began and produced a variety of studies address-
ing water quality problems, sanitary needs, and possible solu-
tions for the area. The focus of these planning activities was
the Facilities Plan, prepared in 1976 by a consulting engineering
firm, Gannett, Fleming, Corddry, and Carpenter, Inc. (GFCC), on
behalf of the (SNA and associated jurisdictions. This Facilities
Plan was prepared as part of the process to obtain EPA construc-
tion grant funds.
13
-------
Facilities Plan
Proposed Action
The Facility Plan proposed the construction of a collection and
conveyance system, as well as a regional sewage treatment plant.
The Facilities Plan document contains a detailed description of
the proposed plan.
The Facilities Plan first identified a combination of needs that
justified the project:
o Existing sewage treatment plants were overloaded
o Septic tank failures needed to be rectified
o Lake Heritage development was stymied, because it lacked
disposal systems
o Future growth could not be accommodated.
Using the available data, GFCC projected a doubling of population
in the area over twenty years, with heavy development northeast
of Gettysburg, especially along, and directly north of, Route 30.
The Lake Heritage residential development was also in the begin-
ning stages, and showed every sign of rapid and full construc-
tion. Thus, GFCC developed a wastewater plan (Figure II-l) that
would alleviate the existing sewage disposal problems of the
affected communities and provide for future growth.
This plan recommended a number of measures involving both manage-
ment and physical construction:
o Shut down the existing Gettysburg Plant (1 mgd)
o Shut down the existing Cumberland North Plant (0.06 mgd)
o Construct a new 2.5 mgd regional facility near the intersec-
tion of Rock Creek and Route 15
o Construct an interceptor along Route 97 and Rock Creek to
convey sewage to the new plant
o Construct a force main from Lake Heritage to serve that area
o Provide service for new development along Route 30 east of
Gettysburg Borough.
Management features for such a regional plan would be complex,
since numerous townships and operating agencies were involved.
The features of the agreement that was reached include:
o GMA would handle grant application, construction, and opera-
tion of the plant
o A complex formula for sharing costs was established with con-
sideration given to allow for new development
The costs of the project were high; based on the Facilities Plan,
the current present worth estimate of the project, in 1980
dollars, is $29,350,000. The cost of the project was presumed to
be financed by a mixture of: EPA funding from the construction
grants program, low-interest Federal loans, State funds, and
local bond issues to be repaid by user charges.
14
-------
r
y
/
^ j x
FIGURE n-l
COLLECTION AND CONVEYANCE
ROUTES
NEW REGIONAL STP
SVBO,
FACILITIES PLAN PROPOSED ACTION
-------
After GFCC completed the Facilities Plan, it was adopted by GMA
in 1976. Then GMA submitted the Facilities Plan to PA-DER and
applied for a Federal construction grant in November 1976. In
this application (#0421152-01), GMA was the lead agency, acting
on behalf of Straban Township, Cumberland Township Authority, and
Lake Heritage Municipal Authority (LHMA).
Decision to Prepare EIS
The same grant application was approved by PA-DER and passed on
to EPA for review on May 20, 1977. A key decision for EPA under
NEPA was whether to issue a "Negative Declaration" (stating that
acceptable impacts were involved in the project and granting
funds for the project) or to prepare an EIS on the proposed
project.
Also to be addressed prior to making any grant awards were the
independent requirements of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA). Federal regulations under this Act, administered by
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), describe
procedures to be followed if a Federally funded project will
affect a site listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
EPA's environmental review of GMA1s application determined that
the propsed project did represent a potential significant adverse
effect because uncontrolled development could occur as a result
of the new facilities in a manner which might alter the historic
and scenic values associated with the National Park. This deter-
mination required a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under the NHPA,
which would describe measure that would be taken to eliminate or
minimize the adverse impacts.
EPA also decided to hold the decision on whether to prepare an
EIS, pending the attempts to negotiate an MOA with available
information. It was felt that successful negotiation of an MOA
might also satisfy NEPA requirements without an EIS being neces-
sary.
EPA prepared and submitted a "Preliminary Case Report" to the
Advisory Council which served as a basis for consultation among
several involved agencies, including EPA, the ACHP, PA-DER, the
Pennsylvania State Historic and Museum Commission, the NPS, and
local officials. The efforts proceeded well initially resulting
in a Draft Memorandum of Agreement which was supported by several
of the parties. However, the efforts faltered when a more com-
prehensive version of the MOA could not gain the necessary
support.
EPA recognize the impasse and convened a meeting of all the
involved parties on February 8, 1979 where it was agreed that an
EIS had to be prepared to more thoroughly study the issue. EPA
formally issued a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on February
16, 1979 and began work shorty thereafter.
EIS Issues, Scope,
and Goals
Shortly after the EIS process began, it became clear that the
Facilities Plan proposal had lost local support due to high cost
and questionable impacts. Instead of reapplying for a planning
grant and beginning the process again, GMA agreed with EPA that
the EIS would concentrate on finding other, less expensive,
wastewater management alternatives. With that goal in mind, the
scope of this EIS was expanded to address Facilities Planning
requirements for wastewater management alternatives.
16
-------
EPA determined that the major issues to be addressed in this EIS
were:
o Water quality problems in the planning area, both in sewered
and unsewered areas
o Development of cost-effective and environmentally sound waste-
water management alternatives
o Impacts on cultural resources from the induced growth that
could be caused by any proposed wastewater management alterna-
tives .
Subsequently, the scope of this EIS was designed to answer ques-
tions such as:
1. Are the proposed project and population projections com-
patible with the land use plans of the township and the
county's?
2. What are the existing and future sewage disposal needs of the
individual communities involved?
3. What are the other alternatives that will meet the affected
communities1 needs?
4. What environmental, social, economic, and cultural impacts
can be expected from other wastewater management alterna-
tives?
5. Will the wastewater management alternatives encourage indus-
trial, commercial, or residential development beyond that
already anticipated and planned?
6. Will the increased development result in the loss of prime
agricultural land?
7. What effects will the wastewater management alternatives have
on the Gettysburg National Military Park and the surrounding
Historic District?
The primary goal of this EIS is to develop solutions to the
existing and probable wastewater disposal problems for the
Gettysburg area. The EIS must establish an information base upon
which rational decisions can be made by local jurisdictions and
authorities when they apply for construction grant funds, as well
as by PA-DER and EPA in deciding whether to award the funds. In
order to achieve this goal, the following objectives have been
set for the Draft EIS:
o To eliminate the water quality problems in Rock Creek and
other surface waters
o To minimize costs for wastewater management for the Gettysburg
area
o To minimize impacts on cultural resources and to develop miti-
gative measures to control secondary impacts resulting from
induced growth.
EIS Planning Area and
Subareas" ~~
The planning area addressed in this EIS (Figure I1-2) is identi-
cal to the area that the applicant described in the Facilities
Plan. The area's southern boundary is about four miles from the
Pennsylvania-Maryland border. The entire planning area is lo-
17
-------
' PLANNING
AREA
FIGURE D-2
PLANNING AREA
-------
located within the Rock Creek watershed of the Potomac River
basin in Adams County, Pennsylvania. Included in the area are
portions of Mount Pleasant, Mount Joy, and Straban Townships in
the eastern section, and portions of Cumberland Township and the
entire Borough of Gettysburg in the western section.
One unique feature of the planning area is the Gettysburg
National Military Park, which is located in Cumberland Township.
Between two and three million visitors tour the famous Civil War
battlefield each year. The NPS controls an estimated 3,000 acres
of land surrounding Gettysburg. In connection with the battle-
field, the area has numerous archaeological and historic sites.
Except for sections near Gettysburg, the townships primarily
contain undeveloped agricultural areas. The areas of Cumberland
Township and Straban Township that are north and east of Gettys-
burg are becoming increasingly more suburban. Lake Heritage, a
planned residential community, surrounds the man-made lake of the
same name. The development is situated in parts of Straban,
Mount Pleasant, and pount Joy Townships.
19
-------
CHAPTER III
Existing Environment
-------
CHAPTER III.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Air Quality
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania is located near the Maryland border,
about thirty-five miles south-southeast of the state capital at
Harrisburg. The climate of the area is characterized by moderate
temperatures and a generally adequate amount of precipitation. A
summary of meteorological data, as observed at an Environmental
Data Service recording station (#36 3218) in Gettysburg, appears
in Appendix B-l.
The study area is located in the South Central Pennsylvania Air
Quality Control Region (AQCR 196), which consists of Adams,
Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry, and
York Counties. The study area is also subject to regulation by
the PA-DER, Bureau of Air Quality and Noise Control (DER-BAQNC).
Gettysburg is located in State Air Pollution Control Region III,
which includes the same Pennsylvania counties as those listed
above under AQCR 196.
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for total
suspended particulates (TSP), sulfur dioxide (SO,), carbon
monoxide (CO), ozone (0,), nitrogen dioxide (NO,), non-methane
hydrocarbons (NMHC), and "lead (Pb) are presented in Appendix B-3.
The primary standards are intended to prevent adverse health
effects, and the secondary standards are intended to protect the
public welfare. For air contaminants whose concentrations are
within the NAAQS, the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) regulations limit any increase above baseline (1974) levels
for contaminants in classified areas. The study area has been
designated as the Class II type. The PSD limits for TSP and SO,
are presented in Appendix B-4; PSD limitations have not been
established yet for the remaining contaminants. In addition, the
State of Pennsylvania has set the standards listed in Appendix
B-5 for the following air contaminants: settled particulates,
lead (Pb), beryllium (Be), sulfates (as H2S04), flourides (as
HF), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
The major point sources of atmospheric emissions in the study
area are listed in Appendix B-6. As this Appendix shows, parti-
culate emissions constitute the bulk of emissions from these
facilities. Ambient air quality data for 1978 were obtained from
DER-BAQNC, and are presented in Appendix B-7. The data indicate
the severe ozone problem that is associated with vehicular and
other hydrocarbon emissions, and subsequent atmospheric reaction.
In addition, the Pennsylvania 30-day sulfate (as H,S04) standard
was violated nine times, at both the Manchester and West
Manchester sites. In summary, the available air quality data
indicate moderately clean air, with occasional problems that are
a result of ozone and hydrocarbons, and are typical of problems
in the northeastern United States.
According to the staff at the GMA, there was at one time, an odor
problem associated with the existing sewage treatment facility at
East Hanover street in Gettysburg, which works above capacity.
This problem was associated with the waste gas burner and bio-
filter rocks, and has been rectified. Occasionally, however, an
odor may still be detected.
Because of the size and variation in land use in the study area,
a noise measurement survey, to determine the existing day/night
sound levels, was not conducted. Instead, the day/night sound
21
-------
levels of the area were calculated by a methodology developed by
the EPA that defines outdoor noise levels as a function of popu-
lation density (EPA 1974). The methodology assumes, correctly,
that airports and freeways are not the primary sources of noise
exposure in this planning area. The noise level is calculated to
be an average of 50 dBA (sound level in decibels read on the A
scale) throughout the area. (As a comparison, an office tabu-
lating machine produces noise levels at approximately 80 dBA.)
This level will vary from less than 50 dBA for recreational land
uses such as the Gettysburg National Military Park, to greater
than 50 dBA for commercial land use and residential developments
along major roadways.
Earth Resources
Topography
Geology
Soils
The study area is located within the Gettysburg Plain of the
Piedmont Physiographic Province. The study area has gently
rolling hills, with elevations ranging from 400 feet above mean
sea level (msl) along Rock Creek to 749 feet above msl at Granite
Hill. A majority of the slopes within the study area range from
0 to 8 percent, but slopes are steeper in the foothills of such
areas as Wolf Hill, Granite Hill, Culps Hill, and Seminary Ridge.
The Gettysburg Formation, the New Oxford Formation, and an intru-
sive diabase (see below) are the three basic rock units found
within the study area, and are shown in Figure III—1. The New
Oxford Formation is a sedimentary sequence of rocks, Triassic in
age, which outcrops at the surface in the southeastern part of
the study area. This formation is generally composed of sand-
stone and shale, interspersed with beds of arkose and conglo-
merate. Within the study area, the New Oxford Formation is
represented by soft red shales and sandstones, and localized beds
of light-colored sandstone (Hale 1934).
The Gettysburg Formation, comprising three members, overlies the
New Oxford Formation. The lower member, made up of red shale, is
the predominant member of the Gettysburg Formation within the
study area. The Heildersburg (middle) Member is red shale and
sandstone, with numerous interbedded green, gray, and black
shales, and gray to white sandstone. Rocks of the Heildersburg
Member are harder, and generally more resistant to weathering
than rocks of the lower members of this formation (Stose 1932).
The upper member of the Gettysburg Formation does not occur
within the study area.
The Gettysburg and the New Oxford Formations are intruded by a
hard, dense, coarse-grained igneous rock known as diabase, that
ranges in thickness from several feet to hundreds of feet.
Elevated landforms throughout the study area, such as Seminary
Ridge, were formed where these diabase sills and dikes intruded
into sandstones and shales. Diabase is more resistant to
weathering and erosion than are sandstones and shales, which is
why there are rocky hills throughout the study area, particularly
in the Gettysburg National Military Park.
Soils within the study area are generally shallow and poorly
drained, with a shallow depth to seasonal high water table. Four
soil associations are represented within the study area:
• The Penn-Readington-Croton Association—gently to moderately
sloping, well drained, shallow to moderately deep shaly soils
• The Klinesville-Penn-Abbottstown-Croton Associations—gently
to moderately sloping, well drained to poorly drained, mostly
shallow shaly soils
22
-------
FIGURE m-l
GEOLOGY
-------
• The Montalto-Mount Lucas-Watchung Association--rolling to
gently sloping, well drained, medium acid soils
• The Lehigh-Brecknock Association—gently sloping to moderately
steep, well drained to poorly drained, moderately deep soils.
Soils overlying the Gettysburg Formation and the New Oxford
Formation include the Abbottstown, Birdsboro, Brecknock, Klines-
ville, Lansdale, Lehigh, Penn, Reaville, and Steinsburg soil
series. These soils are characterized by shallow depth to bed-
rock (ranging from 0.2 to 3.7 m) and by permeabilities ranging
from 0.5 to 16 cm/hr. They vary from well to poorly drained.
Depths to seasonal high water table normally range from 0.5 to
1.0 m, although soils are frequently deeper and better drained in
upland areas.
Soils overlying the intrusive diabase material include the
Legore, Montalto, and Mount Lucas soil series. These soils are
generally stonier and deeper than those overlying the sedimentary
rock of the Gettysburg Formation and the New Oxford Formation;
their profile depths range from 0.6 to 4.7 m. They are generally
well drained, with permeability values ranging from 0.5 to 1.6
cm/hr. Depth to seasonal high water table is greater than 1 m.
Soils of the Bowmansville, Chewacla, Croton, Lamington, Reading-
ton, Rowland, Watchung, Wehadkee, and Worsham series are found in
the floodplains of the study area. These soils are relatively
deep (0.8 to 3.6 m) to bedrock and are virtually impermeable
(less than 0.5 cm/hr). A complete listing of soil series found
within the study area can be found in Appendix C-l.
The soil properties shown in Appendix C-l are the most important
factors in determining the suitability of any site for soil-
dependent wastewater treatment systems. Many of the soils in the
study area have been rated as unsuitable for conventional subsur-
face wastewater disposal (e.g., septic tank-soil absorption
systems). The major limiting factors cited by the US Department
of Agriculture (USDA), SCS, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Chapter 73 Regulations are (1) shallow depth to bedrock, (2)
shallow depth to water-bearing strata, (3) seasonal high water
table, (4) too rapid or too slow a rate of permeability, and (5)
excessively steep slopes.
Soils in the study area were also evaluated to assess their
suitability for surface land treatment of wastewater effluent,
following guidelines published by EPA. Table III-1 lists EPA
criteria for the slow infiltration (spray irrigation), overland
flow, and rapid infiltration methods for land application of
treated wastewater. Of the approximately twenty-four soils
series present within the study area, the Penn and Brecknock
soils were found suitable for spray irrigation; the Worsham,
Wehadkee, and the Watchung soils were found suitable for overland
flow; and no soils were found suitable for rapid infiltration.
24
-------
Water Resources
Hydrology
Table III-l. Comparison of Site Characteristics for Land Treat-
ment Processes
Principal processes
Charac-
teristics Slow rate Overland flow Rapid infiltra-
tion
Slope
Less than 20% on
cultivated land;
less than 40% on
noncultivated land
Finish slopes
2 to 8%
Not critical;
excessive slopes
require much
earthwork
Soil
permeability
Depth to
groundwater
Climatic
restrictions
Moderately slow to
moderately rapid
2 to 3 ft
Storage often
needed for cold
weather and pre-
cipitation
Slow (clays,
silts, and
soils with
impermeable
barriers)
Not critical
Storage often
needed for
cold weather
Rapid (sands,
loamy sands)
10 ft (lesser
depths [minimum]
are acceptable
where underdrain-
age is provided)
None (possibly
modify operations
in cold weather)
1 ft = 0.305
m
During the preparation of this EIS, field trips were conducted in
the study area to examine soils of the Penn and Brecknock series
to assess their suitability for spray irrigation of treated
effluent. This field study led to the following conclusions
regarding certain study area soils:
• Depending on the location within the study area, Brecknock and
Penn soils may be suitable for spray irrigation where depth to
bedrock or seasonal high water table are not problems.
• It will be difficult to locate a single spray irrigation site
of adequate size to handle all the effluent from the study
area.
• Soils with poor drainage and gentle slopes may possibly be
suitable for small-scale marsh ponds systems.
• Because of the variability of study area soils, it is recom-
mended that soils at the selected site be analyzed in detail
prior to the design of any land treatment system.
Rock Creek watershed is the major drainage basin in the study
area, with a drainage area of 66.0 square miles to the
Pennsylvania-Maryland state line (Figure III-2). The major stem
of Rock Creek originates near Biglerville, flows through Gettys-
burg and runs south to cross the state line, and eventually joins
Marsh Creek in Maryland. Marsh Creek eventually joins Monacacy
River and Potomac River. As a result, Rock Creek is within the
25
-------
ROCK CREEK WATERSHED
BOUNDARY
CUMBERLAN
SCHAFF TRAILER
PARK STP
GETTYSBURG'
^3
MOUNT
PLEASANT
GETTYSBURG
LAKE
HCHITAaC
AKE HERITAGE PACKAGE
PLANT
MOUNT
JOY
MILES
' 0
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
FIGURE m-2 ROCK CREEK WATERSHED, PENNSYLVANIA
26
-------
Potomac River Basin. The major tributaries of Rock Creek are
White Run (which receives flows from Lake Heritage), Littles Run,
Plum Run, and Lousey Run. Most of the surface runoff to Rock
Creek comes from cultivated areas and small wood lots of the
surrounding agricultural areas.
Precipitation within the study area is approximately 41.2 inches
per year (SCS 1967). Nearly 40 percent (16 inches) of this
amount is lost to runoff. The remaining 25.2 inches is either
lost to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration or percolates
into the groundwater aquifer systems (McGuiness 1964).
Table II1-2 presents the drainage areas and computed 7-day
10-year (7Q10) low flows for the Rock Creek watershed and its
subwatersheds. A detailed description of the derivation of these
low flows is included in Appendix D-l.
Table II1-2. Drainage Areas and 7-Day 10-Year Low Flows in
Rock Creek and its Tributaries
Drainage 7-day 10-year
area low flow
Stream (sq mi) (cfs)
Rock Creek at Gettysburg STP 20.0 1.13
White Run below Lake Heritage — 13.0 0.73
Littles Run 7.67 0.42
Plum Run 3.84 0.22
Lousey Run 2.93 0.17
Stevens Run 1.15 0.07
Natural discharge of groundwater (i.e., springs) takes place
primarily in Rock Creek, Littles Run, White Run, Plum Run, and
their tributaries. Some groundwater discharge also occurs in
abandoned quarries in the Borough of Gettysburg. Recharge, or
replenishment of groundwater, takes place throughout the study
area by way of percolation through soil material and bedrock
fractures.
Wastewater Discharge The major wastewater sources that directly discharge into Rock
Creek are Cumberland STP and Gettysburg STP (Figure II1-2). A
small package plant that serves the Schaff Trailer Park empties
its flow into a small stream that eventually joins Rock Creek.
Another package plant that presently treats holding tank wastes
from the Lake Heritage area, discharges into White Run, a major
tributary of Rock Creek.
An August 1979 review of recent water quality survey results
indicates that effluent limitations are exceeded in terms of the
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (B0Ds), ammonia nitrogen, and
total phosphorus at Cumberland STP and Gettysburg STP (Table
II1-3). The modeling study of Rock Creek shows that Gettysburg
STP is the most significant contributor of BOD and nutrient
loadings to the Creek (see details in Appendix D-l).
27
-------
Table II1-3. Effluent Characteristics at Cumberland and Gettysburg
STPs and Effluent Limitations
Total Suspended BODg Ammonia Total phos-
Solids (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg N/1) phorus
(mg P/l)
Cumberland STP* 2.0
Gettysburg STP* 5.0
Effluent limita-
tions 15.0
34.5
58.5
15.0
9.6
12.0
3.0+
5.6
6.5
0.5
*Water Quality Survey on August 8-9,
+3.0 mg/1 from June 1 to October 31.
l9-)9
Water quality criteria established for Rock
the PA-DER are summarized in Table III-4.
Creek
watershed by
Table II1-4. Water Quality Criteria
for Rock
Creek
Watershed*
Parameters Criteria
PH
Dissolved oxygen
Total iron
Temperature
Dissolved solids
Total dissolved phosphorus
Fecal coliform
6.0-8.5
Minimum daily average 5.0
mg/1
Absolute minimum 4.0 mg/1
Below 1.5 mg/1
Not more than a 5°F rise
above ambient tempera-
ture or a maximum of
87°F, whichever is
less; not to be changed
by more than 2°F during
any one-hour period
Maximum monthly average
500 mg/1
Absolute maximum 750 mg/1
Maximum 0.1 mg P/l
Below a geometric mean of
200 per 100 ml in five
consecutive samples
*Rules and Regulations,Title 25--Environmental Resources, Part 1.
Department of Environmental Resources Subpart C. Protection of
Natural Resources Protection of Natural Resources Article II.
Water Resources chapter 93. Water Quality Standards, Pennsylvania
Bulletin, Vol. 9, No. 36, 8 September 1979.
water Ouality of Rock .
and Lake Heritage In this section, water quality conditions in Rock Creek and Lake
Heritage are discussed, based on historical data and a water
quality survey conducted in August 1979. Review of these data
has indicated that the present water quality in Rock Creek is
relatively poor, particularly during the summer low flow months.
Dissolved oxygen levels often drop to 2 mg/1 daily. Fecal coli-
form levels are always high, above the State Water Quality
28
-------
Criteria of 200 per ml. Very high levels of nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorus) have been observed over the past few years. The
data review also shows that the wastewater discharge from the
Gettysburg STP is primarily responsible for the degradation of
water quality in Rock Creek.
A comprehensive water quality survey was conducted in Rock Creek
and Lake Heritage from August 7-9, 1979, as part of this EIS. A
complete description of the survey and the survey data are pre-
sented in Appendix D-2. The survey shows that temperature in
Rock Creek was about 25°C during the survey period. BOD5 levels
peaked at 10 mg/1 near the Cumberland STP, and 70 mg/1 near the
Gettysburg STP. Nitrogenous BOD demonstrates a similar pattern,
which reflects the significant impact of wastewater discharge
from the treatment plants.
The survey results also show that a major portion of Rock Creek
in the study area had a dissolved oxygen level below the State
Water Quality Criterion of 5 mg/1. Dissolved oxygen levels as
low as 2 mg/1 were detected near Spanglers Spring. Organic
nitrogen as high as 8 mg/1, and ammonia nitrogen as high as 10
mg/1, were measured immediately downstream from the Gettysburg
STP. The subsequent oxidation of these nitrogen components led
to significant increases in nitrate levels in Rock Creek. As a
result, nitrate nitrogen increased from 1 mg N/1 to 8 mg N/1 in
the downstream direction.
Orthophosphate and total phosphorus levels in Rock Creek exhibit
trends similar to the nitrogen components, reflecting the effect
of wastewater discharge. With orthophosphate concentration equal
to 80 percent of the total phosphorus concentration along the
stream, it can be concluded that the treatment plants are the
major contributors of phosphorus to the stream because the
effluent consists mainly of orthophosphate.
Lake Heritage had fair water quality during the August 1979
survey. The lake was stratified in terms of temperature, varying
from 27°C at the surface to 16.5°C at the bottom. Dissolved
oxygen levels were about 5.6 mg/1 and 6.5 mg/1 near the surface
and close to zero on the bottom. Nutrient concentrations were
relatively low except in the bottom waters, where total phos-
phorus was 0.265 mg P/l. Bacteria levels were well below the
State Water Quality Standards. Overall, the lake does show some
sign of eutrophication.
Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality within the study area is generally good and
within an acceptable drinking water range (Wood 1979). Hall
(1934) reported that in eight wells tested from the New Oxford
aquifer system, the average total dissolved solids (TDS) was 211
mg/1, hardness equaled 136 mg/1, and iron was 0.07 mg/1. In the
Gettysburg aquifer system, Hall reported an average TDS of 363
mg/1, hardness at 251 mg/1, and iron at 0.20 mg/1. Groundwater
from the igneous diabase was reported to average 176 mg/1 for
TDS, 114 mg/1 for hardness, and 0.15 mg/1 for iron.
Analyses made on water from GMA Well #2 shows nitrogen as nitrate
at 2.18 mg/1, which is relatively low when compared with the
national drinking water standard of 10 mg/1. Bacteriological
tests on groundwater from the same well produced a low total
coliform level of 2.2 colonies per 100 ml of water. Additional
groundwater data obtained during a recent sanitary survey can be
found in Appendix 1-1.
29
-------
Water Supply
Surface waters in the Rock Creek watershed are not used for water
supply. The water supply of the study area is provided by the
GMA water system, using Marsh Creek as the primary source.
Presently GMA serves about 9,650 persons in Gettysburg Borough
and adjoining portions of Cumberland Township and straban Town-
ship. GMA also has four groundwater wells to supplement the
surface water supply from Marsh Creek. Only well #1 is located
within the Rock Creek watershed and the study area. Well #1 is
used only during emergencies because of the water's extreme
hardness. As a result, the water resources within the Rock Creek
watershed do not play a significant role in water supply.
One of the problems associated with the Marsh Creek supply is
inadequate dry-weather yield. Although the supply allocation is
0.96 mgd, there is no yield available during drought because of
upstream irrigation withdrawals for orchards (GFCC 1977). Irri-
gation withdrawals reduced available stream flow severely in past
years, particularly in 1966, and irrigation requirements are
projected to increase in the future.
Potential new sources were investigated by GMA (GFCC 1977),
including all surface water and groundwater supplies, to deter-
mine the best additional source. Surface waters in the study
area have not been considered as potential sources of water
supply. As to future groundwater supply, the Gettysburg Forma-
tion, including the Heidlersburg Member, offers the best poten-
tial for groundwater development in the Gettysburg area. The
upper Rock Creek watershed was the recommended well drilling area
in the Gettysburg Formation (GFCC 1977). These designated areas
have favorable separation, geologic, and topographic charac-
teristics •
In addition to the above-described GMA water supply system, the
Citizens Utility Company operates a well that serves the Lake
Heritage community. That well yields 360,000 gallons of ground-
water each day.
Biological Resources
Aquatic Biota
Studies of the aquatic biota in the study area have been con-
ducted by PA-DER (Hughey 1973, 1978). An aquatic biology survey
was conducted in August 1979 for this EIS. Detailed results of
the earlier surveys and the recent survey can be found in
Appendixes E-l and e-2, respectively.
The low numbef of fish and macroinvertebrate species found near
Spanglers Spring during the 1979 survey indicates that aquatic
life in Rock Creek has been adversely affected downstream from
the Gettysburg STl>. Earlier studies by Hughey (1973 and 1978)
reached conclusions. The reduction in species diversity
is probably result of the extremely low dissolved oxygen
concentra'tio1^, downstream from the Gettysburg STP (see Appendix
D-2), in combination with high levels of ammonia and chlorine.
During the 1979 survey, fish were found to avoid waters
immediately *1 °w STPs where the residual chlorine concentrations
exceeded 0*0 • At ^0cations immediately upstream from the
outfall of ettysburg STP, the number of fish species cap-
tured was p as the number collected upstream from the
Cumberland ® 'However, macroinvertebrate numbers and diversity
were lower ln®ediately upstream from the Gettysburg
STP than at locations upstream from the Cumberland STP.
Ity may have been related to the operations of
This lower
divers
30
-------
the Cumberland STP but other factors, such as the poorer sub-
strate < fdo(3 supply) at the Gettysburg STP, may have been
involved. The fish population of Lake Heritage appears to be
healthy (see Appendixes E-l and E-2). The apparent low diversity
in the Lake Heritage macroinvertebrate community cannot be
explained at this time. The abundant weed growths observed
during the August 1979 survey suggest that problems from eutro-
phication may arise.
Terrestrial Biota The vegetation and land cover presently found in the study area
consist of several major types: deciduous forest, agricultural
and open land, suburban and urban land, and quarry. The category
"suburban and urban land" has been subdivided further into
several classes of more detailed uses. Open water covers a small
part of the study area.
At the present time, stands of deciduous forest cover less than
20 percent of the study Area. Mast narrow ravines. stream valleys
and hilltops are forested. Many other tree and shrub species are
present in the forests of both the lowlands and the uplands, and
some sixty species were noted during the brief field recon-
naissance for this analysis during April 2979 (see Appendix E-3).
The herbaceous flora in the deciduous forests of the study area
is both diverse and abundant (see Appendix E-3). Some of the
more common species are mayapple, jewelweed, wild ginger, wild
geranium, bloodroot, ground ivy, violets, and jack-in-the pulpit.
Agricultural lands include cropped fields, pastures, feedlots,
orchards, vineyards, and the associated farmhouses, barns, and
outbuildings. The vegetation primarily consists of grain or
forage crops, weedy ruderal {growing where the natural vegetation
has been disturbed by man) herbs, hedgerows, fruit trees, and
small remnant stands of forest trees. Large, open areas of mowed
grass and old fields that apparently are not being used for
agriculture are also included.
Suburban and urban lands may be categorized by surface vegetative
covering. In suburban parts of the study area, less than one-
third of the surface is ordinarily covered by structures and
pavement. The vegetation in the remaining areas is, in general,
highly managed; usually it is composed of lawns, gardens, and
landscaped plantings of shrubs and shade trees. In urban areas,
which are typically about two-thirds covered by paved surface and
structures, vegetation is generally restricted to small lawns and
shade trees, except for occasional parks and vacant lots.
Based upon habitat conditions, available geographic range data,
and limited field reconnaissance, twenty-two species of amphi-
bians (salamanders, frogs, and toads) and twenty-four species of
reptiles (turtles, lizards, and snakes) are known, or are con-
sidered likely to occur, in the study area. These species are
all permanent inhabitants of the study area and breed locally.
The amphibians require open water, or at least moist soil condi-
tions, for reproductive activities; most amphibian breeding
habitats are in stream valleys, in floodplains, or adjacent to
ponds or other water sources. Approximately half the study area
reptile species require open water habitat for food, cover, or
breeding. The remaining reptilian species are less restricted
and use a variety of habitats, ranging from moist lowlands to dry
upland areas. A list of amphibians and reptiles likely to occur
in the study area is provided in Appendix E-4.
31
-------
There are no available data about study area birds, in part,
because there are no organized bird watching clubs, but from the
information on bird life to the north and south of the Gettysburg
Study Area, it can be assumed that approximately 280 species of
birds occur with some regularity there. About 100 species breed
in or near the study area.
Forty-eight species of mammals are known or expected to occur in
the study area, based upon range and habitat conditions (Appendix
E-5). Most of these mammals breed and reside permanently in the
study area, with certain species of bats as the only exceptions.
The little brown myotis, silver-haired bat, red bat, seminole
bat, and hoary bat migrate to warmer southern areas, where they
spend the winter months.
Threatened or There are no known species of aquatic biota in the study area
Endangered Species that are listed as endangered or threatened by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service or the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Similarly,
no amphibian or reptile classified federally as endangered or
threatened with extinction, under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, is known to inhabit the study area.
No plant species currently classified for Federal designation as
endangered or threatened are known to occur in the study area.
Adams County and the surrounding vicinity have not been studied
intensively by trained botanists or ecologists, primarily because
a large proportion of the county has b«en converted to agricul-
tural uses.
Environmentally
Sensitive Areas
Flood-Prone Areas
Steep Slopes
Environmentally sensitive areas are those geographic areas that
are particularly susceptible to damage resulting from man-made
uses. In general, intrusion into such areas should be dis-
couraged and, where it does occur, such development should be
subject to special restraints or measures to mitigate the nega-
tive impacts. Environmentally sensitive areas of concern are
discussed below.
Flood-prone areas (also known as floodplains) are those areas
that are near water courses and are subject to some specified
probability of flooding. Flood-prone areas are defined here as
the "100-year floodplain," i.e., those areas with at least a 1
percent annual probability of being flooded.
Flood-prone areas were delineated from maps of the Housing and
Urban Development National Flood Insurance Program (see Figure
III-3). These areas occur as 90 to 200 m (300 to 700 ft) wide
bands bordering Rock Creek, Littles Run, White Run, Plum Run, and
unnamed tributaries.
Steeply sloping land is particularly sensitive to erosion, which
produces sediments that affect stream quality. Development on
such slopes is usually expensive; possible soil slippage and the
provision of public services are other difficulties.
For this EIS, slopes of 8 to 15 percent and slopes greater than
15 percent were mapped from USGS 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangle maps at the 1:24,000 scale (see Figure II1-4). Slopes
greater than 8 percent occupy 10 to 15 percent of the study area.
These slopes generally occur adjacent to the valleys of Rock
Creek, Littles Run, White Run, and Plum Run, and on the diabase
32
-------
FIGURE m-3
FLOOD PRONE AREAS
-------
k
X
I I 0-8*
8-15*
GREATER THAN 15*
FIGURE m-4
STEEP SLOPES
-------
ridges of Seminary Ridge, Oak Ridge, Culp's Hill, Wolf Hill,
Granite Hill, Sheep Heaven, and Round Top.
Prime Agricultural SCS has established criteria to use in identifying prime agricul-
Lands tural lands. This category includes high quality soils that
yield food, feed, and fiber, with minimal adverse environmental
effects, and with the lowest expenditure of energy, labor, and
capital. These lands have adequate and dependable moisture
supplies; a favorable temperature and growing season; acceptable
pH and salt content; permeability to air and water; and freedom
from coarse fragments, excessive erosion, and severe ponding or
flooding (SCS 1977).
The criteria used to identify agricultural lands of statewide
importance are less stringent. These farmlands include soils
that produce high crop yields economically with proper manage-
ment, but that are not sufficiently productive to be considered
prime agricultural land. The distribution of prime agricultural
lands and farmlands of statewide importance is illustrated in
Figure 111-5.
While there are presently no Federal or State regulations govern-
ing land application of treated wastewater on either prime agri-
cultural land or agricultural lands of statewide importance,
these UBes can be highly compatible. Steepness of slope, depth
to water-bearing zone, permeability, and depth to bedrock should
all be examined before any site is chosen for land application of
treated wastewater.
Aquifer Recharge Areas Because many parts of the study area rely upon groundwater for
domestic and other uses, it is essential to recognize those areas
where percolation of rain waters recharges the groundwater. The
geology indicates that the recharge area for most of the study
area water supply lies inside the study area, although recharge
from outside certainly does occur. Therefore, the entire study
area is considered to be a recharge area. Consolidated rocks and
the overlying soil are hydraulically connected and aid in the
recharge of groundwater (Wood 1979). However, the anisotropic
nature of the rocks and the lack of a specific aquifer make it
impossible to delineate specific aquifer recharge areas.
Wetlands Undeveloped wetlands, the landward edges of open water, and open
water itself, are valuable to many species of wildlife. Gen-
erally, these transitional areas, between terrestrial and aquatic
environments, support diverse vegetation and therefore provide a
variety of resources for wildlife.
No continuous, vegetated wetlands large enough to be mapped are
present in the study area, although scattered wetland plant
species are found at the edges of streams and in wet agricultural
meadows.
Wildlife Habitats The general character of the study area during the late 1970s was
agricultural and rural; the developed area (suburban and urban)
is limited to about 15 percent of the study area. The remainder,
including the nearly 4,000 acres of land owned by the Federal
Government as part of the Gettysburg National Military Park, is
agricultural or forested land. Wetlands, streambanks, and open
water habitats are present in the study area, but they are
limited in extent.
35
-------
U)
fefL
[PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
~ AGRICULTURAL FARMLAND OF
STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE
FIGURE m-5
PRIME FARM AND STATE FARM LAND
SOURCE USDA-SCS, 1967
-------
Open habitats (agricultural land and fields and grasslands)
provide less cover for larger species of wildlife than woods, do
but they support a highly productive herbaceous flora (including
crops) that provides food for many wildlife species.
Forest stands and second growth scrub areas are valuable habitats
because they provide substantial cover and food for wildlife.
Because forested land in the study area is limited in extent and
is usually on isolated, steep slopes, it has a particularly high
environmental value. The diversity of herbaceous plants in these
areas is considerable. Major construction on forested areas,
particularly those with steep slopes and correspondingly great
erosion potential, should be avoided.
In rural areas such as Gettysburg, development usually takes
place on parcels of land accessible to major transportation
routes. Over a period of time, development tends to compart-
mentalize the available wildlife habitat and restrict the move-
ments of wildlife among alternate cover and feeding habitats. As
development continues, the parcels of habitat shrink in size and
in wildlife carrying capacity. The less tolerant species, such
as gray fox and whitetail deer, are reduced in number first.
Other species, usually smaller animals v^hich can better survive
and in some cases can thrive in the developed areas, become more
numerous following development. Typical tolerant and adaptive
species are cottontail rabbit, gray squirrel, American robin,
mockingbird, rock dove, starling, and sparrow.
The absence of large continuous strips of forest suggests that
there are few major corridors for optimal wildlife movement
throughout the Study Area. Nevertheless, the numerous small
parcels of forests in the northeastern and eastern parts of the
Study Area, interspersed with open habitats, create a significant
amount of edge habitat (ecotone). With development limited
except around the borough and the major transportation routes,
the edge habitat supports a diversity of wildlife in the Study
Area.
Although a third of the Study Area consisting of Gettysburg
Borough and the Gettysburg National Military Park is closed to
hunting, the remaining two thirds is generally open and used for
moderate hunting and trapping. No data are available from the PA
Game Commission on the number of hunter-use days in the Study
Area or County. Data also are lacking for non-consumptive uses
of wildlife such as birdwatching and nature walks. However, the
open land in the Gettysburg Study Area probably provides thou-
sands of hours of outdoor recreational experience for residents
and visitors to the region each year.
Population Trends and
Projections
The Gettysburg EIS Study Area encompasses all of Gettysburg
Borough, but only portions of the four other municipalities
involved. However, population data gnerally is compiled on a
municipal level. It is necessary, therefore, to make a distinc-
tion between information that refers to the entirety of all of
the municipalities and that which refers to the portions of
municipalities actually within the EIS study area. In the fol-
lowing sections, reference to the entirety of each municipality
will be called Total Municipalities; that referring only to the
Study Area specific part will be called Study Area Portion.
Population data presented in Table II1-5 is distinguished in this
manner.
37
-------
Table III-5. Population Trends and Projections (1980-2005) for Total Municipalities and Study Area Portions.
(Population trends for Total Municipalities are derived from ACC 1970 and US-DOC 1977. The
development of population projections for Total Municipalities is described in Appendix F-3.
Study Area Portion population figures are based on the proportion of the municipality's popula-
tion which is within the EIS Study Area, as described in the text.)
Population Trends Population Projections
Municipality
1950
1960
1970
1976
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Cumberland Twp. (Total)
(Study Area Portion)
1,999
2,925
3,497
3,738
1,540
4,305
1,774
4,802
1,978
5,298
2,183
5,878
2,422
6,521
2,687
7,234
2,980
Gettysburg Boro. 1
7,046
7,960
7,275
7,470
7,219
7,236
7,254
7,272
7,289
7,306
Mt. Joy Twp. (Total)
(Study Area Portion)
1,143
1,380
1,795
2,056
835
2,397
973
2,647
1,075
2,922
1,186
3,228
1,311
3,564
1,447
3,935
1,598
Mt. Pleasant Twp.
(Total)
(Study Area Portion)
1,867
2,531
1,817
2,221
493
2,669
593
2,947
654
3,253
722
3,592
797
3,966
880
4,379
972
Straban Twp. (Total)
(Study Area Portion)
1,941
2,387
3,221
3,717
2,275
3,574
2,187
3,946
2,415
4,357
2,666
4,810
2,944
5,311
3,250
5,854
3,589
Total Municipalities
13,996
17,183
17,605
19,202
20,164
21,578
23,984
24,780
26,651
28,718
Study Area Portion Total
-
-
-
12,613
12,746
13,358
14,011
14,746
15,553
16,445
1 Data for Gettysburg Borough are listedonly once since the entire Borough is within the EIS Study Area.
-------
Past population growth for the Total Municipalities, and for
Adams County as a whole, has been moderate (Table 111-5) . The
most rapid rate of growth occurred between 1950 and 1960 when the
Total Municipalities averaged a 2.3 percent per year growth rate.
Population growth slowed considerably between 1960 and 1970
(averaging 0.3 percent per year), but then increased somewhat
between 1970 and 1976. During the latter period, the average
annual rate of increase (1.5 percent) for the Total Munici-
palities was nearly identical to that for Adams County (1.6
percent).
Population projections for the Total Municipalities from 1980 to
2005 also are presented in Table 111 — 5. These projections repre-
sent a reasonable rate and level of population growth for each
municipality in light of current and past trends. The develop-
ment of the Total Municipalities projections was based on recent
local subdivision and building activity, detailed PA-DCA
analyses, average household size trends, US Bureau of the Census
estimates, as well as other county- and state-level projections
and assumptions. A complete description of the projection metho-
dology for Total Municipalities is provided in Appendix F-3.
The 1980 population estimates presented here for Total Municipa-
lities is approximately 6 percent lower overall than the pre-
liminary 1980 Census figures. These preliminary Census figures
were not used for the 1980 estimate in this EIS because these
figures are not official and have not been verfied fully, because
these figures evidence anomalies when compared to earlier US
Census population estimates, and because these figures have
emerged very late in this EIS process and could not be evaluated
by EPA or its contractor. An examination of population data
provided by the Census Bureau for 1970, 1976, and 1977 suggests a
very modest rate of growth between 1970 and 1976, and subsequent
population declines estimated for Gettysburg, Mt. Joy, and
Straban (and the Total Municipalities as a whole) between 1976
and 1977. The 1980 Census data, in contrast to these previous
Census estimates, indicate population levels which would suggest
an extremely large increase in population berween 1977 and 1980
for each of the four Study Area townships. Furthermore, this
increase is not supported by the moderate amount of local build-
ing activity which has occurred, as reflected in the issuance of
building permits, in recent years. Therefore, the 1980 Census
figures (preliminary) have not been incorporated directly into
population estimates developed for this EIS.
As explained previously, the EIS Study Area does not encompass
all of each of the five municipalities involved. Consequently,
with the exception of Gettysburg Borough, the Study Area Portion
of the population of the four Townships is less than that of the
Total Municipalities. Specific Study Area projections for use in
the EIS require the disaggregation of the total population of
Cumberland, Mt. Joy, Mt. Pleasant, and Straban Townships into
that proportion of each which is located within the Study Area.
This disaggregation process is described in detail in Appendix
F-l. Basically, US Census Bureau estimates of Total Municipal
populations for 1976 and aerial photographs of the Study Area
(also dated 1976) were analyzed to determine a proportion for
each municipality of the population timing within the Study Area.
The results of this analysis revealed the following proportions:
Jurisdiction
% of Total Population
within the Study Area
Cumberland Township
Gettysburg Borough
Mt. Joy Township
Mt. Pleasant Township
Straban Township
41.2
100.0
40.6
22.6
61.2
39
-------
A variety of checks were performed as part of the methodology to
insure that the proportions and courts of dwelling units were
reasonably accurate. It was determined that these proportions
have been relatively constant over recent years and that the
proportions (and distributions of people on the land) are not
expected to change significantly during the EIS planning period.
The above proportions were applied to the population for Total
Municipalities to calculate the 1976 Study Area population and
the 1980-2005 Study Area portion population projections for use
in this EIS (Table 111-5). These projections reveal that the
Study Area population is expected to increase from 12,746 in 1980
to 16,445 in 2005, or approximately 1.2 percent annually.
Land Use
Existing Land Uses With the emergence of tourism in the middle of this century as a
and Trends major component of the local economy, the relative decline of
agriculture, and the growing attractiveness of the area as a
"bedroom community", land use patterns changed from low density
farmsteads interspersed with small villages. Commerce related to
Park visitation developed rapidly along Steinwehr Avenue,
Baltimore Pike, Carlisle street, and virtually all major
thoroughfares, using land in a linear and highway-oriented man-
ner. The sprawling pattern of commercial uses now stands in
sharp contrast to the older agriculture/village pattern which is
still in evidence. Residential subdivisions have developed in
ever-widening concentric zones between the highway strip com-
mercial zones. These residential developments have not always
been contiguous; those leapfrog development patterns that often
resulted are difficult to service efficiently.
Nevertheless, the Gettysburg Study Area is still predominantly
rural and undeveloped. With the exception of Gettysburg Borough,
over 75 percent of the land in each of the Study Area portions of
the municipalities is undeveloped. Naturally, a larger propor-
tion of the land of the Borough-market center, county seat,
transportation hub, college town, and historic center is devel-
oped. Figure 111—6 and Table 111-6 illustrate the pattern of
land uses in the study area. Note that nearly 84 percent of the
land is in forest or agricultural open space, with the remainder
in various stages of development, with about one-fourth of that
in Gettysburg Borough. Also note that the National Military Park
is included in the agricultural open space category, where it
represents 28 percent of the area.
Major developments in the recent past include the Lake Heritage
subdivisions southeast of the Borough on Rt. 97. The nearly
1,100 single-family lots represent the largest existing and
future residential development to date in the study area even
though it is presently less than 40 percent complete. Major new
industrial uses such as the Westinghouse Plant, have located
north of the Borough in the Rt. 34 vicinity, while other existing
plants have shut down. Gettysburg College and the Lutheran
Theological Seminary have expanded their physical plants on the
periphery of the Borough.
The Federal government has had a major influence on land use in
the study area. Much of the land in the western and southern
portions is controlled by the NPS as part of the Gettysburg
National Military Park, the Gettysburg National Cemetery, and the
Eisenhower National Historic Site (outside the study area, in
Cumberland Township). NPS land area currently totals 4,279
40
-------
SCATTERED RESD6NTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
NSTTTUDON, PUBLIC OR SEMI-PUBLIC
MIXED URBAN
FOREST
| 1 AGRICULTURAL, OPEN SfttCE
FIGURE IH-6
EXISTING LAND USE
-------
acres, most of which is conta^ed within the ^^oT^ln
ment of this land by has been lim - National Mili-
additional 374 acres, to complete the Gettysc addltlonal acreage
tary Park, has been authorized Much of thl0Sw Knoii area and to
is located north of the Barlow^ ^ also
the east below Benner Hill, /these areas have not been pre-
rized along Rt. 97 and Rt 134 t£ fxisffnq Land Use map [see
sented as Federally 1°w" rical Values in the Gettysburg Study
Irearemap' "and^they have been assumed to have no development
potential' in the analysis of the future land use).
The "Draft General Management Plan ^for the^GettYburg^ National
Military Par*'" if given Congressional authorization,
acquire in the future, y lie west of Rt. 34 north
These areas, consisti g ^ the'East cavalry Field, south
of the Borough, north • alona Rt 97 southeast of the
SLouck spring?, »»•«> °£
ITolt .loiPRt m n..r And Top (NTS 1«9).
m ttt a Fxistinq land use by municipality/ in the Gettysburg
Table - • study area, in acres and percent of municipal
stud? area portion total (totals may not add to
100.0 because of rounding)
Land Use
Category
Scattered residential
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional Public
or Semi-Public
Mixed urban
Forest
Agriculture open space
Total
Scattered residential
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institution, public,
or semi-public
Mixed urban
Forest
Agriculture open space
Total
Cumberland
Gettysburg
Mount
Joy
Township
Borough
Township
Acres
Percent
Acres
Percent
Acres
Percent
6
0.1
0
0.0
46
0.8
441
9.2
27
3.1
557
9.8
150
3.1
0
0.0
33
0.6
113
2.3
0
0.0
17
0.3
286
5.9
227
26.1
25
0.4
19
0.4
488
56.1
0
0.0
833
17.3
40
4.6
991
17.5
2,964
61.6
88
10.1
3,993
70.5
4,812
100.0
870
100.0
5,662
100.0
Mount
Pleasant
Straban
Study Area
Township
Township
Total
Acres
Percent
Acres
Percent
Acres
Percent
44
0.9
32
0.6
128
0.6
259
5.1
616
10.6
1,900
8.5
0
0.0
155
2.7
338
1.5
0
0.0
20
0.3
150
0.7
0
0.0
102
1.8
640
2.9
0
0.0
0
0.0
507
2.3
429
8.4
1,086
18.8
3,379
15.2
4,391
85.7
3,775
65.2
15,211
68.3
5,123
100.0
5,786
100.0
22,253
100.0
SOURCE: 1975 and 1976 aerial photos; consultant planimetry
42
-------
Presently, NPS maintains a large number of facilities and struc-
tures. These include the Visitor Center, Cyclorama, 92 historic-
scene buildings, 31 farms, 1,310 markers and monuments, and 31
miles of roads. These facilities are described in detail in
Appendix F-4.
Of special importance is the NPS proposal to relocate the Visitor
Center north of the Borough, possibly in the Federally owned
Butterfield Farm, a move that may depend upon construction of the
Rt. 30 bypass. If the Visitor Center should be relocated, it, as
well as the bypass, would affect land use significantly. While
the proposal is still "alive", it appears at this time that both
the Rt. 30 bypass and the Visitor Center relocation will not
occur within the 20-year planning period, if ever.
The cooperation between NPS and the local governments needed to
preserve the Federal holdings and additional scenic lands adja-
cent to them has been improving in recent years. At the same
time, the existence of Federally owned land restricting develop-
ment in that area, could increase pressures for development on
non-federal land east of Gettysburg Borough. All these continu-
ing pressures for additional development will probably lead to
further changes in the character of the undeveloped areas around
the Borough.
Land Use Controls Gettysburg Borough is the only municipality in the study area
which has a zoning ordinance; the remaining townships have not
adopted this most basic land use control and do not appear to be
likely to "zone" in the foreseeable future. Consequently, land
use is not guided by a formalized set of principles in these
municipalities, and the respective planning commissions (advisory
in function) and governing bodies (boards of supervisors) of
these municipalities thus impose what are, in effect, non-
formalized land use criteria in lieu of zoning during the process
for review and approval of proposed development (see the next
section for a discussion of these criteria).
Gettysburg Borough adopted its zoning ordinance in 1975 and
revised it in 1977. The ordinance was developed jointly by the
Borough Planning Commission and DCA, Bureau of Planning (see
Appendix F-5). Because vacant developable land in the Borough is
relatively scarce, and demolition and rebuilding on already-
developed sites infrequent, the issue of land use control is not
so critical in the Borough as it is in the surrounding, less
developed municipalities.
On the other hand, all study area muncipalities have either
adopted their own subdivision regulations or relied on the Adams
County Subdivision Regulations. The Adams County regulations,
which are presently being modified, and the others are summarized
in Appendix F-6. They establish performance standards and design
requirements, including minimum lot sizes for housing develop-
ments and other proposed construction, and describe application
procedures and requirements of the State which must be followed.
In general, these subdivision regulations prohibit or limit
development in floodplains. All require soil-suitability (perco-
lation) tests to be performed where on-site sewerage facilities
are proposed. Most of the regulations suggest that minimum lot
sizes be increased when the development is located on steep
slopes. All plans for development must be compatible with PA-DER
and other State and Federal regulations, and must be reviewed by
the County prior to approval. Most of the municipal regulations
l\ 3
-------
(as well as the proposed County regulations) cite as a "Juicleline
that all new developments must be coordinated with existing
development. However, they control only the manner in which new
development is to be constructed; they affect the location of
development only indirectly, through their floodplain, slope, ancj
soil provisions mentioned above. Thus, although a new house or
structure must be built to particular specifications, n®w housing
or commercial uses may still be constructed on farmland« without
regard to land use planning principles.
Although several plans drafted for different parts of the study
area are in various stages of completion, none has yet been
approved, and the Adams county Comprehensive Plan, ad°pted in
1971, remains the only comprehensive planning document in effect
in the study area. It is general in nature and, as indicated
above, is only advisory; having no legal or regulatory force
To summarize the status of land use controls in the area: The
only zoning powers are in the Borough of Gettysburg, with the
surrounding areas subject only to subdivision regulations and the
indirect guidance of various land use plans, some of which are
seriously out-of-date. The status of these controls is crucial,
in that one of the major issues of this EIS is tue poSSjbje
negative effect on NPS lands of possible growth induced by sewage
treatment facilities. The efforts to control such effects in
most areas of the county would normally rely very heavily on land
use controls.
Future Land Use Land development for year 2005, calculated for this EIS, is
depicted in Figure III-7 as Future Land Use - Baseline. The new
development projected thereon is a function of projections by
Study Area Portions of the municipalities, of population, housing
units, and employment. The analysis of employment trends {see
Economic Characteristics) led to a projection of no net change in
the employment base through 2005.
These land use projections present a reasonable rate and pattern
of growth for the study area portion of the municipalities, if
the present conditions continue during the planning period.
These "baseline" projections represent a reasonable pattern and
rate of growth for the Study Area Portions of the municipalities
if present conditions and trends continue during the EIS planning
period. Future Land Use Baseline is further defined by the
assumptions that are made concerning the continuation of existing
conditions. One assumption is that existing land management
regulations by the public sector (or lack thereof) will continue;
current regulations of the Gettysburg Zoning Ordinance will
remain in effect and none; of the other municipalities will adopt
or enforce zoning restrictions. A second assumption is that
existing private sector (i-e., developers') constraints will
continue; current housing market conditions (supply and demand)
will continue to focus new development in the apparently more
desirable locations north of the Borough. A further assumption
is that the general rate of growth, in response to growth pres-
sures on the county and region, will not be atypical; no excep-
tional events are expected to occur to influence any radical
deviation from the present, rather moderate, pressures for new
housing development in the Gettysburg area. Finally, sewer and
water services are assumed to be available in the areas of
Cumberland and Straban Townships north of the Borough, extending
outward from existing service areas. This availability is
assumed to occur in a variety of ways: reduction in current
usage resulting primarily from decreasing househole size (and
44
-------
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL
FIGURE
FUTURE LAND USE BASELINE 2005
-------
. . c*»rvirf» areas' reduction in infiltration
the users) in existing seic. ' to ttie efficiency of the
and inflow problems; °^her provem conservation program effort;
2° iHliucn%ysss-t0
Land6 ^enario is included in Appendix F-l.
„ „ R3Seline maD (see Figure III-7), based on
The Future Land Use - :B ct5ons and land use plans, does
population and ®mPlo^eindus trial changes in uses of land beyond
indicate commercial a^,^ent ThesJ changes are based not on
Gettysburg Borough empl Xmut.on ^ employment within the study
area?Sm^nly from the developed Borough to less developed sur-
rounding townships.
T ^ ,,co n^eline (Figure III-7) is a general map, not
Future Land Use. ^^"rcel ownership boundanes. it should
drawn along zoning or p i.scenario„__ the likely representation
only be interpreted as ascenano^^ feline" conditions are
of future land deve p ^ ^ ^ llfuture land use plan" based on
assumed. Note t;hat i evaluation. That kind of detailed,
detailed P"C®\~JLP ing is a local function, and such an exercise
comprehensive Plan""£j of the EIS process. The results of the
Use Baseline analysis are as follows =
' """
creise °E. °"iL-Will *>e accommodated on the small and scattered
this net increase'ls within the borough or by in-filling on
vacant developable P higher densities). All eighty-seven
land already devei p blic Bewer and water services. Approxi-
pe»«T 305 new housing units will be constructed. In the
mately 305 new n ts of the study area, new housing is
nar?iIllyafor an landed population, and partially to meet the
needs of smaller household sizes.
_ _ ~eVi-ir*. Approximately 75 percent of growth pro-
Cumberland Tow^g- area portion is assumed to be served by
jected tor the stuay The recentl adopted Comprehensive Plan
sewer and water ®*J,ision Qf such services north and northwest of
recommends the provi the existi systemS as projected here.
the borough adjacent ugh lggo will consiBt of 25 percent
Sewered development easing tQ 5Q percent between 1990 and
multi-family units, 25-year Dlanninq period, sewered develop-
2°°^- »132 »cr«s.i?a
ment will total acrBI! sinale-familv units
ment will total 231 siny-^-i-amny unitB ou ^
multi-family units on 17 acres. scattered single-family units
represent 10 percent of total future development (52 units on 47
acres); all are non-sewered. Non-sewered, grouped singles
(defined here as part of tne subdivision process) represent is
percent of total future development and inciude 78 units on 73
acres.
Mount Joy Township: Approximately 50 percent of projected arowth
in this township is assumed ^ located in Lake < 123
units). These projected "nits have not been shown separately on
Figure III-7 because of the s» U map scal£; jngm ^P^tely.on
throughout the existing ®^n9le-family subdivision can be ex-
pected. Also, the projections assume that sewage will be accom-
modated in some fashion, although not b on_si^. Wl11 *£com
Costs of wastewater treatment can be expected to he
out all of Lake Heritage and win to some deqree inh?K,£ Fwtnrl
growth. Ultimately, . the.Mount of growth for S^e
Heritage in all municipalities is very much related to the
46
-------
strength in future housing demand. If this demand decreases,
disproportionately large reductions in growth can be expected in
Lake Heritage because added infrastructure costs would confront
developers there. Remaining projected growth in the township is
split between scattered single-family (25 percent) and grouped
single-family units (25 percent), all of which are unsewered. No
multi-family units are anticipated.
Mount Pleasant Township: Proportions employed for Mount Joy are
applicable for Mount Pleasant Township as well. Fifty percent of
future growth is located in Lake Heritage (77 units); 25 percent
of projected units consist of scattered singles (39 units on 18
acres); and 25 percent are grouped singles (38 units on 18
acres). No multi-family units, and no sewered units other than
at Lake Heritage, are assumed.
Straban Township: Since most recent development in Straban has
been sewered, notably the Twin Oaks subdivision and several
mobile home parks, most projected development is assumed to be
sewered also. Sewered single-family units can be expected to be
built in the Twin Oaks vicinity along Business Rt. 15; these 396
units on 72 acres would represent approximately 65 percent of all
projected development. Lake Heritage (not mapped) will attract
an additional 84 units, 15 percent of total projected growth for
Straban Township. Scattered, non-sewered single-family units
represent a total of 43 units on 40 acres (10 percent of total
development until 1990 and 5 percent thereafter). Non-sewered,
grouped single-family units will represent about 10 percent of
development until 1990 and 15 percent thereafter.
In Figure 111 — 7, projected baseline growth (i.e., all additional
development), has been overlaid on existing land use. This
development is primarily residential; densities will vary accord-
ing to municipal subdivision regulations. Although some redis-
tribution of industrial uses can be expected, no additional
industrial land uses are projected, and any redistribution would
not significantly alter wastewater treatment demands. Finally,
although other population-serving uses, including tourist faci-
lities and commercial uses can also be expected to increase
slightly as population increases, this expansion has not been
represented on Figure 111-7. Any expansion in commercial uses
would be minimal because a considerable amount of existing
population-serving acreage in the study area is under-utilized
and has only seasonal use: it can accommodate increased year-
round demand quite easily.
The Future Land Use - Baseline map (Figure 111-7) also assumes no
new major highway construction or new Federal facilities, any of
which would result in significant land use effects. No such pro-
posal has been endorsed or supported sufficiently to warrant
incorporation into the baseline future.
Socioeconomic Conditions
Demographic An understanding of past social and economic trends in the Study
Area allows predictions to be made about its social and economic
future, which shape growth patterns and wastewater treatment
needs. The following sections describe demographic and economic
conditons, including discussions of employment, municipal bud-
gets, housing, and community services. Unless otherwise noted,
all of information presented below refers to the Total
Municipalities.
47
-------
Age information in Table III-7 indicates sizable populations of
persons 65 or older in Gettysburg and Cumberland. These propor-
tions are significantly higher than those for either Adams County
or Pennsylvania. Older populations generally have fixed or low
incomes, a fact that is particluarly relevant when impacts of
additional sewer charges are evaluated. Also, these populations
tend to require special facilities and often need such housing as
smaller units in groups (i.e., multifamily configurations),
typically calling for some type of common sewerage.
The under 18 age group is especially large in Mount Joy. Mount
Pleasant and Straban figures reflect their agricultural orienta-
tion, with large families, as well as a recent influx of new
households with younger children. Data for Cumberland and
Gettysburg are complicated by the institutional (school) popula-
tions in both municipalities.
Table II1-7. Age Characteristics of Study Area Total Munici-
palities, Adams County, and Pennsylvania 1970
(US-DOC 1972)
Median
% Under
% 65 or
Aqe
18
Over
Cumberland Township
32 .3
33 .7
12 .9
Gettysburg Borough
24.4
19.9
13.2
Mount Joy Township
24.6
40.6
7.7
Mount Pleasant Township
24.5
40.1
11.1
Straban Township
28.0
37.0
8.8
Adams County
26.8
35.3
10.1
Pennsylvania
30.7
32.6
10.8
Income information for the Total Municipalities is displayed in
Table II1-8. Borough data, with the exception of family median
incomes, show incomes consistently lower than Adams County
figures. This finding is compatible with age information but is
complicated by the large student population, whose inclusion
lowers the calculated incomes. The various categories of "below
poverty level" incomes also are higher than the county in most
municipalities. Relatively, Cumberland and Straban appear to be
the wealthier of the municipalities.
48
-------
Table 111-8. 1969 Income characteristics for selected study
area total municipalities and Adams County* (DOC
1973, Mount Joy Township is not included as data
were tabulated with Union and Germany Townships
by the Census)
Cumber-
land
Township
Gettys-
burg
Borough
Mount
Pleasant
Township
Straban
Township
Adams
County
Family Income
Median
Mean
10,000
11,327
9,451
8,167
9,063
9,596
8,821
12,337
Unrelated Indi-
viduals
Median
Mean
3,871
5, 666
1,503
2, 540
1,469
2,847
1,971
3,337
1,770
4,346
Total Income
Median
Mean
9,401
10,356
3,126
7,420
8,056
8,808
7,264
10,228
Percent of all
Families Below
Poverty Level
11.0
8.0
9.9
6.9
7.7
Percent of all
Unrelated indi-
viduals Below
Poverty Level
27.7
44.4
50.4
46.3
43.i
Percent of all
Persons Below
Poverty Level
9.4
14.2
11.5
8.1
10.5
Percent of all
Households Below
Poverty Level
12.6
18.1
16.4
9.7
12.8
Housing data (Appendix F-2) indicate that nearly the entire
housing stock is year-round in nature. Even Lake Heritage,
originally intended as a seasonal community, has rapidly evolved
into a year-round community. Residences are primarily owner-
occupied, except in Gettysburg Borough, where rental housing
reflects the demands of a sizable student population.
A series of tables containing detailed information about social,
income, and housing characteristics is included in Appendix F-2.
Economic Conditions In the past century, Gettysburg Borough was the service and
supply hub for the surrounding agricultural community and became
the center of finance, business, and trade. More recently, the
economy has diversified. Manufacturing has joined the earlier
agriculture-related activities and is now the single largest
sector of county employment. As the popularity of the archaeo-
logical and historic resources of Gettysburg has grown, tourism-
related employment (generally considered to be service sector
49
-------
employment) has also expanded considerably. Expansion of both
the Lutheran Theological Seminary and Gettysburg College has
brought a further, significant diversification. The role Qf the
borough as county seat has also had a major economic impact: the
new and larger courthouse facilities symbolize the considerable
growth in government and professional services that the Borough
now provides to the entire county.
These economic changes have been reflected in employment trends.
Overall, there is a generally steady rise in the total e[riployment
base, though agricultural and manufacturing jobs have declined.
The decline in basic manufacturing employment is Particularly
significant because there is a multiplier effect in other employ-
ment categories since each manufacturing job tends to support one
to two non-manufacturing jobs. Appendix F-7 shows trends in the
manufacturing sector of study area total municipalities.
Retail and commercial employment associated with tourism have
been and currently are major sources of employment for study area
residents. Over one-third of the retail trade and service firms
are small businesses which rely heavily upon tourism, and
approximately 25 percent of total gross receipts for services and
merchandise have been directly attributable to tourist spending
(DCA 1975). Trends in rates of visitation to the National
Military Park (see Appendix F-3 for rates of visitation in the
past ten years) suggest that tourism peaked in 1975 and 1976
during the Bicentennial celebration, and generally declined in
the two years following. This decline predated the large 1979
decline (reported in recent Gettysburg Times articles to be
approximately 50 percent), which appears to have been related to
the increased price and scarcity of fuel. Though NPS itself
assumes that visits will continue at about the two million per
year level, continued modest declines in tourism can probably be
anticipated in the near future, and may be accelerated by con-
tinuing price increases for gasoline and curtailment of supply.
A decline in tourist activity will have serious effects on the
study area economy.
Employment Projections The decline in the general manufacturing industries, in agricul-
ture, and in tourism-related services is expected to be balanced
to some extent by continued growth in specific manufacturing
industries (DCA 1972b). The net outcome for employment is
expected to approximate existing employment levels. A steady
employment force was assumed throughout the planning period of
the EIS.
Municipal Revenues and
Expenditures The real estate tax is the largest local tax revenue for Gettys-
burg Borough and straban Township. in Mount Joy and Mount
Pleasant Townships, the earned income tax is the chief source of
tax revenues. Cumberland Township derives more revenue from its
amusement tax than f^onl any other source, tax or non-tax (DCA
1970-1978). in the study area, reliance on the real estate tax
as a revenue source has been decreasing since 1970 (DCA 1970-
1978). With the exception of Mount Joy Township, all municipali-
ties have incre ^.e ProPortion of total revenues received
from non-tax so since 1970. Mount Joy followed this trend
during the ear-*-y s' since 1975 has decreased the propor-
tion of non-tax revenues (DCA 1970-1978).
Public w°rk® . Cate9°ry of operation and maintenance
(O&M) expendituf Study Area municipalities (DCA 1970-1978)•
The public worK gory includes sanitation, water and sewer,
50
-------
and streets. In most cases, public works expenditures have been
primarily for streets and highways. Mount Joy, Mount Pleasant,
and Straban generally spend 50 to 80 percent of their O&M budget
on public works (principally streets). Gettysburg Borough and
Cumberland Township, each with a full-time police force, are the
only two study area municipalities that make significant expendi-
tures for public safety—approximately 33 and 20 percent of their
respective O&M budgets (DCA 1978).
Capital expenditures for each of the municipalities have been re-
served almost exclusively for streets and highways. Only Gettys-
burg Borough has consistently spent capital funds for public
safety and for recreation, in addition to highways (DCA 1970-
1978).
Housing The decennial Census of Housing and Population is the basic
source of information regarding housing characteristics in the
study area. An analysis of these 1970 Census data has been
performed by the Adams County Planning Commission in their Hous-
ing Study. The following discussion is based on this existing
information to the maximum extent. Because the housing market
situation does not appear to have changed significantly since the
census data were prepared, the use of these 1970 data is reason-
able at this time.
In 1970, the five study area total municipalities had a combined
total of 5,628 housing units, of which 94 percent were occupied,
leaving 6 percent of the housing stock vacant for one reason or
another. Similarly, Adams County had a total vacancy rate of 6
percent. Mount Joy and Straban Townships had higher vacancy
rates than the average, at 14 and 8 percent, respectively.
Gettysburg Borough and Cumberland Township were lowest, at 4
percent each.
Vacant units for sale accounted for 0.7 percent of all units, and
those for rent accounted for 1.5 percent of the total. In the
total municipalities of the study area, the vacancy rate for sale
housing was close to the standard suggested by the Regional
Science Research Institute (1976), but for rental housing, the
rate was considerably lower than the suggested standard.
For all occupied housing, the proportion of owner-occupied units
in study area total municipalities is fairly typical of other
Pennsylvania municipalities, with the exception of Gettysburg
Borough. In 1970, all four of the townships had an owner-
occupied/renter-occupied mix of approximately 80/20, while the
County's average of all boroughs was 60/40. In contrast, Gettys-
burg Borough had a 40/60 mix, or a much larger percentage of
renter-occupied units. This larger proportion of renter-occupied
units, in conjunction with a very low (2 percent) vacancy rate
for rental units, suggests a very popular, and very tight, rental
market. The overall picture is one of a reasonable market for
owner-occupied housing in the area, and a tight rental housing
market.
Community Services Schools--Residents of the Gettysburg Study Area are served by two
public school districts: the Gettysburg Area School District
(GASD) and the Littlestown Area School District (LASD). The GASD
covers most of the study area, while the LASD serves Mount
Pleasant and parts of the Lake Heritage area, and the Conewago
Valley School District covers a small portion of Straban Township
(School district budgets are included in Appendix F-8). F°yr
elementary, one middle, and one high school are located within
51
-------
the study area and are operated by the GASD. The study area also
contains six non-public schools, all of which are in Gettysburg
Borough. Gettysburg College and the Lutheran Theological
Seminary, both in the Borough, complete the list of educational
facilities within the study area.
The seven schools that make up the Gettysburg Area School
District have a total rated capacity of 5,016 pupils (Department
of Energy 1979). Enrollments during the 1970s have been stable,
and projected enrollments are not expected to surpass 3,900
students (78 percent of capacity) durinq any school year through
1988 (GASD 1978) .
The Littlestown Area School District, with a total capacity for
2,711 students, began the 1978-1979 school year with 1,969
enrolled, or 73 percent of total capacity. Enrollments district-
wide have declined moderately since 1973 and are projected to
decline through 1980. By 1983, the enrollments are expected to
increase slightly to the 1975-1976 level of about 2,050 (LASD
1978b). No need for additional facilities is anticipated through
1985.
Police—Only Gettysburg Borough and Cumberland Township have
full-time police staffs. The other study area municipalities
utilize the State Police, who maintain a barracks along Rt. 116
in Cumberland Township. None of the three study area townships
without police forces anticipates the hiring of professional
staff in the near future. The Lake Heritage area receives pro-
tection from the State Police as well as from a small, private
security force paid by the Property owner's Association.
Given the rural nature, the moderate rate of growth, the various
integrated systems of security, and local officials' satisfaction
with existing systems and levels of service, police service in
the study area can be considered adequate for the present and the
near future.
Fire—As with police, only Gettysburg Borough and Cumberland
Township have established fire companies serving study area
residents. The Gettysburg Fire Company serves all of the
Borough, about 75 percent of the residents of Cumberland Town-
ship, 50 percent of Straban's residents, 35 percent of Mount Joy,
and 20 percent of Mount Pleasant. The Barlow Fire Company, of
Cumberland Township, is located in the Township and serves the
southern portion of that Township, and portions of Mount Joy and
Mount Pleasant Townships. Two nearby boroughs, Bonneauville and
Littlestown, have fire companies that serve the southern portion
of the study area. ^11 study area residents live within a three-
mile radius or one of the fire companies described above. Other
fire companies close enough to provide quick assistance in an
emergency include Biglerville and Greenmont (Freedom Township).
Transportation--Gettvsburq Borough is the hub of a transportation
network from which roacjs radiate outward like the spokes of a
wheel. These spo^ggu GOnsist of two major arterials (US 30 and
US 15 BypassJ # three minor arterials (PA 97, PA 116, and PA 34),
and four col-hectors (Business Route 15, PA 134, LR 889, and LR
01006). T°u _h > students and faculty, local merchants and
businessmen, PPers, truckers, and traffic passing through the
study area 1 the major categories of highway system users.
Compared to typical hjghway capacities of 8,000 to 10,000
vehicles/day' e average daily volumes do not appear to be
5?.
-------
heavy. However, common experience in the area shows serious peak
traffic problems, especially when peak tourism flows result in
severe congestion in Gettysburg itself.
The Gettysburg area is served by rail, but only for freight
service. The Gettysburg Railroad provides service between
Gettysburg and Mount Holly Springs (Cumberland County). The
Western Maryland Railroad, which parallels Rt. 30, also serves
the Gettysburg area.
There is limited public transportation in the study area. In
addition to local tour buses, several charter buses connect
Gettysburg with nearby cities, while Capitol Trailways, Grey-
hound, Clyde's, and Lincoln Bus Lines provide limited scheduled
service.
Doersom Airport, west of Gettysburg, provides limited general
aviation services to the Gettysburg area. The airport has 3,000
feet of paved runway and can be used only in fair weather. There
are no scheduled commercial arrivals or departures; however, the
airport is open to general aviation and charges no landing fee.
Aircraft servicing is available.
Health Care--Adams County is in the South Central Pennsylvania
Health Planning Region. Within this region, the study area is
contained wholly within the Adams-Hanover Medical Service Area
(MSA). Two hospitals in this MSA provide medical care to study
area residents, the Annie M. Warner Hospital (Gettysburg) and
Hanover General Hospital.
In view of the fact that national guidelines set 80 percent as
the minimum occupancy rate standard for acute care hospitals in a
region, and the existing hospital facilities (occupancy rate of
63.3 and 77.2 percent for the Warner Hospital and Hanover General
Hospital, respectively) in the study area are currently used
below their capacity, they appear to be capable of absorbing
project population growth (Department of Housing 1977).
Solid Waste Disposal—study area residents are served by two
private haulers which provide solid waste disposal service for a
fee. Both of these contractors utilize landfills located outside
of the study area. Adams Sanitation uses a landfill located in
Tyrone Township, while Keystone Sanitation uses one in Union
Township.
Residential service is provided at an individual cost of $3.00
per month for a weekly pickup of three twenty-gallon cans. All
responsibilities for service, billing customers, purchasing
equipment, and suitable disposal of refuse are borne by the
contractors. In Gettysburg Borough, contractors must conform
with the regulations of a Solid Waste Storage and Collection
Ordinance. This ordinance was adopted to insure proper sanitary
collection and disposal of solid waste within the Borough limits.
Utilities—Metropolitan Edison Electric Company and Adams
Electric Cooperative, Inc. provide residents of the study area
with electric power. Adams Electric does not generate its own
electric power, but buys it wholesale from Metropolitan Edison or
the Pennsylvania Electric Company, then distributes it.
Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. is the sole source of pipe-
line gas energy in the study area, with 7,000 customers in Adams
53
-------
County. According to corporate officials, Columbia is capable of
serving a large number of new residential customers. Commercial
and industrial accounts are also being accepted, subject to prior
study of their usage requirements. The fluctuations in supplies
or costs that occur seasonally are also related to market condi-
tions (Estep 1979).
Public water is supplied to all residents of Gettysburg Borough,
the Twin Oaks Development (Straban Township), and the Woodcrest
Development (Cumberland Township) through the Gettysburg Muni-
cipal Authority (GMA). Marsh Creek is the primary source of GMA
water, and is treated by a rapid flow filtration system. Sec-
ondary (back-up) sources include four wells owned by GMA, one of
which is reserved for emergency use due to the hardness of its
water. The GMA system includes 38.72 miles of water mains; two
tanks provide storage capacities of 1,000,000 gallons and 500,000
gallons.
Lake Heritage Utilities, Inc. supplies public water to residents
of the Lake Heritage community. It has 360,000 gallons per day
of groundwater available. Approximately 300 customers in 1976
were served through this system, which is estimated to be able to
serve 3,000 persons at 120 gpcd (GFCC 1976).
Sewerage facilities in the study area are discussed in detail in
a later section. Appendix F-9 presents the water rates and sewer
rates of Gettysburg Municipal Authority.
Recreation—The sole municipal recreation agency in the study
area is the Gettysburg Area Recreation Department. It is staffed
by a full-time director and about 30 part-time employees. The
Borough's 1979 budget expenditure for recreation is $29,603.
Other sources of funds for the Recreation Department's $60,000
annual budget include the Gettysburg Area School District and the
Townships of Cumberland and Straban.
There is a year-round recreational program at the department's
main facility, a 55-acre park located within the Borough.
Gettysburg College tennis courts, playgrounds and gymnasiums of
several elementary schools, the Junior and Senior High School
gymnasiums, and several tot lots around the Borough are utilized
also (DCA 1979).
Although their municipal park and recreation acreage is small
when figured on a per capita basis, study area residents enjoy
immediate access to over 3,700 acres of NPS land (Military Park,
Eisenhower Farm, National Cemetery), with the inclusion of these
lands, they benefit from ample public recreation and open space
areas.
Library—The Adams County Library System consists of a central
facility in Gettysburg Borough (80,000 volumes) and a branch at
the East Berlin Community Library. There is also a Bookmobile
that makes forty stops throughout the county in two-week cycles.
The library is supported by County funds, United Fund contribu-
tions, and local municipal contributions (DCA 1979).
Archaeological and
Historical Inventory
Background and Issues The Gettysburg National Military Park and Gettysburg National
Cemetery are two of the most significant historic properties
currently under Federal control. These sites and the surrounding
territory have inspirational meaning to the American public as
54
-------
well as special scenic values that reflect the historic setting
of the Battle of Gettysburg in the American Civil War. Gettys-
burg Borough and the surrounding area are unique because they
retain almost one-half of the structures that were extant at the
time of this battle, as well as uninterrupted vistas and land-
scapes similar to those in which the historic events at Gettys-
burg took place. Because of its aesthetic and historic inte-
grity, much of the area surrounding the Gettysburg National
Military Park and the Gettysburg National Cemetery has been
designated as the Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District and
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Part of this
Historic District is within the study area. The National
Register and other lists, legislation, and regulations are de-
scribed in Appendix G-l.
Evidence of the historic potential in Gettysburg may be seen in
museums and collections of private citizens in the Gettysburg
area. The numerous sites of skirmishes and temporary hospitals
make the area extremely sensitive archaeologically; the effects
of any action on potential historic archaeological remains should
be a major concern. As Dr. John R. Earnst, Superintendent of the
Gettysburg National Military Park, has indicated (1979), "The
National Park Service is especially concerned both with potential
direct effects of the proposed Facilities Plan on historic
archaeological resources" within the National Military Park and
also with "effects on lands that would be developed as a result
of the availability of facilities constructed under the 201
plan."
For this study, review of the National Register of Historic
Places (44 FR 26:7571) and monthly supplements provided a list of
historic and archaeological sites of recognized national signi-
ficance (see Appendix G-2). In order to identify additional
resources that might be eligible for the National Register and
that might be affected by the proposed Gettysburg wastewater
facilities, other documentary sources were also consulted,
including State and County cultural resource inventories. A
visual survey of the area was conducted in order to locate signi-
ficant sites that might be affected.
Another resource was a survey conducted earlier by Ms. Paula
Stoner, a consultant retained by Historic Gettysburg-Adams County
(HGAC), in compliance with historic preservation legislation.
Stoner had surveyed historic sites and structures in Adams County
as part of a statewide comprehensive survey of historic values;
her evaluations of those sites that appear to satisfy eligibility
criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places have been incorporated into the historic sites and struc-
tures inventory of this EIS.
Dr. Fred Kinsey also conducted a recent preliminary archaeo-
logical field reconnaissance of the proposed interceptor corridor
that is adjacent to Rock Creek for the 201 Facility Plan, as
required by the Pennsylvania SHPO. Only the area of potential
primary impact on archaeological resources was surveyed (by
phone, Mr. Vance Packard, Office of Historic Preservation, 1979).
The results and recommendations of Kinsey's survey, and the NPS
response to the survey methodology and findings will be addressed
in the discussion of archaeological resources that follows.
It is the policy of the State Office of Historic Preservation not
to disclose locations of archaeological sites in order to safe-
guard them. In accordance with this policy, archaeological sites
55
-------
outside Federally protected lands will not be shown in the cul-
tural resources inventory maps of this EIS. Nevertheless, the
values of, and impacts on, these sites are addressed fully in the
evaluation of alternative wastewater management systems.
Historic Sites Prior to initiation of this EIS process, EPA and ACHP determined
that the regional wastewater treatment facilities that were
proposed in the 201 Facilities Plan for the study area would have
adverse effects on the Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District.
Conseguently, as the Federal laws and regulations mentioned in
the preceding section require, the potential impacts of proposed
wastewater treatment facilities on the Historic District had to
be considered.
The Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District (see Figure 111-8),
which is partly within the study area, encompasses Gettysburg
National Military Park (including the site of the East Cavalry
Battlefield), the Gettysburg National Cemetery and the Eisenhower
National Historic Site, all owned by the Federal government and
under jurisdiction of the NPS, plus the entire Gettysburg
Borough. Although the Eisenhower Site is situated outside the
EIS Study Area, it is included in this discussion as part of the
Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District. In addition to the
above-named areas, six sites and structures within this district
are designated individually on the National Register of Historic
Places (see Appendix G-3). A list of historic sites and struc-
tures in the Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District is in-
cluded in the National Register nomination forms prepared for the
district (on file at the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Com-
mission, Office of Historic Preservation [PHMC-OHP] and at the
NPS in Gettysburg). Copies of the most recent forms available at
the PHMC-OHP are provided in Appendix G-3.
A portion of Gettysburg Borough has been separately identified
and certified by PHMC-OHP as the Gettysburg Borough Historic Dis-
trict under provisions of Pennsylvania Act 167 (see Appendix
G-4). The present Gettysburg Borough Historic District plus
areas proposed for inclusion therein as of 1978 are indicated in
Figure II1-8 (HGAC 1979; files).
Within this State-designated historic district, proposed devel-
opment, alteration of existing structures, and demolition are
subject to review and approval by the Pennsylvania Historical
Architectural Review Board, although ultimate authority rests
with the local governing body. In addition, as part of the
Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District, the entire Borough of
Gettysburg comes under the provisions of the Federal laws for the
National Register of Historic Places, mentioned in the second
paragraph of the preceding section; any proposed project that
will be Federally funded, licensed, permitted, or sponsored is
subject to their provisions. Historic site forms and photographs
of each structure in the Gettysburg Borough Historic District are
on file at HGAC in Gettysburg.
The Pennsylvania Inventory of Historic Places (PHMC 1979) in the
study area lists twelve historic places, each of which is also
listed on the National Register or located within National
Register Historic Districts. The Pennsylvania Historic Architec-
tural Review Board has determined these properties to be suf-
ficiently important to Pennsylvania history to merit classifi-
cation as State historic sites (see Appendix G-4).
56
-------
FIGURE m-8
HISTORIC SITES IN THE STUDY AREA
a* NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC SITE
MSTORIC SITE ELIGIBLE FOR THE
NATIONAL REGISTER
POTENTIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT,
GENERAL BOUNDARY
GETTYSBURG BOROUGH HISTORIC
DISTRICT
PROPOSED EXPANSION OF
GETTYSBURG BOROUGH HISTORIC
DISTRICT
GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY
PARK BOUNDARY
EISENHOWER NATIONAL HISTORIC
SITE BOUNDARY
BATTLEFIELD HISTORIC DISTRICT
BOUNDARY
FEDERALLY OWNED LAND
SOURCE1 THOMAS HARRISON, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.
GETTYSBURG
-------
For her recent PHMC-funded Statewide historic sites and struc-
tures survey for HGAC, Stoner conducted a windshield survey of
all historic structures and sites in Adams County. The approxi-
mately 3,000 historic sites and structures included on the
resulting Adams County inventory range in date of construction
from pre-1800 to ca 1925. Locations of the historic sites that
Stoner identified in the study area are shown in Figure II1-9.
Although the surveyed sites have not been nominated to the
National Register yet, Stoner helped to make a preliminary eval-
uation of the sites in the study area for this EIS (Appendix
G-5). A total of thirteen historic sites and structures in
addition to structures in two potential historic districts in the
study area appear to satisfy Criteria of Eligiblity for the
National Register of Historic Places; these sites were photo-
graphed and included in the present inventory.
Archaeological Sites The study area is rich in archaeological resources, both historic
and prehistoric. However, a complete archaeological survey has
not been conducted in the vicinity of Gettysburg, and recorded
sites primarily consist of reports by local collectors and ama-
teur archaeologists. During 1934, S.W. Frost reported that
Indian relics representing at least seventy-five distinct sites
had been collected from more than 200 farms in Adams County
(1934:1). Frost mapped fourteen prehistoric sites adjacent to
Rock Creek in Adams County. At present, PHMC files (May 1979)
list four recorded prehistoric archaeological sites in the study
area (see Appendix G-6). Because of the potential for vandalism,
PHMC has requested that the locations of unprotected historic and
prehistoric archaeological sites remain confidential.
In addition, numerous historic sites, such as Civil War temporary
hospital and battle sites, occur throughout the study area and
may contain buried historic archaeological material. These site
locations are recorded by the NPS at Gettysburg National Military
Park.
During GFCC's preparation of initial environmental studies in the
study area, the Pennsylvania Office of Historic Preservation
expressed concern for archaeological resources that might be
disturbed or destroyed by the proposed project. Those resources
were in areas that were determined to be the corridors of the
main sewer interceptor and all branches of the interceptor (by
telephone, Mr. Vance Packard, Associate Curator, April 3, 1979).
Accordingly, Dr. Fred Kinsey conducted a preliminary evaluative
archaeological survey of the interceptor corridor during the
facilities planning process, under subcontract to GFCC. Kinsey
has now completed a preliminary assessment of the archaeological
potential of part of the study area (the right-of-way of proposed
construction), based on a literature review and "walking and
driving reconnaissance" (Kinsey 1979a:l). Kinsey's work area is
confined to the vicinity of Rock Creek within the study area, and
his evaluations and recommendations are limited to a considera-
tion of prehistoric archaeological resources. Kinsey's evalua-
tions of the prehistoric archaeological potential for ten sec-
tions of the proposed interceptor corridor plus the treatment
plant site are provided in Table II1-9, which is keyed to Figure
111-10. In the five sections where there was more than a low
probability that archaeological resources exist, Kinsey recom-
mends that additional surveys and investigation be made. Thus, a
follow-up survey is recommended once the design of any proposed
facilities is complete.
53
-------
Ui
vo
f
FIGURE m-9
• HISTORIC SITE
w POTENTIAL NATIONAL
* REGISTER SITE
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
INVENTORIED IN THE STUDY AREA
SOURCE' PMJLA STONER, HISTORIC
GETTYSBURG-ADAMS COUNTY.
-------
In addition, three sites are recorded as having high potential
for prehistoric sites in the PHMC archaeological site files:
site 36-AD-47, Barlow Knoll; site 36-AD-48, Wolf Hill; and site
36-AD-45, Harry Heck Rock Shelter. Kinsey considered these sites
(Kinsey, 1979:5), however, he concluded that the proposed 201
Facilities Plan would have no adverse effect on prehistoric
archaeological resources of Wolf Hill and Barlow Knoll. On the
basis of his own 1958 evaluation he does not expect the latter to
have major archaeological potential. (In accordance with PHMC's
resolution to maintain confidentiality about prehistoric site
locations, the locations of these three sites have not been
included in Figure I11-10.)
A substantial amount of additional information relating to both
prehistoric and historic potential archaeological sites in the
study area has been provided by the NPS at Gettysburg National
Military Park.
Table 111-9. Sections of interceptor corridor adjacent to Rock
Creek.
Map
Location
Archaeological
Potential
Description
A
low**
Interceptor corridor adjacent to
Barlow Knoll—primarily floodplain
B
low
Right-of-way between Rt. 15 and
Rt. 30
C
moderate
Zinkand Pond
D
low
Right-of-way floodplain between
Rt. 30 and Rt. 116
E
low
Interceptor corridor in the Beaver
Hill and Culps Hill Areas
F
low
Spanglers Spring and interceptor
corridor along Rt. 140 (This
section is part of Gettysburg
National Military Park)
G
moderate
to high
Rock shelters in interceptor cor-
ridor north of Rt. 140
H
low to
moderate
Wooded floodplain of right-of-way
south of Rt. 140
I
low or
moderate
Right-of-way northeast of Rt. 140
J
low
Right-of-way southwest of Rt. 140
K
low to
moderate
STP site
SOURCE: Kinsey 1979.
* These results are illustrated on Figure I11-10.
**No further investigation is recommended in six areas of low
archaeological potential.
60
-------
2 -* ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
j|~] AREA SURVEYED
FIGURE HMO
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN i
FEDERAL HOLDINGS AND AREAS SURVEYED FOR
SOURCE THOMAS HARRtSON, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE,
GETTYSBURG. FRED KIWSEY, 1979.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES BY KINSEY
-------
Another prehistoric site, 36-AD-49, was . identified in PHMC
records. Park Superintendent John Earnst stated his concerns in
his comments to Dr. Kinsey about the findings of the preliminary
evaluation of the archaeological potential in the study area.
Earnst's concerns include the archaeological potential of lands
that might be developed as a result of the availability of faci-
lities constructed under the 201 Plan, (concern about indirect
impacts of the project) and the numerous important historic
archaeological sites that Kinsey did not consider.
A map of historic sites and structures, including hospital and
cemetery sites in the study area, was prepared by Mr. Thomas
Harrison, NPS historian. In accordance with the non-disclosure
policy, this map is being used only in-house, to assess the
potential impacts of interceptor, secondary conveyance line, and
treatment plant construction on these sites. Figure 111-10
which illustrates the results in Table III-lo, also depicts
archaeological sites Mr. Harrision identified that are within
Federal holdings, or only the Gettysburg National Military Park
and the Eisenhower
Table 111-10. Archaeological sites on Federal Holdings in the
Study Area*
Map
Description
1
NPS
Old Indian Field site
2
NPS
Third Bridge Stie
3
NPS
Indian trail along railroad tracks
Indian Springs
4
NPS
Henry Culp civil War Hospital site
5
NPS
Christian Benner Hospital
6
NPS
McMillan Hospital
7
NPS
Alme House Hospital Site
8
NPS
Granite School House Site
US Hospital '
9
NPS
P. Frey US Hospital
10
NPS
Barlow Knoll Battlefield Site
11
4rrpVkACA rocil 1 f C
NPS
ar#» i "llustr
^Ai-iS^er farm and Min Site,
hospital, and underground railroad.
National Historic Site. It is assumed thai-
protected by NPS, under provisions of »8esites are
1906, and will not be subject to vanLr ^tiquities Act of
other historic archaeological sites a * e locations of
established cemeteries and ground ®tructures (except
aujacent to standing historic
62
-------
structures that may contain archaeological material) are shown in
Figure II1-9. A complete list of documented historic and prehis-
toric archaeological sites in the study area is contained in
Appendix G-6.
Superintendent Earnst suggests six specific areas where addi-
tional investigations should be conducted to determine the pre-
sence or absence of potential historical archaeological remains
(Earnst 1979:23; Appendix G-6). Like Kinsey, Earnst recommended
archaeological reconnaissance of the proposed treatment plant
site. He also suggested that each known hospital site be
investigated in order to determine whether artifacts and burials
are present. If artifacts and burials indicate the need, such
studies will be recommended before constructing any proposed
action.
Potential indirect effects that are related to any wastewater
facilities on known historic and prehistoric archaeological sites
will be considered, when areas of induced growth have been deter-
mined (see Chapter V). EPA Region III and the SHPO will then
assess the need for archaeological field surveys of areas where
potential development threatens these values.
Aesthetic Values What is or is not an aesthetically pleasing view is a matter of
individual perception. Frequently, it is assumed that alteration
of a natural landscape is aesthetically undesirable, but this is
not always the case. Today a colonial village that once intruded
on the natural landscape but has retained its original character
is usually considered "quaint," a desirable configuration on the
landscape and all the more pleasing when it is compared with many
other intrusions that have altered American natural landscapes
significantly in the 19th and 20th centuries. Historically,
settlement patterns have been shaped by topography, water supply,
transportation routes, sources of raw materials, and soils.
The unique character of a settlement has developed in response to
the needs of its inhabitants throughout changing economies. Now,
however, modern technology has made it possible to build on many
landforms that were formerly uninhabitable, and large-scale
development can often proceed without concessions to topography,
natural landscape, or cultural context. Obvious incompatibi-
lities emerge. often, contemporary configurations reflect a
mixture of current development patterns with those of earlier
periods. Unfortunately, much 20th century development has been
mass-produced, without regard for the natural landscape; this
type of production has resulted in a "sameness" that has
destroyed the unique qualities of towns and villages.
The value of these sites was recognized when the area surrounding
Gettysburg National Military Park—including the Eisenhower
National Historic Site and the Gettysburg National Cemetery—was
officially designated as an aesthetic/historic district, the
"Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District." By designating this
district to the National Register of Historic Places, several
laws pertaining to historic preservation and Federally sponsored
projects were extended to these sites. (Private development,
however, is exempt from these provisions, unless there is some
Federal involvement.)
The Advisory Council Procedures for the Protection of Historic
and Cultural Properties includes among the definitions of adverse
effects on historic places the "introduction of visual, audible,
or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the pro-
63
-------
perty or alter its setting," or activities that create "isolation
from or alteration of its surrounding environment" (36 CFR 800,
as amended, implementing the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966).
It is the alteration of the surrounding environment that is of
paramount concern in assessing the probable aesthetic effects of
the proposed wastewater treatment facilities. For the present
project, effects on the larger Gettysburg Battlefield Historic
District and the Eisenhower Site must be considered, as well as
effects on the National Military Park itself because the scenic
quality of the surrounding landscape is important to the
aesthetic/historic integrity of the historic district. Because
the natural and historic man-made beauty of the district and its
setting have remained virtually intact, "adverse impacts" of any
proposed Federal project would include not only primary (direct)
impacts but also secondary (indirect) impacts that might alter
the scenic quality of the landscape surrounding the Gettysburg
Battlefield Historic District. Secondary impacts, in this case,
are created primarily by the development that accompanies waste-
water treatment facilities.
Potential effects may be beneficial as well as adverse, and may
be direct (related to construction of a project or its alterna-
tive) or indirect (related to induced population growth and land
development). Adverse impacts would include those that might
alter the landscape in a way that would disturb views from the
historic district as well as from prominent vantage points within
the National Military Park, the National Cemetery, and the
Eisenhower Site. Therefore, it was decided to inventory views
from the periphery of, and from strategic locations within, the
Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District. This inventory was in
order to assess the scenic quality of the setting so that the
potential aesthetic effects—both beneficial and adverse — of
any proposed action could be evaluated.
For this EIS, land uses depicted on the inventory of scenic views
in the Gettysburg area (see Appendix G-7) have been classified as
"compatible" or "incompatible" with the historic/aesthetic inte-
grity of the Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District. "Com-
patible" land use conforms to the historical pattern of develop-
ment, as well as to the natural landforms in the area. Intru-
sive, discordant, or monotonous development patterns that occur
without consideration for the natural landscape or a sense of
historical appropriateness are considered "incompatible." Within
each of these two major categories, scenic views from the
Gettysburg Battlefield Historic District were classified by land
use (Figure I11-11).
In order to assess the relative qualitative value of the scenic
views associated with the Gettysburg Battlefield Historic
District, judgments must be made about the type and quality of
existing views. Subsequent to these judgments are decisions
about the extent to which these views may be affected by growth
and development related to proposed wastewater treatment facili-
ties. While these judgments rely on perception of aesthetic
quality and are, to a degree, subjective, criteria can be
developed to evaluate aesthetics and scenic views in a orderly,
disciplined manner. In the present case, these criteria are
related to the existing land use and to the "sense of place" that
has evolved since colonial times.
64
-------
14/
A.C
VIEW TYPE'
COMPATIBLE
N
INCOMPATIBLE
LAND USE'
NATURAL
F.e
AGRICULTURAL
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
MONUMENTAL
«• PHOTOGRAPHIC STATION
DIRECTION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC
VIEW
FIGURE m-ll
SCENIC VIEWS FROM PHOTOGRAPHIC
£
SOURCE FIELD SURVEY
STATIONS IN GETTYSBURG NATIONAL HISTORIC
DISTRICT, JUNE, 1979
-------
pvigHng wastewater
Management Facilities
Cumberland STP
We have reviewed these scenic views further, and have evaluated
them on the following scale:
1 highest quality
2 scenic
3 moderate aesthetic quality
4 poor quality view.
These ratings are listed in Appendix G-7. With relatively few
exceptions, the views are quite good; 76 percent of the views are
of aradi { or 2, while only 8 percent are grade 4, or "poor
malYty " These percentages cannot be applied precisely in
q, the scenic quality of the area; however, they do show
that most areas have been fairly well preserved and have not been
spoiled.
Th* development of the aesthetic inventory is also described in
IS^ndix G-7 NO views were taken looking into the Gettysburg
National Military Park because we expected that the ma]or effects
on the scenic and historic integrity of the Historic District and
surrounding area would stem from intrusions on lands .outside
Federal jurisdiction. Typical examples in each grade assigned to
the photographed views are offered m Appendix G- .
Presently, there are four sewage treatment plants operatino in
the Gettysburg Study Area. They are Cumberland STP, Gettvfihn™
STP, Schaff Trailer Park Package Plant, and Lake Heritaqe Pack™*
Plant. Figure II1-12 shows the locations of these facilitiesand
the associated serviced/sewered area(s).
The areas served by Cumberland STP and Gettysburg STP are
sently sewered. The sewage from Schaff Trailer Park is collert«H
and treated by the small package plant. Lake Heritaoe ar**
served by holding tanks and septic tanks. The sewage from hoi h
ing tanks is pumped periodically and transported to the
plant for treatment. Other communities within the study ar*»
using septic tanks for wastewater disposal. The following
tions describe the collection and conveyance system the L:r"
water flows, and treatment and sludge disposal faciliVi^eJ. C
of these plants as well as the on-site septic systems. e*ch
The sewered area extends along PA 34 from the junction wi*-* r„
1006 to North Avenue, then along LR 1006 to TR 341 Th» LR
constructed of vitrified clay in 1965, consist of i6 700
8-inch pipe, exclusive of house connections. ' f
Fiow to the plant through these sewers averaged annrnvim**
57,000 gpd during the period from January 1978 to AnrH
The significant amount of infiltration/inflow (i/n haV 11'
subject of extensive study by Cumberland Townshin hT,f=, the
flows much higher than the plant capacity often lead to ov*%?eak
of raw sewage from the sewer system. Additional evidence
I/I in the sewers can be seen from the raw sewaae phar!^
at the plant. From January 1978 to February 1979 thf
total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations of the ¦ ^5 and
averaged 116 mg/1 and 142 «g/l, respeettv^y-a
of weak sewage, presumably resulting from dilution of i(?n
tary flow with unpolluted water. uuon of sani-
6S
-------
o
-vj
i
/ i X^il
CUMBERLAND
STP
f L
' SCHAFF
TRAILER PARK
PACKAGE PLANT
/ s
GETTYSBURG
7 v 1 STP,/
s
LAKE HERITAGE
PACKAGE PLANT
SEWERED TREATMENT
AREA FACILITY
GETTYSBURG STP
S//\ CUMBERLAND STP
y- —"SERVICE TREATMENT
A AREA FACILITY
LAKE HERITA6E
PACKAGE
PLANT
FIGURE IH-12 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES AND SERVICED/SEWERED AREAS
-------
Repeated I/I studies by Buchart-Horn, Inc. in 1975 and 1979 have
concluded that inflow (due to illegal connections to-or-with
stormwater), rather than infiltration (attributable to defective
manholes and sewer joints), is the major problem in the sewer
system. The peak flow was estimated at 592,000 gpd, nearly ten
times the estimated average flow. The reports by Buchart-Horn
also indicated that the removal of most I/I and the rehabilita-
tion of sewers would be more cost-effective than providing excess
treatment capacity at the plant (Buchart-Horn 1976). The costs
to correct the I/I problem were estimated as follows:
• to eliminate 10 percent of the I/I—no cost (privately owned)
• To eliminate 80 percent of the I/I—$6,500
• to eliminate 94 percent of the I/I—$15,500
• to eliminate over 99 percent of the I/I--$94,550
One industrial wastewater pretreatment facility exists in Cumber-
land Township. The Meadow Valley Abattoir uses a holding tank to
nartoa1*u clarify the wastewaters generated at the plant.
Pretreated effluent is then discharged to the Cumberland Township
sewers and conveyed, together with domestic sewage, to the North
Plant.
Wastewater influent to the North Plant passes first through a
comminutor, in which large solids are ground, then to either of
two aeration tanks. In the extended aeration process, wastewater
is retained in the aeration tank for 24 hours in order to permit
the degradation of pollutants. The liquid is then clarified and
chlorinated and the disinfected effluent passes through a sand
filter before it is discharged to Rock Creek. For the period
from January 1978 to February 1979, the average efficiency of
removal was 91 percent for BOD and 92 percent for TSS. Such
treatment efficiency is above average for the extended aeration
process and reflects the care with which the plant is operated.
The North Plant is an outstanding example of a well-maintained
and operated wastewater treatment facility. Besides the good
housekeeping that was evident throughout the grounds, the process
equipment and tanks were neat and clean. Attention to operation
was aDDarent not only on the basis of records, but more impor-
tantly from the clarity of the effluent from settling tanks,
even before sand filtration. The sand beds themselves showed
similar evidence of good housekeeping.
Giv6n the present operating efficiency and attention to main-
tenance, Cumberland North is suitable for future use throughout
the design period of this EIS. If I/I were controlled, it
appears that the plant would have sufficient capacity for flows
from existing housing. Expansion, if it should become necessary,
would then be only for future growth, and land is available near
the plant for such an expansion. If the plant were to be
retained/expanded the new effluent standards would be more
restrictive: 15 mg/1 of BOD, 15 mg/1 of TSS, 0.5 mg/1 of phos-
phorus (as P) and, in the summer, not more than 3 mg/1 of ammonia
nitrogen. The plant has the potential to be upgraded to meet
these standards.
Sludge from the North Plant currently is dried in drying beds and
hauled to agricultural sites. This procedure is not expected to
change if the plant is upgraded or expanded.
68
-------
Gettysburg STP Gravity sewers serve the entire Borough of Gettysburg. In addi-
tion, both the Twin Oaks section of Straban Township and the
Woodcrest Development in Cumberland Township discharge their
wastewater to the Gettysburg system. The Gettysburg sewer system
contains approximately 131,000 feet of 6-inch to 20-inch gravity
sewers, exclusive of house connections. A detailed discussion of
the systems can be found in the GFCC Facility Plan.
In the latter part of 1973, GFCC examined the sewers and con-
cluded that the average flow was 1.85 mgd and that sanitary
sewage contributed 0.87 mgd of the flow; I/I, the remainder. For
the period from November 1977 to June 1979, flows through these
sewers averaged 1.06 mgd; the reduction since 1973 has been
attributed (Alberts 1979) to a borough program of removing inflow
(and some infiltration) from the system. However, a calibration
of the flow meter indicated that the meter was in error. The
corrected flow of 1.3 mgd still appears to be well below the 1973
values.
From November 1978 to June 1979, the BOD^ in the raw wastewater
averaged 139 mg/1, the TSS averaged llu mg/1. Both of these
values are typical of weak wastewater. Because the weak values
presumably result from dilution of the wastewater with unpolluted
water, they provide additional evidence of I/I in the sewers.
There are overflow points in the sewer system, which discharge
during periods of high rainfall. These overflows are the result
of excessive inflow. At this time, the GMA is undertaking a Step
2 survey of the facilities; they are using televisions and other
techniques to inspect the sewers. Repairs that are scheduled in
1980 are expected to reduce I/I to EPA recommendations.
There is one industrial wastewater treatment (or pretreatment)
facility in the Gettysburg sewer service area. The Gettysburg
Times' printing plant adds chemicals to remove silver from the
wastewater that is generated by its operations, and the pre-
treated wastewater is then discharged to the Gettysburg sewers
for conveyance to the Gettysburg plant.
Additions and alterations to accommodate growth have been made to
the Gettysburg plant, constructed in 1895. The plant was last
upgraded in 1952, when it was expanded to its present status.
The first sewers serving the plant were constructed about 1890;
they have been modified and extended often since then. The plant
employs a comminutor, primary clarifiers, trickling filters,
secondary clarifiers, and disinfection. Sludges from the primary
and secondary clarifiers are digested anaerobically, dried on
sand beds, and applied to farmland.
The Gettysburg plant, although old, is fairly well maintained and
operated. An existing raw sewage bypass at the head of the plant
is used frequently, but the most serious operating problems are
related to inadequate settling in the clarifiers, and the absence
of a parallel flow stream for the trickling filters. In the
clarifiers, solids that should be trapped and collected escape
either to the trickling filters or to the plant effluent, de-
pending upon the type of clarifier. As a result, treatment
efficiency is impaired and effluent standards are frequently not
met. For the period from November 1978 to June 1979, the average
efficiency of removal was 72 percent for BOD and 74 percent for
TSS, which is below average for the trickling filter process.
Structurally, the plant facilities appear to be sound. Although
some components, such as the chlorine contact tank, may require
69
-------
clant is suitable for future
extensive reworking, in ^ener cannot presently meet current
use. However, because the plant can,necessary. The Gettysburg
effluent standards, upgradipa-DER to discharge an effluent con-
plant has been requiredby PA-DER todxs^ g_ ^ Qf ^ ^
taining not mav not contain more than 0.5 mg/1 of
addition, the effluent may sumroeri not more than 3 mg/1 of
phosphorus (P) and, in th hermorS( the 1973 I/I study indi-
p&t hydraulically overloaded, which also
makes expansion necessary.
„ .. . _ ¦ _ nirrpntlv dried in drying beds (under
Sludge from Gettysburg 1 . ltural sites. This procedure is
glass) and hauled to g t which alternative is chosen,
expected to continue n . dlinq facilities may be desirable,
Darticularly6 to all°w the existing drying bed space to be used
for other treatment processes.
t akp Heritaqe +. 4.y,0 take Heritaqe Community has no sewers. Of ap-
Packaqe Plant At Present, the ^ak ^26 discharge their pumped by trucks
Packag proximately 280 dwe 9 LHMA. The remaining homes are
that •« °»"es\;m"sd eS£,£. Wi Boy campground also
«eraP larg«y holding tanK. which is emptied by LHMA.
^ i-imited data (last quarter, 1978) the Lake
On the basis o average of approximately 11,600 gpd.
Heritage P1 ,anf iV as 5,000 gpd to as high as 15,000 gpd.
None8of3the flow stemmed from I/I because there are no sewers to
allow such extraneous flows.
. ,, ri^veloDment is being built near the treatment
Finally, a n
-------
Schaff's Trailer Park The sewers serving Schaff's, constructed in 1974 of terracota and
Package Plant plastic, consist of 4,000 feet of 6-inch pipe. Approximately 125
residences (mobile homes) are served by the system.
During the period from April 1978 to September 1978, flows
through these sewers averaged 11,700 gpd. The condition of the
sewers is unknown, but wastewater quality data indicate that some
I/I may be present.
From May 1978 to May 1979, the BOD£ in the raw wastewater aver-
aged 184 mg/1; TSS averaged 152 mg/f. The lowest values reported
for BODj. and TSS during this period were 90 mg/1 and 64 mg/1,
respectrvely; these values are evidence of diluted wastewater and
indicate inflow. By comparison, the maximum values reported for
BODc and TSS for the period were 300 mg/1 and 275 mg/1, respec-
tively. The maximum values are typical of concentrated waste-
water and may have represented a period when no I/I was present.
The treatment facilities at Schaff's Trailer Park consist of a
small extended aeration plant, followed by sand beds to provide
additional removal of BOD5 and TSS. Maintenance at the site
appeared to be good, altnough the sand beds needed leveling.
Treated effluent was channelled through the beds, rather than
being evenly distributed across them. The plant effluent
appeared to be clear and free of odors, and no odors were de-
tected anywhere at the site.
With proper maintenance, the Schaff's Plant may be expected to
continue operating for some time. However, it is questionable
whether the facility will last for the 20-year design period of
the EIS.
Although the Schaff's Plant was not designed to be upgraded,
expansion of the facility appears to be feasible; additional
treatment units would be necessary to achieve such expansion.
Digested sludge from Schaff's is hauled to agricultural sites.
This procedure is expected to continue if the plant is retained.
Not all residences within the Study Area are serviced by one of
the wastewater collection and treatment systems described pre-
viously. Instead, some method of on-site wastewater disposal is
used, including conventional septic tank-soil absorption systems
(ST/SASs), and various alternative methods, such as sand-lined
systems, elevated sand mounds, and holding tanks.
Generally, the soils within the study area are not suitable for
conventional septic systems. High levels of groundwater and
bedrock, and/or poor soil permeability are soil characteristics
in virtually all of the study area. Most documented problems of
on-site disposal systems are recorded by the Sewage Enforcement
Officers (SEO) as they inspect and permit on-site wastewater
systems.
The SEO program has been in operation for ten years; the program
has concentrated on new systems and the correction of known
failures. Therefore, there is relatively little documentation of
current problems, although some evaluation has been done in areas
on Rt. 30 and Rt. 97.
On-Site Wastewater
Disposal Systems
71
-------
During the EIS process, public concerns (in terms of needs docu-
mentation to confirm or deny the need for sewer service in
certain areas) were raised. As a result, a survey of on-site
sanitary facilities in the study area was conducted during this
EIS. A comprehensive report of the survey is included in
Appendix 1-1. Only the salient features of the survey and a
summary of the results are presented in the following paragraphs.
For analytical purposes, major population concentrations were
divided into a series of "segments" (as shown in Figure 111-13).
Segments 1, 2, and 3 are sewered and are served by the Gettysburg
and Cumberland STPs. Segments 4 through 20 are not sewered
presently.
Segments 4, 12, 15, 16, and 18 were considered for sewering in
the GFCC Facilities Plan and were included in this sanitary
survey to document their needs for improved sanitary facilities.
Segment 17 was included in the survey because of the significant
growth that is projected to occur in the segment. The outer
segments, 5, 6, and 13, were marginal in terms of their potential
need for sewer service and were surveyed at a reduced level of
effort. Segment 19 does not have any current development and
Segment 20 does not have permanent residents at the present time;
therefore, Segments 19 and 20 were not included in the survey.
The surveyed segments (4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18)
are shown in Figure II1-14.
The survey team attempted to visit each home or business in
Segments 4, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18, but they attempted to
visit only 25 percent of the homes in Segments 5, 6, and 13. On
some occasions, residents were not at home or did not wish to
cooperate, so it was not possible to obtain information on all
wells and on-site systems. However, the survey team was able to
obtain a representative sample in all segments; information was
obtained for approximately 60 percent of the residences in
Segments 4, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18, and on selected streams and
springs. It should be noted that the majority of persons con-
tacted cooperated fully in the study.
The large majority of on-site systems in the study area are
septic systems with drain fields or seepage pits. Twelve percent
of the systems have wet drainfields or surfacing effluent. About
26 percent of the systems have illegal greywater separation,
where laundry and kitchen sink wastewaters are discharged
untreated to a roadside ditch, backyard corner, or nearby woods.
In most cases, residents with illegal greywater systems do not
know that such systems are considered as violations of PA-DER's
regulations. In cases where lots are too small, the wet drain-
fields and separate greywater systems may not be subject to
on-site correction, except by use of holding tanks.
For individual segments, the number of on-site system malfunc-
tions, as a percentage of the number of homes surveyed in the
segment, decreases as follows: Segments 4, 16, 17, 12, 14, 15,
18, 6, 5, and 13. Segment 4 not only has the largest percent of
malfunction but also has the largest number of malfunctions and
the largest number of malfunctions on small lots. Thus, Segment
4 is the top ranking segment in terms of severity of on-site
systems malfunctions; this result is consistent with the PA-DER's
past concern with the segment. Therefore, it is believed that
need for improvement is well demonstrated in Segment 4. Segment
17 has the smallest number of malfunctions.
72
-------
•*4
CO
\
>
r—¦i
8 | SEGMENT
FIGURE HI-13
SEGMENT MAP
-------
-F>
SANITARY
SURVEY
AREA
FIGURE m-14
SANITARY SURVEY AREA
-------
Of the wells sampled, 45 percent exceed the total coliform
standard for drinking water; 16 percent exceed the fecal coliform
standard; and only 3 percent have nitrate concentrations in
excess of 10 mg/1. None of these high nitrate levels is con-
sidered to be high enough to cause clinically significant health
impacts. The existing evidence does not allow us to identify
precisely the source(s) of the bacterial contamination (coliform
levels) found in wells. The high bacterial levels may be due to
either surface (or near surface) water contamination of wells or
to poorly operating on-site sewagp 4^sPosa-'- systems.
75
-------
CHAPTER IV
Alternatives for Wastewater Management
-------
CHAPTER IV.
ALTERNATIVES FOR WASTE-
WATER MANAGEMENT
Introduction
Much of the preparation for this EIS involved developing, screen-
ing, and costing a set of wastewater management alternatives for
the Gettysburg area. These alternatives address (and where
possible seek to eliminate) water pollution problems in the
planning area. The alternatives also minimize the cost of waste-
water management to residents and their communities and the
impact on Gettysburg1s cultural resources.
Development and Screen-
ing Process for Waste-
water Management
Alternatives The method used to develop and examine these alternatives is out-
lined in Figure IV-1. The first step in developing the alterna-
tives was to document the extent of need for improved wastewater
management. To make this a more manageable task, the planning
area was broken into 20 subareas or segments (see Figure 111-13)
shortly after the documentation began. Then three aspects of
need were examined for each segment: the problems with existing
wastewater systems (and wells), constraints upon the continued
use of the systems, and the needs that were likely to arise
during the planning period. .
To identify the problems with existing systems, EPA used informa-
tion presented in the Facilities Plan, searched local SEO files
for records of malfunctioning septic systems and for records of
lots that had been found unacceptable for on-site systems, con-
ducted a sanitary survey of area wells and septic systems, and
visited and evaluated the STP's in the planning area.
The constraints upon continued use of the existing systems were
also identified. PA-DER has published effluent discharge limita-
tions (see Table II1-3) that area STP's must meet, as well as
general regulations regarding wastewater treatment (Title 25,
Part 1, Subpart C, Article II, Chapter 95). PA-DER has also
published regulations regarding use of on-site systems (Title 25,
Part 1, Subpart C, Article I, Chapter 73); the feasibility of
on-site systems was evaluated, according to PA-DER regulations,
by examining area soils, geology, topography, lot sizes, and
population densities.
Finally, EPA examined the need for wastewater management that was
likely to arise during the planning period by making estimates.
How many existing systems might fail during the planning period
was estimated, along with estimates of the community growth that
was likely to occur in each segment during the period.
After the needs were documented, the EIS service area was deter-
mined by identifying the segments that should be addressed in the
wastewater management alternatives for the planning area. Then
wastewater management options for these segments were identified.
To avoid an unmanageable number of alternatives, segments were
grouped based on the logical locations for wastewater collection
and treatment facilities. Finally, a set of alternatives was
developed and screened to eliminate those alternatives that were
not economically or environmentally acceptable.
77
-------
Documentation of Needs
Determination of Service Area ->-5
Analysis of Alternatives
Existing Problems:
Facilities Plan information
SEO records of malfunctioning &
unapproved septic systems
Sanitary survey of wells and
Engineering evaluation of STP's
Constraints upon the Continued Use of
Existing Systems:
Soils, geology, topography
Population density, lot size
DER STP effluent requirements &
on-site system requirements
Planning Period Needs:
Community growth
• Numbers of existing on-site
systems that may fail
Segments Requiring Improved Wastewater
Management:
• Evaluation of existing problems,
constraints upon the continued use
of existing systems, and planning
period needs
Wastewater Management Options for Each
Segment:
• Technical feasibility of options
• Environmental constraints upon the
use of options
• Rough cost feasibility of central
sewering for presently non-sewered
segments
Preliminary Alternatives:
• Segments grouped based on
locations of existing sewers
and treatment plants and on
feasibility of groupings
• Wastewater management options
as identified in previous step
Screening of Alternatives:
• Present worth costs of
alternatives
• Environmental impacts of
alternatives
Impacts of Alternatives:
• Costs to users, communities,
and municipal authorities
• Impacts on area institutions,
cultural resources, and natural
environment
Figure IV-1. Method Used to Develop Wastewater Management Alternatives.
-------
The remaining alternatives were defined as feasible planning area
alternatives. A detailed analysis of costs and funding arrange-
ments was performed for each of the feasible alternatives.
Wastewater Management
Systems in the Study
Area For purposes of this analysis, a wastewater management system is
defined as a combination of component parts to collect, treat,
and dispose of wastewater effectively. The alternative waste
management systems described in this EIS typically have six basic
components (Table IV-1). Some of the options presented in Table
IV-1 were more appropriate than others for use in the planning
area.
I/I to the Gettysburg and Cumberland sewer systems should be
reduced, to reduce wastewater and flow which is in line with GFCC
and Buchart-Horn recommendations. Several businesses (e.g., the
Gettysburg Times) already pretreat their wastes before sending
them to the sewer systems, there is no indication that businesses
that do not pretreat their wastes ought to. Although the use of
in-house water conservation devices should be encouraged, no
widespread use of such devices has been assumed in the wastewater
alternatives because in the past, area municipalities were reluc-
tant to require such devices. If such devices were required, we
project that flow reduction inserts for showers and flow control
for toilets are cost-effective, but composting toilets are not.
Gravity sewers (for wastewater collection) are expensive to
install in the area because of shallow bedrock and rolling ter-
rain. In some areas, such as Lake Heritage, pressure sewers (or
holding tanks and tank trucks) are less expensive. Cluster sewer
systems (where 20 to 30 homes on septic tanks are sewered to
effluent disposal sites) were ruled out because sewering is too
costly and because it is difficult to find suitable effluent
disposal sites.
Tertiary treatment to provide nitrification, phosphorus removal,
and dechlorination is necessary, in addition to primary treat-
ment, secondary treatment, and disinfection. Only through such
measures can area plants meet PA-DER's effluent requirements and
avoid significant impacts on aquatic biota in Rock Creek.
Surface water discharge and land disposal are the two effluent
disposal techniques examined in the alternatives. Four land
disposal techniques were evaluated:
• overland flow, where treated effluent is renovated by flowing
it over a mildly sloped, impermeable soil that is vegetated;
• marsh/pond, where treated effluent is passed through a shallow
marsh that has aquatic growth to take up nutrients from the
effluent and then is ponded prior to disposal;
• rapid infiltration, where effluent is sprayed or run onto a
highly permeable sand/soil bed; and
• spray irrigation, where treated effluent is sprayed on crop-
land.
Only overland flow and marsh/pond treatment were considered
feasible because area soils are too impermeable to permit rapid
infiltration or a satisfactory rate for spray irrigation; and of
the two chosen, overland flow is more feasible and less costly
than marsh/pond.
70
-------
Table IV-1. Components of a Waste Management Svstem
COMPONENT
EXAMPLES
Wastewater and flow reduction
measures
•
Reduction of infiltration and inflow
to collection system
•
Pretreatment of industrial wastes
•
Use of equalization facilities at treat-
ment plants
•
In-house water conservation (use of water
saving devices)
•
Use of holding or surge tanks at waste-
water sources
•
Use of composting toilets
•
Ban on connection of garbage disposals
Wastewater collection
•
Gravity sewers
•
Pressure sewers
•
Small flow sewers
•
Vacuum sewers
•
Tank trucks
Configuration of collection systems
•
Regional sewer systems
•
Cluster sewer systems
•
On-site systems
Treatment plant processes
•
Primary
•
Secondary
•
Tertiary
•
Disinfection
Effluent disposal
•
Surface water discharge
•
Land disposal
•
Effluent recycling (use of wastewater
for firefighting, industrial processes,
cooling water, and lawn watering)
•
Holding
Sludge Disposal
•
Sludge thickening
•
Sludge digestion
•
Sludge conditioning and dewatering
•
Thermal reduction
•
Sludge hauling and disposal
SO
-------
Finally, because farmland is available for the disposal of sludge
from area treatment plants, the present practice of drying sludge
on sand beds and disposing of it on farmland was assumed in all
our alternatives.
Funding for Systems
in the Study Area
Many facilities that are included in the wastewater management
alternatives described in this section are eligible for Federal
construction grants funds (Table IV-2). The level of Federal
funding to be provided for these eligible items varies from 75
percent to 85 percent. Conventional treatment works are eligible
for 75 percent of allowable construction costs, but innovative
and alternative treatment works are eligible for 85 percent of
allowable costs. This additional 10 percent acts as an incentive
for grant applicants so that they employ new processes that have
not been used widely but that offer promising results. Systems
that reclaim and reuse water, recycle wastewater constituents in
a productive manner, otherwise eliminate the discharge of pollu-
tants, or recover energy, are considered innovative and alter-
native technologies.
Table IV-2. EPA Grant Eligibility Rules for the Construction of
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works, (EPA 1978)
System
Funding Considerations
Conventional treatment works
Innovative and alternative
treatment works
• Section 201 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 pro-
vides Federal grants for
75% of allowable construc-
tion costs of conventional
treatment works.
• Section 202(a)(2) of the
Clean Water Act of 1977
provides Federal grants
for 85% of allowable con-
struction costs for treat-
ment works that utilize
innovative and alternative
technologies.
• Section 202(a)(3) of the
Clean Water Act of 1977
provides Federal grants for
100% of costs to replace
or modify treatment works
that utilize innovative and
alterntive technologies.*
• Section 14 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 provides
Federal grants for 85% of
allowable costs of publicly-
owned and privately-owned
individual systems serving
one or more principal resi-
dences or small commerical
establishments. Acquisi-
tion of land for such sys-
tems is not grant eligible
Note that replacement funding is provided only if the treat-
ment works fail within 2 years of construction and final
inspection, and that it is necessary to go through construc-
tion grants procedure to obtain this funding.
Individual systems
31
-------
The principal difference between "alternative" technologies and
"innovative" technologies is the degree to which they have been
developed and implemented. "Alternative" wastewater treatment
processes and techniques are those that have been proven and used
in actual practice; "innovative" processes and techniques are
methods that have not been fully proven under the circumstances
of their contemplated use.
Also eligible for 85 percent in Federal funding are the allowable
costs for publicly-owned and privately-owned individual systems.
An individual system serves "one or more principal residences, or
small commercial establishments constructed prior to and in-
habited on or before 27 December 1977". Individual systems are
intended to abate existing water pollution or public health
problems. A public body (municipality or municipal authority)
must apply on behalf of a number of such units, and must certify
that public ownership of such works is not feasible, and that the
treatment works will be maintained and operated properly.
Individual systems are intended primarily for individual resi-
dences or clusters of residences. Among the alternatives for
individual systems are: holding tanks, septic tanks and subsur-
face disposal systems, other on-site systems.
Analysis of Data
(By Segment)
Needs Documentation In order to evaluate the need for improved wastewater management
in planning area segments, information was collected from the
Facility Plan, local SEO files, a sanitary survey, visits to area
treatment plants, PA-DER regulations, SCS and USGS maps. The
information that was collected about existing sewer systems is
summarized in Chapter III under the heading "Existing Facilities
for Wastewater Management." Additional information about each
segment is presented in Table IV-3.
Information about the degree of development for each segment
(shown in Table IV-3) was obtained from several sources; the
sanitary survey (Segments 4-6, 12-18), calls to local municipal
authorities (Segments 2, 7-11), or current census information.
The numbers of septic systems malfunctions and contaminated wells
were obtained from the sanitary survey and from SEO records.
Soil suitability for conventional on-site systems was determined
by using PA-DER regulations, SCS maps, and from reports by local
SEO's. Finally* population densities and community growth pro-
jections were estimated by using sanitary survey population
counts and future growth projections prepared by socio-economists
for the planning area.
Once it was collected, the data documenting the need for improved
wastewater management in the planning area were analyzed in order
to determine the nature of the need for improved wastewater
management in each segment. This analysis emphasized septic
system malfunctions and STP problems instead of well water con-
tamination, s°*f suitability for septic systems, lot sizes, and
community growth because malfunctioning septic systems and STP
inadequacies show the need for improved wastewater management
most directly- A complete report of the analysis can be found in
Appendixes 1-2 and 1-3. The results and summary of those reports
are presented in the following paragraphs.
Nature of Need for
Improved Wastewater
Management
82
-------
Segments 4, 12, 14 through 17 have significant numbers and per-
centages of malfunctioning on-site systems. Soils within these
segments, as classified by the PA-DER, are generally unsatisfac-
tory for conventional septic tanks, but exhibit various degrees
of acceptability for other types of on-site systems. Existing
development and population density is fairly high in Segments 4
and 16. Future growth projections are relatively high for Seg-
ments 4, 17, and 18.
However, Segments 5, 6, and 13 showed minimal existing problems
and low future growth projections. It is assumed that their
needs can be accommodated with continued use of on-site treatment
systems. Therefore, these segments will not be considered fur-
ther during the EIS process.
Although many other considerations were involved as a result of
this extensive analysis of environmental conditions, the areas
determined to be in need of improved wastewater management are
Segments 1-4, 7-12, 14-18, and 20. These areas will receive
further discussion and evaluation throughout this EIS.
Selection of
Alternatives
Although the need for improved wastewater management has been
identified for Segments 12, 14, 15, 16, and 20, it appeared that
population densities in these segments might be too low to make
sewering economically feasible. Therefore, a cost comparison was
conducted for these segments to determine what was less expen-
sive: on-site treatment or sewering and treatment at a central
facility. The results of the comparison are presented in Table
IV-4.
The costs shown for on-site systems include the costs of systems
to replace presently malfunctioning systems, the costs of new
systems to accommodate future growth, and the costs for regular
maintenance of all systems in each segment. We assumed that most
of the replacement and new systems would be septic tank-sand
mound systems, based on information given in the "Soil survey for
Adams County" and on DER regulations regarding use of on-site
systems; the remainder of these systems would be holding tanks.
The sewer costs shown are for connections and laterals only and
do not include the cost of any conveyance sewer that may be
needed; also, sewer costs are shown with and without treatment
costs included.
85
-------
Table IV-4.
Economic Analysis of
Segments 12, 14, 15,
Sewer* vs.
16, and 20
On-Site Systems for
(Total Present Worth)
Segment
Alternate
Item
Present Worth
12
14
15
16
20
On-site
Gravity sewer
Gravity sewer plus treatment**
Pressure sewer
Pressure sewer plus treatment
On-site
Gravity sewer
Gravity sewer plus treatment
Presssure sewer
Pressure sewer plus treatment
On-site
Gravity sewer
Gravity sewer plus' treatment
Pressure sewer
Pressure sewer plus treatment
On-site
Gravity sewer
Gravity sewer plus treatment
Pressure sewer
Pressure sewer plus treatment
On-site
Gravity sewer
Gravity sewer plus treatment
Pressure sewer
Pressure sewer plus treatment
$140,800
$423,000
$463,000
$249,200
$289,400
$ 98,200
$521,500
$555,800
$245,500
$279,800
$178,000
$502,100
$550,000
$272,700
$320,700
$240,500
$522,700
$571,800
$820,500
$869,600
$ 64, 700|
$ 72,500
$ 92,200
$ 51,000
$ 70,700
* Not including the cost of conveyance sewer if needed
t Assuming that pumping of holding tanks costs $30/2000 gallons
(significantly more expensive than the LHMA's current charges)
** Typical per capita treatment costs have been used to estimate
"sewer plus treatment" costs; these per capita costs are rough
figures, so "sewer only" costs have been shown for reference.
. the on-site option is less costly than
As Table 1V-4 shows, ^ and 16 consequently, these
sewering for Segments , lv[ded in the subsequent analysis of
four segments werew However( different means for addressing
sewering alter"„ in these segments are still considered in
the problems laen^x ^ . ^
on-site and sewer options are so
the remainder oi tne • 2Q that the segment was included in
close in cost ior => y
subsequent analysis.
*. in the selection of alternatives process, poten-
As the next step inn t Bystems were developed for the indi-
tial wastewater j0*11 9 planning area (Table IV-5). They include
vidual se9»ent®.^, /r \0 STP's, land application (overland flow
Each °£
36
-------
terns would function effectively in meeting current and future
wastewater service needs. All the constraints and environmental
factors that were described in the section titled "Nature of Need
for Improved Wastewater Management" were considered in identify-
ing potential systems; the only exception is that we did not
consider the geographic locations of the segments with respect to
existing sewer service areas.
Table IV-5. Potential Wastewater Management Systems
Treatment at Central STP Surface
Water Discharge
New
Schaff1 s
Gettys-
Cumber-
New Lake
Trailer
Over-
On-site
burg
land
Heritage
Park
land
Marsh
Segment
STP
STP
STP
STP
flow
pond
systems
1
X
X
2
X
X
X
3
X
X
4
X
X
X
7
X
X
X
X
X
8
X
X
X
X
X
9
X
X
X
X
X
10
X
X
X
X
X
11
X
X
X
X
X
12
X
14
X
15
X
16
X
17
X
X
X
X
18
X
X
X
X
20
X
X
X
X
The next step, then, was to group segments to be addressed in
this EIS into 32 possible geographical combinations. After this,
the potential systems and the geographical combinations were
combined selectively in order to form a reduced number of group_
ings.
After considering logical combinations of segments and available
treatment sites, we selected six alternatives for further consi-
deration in this EIS; in addition to those are the No-Action
Alternative and GMA's previous proposal. The six alternatives
are summarized in Table IV-6 and in Figures IV-2 to IV-7. The
87
-------
alternatives are presented in order, from the most decentralized
grouping to the most centralized grouping. On each of the fol-
lowing figures, the conveyance routing and treatment locations
are presented in order to illustrate how and where each segment's
flow will be treated.
Table IV-6. Gettysburg EIS Alternatives
Alternative A--Limited Action:
Upgrade Gettysburg STP - Segments 1, 3
Upgrade Cumberland STP - Segment 2
Build New Schaff's STP - Schaff's Trailer Park in Segment 4
Build New Lake Heritage STP - Segments 7-11 on holding
tanks, etc.
Improve On-Site Systems - Remainder of Segment 4 and
Segments 7-11, 17, 18
Alternative B:
Upgrade Gettysburg STP - Segtnents 1, 3, 4
Upgrade Cumberland STP - Segment 2
Build New Lake Heritage STP - Segments 7-11 on holding
tanks, etc.
Improve On-Site Systems - Segments 7-11, 17, 18
Alternative C:
Upgrade Gettysburg STP - Segments 1, 3
Upgrade Cumberland STP - Segment 2
Build New Segment 4 Land Application Site - Segment 4
Build New Lake Heritage STP - Segments 7-11 on holding
tanks, etc.
Improve On-Site Systems - Segments 7-11, 17, 18
A1ternative D:
Upgrade Gettysburg STP - Segments 1, 3, 4, 18
Upgrade/Expand Cumberland STP - Segments 2, 17
Build New Lake Heritage STP - Segments 7-11 on sewers
Alternative E:
Upgrade Gettysburg STP - Segments 1-4, 17, 18
Build New Land Application Site - Segments 7-11 on sewers
Alternative F:
Upgrade Gettysburg STP - Segments 1-4, 7-11, 17, 18
Design for Alternatives
Populations and Waste-
water Flows In order to determine numbers of on-site systems, sizes of sewer
and pump stations, and sizes of treatment processes for each of
the alternatives, design populations and wastewater flows were
needed. Because of the amount of tourism in the area, both
permanent and seasonal populations had to be estimated.
88
-------
' ¦ ' ¦ v- r / N /
L> \S -I-: AK„ / —A-
/C 2 Yw/**/ W >' v \
i\T
c
PARK
-
FIGURE
SEGMENT SERVED BY
1,3 GETTYSBURG STP
2 CUMBERLAND STP
9,10,11 NEW LAKE HERITAGE STP
4,17,18 ON-SITE SYSTEMS
TRAILER NEW SCHAFF STp
ALTERNATIVE A-LIMITED ACTION
-------
VO f>.
o I
f
/
SEGMENT SERVED BY
1,3,4 GETTYSBURG STP
2 CUMBERLAND STP
7,8,9,10,11 NEW LAKE HERITAGE STP
17,18 ON-SITE SYSTEMS
FIGURE IE-3
ALTERNATIVE B
-------
v£>
LAND /
APPLICATION
SEGMENT SERVED BY
1,3 GETTYSBURG STP
2 CUMBERLAND STP
7,8,9,10,11 NEW LAKE HERITAGE STP
4 OVERLAND FLOW
17,18 ON-SITE SYSTEMS
FIGURE EZ-4
ALTERNATIVE C
-------
SEGMENT SERVED BY
1,3,4,18 GETTYSBURG STP
2,17 CUMBERLAND STP
7,8,9,10,11 NEW LAKE HERITAGE STP
FIGURE E-5
ALTERNATIVE D
-------
LO
•V:
1
m :< v
LAND
APPLICATION \
SEGMENT SERVED BY
/ 1,2,3,4,17,18 GETTYSBURG STP
\ ' J
7,8,9,10,11 OVERLAND FLOW
FIGURE m-6
ALTERNATIVE E
-------
f
arTT*swm«
,2,3,4,7,8,9,
10,11,17, 18
SEGMENT SERVED BY
GETTYSBURG STP
FIGURE JSL-7
ALTERNATIVE F
-------
The permanent populations to be served were estimated segment by
segment. First, the number of existing dwelling units in each
segment was determined. Then, we estimated the number of addi-
tional units likely to be built in each segment between the years
1980 and 2005. Finally, the number of permanent residents for
each segment was calculated by multiplying existing and year 2005
dwelling units by the relevant municipality's 1980 and 2005
average household sizes. The results of this process are shown
in Table IV-7.
Numbers of tourists to be served were estimated by using the
number of motel rooms and campsites (obtained from the Gettysburg
Travel Council) in each segment. It was assumed that motels are
90 percent occupied and campgrounds are 70 percent occupied
(again, obtained from the Gettysburg Travel Council) during the
peak tourist season. Also, it was assumed that wastewater faci-
lities have to be sized to handle use at the peak of the tourist
season, so the number of tourists for each segment was treated as
equivalent to a like number of residents. The results of this
process are also shown in Table IV-7. Note that the estimates
Table II1-7. Populations Used for Analysis of Alternatives
Year Year
1980 2005
Gettysburg:
Segment 1
Segment 3
Cumberland:
Segment 2 -
Segment 16 -
Segment 17 -
Residents
Students (approximate
number)
Motel room renters
Residents
subtotal
Residents
Residents
Motel/Campsite Renters
Residents
subtotal
4,769
2,450
1,542
530
9,291
614
111
295
47
1,067
4,856
2,450
1,542
595
9,443
561
125
295
1,170
05I
Straban:
Segment 4
Segment 18 -
Schaff's Trailer Park
Residents
Motel Room Renters
Residents
subtotal
Lake Heritage:
Segment 7 - Residents
Segment 8 - Residents
Segment 9 - Residents
Segment 10/11 Residents
Segment 20 - Campsite Renters
subtotal
363
97
108
105
671
161
100
228
609
429
T75T7
331
246
108
951
I763S
248
315
432
914
429
57535
Mount Joy:
Segment 12 - Residents
Segment 14 - Residents
Segment 15 - Residents
subtotal
83
86
96
255
102
87
122
3IT
95
-------
for tourists are about the same as the estimates that can be
obtained by using NPS numbers of visitors to park facilities, and
by using EPA's multiplier of 0.1-0.2 to convert day-use visitors
to equivalent full-time residents.
After these populations had been estimated, wastewater flows were
calculated for each of the alternatives. These flows consist of
sewage generated by the populations and of I/I of water into
sewer systems. The sewage flows were calculated by multiplying
the number of people in each segment by a per capita flow figure
that ranges from 70 to 80 gpcd, depending on the level of com-
mercial or municipal activity in the segment. I/I was determined
by using I/I studies of the Gettysburg and Cumberland sewer sys-
tems and by assuming that I/I would be reduced. Infiltration for
new systems was estimated using lengths of sewer to be con_
structed and 200 gpd per inch-mile of allowable I/I. The results
are shown in Table IV-8.
For all alternatives except Alternative A, year 2005 populations
and flows were used to size wastewater facilities. For Alterna-
tive A (the limited action alternative in which facilities are to
handle existing flows only), year 1980 populations and flows were
used, except that population growth that can occur by use of
septic systems was assumed to occur.
Sewage Treatment
Plants There are four sewage treatment plants associated with the vari-
ous alternatives. This section provides a brief discussion of
the treatment processes that were designed for each plant.
Gettysburg STP—In the alternatives where this plant is used, the
present Gettysburg STP would be upgraded and expanded to handle
various flows (from 1.25 mgd for Alternative A to 1.71 mgd for
Alternative F). The treatment processes included in the design
are preliminary treatment, primary clarifier, trickling filter,
intermediate clarifier, activated sludge unit, final clarifier,
anaerobic digester, chlorination, dechlorination, denitrifica-
tion, mineral addition, sludge drying, and sludge land applica-
tion.
Cumberland STP—In Alternatives A, B, and C, the existing STP
would Ee retained by adding dechlorination, nitrification, and
land application of sludge. In Alternative D, the plant would be
replaced with an oxidation ditch plant containing the following
processes: preliminary treatment, aeration basin, clarifer,
chlorination, dechlorination, mineral addition, and sludge land
application.
Lake Heritage STP—In Alternative A, the existing Lake Heritage
STP would bi replaced by an extended aeration package plant
containing preliminary treatment, aeration basin, clarifer,
aerobic digester, filtration, mineral addition, chlorination,
dechlorination and denitrification units. In Alternatives B, C,
and D, the plant would be replaced by an oxidation ditch plant
like the Alternative D Cumberland Plant.
Schaff's Trailer Park STP—In Alternative A, the existing plant
would be replaced by an extended aeration package plant like the
Alternative A Lake Heritage plant.
Overland Flow Systems Overland flow systems were designed for different wastewater
flows in the range from 0.15 mgd to 1.71 mgd. The key components
of the overland flows systems are pre-application treatment
96
-------
Table IV-
'•fastewater Flows used for Alternatives Analvsis
Design Flows (Million Gallons/Day)1'
Sewage0
I/I*
Total
Alternative A
Gettysburg STP:
Gettysburg (Segments 1, 3)
Cumberland (Segment 17)
Straban (Segments 4, 18)
0.743
0.001
0.004
0.500
-0-
-0-
1.248
1.243
0.001
0.004
Cumberland STP:
Cumberland (Segment 2)
0.055
0.015
0.070
0.070
Schaff's STP:
Straban (Schaff's Trailer Park)
0.024
0.003
0.027
0.027
Lake Heritage STP:
Lake Heritage (Segments 7-11, 20)
Cumberland (Segment 16)
Mount Joy (Segments 12, 14, 15)
0.049*
0.001
0.001
-0-
-0-
-0-
0.051
0.049
0.001
0.001
Alternative B
Gettysburg STP:
Gettysburg (Segments 1, 3)
Cumberland (Segment 17)
Straban (Segments 4, 18)
0.755
0.025
0.075
0.500
-0-
0.008
1.363
1.255
0.025
0.083
Cumberland STP:
Cumberland (Segment 2)
Lake Heritage STP:
Lake Heritage (Segments 7-11, 20)
Cumberland (Segment 16)
Mount Joy (Segments 12, 14, 15)
0.055
0.096*
0.001
0.001
0.015
-0-
-0-
-0-
0.070
0.070
0.098
0.096
0.001
0.001
Alternative C
Gettysburg STP:
Gettysburg (Segments 1, 3)
Cumberland (Segment 17)
Straban (Segment 18)
0.755
0.025
0.024
0.500
-0-
-0-
1.304
1.255
0.025
0.024
Cumberland STP:
Cumberland (Segment 2)
0.055
0.015
0.070
0.070
Segment 4 Land Application:
Straban (Segment 4)
0.051
0.005
0.056
0.056
Lake Heritage STP:
Lake Heritage (Segments 7-11, 20) 0.096*
Cumberland (Segments 12, 14, 15) 0.001
Mount Joy (Segments 12, 14, 15) 0.001
—0—
-0-
-0-
0.098
0.096
0.001
0.001
See footnotes at end of table.
97
-------
Table IV-8. Wastewater Flows used for Alternatives Analysis—Continued
Design Flows (Million Gallons/Day)°
Sewage0 I/I* Total
Alternatives D and E
Gettysburg STP:
1.397
Gettysburg (Segments 1, 3)
0.755
0.500
1.255
Straban (Segments 4, 18)
0.123
0.019
0.142
Cumberland STP:
0. M7-
Cumberland (Segments 2, 17)
0.139
0.028
0.16Z
Lake Heritage STP:
0.143
Lake Heritage (Segments 7-11, 20)
0.138*
0.003
0.141
Cumberland (Segment 16)
0.001
-0-
0.001
Mount Joy (Segments 12, 14, 15)
0.001
-0-
0.001
Alternatives F and G
Gettysburg STP:
1.564
Gettysburg (Segments 1, 3)
0.755
0.500
1.255
Cumberland (Segments 2, 17)
0.139
0.028
0.167
Straban (Segments 4, 18)
0.123
0.019
0.142
Lake Heritage Land Application:
0.143
Lake Heritage (Segments 7-11, 20)
0.138*
0.003
0.141
Cumberland (Segment 16)
0.001
-0-
0.001
Mount Joy (Segments 12, 14, 15)
0.001
-0-
0.001
Alternatives H and I
Gettysburg STP:
1.705
Gettysburg (Segments 1, 3)
0.755
0.500
1.255
Cumberland (Segments 2, 16, 17)
0.140
0.028
0.168
Straban (Segments 4, 18)
0.123
0.019
0.142
Lake Heritage (Segments 7-11, 20)
0.138*
0.001
0.139
Mount Joy (Segments 12, 14, 15)
0.001
-0-
0.001
o Based on 70-80 gallons/person/day, depending on degree of commerce.
• Includes flows from Drummer Boy Campground and S. W. Construction Company.
* Flows due to infiltration and inflow into sewers.
98
-------
(including preliminary treatment, primary clarifier, alum addi-
tion, and aerobic digester), storage lagoon, field preparation,
distribution, recovery, land application of sludge, and aerators
for storage.
Storage lagoons were designed to hold wastewater for 10 weeks
during the winter months and would have mechanical aerators and
bentonite-clay linings. The overland flow application rate would
be 4 inches per week. Both the 10-week storage time and the
4-inch/week application rate are based on EPA specifications (EPA
625/1-77-008, Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Muni-
cipal Wastewater).
On-site Wastewater
Disposal Systems Two types of on-site systems have been considered for use in the
alternatives: septic tank-sand mound systems and holding tanks.
Wherever soil conditions permit the use of septic tanks, we have
assumed that closed sand mound systems would be used in order to
provide conservatively high cost estimates for on-site systems.
Where soils may not permit the use of septic tanks, we have
assumed that holding tanks would be used and treatment capacity
has beon provided for holding tank wastes at area treatment
plants. If site-by-site analyses are done, researchers may find
it possible to correct malfunctions and to accommodate future
growth with less expensive conventional or alternative on-site
systems than those that are proposed. Also, when holding tanks
have to be used, in-house water conservation devices can and
should be used to reduce the operating costs of the systems.
Cost of Alternatives
Present Worth Analysis There are two principal types of costs associated with each of
the six wastewater management alternatives. One is the capital
cost of wastewater facilities, which includes the costs of con-
structing or installing the facilities, as well as the costs of
designing the facilities, of legal work, of materials, and of
arranging financing. The other is the annual O & M costs asso_
ciated with using the facilities. ~
In order to compare the costs of alternatives, both the capital
and the O & M costs must be considered. In addition, the life-
spans of the facilities must be taken into account because an
alternative that costs more than another may be a better buy if
the facility being paid for will last longer.
One way of taking into consideration capital costs, 0 & M costs,
and lifespans is to compare the "present worth costs" of the
alternatives. The "present worth cost" of an alternative is the
amount of money that would have to be placed in an interest-
earning account at the beginning of the design period to cover
the capital costs and 0 & M costs of the alternative, if it is
assumed that the wastewater facilities would be sold for their
salvage value at the end of the period. The present worth of the
cost to operate and maintain the facilities is for a specific
number of years (typically 20). The salvage value is subtracted
from the other two costs; this amount is the present worth of the
value of the facilities at the end of the specific number of
years.
The present worth costs for the six EIS alternatives and the
Facility Plan proposed action are shown in Table IV-9. The costs
are based on a 20 year period and 7-1/8% interest rate.
99
-------
Table IV-9.
Present Worth
Cost of Alternatives (in thousands of
dollars, 4th
quarter 1979)
Collection/
Alternative
On-site
Conveyance
l/l
systems
sewer
Reduction
STP's
A
5,109
510
1,007
8,488
B
7,484
2,573
1,007
8,705
C
7,484
2,470
1,007
8,514
D
657
13,972
1,007
9,403
E
657
14,187
1,007
7,412
F
657
14,365
1,007
16,596
Overland
Total
flow
Existing
present
Treatment
debt
worth
A
-0-
290
15,404
B
-0-
290
20,059
C
1,017
290
20,782
D
-0-
290
25,329
E
1,433
290
24,986
F
-0-
290
23,907
Alternatives A, B, and C have the lowest present worth costs of
the six alternatives. This is because these alternatives propose
extensive use of on-site systems in Segments 7-11, 17, and 18,
whereas remaining alternatives propose use of sewers in these
segments. The rocky soils, hilly terrain, and low population
densities make sewers more expensive than on-site systems in
these areas. Alternative A has the lowest present worth cost of
all because it does not provide wastewater facilities for future
population growth except that which can occur by use of septic
systems. Alternatives B and C propose that substantial addi-
tional growth be allowed to occur on holding tanks in Segments
7-11, 17, and 18; holding tank wastes would be treated at the
Gettysburg and Lake Heritage STP1s.
Costs by Municipal
Authority At present, there are three municipal authorities in the study
area that operate sewer systems or STP's: the Gettysburg Muni-
cipal Authority (GMA), the Cumberland Township Authority (CTA),
and the Lake Heritage Municipal Authority (I#MA).
To suggest how each alternative would affset the sizes and costs
of systems run by each authority, the capital costs (Table
IV-10), and the operation and maintenance <0 & M) costs (Table
IV-11) of the alternatives have been split among the authorities.
These tables were prepared under two assumptions: that each
authority would be responsible for any treatment plant (or over-
100
-------
Table IV-10. Capital Costs of Alternatives by Municipal Authority (in thousands
of dollars, 4th quarter 1979)
Municipal
On-Site
Sewer
Sewage
Total
Alternative
Authority*
Systems
System*
Treatment
Capital0
A
GMA
-0-
968.8
3485.0
4453.8
CTA
1570.4
38.2
382.0
1990.6
LHMA
764.8
-0-
349.0
1113.8
Straban
1436.3
84.1
282.0
1802.4
Total
9360.6
B
GMA
-0-
3394.2
3640.0
7034.2
CTA
1837.3
38.2
382.0
2257.5
LHMA
1275.0
-0-
424.0
14M.0
Straban
1265.7
-0-
-0-
1265.7
Total
12256.4 •
C
GMA
-0-
2011.6
3579.0
5590.6
CTA
1837.3
38.2
382.0
2257.5
LHMA
1275.0
-0-
424.0
1699.0
Straban
1265.7
1122.0
639.9
3027.6
Total
12574.7
D
GMA
-0-
6335.7
3701.0
10036.7
CTA
-0-
3206.7
614.0
3820.7
LHMA
510.5
5430.5
497.0
6438.0
Total
20295.4
E
GMA
-0-
9713.2
3844.0
13557.2
LHMA
510.5
5430.5
859.4
6S00.4
Total
20357.6
¥
GMA
510.5
15307.3
3922.0
19739.8
* GMA-Gettvsburg Municipal Authority - Currently operates the Gettysburg/
Woodcrest/Twin Oaks sewer system and treatment plant.
CTA-Cumberland Township Authority - Currently operates the Cumberland
sewer system and treatment plant.
LHMA-Lake Heritage Municipal Authority - Currently operates the Lake
Heritage Holding tank collection system and treatment plant.
Straban-New Authority - To oversee the Alternative A Schaff's STP, the
Alternative C overland flow site, and Alternatives A-C on-site systems
in Straban.
• Costs shown include costs of reducing infiltration/inflow in existing
systems.
o Capital costs shown do not include existing debts (see Table III-ll).
101
-------
Table IV-11. Annual O&M Costs of Alternatives by Municipal Authority (in
thousands of dollars, 4th quarter 1979)
Municipal
On-Site
Sewer
Sewage
Total
Alternative
Authority*
Systems
System
Treatment
OSM°
A
GMA
-0-
35.0
298.0
333.0
CTA
15.0
3.1
52.0
70.1
LHMA
117.2
-0-
31.0
148.2
Straban
31.3
3.3
21.0
55.6
Total
606.9
B
GMA
-0-
38.3
328.0
366.3
CTA
65.7
3.1
52.0
120.8
LHMA
214.1
-0-
49.0
263.1
Straban
60.6
-0-
-0-
60.6
Total
810.8
C
GMA
-0-
3555
315.0
3S0.0
CTA
65.7
3.1
52.0
120.8
LHMA
214.1
-0-
49.0
263.1
Straban
60.6
11.9
41.7
114.2
Total
848.6
D
GMA
-0-
42.0
340.0
382.0
CTA
-0-
7.1
65.0
72.1
LHMA
18.9
79.2
57.0
155.1
Total
609.2
E
GMA
-0-
54.3
359.0
U3.3
LHMA
18.9
79.2
62.8
160.9
Total
574.2
F
GMA
18.9
136.3
369.0
524.2
o O&M - Operation and maintenance
* GMA-Gettysburg Municipal Authority - Currently operates the Gettysburg/Woodcrest/
Twin Oaks sewer system and treatment plant.
CTA-Cuniberland Township Authority - Currently operates the Cumberland sewer system
and treatment plant.
LHMA-Lake Heritage Municipal Authority - Currently operates the Lake Heritage
holding tank collection system and treatment plant.
Straban-New Authority - To oversee the Alternative A Schaff's STP, the Alternative
C overland flow site, and Alternative A-C on-site systems in Straban.
102
-------
land flow site) located at or near where the authority's plant is
now located, and that the authority would be responsible for all
sewer systems (not on-site systems) feeding into the plant.
Responsibility for on-site systems was divided as follows:
Segment 17, CTA; Segments 4 and 18, Straban; Segments 7-11, 20,
LHMA; and Segments 12, 14-16, LHMA except in Alternative 6 where
responsibility is assigned to the only remaining authority, GMA.
As would be expected, the capital and O & M costs for the GMA
system increase from Alternative A to Alternative F, as more
service area segments feed into the GMA treatment plant. Simi-
larly, the capital and 0 & M costs for the CTA system increase
between Alternatives A through C and Alternative D because in
Alternative D the CTA assumes responsibility for a sewer system
to serve Segment 17. Finally, the capital and 0 & M costs for
the LHMA increase from Alternative A (where no growth is to be
accommodated in Segments 7-11), to Alternatives B and C (where
growth is to be accommodated on holding tanks), to Alternative D
(where Segments 7-11, 20 are sewered and wastewater is treated at
a treatment plant) to Alternative E (where Segments 7-11, and 20
are sewered and wastewater is treated at an overland flow site).
Because the number of residences served by the LHMA system does
not increase between Alternatives B and C, and Alternatives D and
E, Alternatives B and C appear to be better choices than Alterna-
tives D and E for the LHMA Service Area.
Costs by Municipality Regardless of the number of municipal authorities that will man-
age the wastewater facilities for the study area, five area
municipalities will be involved in financing the facilities.
These municipalities are: Gettysburg Borough, Cumberland Town-
ship, Straban Township, LHMA, and Mount Joy Township. Table
IV-12 shows the portion of capital costs that each of these
muncipalities will be likely to finance, i.e., the local share of
capital costs.
Local Shares—The local shares of capital costs are the portions
of capital costs that local municipalities will have to bear
after the Federal and State governments have contributed their
shares. The local shares shown in Table IV-12 are broken into
pre-1985 and post-1985 costs to indicate that a substantial part
of the local share is for the costs of those on-site systems,
house-to-sewer connections, and laterals that are needed to serve
future (post-1985) population growth. Many, if not all, of these
items may be paid for by the future growth residents who require
these facilities, and may not be paid for by present populations.
However, note that the post-1985 local shares are substantial and
may be difficult for future population growth, alone, to bear.
In order to determine these local shares, it was necessary to
estimate Federal and State shares. The Federal share of capital
costs depends on two things: the portion of capital costs that
is eligible for funding, and the level (percentage) of funding to
be provided for that portion. Capital costs for conveyance sewer
and treatment are generally 100 percent eligible for grant fund-
ing, except that the cost of the land that is not needed for
storage or land application at an overland flow site is not
eligible, and the cost of excess treatment capacity is also not
eligible. Capital costs for collection sewer are subject to the
terms of EPA's Program Requirement Memoranda (PRM) 78-9 and 79-8.
PRM 78-9 specifies that to be eligible for Federal funding,
collection and conveyance sewers must be necessary, cost-
effective when compared to alternative wastewater collection and
103
-------
Table IV-12. Federal and Local Shares of Alternatives by Municipality (in thousands
of dollars, 4th quarter 1979)
Capital Costs
Local Share*
Alternative
Municipality
Federal
Share
Pre '85
Post 85
Total
Total
Capital
A
Gettysburg
3350.1
1211.0
-0-
1211.0
4561.1
Cumberland
440.6
276.1
1586.9
1863.0
2303.6
Straban
431.8
119.3
1251.3
1370.6
1802.4
Lake Heritage
478.0
157.5
-0-
157.5
635.5
Mount Joy
184.1
32.5
131.7
164.2
348.3
9650.9
B
Gettysburg
3365.5
1216.2
970.8
2187.0
5552.5
Cumberland
489.9
292.3
1853.9
2146.2
2636.1
Straban
1010.4
436.0
1342.6
1778.6
2789.0
Lake Heritage
534.6
175.9
510.2
686.1
1220.7
Mount Joy
184.1
32.5
131.7
164.2
348.3
12546.6
C
Gettysburg
3378.2
1220.1
970.8
2190.9
5569.1
Cumberland
489.2
292.0
1853.9
2145.9
2635.1
Straban
1291.0
395.6
1404.5
1800.1
3092.0
Lake Heritage
534.6
175.9
510.2
68«.l
1220.7
Mount Joy
184.1
32.5
131.7
164.2
348.3
.12865.2
D
Gettysburg
3369.2
1217.3
970.8
2188.1
5557.3
Cumberland
590.3
329.5
3214.0
3543.5
4133.8
Straban
1275.6
529.9
2781.2
3311.1
4586.7
Lake Heritage
1248.4
3469.8
1241.5
4711.3
5959.7
Mount Joy
184.1
32.5
131.7
164.2
348.3
20585.8
E
Gettysburg
3177.3
1153.4
970.8
2124.2
5301.5
Cumberland
724.1
375.1
3214.0
3589.1
4313.2
Straban
1107.8
473.9
2781.2
3255.1
4362.9
Lake Heritage
1571.5
3509.2
1241.5
4750.7
6322.2
Mount Joy
184.1
32.5
131.7
164.2
348.3
20648.1
F
Gettysburg
3033.0
1105.4
970.8
2076.2
5109.2
Cumberland
703.9
368.2
3214.0
3582.2
4286.1
Straban
1089.8
467.7
2781.1
3248.8
4338.6
Lake Heritage
1327.7
3387.7
1232.4
4620.1
5947.8
Mount Joy
184.1
32.5
131.7
164.2
348.3
20030.0
* Pre-1985 local shares of capital costs include existing debts for all wastewater
systems except the Schaff's Trailer Park system. Post-1985 costs are for those
on-site systems, sewer connections, and laterals that will serve mainly future
population growths; in this regard, it has bean assumed that no growth will take
place between 1980 and 1985.
-------
treatment facilities, and designed to carry flows from residences
when at least two-thirds of those residence were in existence as
of October 18, 1972. PRM 79-8 appears to exempt certain types of
sewers from the "two-thirds rule" portion of PRM 78-9; the
exempted types are small gravity, pressure, and vacuum sewer
serving clusters of households and small commercial establish-
ments. The collection systems for Lake Heritage (including
Hazelbrook Hills), and for Segments 17 and 18 appear to be
ineligible under the terms of these memoranda. A final determi-
nation of eligibility will be made by EPA and PA-DER based on the
detailed plans and specifications of the selected alternative.
The final eligiblity determination may differ from the EIS eligi-
bility determination.
The level of Federal funding of the eligible capital costs varies
between 75 percent and 85 percent. Section 201 of the 1972
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments and the Clean
Water Act of 1977 enable EPA to fund 75 percent of the total
eligible capital costs of conventional wastewater facilities and
85 percent of the eligible costs of innovative and alternative
facilities. Of the facilities proposed in the alternatives,
those that appear to qualify for 85 percent funding are:
• replacements for existing on-site systems,
• pressure sewer proposed for use in Segment 4 in Alternative C,
• overland flow treatment of wastewater (including pre-
application treatment and storage), and
• land application of sludge (include pre-application drying).
As for the State share of capital costs, Pennsylvania does not
contribute towards the capital costs of Section 201-funded waste-
water facilities. However, PA-DER may fund up to 2 percent of
the annual 0 & M costs of the facilities under Pennsylvania Act
339.
User Charges—The local shares of capital costs and 0 & M costs
for wastewater facilities must be paid by residents within each
municipality. "User charges" are the costs that are periodically
billed to customers of a wastewater management system to cover
local share and 0 & M costs. The charges consist of three parts:
debt service (repayment of the principal and interest to cover
the local share of capital costs), 0 & M costs, and a reserve
fund that consists of 20 percent of the debt service to finance
future capital improvements.
The estimated annual user charges for each municipality under
each alternative are presented in Table IV-13. The debt service
component was based on use of a 30-year bond at 7-1/8% interest.
Note that the user charges were calculated using the local share
and 0 & M costs for pre-1985 facilities only and calculations
assume that no population growth will take place between 1980 and
1985.
105
-------
Table IV-13. Estimated 1985 Annual User Charges* By Municipality
(dollars per household, 4th quarter 1979)
Lake Mount
Alternative Gettysburg Cumberland straban Heritage Joy
A
123
253
245
406
126
B
124
274
300
461
126
C
124
274
430
461
126
D
124
312
479
1,241
126
E
118
267
436
1,268
126
F
112
258
422
1,154
126
* These user charges cover only costs of items built by 1985;
they do not cover capital and operation and maintenance costs
for those on-site systems, sewer connections, and laterals
that will serve mainly future population growth. Further, the
user charges have been calculated under the assumption that
there will be no growth in numbers of residences in the Ser-
vice Area portions of the above municipalities between 1980
and 1985. Finally, the user charges include the costs for
retiring all existing debts for wastewater systems except any
debt for the Schaff Trailer Park sewer and treatment system.
The user charges for Gettysburg and Mount Joy are the lowest
charges of those shown in Table IV-13 for all alternatives.
Gettysburg's charges are low because the Borough already has a
sewer system to serve its residents and has a large population to
bear the costs of improving both the sewer system and the treat-
ment plant. Gettysburg's user charges are lowest under Alterna-
tives E and F because under these alternatives, the residents in
Segments 2, 7-11, and 17 bear part of the costs of upgrading the
treatment plant. The user charges for Mount Joy are low because
they reflect only the replacement of malfunctioning on-site sys-
tems and the operation of on-site systems in Segments 12, 14, and
15.
The user charges for Cumberland are lowest under Alternative A
(where the existing Cumberland sewer and treatment system is
retained and future growth is accommodated only by septic sys-
tems) and Alternative F (where existing and future growth in
Cumberland is sewered and connected to the Gettysburg treatment
plant, which also treats Gettysburg, Straban, and Lake Heritage).
Cumberland's user charges are somewhat higher under Alternatives
B, c, and E. Alternative B and C user charges are higher than
those in Alternative A because more future growth is accommodated
through the use of holding tanks along with septic systems; the
user charges reflect the Gettysburg treatment plant capacity that
will be needed to treat holding tank wastes. Alternative E user
charges are higher than those in Alternative F because in Alter-
native E Lake Heritage does not share the cost of the Gettysburg
treatment plant. Finally, Cumberland1s user charges are highest
in Alternative D, where the Cumberland treatment plant is re-
placed with a plant large enough to serve both existing resi-
dences and future growth, which will be sewered.
Straban's user charges are lowest in Alternatives A and B. In
Alternative A, residents in Segments 4 and 18 continue with
on-site systems and future growth is accommodated only as it can
occur through the use of septic systems. In Alternative B,
106
-------
Segment 4 is connected to the Gettysburg treatment plant and
additional future growth in Segment 18 is allowed to occur
through the use of holding tanks, whose wastes are to be treated
as the Gettysburg plant. Alternative C user charges for Straban
are relatively high because an overland flow site is used for
Segment 4. Alternative D, E, and F user charges are relatively
high because these alternatives propose the use of sewers in
Segment 18 and provide treatment capacity at the Gettysburg Plant
for future growth in the segment.
Lake Heritage (including Hazelbrook Hills and the Drummer Boy
campground) has the highest user charges of all the municipali-
ties. The user charges are lowest in Alternatives A through C,
where holding tanks would continue to be used and are very high
in Alternatives D, E, F, where Segments 7-11 and 20 would be
sewered. The use of sewers appears to be prohibitively expen-
sive; although user charges for Alternatives D, E, and F might
drop somewhat as more residents move into Lake Heritage and help
bear the cost of the system. However, the addition of households
to the sewer system would require additional grinder pumps, which
are fairly expensive; this expense would offset reductions in
user charges.
Small Waste Flows
Districts
Regulation of on-lot sewage systems has evolved to the point
where most new facilities are designed, permitted and inspected
by local jurisdictions through their sewage enforcement officers
(SEOs). But after installation, local government has no further
responsibility for these systems until malfunctions become evi-
dent. At that time the SEO may inspect and issue permits for
repair of the systems. In the past, the sole basis for a govern-
ment in this activity has been its obligation to protect public
health.
Rarely have the obligations of the government been interpreted to
include monitoring and contol of other effects of on-lot system
use or misuse. The general lack of knowledge about operation of
on-site systems has been coupled with an absence of information
concerning the impacts of septic systems on ground and surface
water quality.
Now, methods of identifying and dealing with the adverse effects
of on-lot systems are being developed. They include the waste-
water treatment and disposal alternatives discussed in Chapter
IV, improved monitoring of water quality, and new managerial
methods. The latter are being applied in various communities
whose waste flows are small.
As with centralized districts, the issues of legal and fiscal
authority, agency management, project financing, and user charges
must all be resolved by small waste flows districts.
Authority Pennsylvania's Act 537 empowers individual municipalities jointly
or singly to form authorities for centralized disposal of waste-
water. The same Act sets up a system of Sewage Enforcement
Officers appointed by each municipality to be responsible for
oversight of on-site wastewater management systems.
The SEOs issue building permits, oversee construction and inspect
completed installations of on-site systems. They also issue
repair permits for failing systems. There is, however, no struc-
107
-------
ture for management of small waste flows on a district-wide
basis. Maintenance remains the responsibility of the homeowner,
and no inspection and monitoring program exists.
If a small waste flows management district were set up in the EIS
study area, resolution of the roles of agency and SEO would be an
important issue. The SEO could, for example, head the agency, be
employed by it, continue his present role and work outside it, or
serve as an advisor. It is probable that amendents to Act 537
would be necessary.
Manancment The purpose of a small waste flows district is to balance the
management. costs of management with the needs of public health and environ-
mental quality. Management of such a district implies formation
of a management agency and formulation of policies for the
agency. The concept of such an agency is relatively new. The
range of functions a management agency may provide for adequate
control of decentralized systems is presented in Table IV-14.
BscHuse the level of funding for these functions could become an
economic burden, their costs and benefits should be considered in
the development of the management agency. Major decisions which
have to be made in the development of this agency relate to the
following questions.
• Should engineering and operations functions be provided by the
agency or by private organizations under contract?
• Would off-site facilities require acquisition of property and
right-of-way?
• Would public or private ownership of on-site wastewater faci-
lities be more likely to provide cost savings and improved
control of facilities operation?
• Are there environmental, land use, or economic characteristics
of the area that would be sensitive to operation and construc-
tion of decentralized technologies? If so, would special
planning, education and permitting steps be appropriate?
Five steps are recommended to implement an efficient, effective
program for the management of wastewater in unsewered areas:
• Development of a site-specific environmental and engineering
data base;
• Design of the managment organization;
• Agency start-up;
• construction and rehabilitation of facilities; and
• operation of facilities.
Site Specific Environmental and Engineering Data Base - The data
base should include groundwater monitoring, a house-to -houe*
investigation (sanitary survey), soils and engineering studies
and a survey of available technologies likely to function ade
quately in the area. This baseline information will provide th*
framework for the systems and technologies appropriate to the
district.
A program for monitoring groundwater should include samnlinr,
existing wells and possibly additional testing of the a^ife?
108
-------
Such monitoring should be instituted early enough to provide data
useful in selecting and designing wastewater disposal systems.
Table IV-14. Small Waste Flow Management Functions by Operational
Component and by Basic and Supplemental Usage
Component
Basic Usage
Supplemental Usage
Administrative
Engineering
User charge system
Staffing
Enforcement
Adopt design standards*
Review and approval of
plans*
Evaluate Existing sys-
tem/design rehabilita-
tion measures
Installation inspec-
tion*
On-site soils investi-
gation*
Acceptance for public
management of pri-
vately installed faci-
lities
Grants administration
Service contracts super-
vision
Occupancy/operating per-
mits
Interagency coordination
Property and right-of-
way acquisition
Performance bonding
requirements
Design and install
facilities
Contractor training
Special designs for
alternative techno-
logies
Pilot studies of
alternative
technologies
Implementing flow
reduction tech-
niques
Operations
Planning
Routine inspection and
maintenance
Septage collection and
disposal
Groundwater monitoring
Emergency inspection
and maintenanct
Surface water moni-
toring
Land use planning
Public education
Designate areas
sensitive to
soil-dependent
systems
Establish environ-
mental, land use
and economic
criteria for
issuance or non-
issuance of permits
*Usage normally provided by local governments at present.
The sanitary survey which included interviews with residents and
inspections of existing systems was conducted during the course
of this EIS. Information such as lot size and location; age and
109
-------
use of dwelling; location, age, and type of sewage disposal
system; adequacy of the maintenance of the existing system;
water-using fixtures; and problems with the existing system was
recorded.
Detailed site analysis may be required to evaluate operation of
the effluent disposal fields and to determine the impacts of
effluent disposal upon local groundwater. These studies may
include probing the disposal area, boring soil samples, and the
installation of shallow groundwater observation shafts. Sampling
of the water table downhill from drains fields aids in evaluating
the potential for transport of nutrients and pathogens through
the soil. Classifications of soil near selected leach fields may
facilitate improved correlations between soils and leach field
failures. An examination of the reasons for inadequate function-
ing of existing wastewater systems may prevent such problems with
the rehabilitation or construction of new systems.
Determination of the basic and supplementary management functions
to be provided will be influeced by the technologies appropriate
to the Service Area. In this respect, the questions raised
earlier regarding formulation of management policies must be
resolved.
The product of these analyses should be an organizational design
in which staffing requirements, functions, interagency agree-
ments, user charge systems and procedural guidelines are defined.
Agency Start-Up - Once the structure and responsibilities of the
management agency have been defined, public review is advisable.
Additional personnel required for construction and/or operation
should be provided. If necessary, contractual arrangement with
private organizations should be developed. Acquisition of pro-
perty should also be initiated.
Construction and Rehabilitation of Facilities - Site data col-
lected for the environmental and engineering data base should
support selection and design of appropriate technologies for
individual residences. Once construction and rehabilitation
begin, site conditions may be revealed that suggest technology
or design changes. Since decentralized technologies generally
must be designed to operate within site limitations instead of
overcoming them, flexibility should be provided. Personnel
authorized to revise designs in the field would provide this
flexibility.
Operation of Facilities - The administrative planning, engineer-
ing, and operations functions listed in Table IV-14 are primarily
applicable to this phase. The role of the management agency
would have been determined in the organizational phase. Experi-
ence gained during agency start-up and facilities construction
may indicate that some lower or higher level of effort will be
necessary to insure that the decentralized facilities will be
reliable over the long term.
110
-------
CHAPTER V
Environmental Impacts and Mitigative Measures
-------
CHAPTER V. ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE
MEASURES
Air Quality
No adverse effect on air quality is expected to result from the
operations of any of the new and/or upgraded wastewater facili-
ties associated with this project. In addition, the creation,
expansion, or upgrading of wastewater treatment facilities in the
study area is not expected to result in more frequent or more
objectionable odors than those that may already occur, as long as
these facilities are maintained properly.
Because the total population and all vehicular travel throughout
the study area are projected to be the same for both the No-
Action and each of the other alternatives, no induced growth is
anticipated from the implementation of any alternative. Because
any secondary air quality impacts would be the result of induced
population growth, no adverse secondary impacts to air quality
are expected to occur as a result of this project.
The addition of an activated sludge process at the Gettysburg STP
for all alternatives, which (with the exception of Alternative A)
would include increased flows, should not result in any adverse
odor because the closest residences are about one-third of a mile
from the plant. The Lake Heritage and Cumberland STP's presently
operate on an extended aeration system. For those alternatives
with increased flows (B through D for the Lake Heritage STP, and
D for the Cumberland STP), oxidation ditches will replace the
existing systems. No odor problem is expected to occur at either
of these facilities, although the Lake Heritage STP has some
residences within 500 feet of the facility. Finally, no adverse
odor is expected to occur from either the new Lake Heritage plant
(under Alternative A) or from a new extended aeration system
behind the Schaff's Trailer Park (also Alternative A).
The primary noise impacts, for each of the project alternatives,
will be a result of the construction of new STP's and the upgrad-
ing of existing plants. There will be an increase in noise
levels because of on-site construction activities, however the
impacts will be localized to land uses that are noise sensitive
(residences, parks, hospitals, etc.) and within 1,000 feet of the
construction site.
Secondary noise impacts are generated by induced residential,
commercial, and industrial growth in the planning area. Induced
growth is measured by the change in population density. A doubl-
ing of the population density will increase the day/night sound
level (l. ) of the planning areas by 3 dB (EPA 1974). The popu-
lation projections, for each of the townships in the planning
area, predict a small increase in population for the year 2005.
The maximum population increase, 64 percent for Mount Joy Town-
ship, will result in an increase in sound levels in the range of
2 to 3 dB, which is considered subjectively to be barely
noticeable (Beranek 1971).
Earth Resources
The impacts of proposed alternatives on earth resources are
discussed in terms of erosion and sedimentation because of sur-
face disturbance; they also discussed in terms of the conversion
111
-------
of open land (including from prime agricultural land to other
irretrievable uses), and the groundwater supply/recharge that
these alternatives cause.
The wastewater management alternatives that were developed would
result in the temporary disturbance of land for the construction
of new facilities and pipelines. The extent of disturbance that
would result from sewer construction was estimated, under the
assumption that a right-of-way 10 feet wide would be disturbed,
regardless of pipe size.
Erosion and sedimentation that results from construction may
cause severe temporary impacts to the streams. These impacts
include increased turbidity, stagnation, and/or increase in
temperature, and decrease in dissolved oxygen level. These
impacts may be minimized through the use of standard engineering
control measures for sedimentation and erosion. A more detailed
discussion of mitigative measures is presented in a later
section.
The conversion of open land to use as a municipal facility would
not create a substantial impact under any of these alternatives.
For example, the maximum expansion anticipated at the Gettysburg
STP would affect no more than two acres, in addition to that
presently in use. Disturbance at the Schaff's Trailer Park STP
would affect less than one acre of open space. The overland flow
site designed to serve the Schaff's Trailer Park would require
approximately 15 acres of open space. The Lake Heritage STP
options would take less than one acre of new space, except for
the overland flow site of 25 acres.
Groundwater Supply/
Recharge The water table aquifer is recharged locally in the study area.
Any development of the land surface would replace permeable
natural surface materials with roofs, driveways, and other imper-
meable surfaces. This replacement results in an increase in
surface runoff and an associated decrease in recharge to the
groundwater system.
We evaluated the projected development in the Gettysburg study
area by considering the number of acres that were developed on
each of the major geologic bedrock types. This evaluation was
performed to determine how much future development would occur on
each bedrock type, equating generalized bedrock type with aquifer
characteristics. The results of this analysis show consistency
of development on the New Oxford Formation. Only one unit dif-
ference can be expected, regardless of the alternative selected.
The Gettysburg Formation would have the most developed land, with
411 to 426 acres affected. The Gettysburg Formation is not
generally a high yielding aquifer, but it is used extensively for
individual supplies. Primary permeability is low, with ground-
water migration predominantly along bedding places, fractures,
and other zones of secondary permeability. The small range of
acreage that is effected indicates that any of the other alterna-
tives would create slight, beneficial impacts to groundwater
supply.
From 58 to 81 acres on the Heidlersburg Member of the Gettysburg
formation are projected for development under the various alter-
Erosion and
Sedimentation
Conversion of
Open Land
nr.
-------
natives. Of all the bedrock types in this area, this bedrock has
the highest potential to provide large quantities of groundwater
to wells. Although the acres on this bedrock represent a range
of 40 percent above the development with the lowest acreage, it
is the No-Action Alternative, Alternative A, and Alternative C
that would cause the greatest projected development. The other
alternatives would cause an impact slightly more beneficial than
these three alternatives.
Development on the diabase bedrock is not a significant factor in
this area because diabase is not utilized commonly as an aquifer
in this area. Thus, the alternatives would have a minimal,
slightly beneficial impact to groundwater supply by reducing the
amount of impermeable core and allowing the natural infiltration
of precipitation.
Mitigation The PA-DER Rules and Regulations, Chapter 102, "Erosion Control,"
govern the State program for the control of erosion and sedimen-
tation. These regulations require that a permit for interceptor
construction be secured prior to earth-moving activities on 25
acres or more. The permit applicant is required to demonstrate
that an erosion and sedimentation control plan will prevent
siltation and pollution of surface waters as they are defined
under the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law. The control plan must
be designed to prevent accelerated erosion and sedimentation by
limiting grading and grading along contour lines, by conserving
the existing vegetation, by mulching, and by promptly revege-
tating the disturbed sites. Plans are to be submitted to the
County Soil and Water Conservation District for their review and
approval.
Additional measures include minimizing areas disturbed by con-
struction, designing an environmentally sound sewer alignment,
avoiding steep slopes, removing excess material, backfilling
trenches continuously, diverting runoff from disturbed areas,
revegetating disturbed areas with grasses for stabilization and
sediment filtering in a timely manner, and using detention or
retention basins in critical areas. Measures included in the EIS
Alternatives are:
• Placing excavated fill on the uphill side of the trench
• Hauling away soil displaced by the sewer pipe itself
• Leveling off backfilled trenches
• Applying liberal amounts of straw mulch and seeding the back-
filled trenches immediately.
Significant adverse impacts associated with the disruption of
stream bank areas that is caused by stream crossings (under any
EIS wastewater management plan), can be minimized by jacking the
sewer pipe beneath the stream bottom itself. This strategy
involves excavating pits on each side of the stream and driving
the pipe through stream bottom sediments under stream grade.
The establishment of a permanent, vegetated buffer zone along the
banks of Rock Creek would minimize the potential for adverse
effects on stream conditions (temperature, transparency, etc.).
This buffer zone, which would be at least 200 feet wide, should
retain both trees and understory vegetation or promote succes-
sional revegetation. The zone should be wider than 200 feet
where the floodplain exceeds a 200-foot width.
113
-------
There are several mitigative measures to limit the loss of
aquifer recharge. Within the townships and county, officials
should consider performance standards that require lower density
residential uses, and cluster developments that reduce the imper-
meable surface coverage in aquifer recharge areas. "Incentive
zoning" is a successful tool, where a developer may be granted
density increases by providing measures to insure the same amount
of recharge as existed before construction.
Measures that can be implemented to promote infiltration include:
gravel-filled ditches or "dutch" drains, instead of impervious
storm drains; porous asphalt in parking lots and other paved
areas; precast concrete lattice blocks and bricks, in place of
sidewalks; seepage or recharge basins; and dry wells. These
measures have been successfully implemented in a number of areas
where groundwater has been identified as a critical resource. It
should be stressed that it is considerably less expensive to
enact these measures before development takes place.
As development takes place, additional sources of groundwater
contamination will occur. To prevent or mitigate these impacts,
a number of measures can be taken. Pennsylvania State "Regula-
tions Governing Individual Sewerage Systems" should be strictly
enforced. Runoff from streets and parking areas can be mitigated
by periodic street cleaning. On a localized scale, stormwater
runoff should be controlled, whenever possible, in order to
prevent the accumulation of pollutant loads. Close coordination
is necessary, among farmers, soil conservation officers, and
agricultural extension agents to insure that fertilizer loads are
applied as close as possible to crop needs.
Water Resources
Surface Water Quality This section presents the surface water quality impacts, as well
as the associated mitigative measures in terms of various waste-
water management alternatives developed in this EIS. Most of the
impact assessment and quantification is based on results of the
water quality modeling that is presented in Appendix D-l.
Water quality impact was assessed mainly in terms of the DO and
total phosphorus concentrations because of their critical condi-
tions in Rock Creek. Implementation of all EIS alternatives
requires the effluent quality of all STP's to meet the State
effluent limitations in terms of BOD5 and ammonia concentrations.
These effleunt concentrations are much lower than the concentra-
tions presently in the effluents of Gettysburg and Cumberland
STP's (see Table III-3). Thus, improvement of dissolved oxygen
levels in Rock Creek can be expected. The modeling calculations
provide quantitative assessment of the improvement in Rock Creek.
Detailed analysis of the calculations for dissolved oxygen pro-
files can be found in Appendix D-l. Only the salient features of
the modeling results are presented in this section.
The results of BOD/DO model projection are summarized in Figure
V-l, where the DO profiles under the 7Q10 conditions are com-
pared. The 7Q10 low flow is defined as the lowest average flow
that occurs for a consecutive 7-day period at a recurrence inter-
val of 10 years (see Table III-2). The DO sag in Rock Creek
under the 7Q10 flow condition and the present BOD loading condi-
tion is about 1.0 mg/1, well below the state water quality
criteria (5 mg/1). A portion of the stream (approximately 3.5
miles downstream from the Gettysburg STP) exhibits DO levels
below the criteria.
114
-------
A
OC —
^2
10-
9-
D.O. SATURATION LEVEL = 8.13 mg/1
C7>
£
f^ ALL
'ALTERNATIVES
Z
UJ
o
>
X
o
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
O
U
>
-I
STATE WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA:5mg/l
\ PRESENT WAS^E LOADS UNDER 7-DAY 10-YEAR
.LOW FLOW CONDITIONS
2-
2
6 7
10
12
3
4
5
8
9
0
RIVER MILES FROM CUMBERLAND STP
FIGURE 3H PROJECTED DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILES UNDER
7-DAY 10-YEAR LOW FLOW CONDITIONS
115
-------
All the wastewater management alternatives are expected to raise
the DO level in Rock Creek significantly, such that the minimum
dissolved oxygen concentration in the stream will be 6.0 mg/1.
The results show little difference in the projected dissolved
oxygen profiles among all the alternatives.
The calculation of total phosphorus concentration in Rock Creek
indicate that the effluent requirement of 1.0 mg/1 total phos-
phorus will maintain the phosphorus level in Rock Creek below l.o
mg/1, under the 7Q10 condition (Figure V-2). This in-stream
phosphorus concentration is acceptable in the free-flowing water,
from an eutrophication point of view.
Because of the nitrification process designed in the STP's for
various alternatives, future ammonia levels in the effluent will
be substantially lower than the present levels. As a result,
ammonia toxicity in Rock Creek should not be a problem.
A dechlorination process was designed for the STP's in all the
EIS alternatives. The residual chlorine level in the effluent
will be below the detection limit, or practically zero. Thus,
the residual chlorine effect on aquatic life in Rock Creek should
be minimal.
In general, the wastewater management alternatives developed in
this EIS would generate no adverse impact on the water quality of
Rock Creek. In addition, all the alternatives requiring con-
tinuous use of holding tanks or sewering in the Lake Heritage
area would not generate any significant adverse impact on the
water quality of Lake Heritage.
There is no significant secondary impact to surface water quality
because induced growth in the study area has been projected to
minimal.
Groundwater Quality The beneficial impact connected with implementing any of the
proposed alternatives would serve to improve the groundwater
quality. It is certainly the first step toward reducing ground-
water contamination (nitrate, fecal coliform) that is present in
the area currently. Obviously those alternatives that serve more
existing households would prevent more future contamination than
those that serve fewer houses.
Direct impact to groundwater supply could occur if large volumes
of groundwater withdrawn over the study area were to be col-
lected, treated, and discharged at only one or two places. This
would result in a net deficit of recharge in the study area, and
a general leveling of the water table. With the present on-lot
systems, drainwater is induced to recharge the groundwater table
in the drainfields. The centralization of treatment works
removes this water from the sites and, after treatment, dis-
charges it to a surface water body. The efficiency of recharge
from such a water body does not begin to approach the efficiency
from individual on-lot systems.
Secondary impact on groundwater quality will be insignificant
because induced growth will be minimal.
Biological Resources
Aquatic Biota Several assumptions were made in assessing the impacts of the
various wastewater management alternatives. It was assumed that
(1) the effluent from any new or upgraded STP's will meet the
116
-------
1.6
1.4
S
a
o
£
-------
NPDES effluent limitations shown in Table II1-3, and (2) that all
upgraded or new STP's will dechlorinate their effluent. A ranking
of all the alternatives is given in Table V-l.
All alternatives require some use of STP's. The alternatives are
discussed below, arranged from the most to the least acceptable.
These rankings are based solely on aquatic considerations.
However, in terms of impact to the aquatic environment, dif-
ferences between the alternatives will be small.
Two general opinions were used to rank the alternatives. One was
that on-site or overland flow systems were superior to STP's; the
second was that, because of the low base flows of the streams in
the study area, several smaller STP's would be better than one
large STP.
Alternative A—This alternative is more desirable than those
listed below because the size of the Gettysburg STP would be
small. The very small size of the other three STP's should make
their impacts on the aquatic biota negligible.
Alternatives B, C, and D—These alternatives are very similar and
the impacts associated with each should be similar. Alternative
C is slightly better than Alternative B because it calls for a
slightly smaller Gettysburg STP. Similarly, Alternative B is
considered superior to Alternative D because the Cumberland and
Lake Heritage STP's are smaller in size.
Table V-l. Relative Ranking of the Gettysburg Alternatives.*
Amount of Sewage Treated % of 7Q10 low flow
Land that will be STP
Alternative Application STP effluent
A
on-site
1.25—Gettysburg
65
0.07—Cumberland
10
0.03—Schaffs Trailer
Park
--
0.03—Lake Heritage
6
C
0.06
1.32—Gettysburg
66
0.07—Cumberland
10
0.10—Lake Heritage
18
B
on-site
1.40—Gettysburg
67
0.07—Cumberland
10
0.10—Lake Heritage
18
D
None
1.40—Gettysburg
67
0,17—Cumberland
20
0.15—Lake Heritage
24
E
0.15
1.57—Gettysburg
70
F
None
1.71—Gettysburg
72
* Rankings based soley on aquatic biology considerations.
11C
-------
Alternative E—Although this plan does call for some overland
flow operation, it was rated less desirable than the above alter-
natives because the Gettysburg STP would be large in size. Under
this alternative, approximately 70 percent of the stream flow
would be plant effluent, which makes it imperative for the plant
to operate properly.
Alternative F—This alternative is viewed as less desirable than
"E" because it includes no land application treatment and results
in routing all wastewater (1.71 mgd) to the Gettysburg STP.
Because 72 percent of the stream flow would be plant effluent,
there would be little room for error during plant operation.
No-Action Alternative—This alternative is decidedly inferior
compared to any of the others. If the Gettysburg plant continues
to operate as it has been, the environmental damage that is
already documented in the existing aquatic conditions will
continue.
Secondary impact to aquatic biota is practically zero because no
induced growth is expected to occur.
Terrestrial Biota The various alternative plans will have three major types of
impacts upon terrestrial vegetation:
• Direct loss of forested land through interceptor pipeline
construction
• Direct loss of forested land through treatment plant expansion
or new construction, including forest cutting for overland
flow treatment sites
• Indirect loss of forested land through induced residential
development that is projected as a result of the availability
of sewer connections.
Presently, forested land covers less than 20 percent of the study
area. So, reduction in the amount of forest represents a greater
impact on the study area than it would if forest were a major
component of the land cover.
A significant impact presented under Alternatives E and F is the
new pipeline, which is proposed through approximately 6,000 feet
of stream corridor forest. The forest is presently a narrow
strip along Rock Creek, between US 30 and the northern boundary
of the study area. Sewer pipeline construction in this corridor
will have a significant impact on the narrow remaining tract of
forest. Construction on creek banks is likely to produce con-
siderable erosion and to make revegetation on the area more
difficult.
In the Gettysburg Study Area, wildlife habitat is concentrated in
the forest areas and forest loss is nearly equal to habitat loss.
Population and Land Use
Population From an overall study area perspective, the effects on population
as a result of each of the six EIS alternatives do not differ
significantly from the effects anticipated under baseline condi-
tions. "Baseline" future population refers to the total level of
population that is expected to reside in the study area through
119
-------
the year 2005, if present conditions and trends continue. Fur-
thermore, "Baseline" assumes no major public sewerage investments
or additions to the existing system, although it does allow for
small or moderate size package treatment facilities. The No-
Action Alternative essentially is equivalent to "baseline", so
the effects of the continuation of existing conditions also can
be assessed. Each EIS alternative will generate approximately
the same total number of dwelling units and populations in the
study area under baseline conditions (see Table III-5). This
lack of significant variation in population from the baseline is
explained by the fact that, for each EIS alternative, the sewage
capacity at the site (or sites) of treatment has been carefully
designed to accommodate sewage flows that are adequate for the
existing dwelling units (residences) and most of the units in the
baseline projections. Thus, through careful engineering design
and evaluation of the various proposed sewage treatment faci-
lities, the potential for additional population growth beyond
baseline growth has been avoided for the study area. For indi-
vidual municipalities, some alternatives induce a change from the
total projected baseline population as well as the arrangement of
that population, by the year 2005. These differences are listed
by alternative in Table V-2. Alternatives B, D, E, and F each
will result in a different total year 2005 population for one or
more of the municipalities. The significance of a change in
population relates to the manner in which development patterns,
community service systems, and other community services are
affected. These effects constitute the important human resource
and low use impacts to be considered in evaluating the various
EIS alternatives.
Although the absolute amount of growth in the study area for each
of the EIS Alternatives parallels projections for baseline
growth, the rate of future growth can differ among the alterna-
tives. Absolute growth can also differ from the baseline rate.
The projected growth rate in baseline population for the study
area averages 1.16 percent per year over the 25 year planning
period. This rate of growth is assumed to be reasonable given
recent trends and pressures for development both in the study
area and throughout Adams County. Table III-5 indicates study
area growth by five-year period, when the baseline rate is
applied.
However, if the conveyance or treatment facilities proposed in
the alternatives are completed by 1985, it is possible that
development could occur at an accelerated rate, such that the
total design capacity of proposed treatment facilities would be
fully utilized earlier than year 2005. For example, if growth
pressures increased, total design capacity could be absorbed by
accelerated development during the 1985 to 1990 period. However,
the probability of such an accelerated growth rate is not likely,
given the current trends in housing market, economic conditions,
and development pressures.
Beyond this EIS study area, there are at least seven other muni-
cipalities involved in similar sewage facility projects in Adams
County. It is apparent that neither sewer capacity availabity
nor development pressures are concentrated in the Gettysburg area
or in any one particular area of Adams County. The rate of
housing development in the Gettysburg Study Area most probably
will be maintained through the year 2005 (Chapter III. Future
Land Use). A temporary increase in development immediately
following the construction of new or expanded facilities can be
expected; however, this moderate rate increase, reflecting a
120
-------
Table V-2. Effects of the EIS Alternatives on the Hunan Environment. Abbreviations: C = Cumberland Township, G = Gettysburg Borough, MT = Mt. Joy Township,
MP = Mt. Pleasant Township, S = Straban Township, T = Study Area Total, NPS = National Park Service.
Additional Population
Additional Land (in areas)
Associated with Future
Absorbed by Future
Compatability of Future
Development
Development2
Development Patterns
Change2 in Local
Change2 in
Demand on Service
1980-2005
1980-
2005
with Local Plans,
Systems
resulting from
Alternative
(by municipality)
(by municipality)
Goals, and Objectives
Traffic Volumes
Future
: Development
A
C
1,206
C
257
Incompatible: C,S,NPS
Major increase: C,G,S
G
87
G
-
Compatible: G, MJ,MP
Minor increase: MJ,MP
Minor
increase: C,G,
MJ
625
MJ
124
MJ, MP, S
MP
379
MP
36
S
1.402
S
184
T
3,699
T
611
B
C
857
C
219
Compatible: C,G,MJ,MP,S,NPS
Major increase: G
G
87
G
-
Minor increase: C,MJ,MP.
,S Minor
increase: C,G,
o
MJ
625
MJ
124
MJ,MP,S
MP
379
MP
36
S
1,747
S
222
T
3,695
T
601
C
C
1,206
C
267
Incompatible: C,S,NPS
Major increase: C,G,S
G
87
G
-
Compatible: G,MJ,MP
Minor increase: MJ,MP
Minor
increase: C,G,
MJ
625
MJ
124
MP
379
MP
36
MJ,MP,S
S
1,402
S
169
T
3,699
T
596
D
C
1,206
C
253
Incompatible: C
Major increase: C,G,S
G
87
G
-
Compatible: G,MJ,MP,S,NPS
Minor increase: MJ,MP
Minor
increase: C,G,
MJ
640
MJ
140
MP
317
MP
36
MJ,MP,S
S
1.448
S
164
See footnotes at end of table.
-------
Table V-2. Effects of the EIS Alternatives on the Human Environment. Abbreviations: C = Cumberland Township, G = Gettysburg Borough, MT - Mt. Joy Township,
MP = fit. Pleasant Township, S = Straban Township, T = Study Area Total, NPS = National Park Service—Continued
Additional Population
Additional Land (in areas)
Associated with Future
Absorbed by Future
Compatability of Future
Development
Development2
Development Patterns
Change2 in Demand on Service
1980-2005
1980-
2005
with Local Plans,
Change2 in Local Systems resulting from
Alternative
(by municipality)
(by municipality)
Goals, and Objectives
Traffic Volumes Future Development
E
C
878
C
207
Compatible: C,G,MJ,MP,S,NPS
Major increase: G
G
87
G
-
Minor increase: C,MJ,MP,S Minor increase: C,G,
MJ
640
MJ
140
MJ,MP,S
MP
317
MP
36
S
1,773
S
203
T
3,695
T
586
F
C
878
C
207
Compatible: C,G,MJ,MP,S,NPS
Major increase: G
G
87
G
-
Minor increase: C,MJ,MP,S Minor increase: C,G,
H
MJ
519
MJ
124
MJ,MP,S
ro
MP
317
MP
36
N)
S
1,814
S
216
T
3,615
T
583
No Action
C
1,206
C
267
Incompatible: C,S,NPS
Major increase: C,G,S Minor increase: C,G,
(Baseline) G
87
G
-
Compatible: G,MJ,MP
Minor increase: MJ,MP MJ,MP,S
MJ
625
MJ
124
MP
379
MP
36
S
1,402
S
184
T
3,699
T
611
Neither Gettysburg Borough nor the Lake Heritage subdivision of Mt. Joy, Mt. Pleasant, and Straban Townships are included in the respective totals.
See text for complete explanation.
Parameters of change: Major increase
Minor increase
Ho change
Minor decrease
Major decrease
-------
pent-up demand that is accumulating during the current period,
should average out through the year 2005.
Land Use The total amount of acreage required to accomodate future devel-
opment under each alternative was calculated for each munici-
pality (Table V-2). The Lake Heritage subdivision and Gettysburg
Borough, however, are not included in these calculations. From a
land use perspective, both are essentially developed. The
Borough already is almost completely built-out, such that all
future development will be accomodated both by infill development
on the few remaining vacant parcels and by redevelopment of
already developed parcels at higher densities. In the formally
approved Lake Heritage subdivision, existing homes are scattered
throughout, interspersed with undeveloped lots. Future construc-
tion in Lake Heritage is assumed to occur on these lots in an
evenly distributed manner. Determination of the exact lots and
acreages utilized in Lake Heritage has not been undertaken in
this EIS because of its parcel-specific nature.
Typically, land use effects are closely related to population
effects. For each of the EIS alternatives, future growth has
generally been equated with residential development. As in the
baseline projections, no additional, significant industrial land
uses are projected under the EIS alternatives, (according to
economic trends discussed in the Future Land Use section of
Chapter III), although some older industrial uses may be replaced
by new industry in other locations. No great pressures for
industrial development exist in the Gettysburg Study Area, but if
an industry chooses to locate in the study area as a result of
sewering in any of the EIS alternatives (e.g., along US 30, east
of Gettysburg Borough) the effects essentially would be bene-
ficial for the local economic structure.
Similarly, no additional significant, population-serving land
uses, including commercial uses, are projected for any of the EIS
alternatives. Considerable population-serving acreage currently
exists in the study area, much of which functions seasonally and
is tourism-related. This acreage could accommodate an increased
year-round demand. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that no
additional commercial uses will be generated during the planning
period as the result of the EIS alternatives. Nevertheless,
moderate redistribution of existing population-serving uses may
occur in response to the sewering configurations that are pro-
posed in the alternatives as well as unanticipated changes in
economic conditions.
For the overall study area the absolute amount of growth gen-
erated by each of the EIS alternatives does not differ signi-
ficantly from that projected under baseline conditions. The
induced patterns of growth, however, may differ both in the
location and in the amount of land required to accommodate that
growth. One critical issue here is that densities for sewered
development (as allowed by municipal subdivision regulations) are
generally higher than densities for nonsewered development.
Consequently, less land is required to accommodate the same
number of dwelling units when they are on sewered land. Due to
the absence of zoning in the study area townships, variation in
density between different parts of a township, except for that
which is attributable to the provision of public sewer systems,
is not expected to be significant.
The total amount of acreage that is absorbed by future develop-
ment varies, depending upon the alternative, from baseline pro-
123
-------
jections. The variation ranges from Alternative A, and No-
Actions which absorb the same total amount of land as baseline,
to Alternative F, which absorbs about 5 percent less land study
area-wide. With the exception of Alternative A and No-Action,
all EIS alternatives are projected to require less land for
future development in the study area than would be required under
baseline conditions (which also varies by municipality, as pre-
sented in Table V-2).
This decrease in required acreage is related directly to the
amount of growth that is publicly sewered and that, therefore,
can be accommodated at higher densities than the projections
under baseline (usually unsewered) conditions. (Table B in
Appendix F-10 lists the acreage absorbed by future development by
segment and by alternative.) In Segment 4, for example, 25
non-sewered single family units were projected (in baseline) to
occur on 22 acres of land. However, in the EIS alternatives that
propose sewers in that area (all except Alternatives A and No-
Action), the same 25 units can be developed on only 7 acres, at
the maximum allowable sewered density of 3.63 units per acre.
Similar concentration of land development occurs in other seg-
ments of the study area, resulting in a reduced total number of
acres developed.
It is important to note that this potential land reduction is not
very significant study area-wide in any case. The smallest
potential land absorption (Alternative F) amounts to 28 acres
(4.58 percent) less than that projected for the study area under
baseline conditions. This rather marginal difference is because
of the fact that a certain amount of privately-provided sewage
capacity was assumed to occur under baseline conditions (see
Chapter III, Future Land Use and Appendix F-l).
The pattern of future development also varies from baseline among
the EIS alternatives. The baseline pattern of future development
is one in which most of the development is concentrated in areas
of Cumberland and Straban Townships north of Gettysburg Borough.
This baseline pattern (again, defined as the continuation of
current trends) is not necessarily the most beneficial or ideal
baseline future; in fact, the baseline pattern or No-Action
Alternative is associated with various adverse impacts (Table
V-2). Alternative patterns of future growth differ from baseline
and from one another generally when a new or supplemental con-
veyance line is introduced. Such an occurrence usually creates,
in effect, a competing attraction between two or more areas—one
sewered and another non-sewered. This competition is based on
the assumption that a new sewer line in a formerly non-sewered
area will provide an attractive force, which "pulls" some poten-
tial development away from another area. Similarly, if two or
more sewer lines convey flows to a single treatment site, the
areas through which each sewer line passes can be assumed to be
in competition for the ultimate sewage capacity of the treatment
site (all other factors being equal).
The effect of this competition is that different patterns of some
study area portions of the municipalities will have more (or
less) acres of land developed under one or more of the EIS alter-
natives than was projected to occur under Baseline conditions
(see Table v-2). Within the Straban Township portion of the
study area, considerable redistribution of development from the
baseline pattern will occur as a result of the implementation of
Alternatives B, D, F, and H. Under each of these alterntives,
approximately 35 percent of the baseline development projected to
124
-------
occur north of the Borough (in Segment 18 - see Table B, Appendix
F-10) can be expected to be redistributed to areas east of the
Borough (Segment 4) along US 30).
The proposed new sewer line introduced along US 30 east of the
Borough also provides the incentive for development to be induced
(redistributed) there from Cumberland Township (Segment 17) under
Alternative B, F, and H. Between 141 (Alternatives F and H) and
150 (Alternative B) additional units will be induced into this
area from areas of Cumberland Township north of the Borough.
This redistribution results in additional total development in
Straban Township with commensurately less development in Cumber-
land Township. Under Alternatives A, C, and No-Action, the
future land use distribution will be identical to that under
baseline conditions (i.e., considerable development north of
Gettysburg Borough).
Compatibility with
Local Plans and
Policies The EIS alternatives, each of which reflects varying patterns and
levels of projected future development, can be grouped according
to how they conform with local land use plans, policies, and
current land management controls. Here again, it must be empha-
sized that future land use patterns for each EIS alternative, as
is the case in the future land use patterns for baseline condi-
tions, is to be interpreted as a representation, or scenario, of
future land development only under certain conditions.
The analyses of alternative sewage systems (see Appendix F-10)
are presented in generalized form and are not the result of
specific ownership boundary considerations, parcel-specific
analyses, and the like. As such, none of the future land use
analyses for EIS alternatives should be viewed as a "future land
use plan." Rather, the alternative analyses or scenarios repre-
sent the most probable configurations of future development if
baseline conditions are met or alternatives are constructed.
These scenarios are most useful for the purpose of comparison, as
an aid in the decision-making process. The scenarios are in-
tended to be tests of different alternatives and should not be
construed as EPA's or anyone else's plan for the future.
In Cumberland Township, EIS Alternatives B, E, and F represent
levels and patterns of development that closely conform with the
township's adopted comprehensive plan (PA-DCA 1979) and the
current policy recommendations of its governing body (Weikert
1980). These alternatives represent a level of growth north of
Gettysburg Borough that is not as large as the baseline projec-
tion. However, this area north of the borough remains the focal
point for the majority of future growth in the EIS study area
portion of Cumberland Township. EIS Alternatives A, C, D, and
No-Action are not as compatible with township policies. All of
the latter alternatives reflect a greater degree of development
in this area than is considered desirable by the Township.
In Gettysburg Borough all of the EIS alternatives conform to a
reasonable, although gradual, rate of development. This rate of
growth is also compatible with the borough's unadopted Draft
Comprehensive Plan (PA-DCA 1979).
The Straban Township Act 537 Plan (Gettysburg Engineering Company
1974) and the policy recommendations of the local governing body
(Weaner 1980) indicate that the patterns of development asso-
ciated with EIS Alternatives B, D, E, and F closely conform with
125
-------
township policies. However, baseline projected growth, as well
as EIS Alternatives A, C, and No-Action are incompatible with
Straban's policies because these alternatives all represent
greater levels of growth in areas north of the borough and com-
mensurately lesser levels of growth immediately east of the
borough (see Table V-2).
In Mount Joy and Mount Pleasant Townships, there are no formal
land use plans, comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, or
explicit policy recommendations. Consequently, a proper assess-
ment of conformance with local policy is extremely difficult. In
these two municipalities, each EIS alternative reflects patterns
and levels of growth that are quite similar to the projections
for baseline growth, and none is unreasonable in light of recent
trends in development.
The "Draft General Management Plan for the Gettysburg National
Military Park" (USNPS 1979) proposes that development should be
prohibited within the Park and restricted in adjacent areas,
particularly in areas that, if developed, would have potential
visual impact on the park. None of the EIS alternatives promotes
development on Federally-owned park land. EIS Alternatives B, D,
E, and F, in which some of the development that is projected to
be concentrated in areas north of the borough is redistributed to
areas east of the borough, may conform more closely to the intent
of the General Management Plan. The aesthetic impacts of the EIS
alternatives are discussed in detail in the later section, on
Aesthetic Resources.
Traffic Patterns
Current traffic volumes on study area highways appear to be
moderate, although serious problems often develop during periods
of peak tourism activity, particularly within Gettysburg
Borough. No major new highway additions or modifications are
assumed to be forthcoming during this planning period. Alterna-
tives A, C, D, and No Action, would exacerbate existing traffic
problems, and potentially could creat additional problems through
the development of between 646 and 751 new residential units in
areas north of Gettysburg Borough (along PA 34 and Business Route
US 15). Traffic volumes would be increased to a lesser extent in
those areas of Cumberland and Straban Townships north of the
Borough under Alternatives B, F, and H. Minor traffic increases
can be expected on most of the other study area roadways during
the planning period as the population increases. Since Gettys-
burg Borough is the local point for governmental, tourism, com-
mercial, and institutional activities in the study area, unavoid-
able increases in traffic through the center of the Borough can
be expected to occur under every Alternative including No-Action
(Table V-2).
Community Services
Community service systems (such as schools, police and fire
protection, health care, and the like) are provided on a
regional, rather than a local, basis in the Gettysburg area.
Health care services, for example, are available to all study
area residents by either of two regional hospitals (Annie M.
Warner in Gettysburg, and, to a lesser extent, Hanover General in
Hanover), rather than by separate, municipal facilities. This
regionalization of services makes the operation of the systems
generally more efficient. In addition, the service areas are
large, and encompass the entire study area, so that existing and
126
-------
future residents will be served no matter where they reside
within the study area. Therefore, since all of the EIS alterna-
tives are virtually identical with respect to total population
generated within the study area (with only the patterns being
different) no major adverse effects are anticipated under any of
the alternatives. In some cases, notably schools and health
care, an increase in demand would provide a beneficial effect by
increasing operational efficiency through greater use of the
facility. Effects on the community service systems are described
separately below and are summarized in Table V-2.
Schools Increases in population suggest that there will be an associated
increase in the number of children who will require public
schooling. All of the study area municipalities, with the excep-
tion of Mount Pleasant Township, are within the GASD; Mount
Pleasant Township is within the LASD. Both school districts have
recorded declining enrollments in recent years (see Chapter III,
Community Services). In addition to the public schools, there
currently are six non-public schools located within the EIS study
area.
Current enrollments in the GASD total 3,688 students, or 73
percent of the district's rated capacity for 5,016 students.
None of the EIS alternatives would add more than 1,000 new stu-
dents to the school district even under the assumption that all
new students would enroll in public schools. This projected
increase in enrollments can be accommodated easily by the GASD,
and might even provide a beneficial effect should the increase
prevent the closure of school facilities or reduce teacher lay-
offs that otherwise might be necessary.
The same situation exists in the LASD, where current enrollments
represent only 73 percent of the district's rated capacity of
2,711 students. None of the EIS alternatives would add more than
160 new students to this district, an increase that is signi-
ficantly lower than the approximately 750 additional students
that could be accommodated in the district schools.
Public Safety As discussed in Chapter III (Community Services) the protection
afforded to study area residents for both police and fire ser-
vices appears to be adequate for the present and the near future.
The projections of 3,699 additional persons, at maximum, by the
year 2005 would translate into a need for 4.4 additional Gettys-
burg and Cumberland policemen (according to a standard of 1.2
officers per 1,000 residents in the population, as adopted in the
Cumberland Township Comprehensive Plan). The Lake Heritage
community is protected by a private security force of its own.
Fire protection and ambulance service is provided to study area
residents largely by volunteer forces, and it can be assumed that
the number of volunteers will increase as the population
increases.
Health Services The additional populations generated by any of the EIS alterna-
tives will have a net beneficial effect on the provision of
health care services in the study area. Presently, both hospi-
tals serving study area residents (Annie M. Warner and Hanover
General) are underutilized. All additional residential develop-
ment in the study area will contribute to a more efficient utili-
zation of local health care facilities.
Solid Waste Disposal The solid waste disposal needs of study area residents are served
by two private contractors. None of the EIS alternatives is
expected to create significantly different demands for disposal
service.
127
-------
Energy Supplies
Water Supply
j a._ „.;nnal electric and gas needs
Based upon "tUity b; met duri„g the planning period
for «Vof the «S alternatives.
v-n „ „atPr tn all of Gettysburg Borough and
The GMA supplies public wa Townships. G*Ven current demand,
parts of Straban and ^"^^ailable to serve all projected popula-
considerable capacity is available to se jn l977 completed
tions under each lts water sysem. This plan
1gZ$*Iw) wi" guide in its attempt to serve an addatxonal
5,700 persons by the year 2010.
..... rnr /rmn supplies Public water to
Lake Heritage Utilities^ ^ community Presently, LHU has
residents of the Lake Her y residents ln Lake Heritage.
ample supplies to \ereYnatives will create an unusual demand for
None of the
Eslrv^ceerdu^ingSthe course of the planning period.
Archaeological Sites/
Historic Sites/Aesthetic
Resources
Archaeological Sites
Primary Impacts--"Primary" impacts on archaeological sites are
those that may result from construction or operation of the
proposed wastewater treatment facilities. Ground disturbances
related to the construction of pump stations, force mains col-
lection and conveyance systems, and new treatment plants (or
expansion of existing treatment facilities) may result in dis-
turbance to or destruction of buried prehistoric and historic
archaeological resources. Except for areas adjacent to Rock
Creek, which were surveyed by a professional archaeologist
during 1979, no professional reconnaissance has been conducted in
the project area. Therefore, only an assessment of potential
direct impacts can be discussed for each alternative. It is
expected that a full archaeological survey will be conducted
following selection of an alternative and prior to beginning
construction.
As proposed, Alternative A could result in ground disturbance
related to expansion of the Cumberland and Gettysburg STP's.
During 1979, Dr. Fred Kinsey conducted an archaeological survey
of Rock Creek in the designated primary impact area of the GMA
proposed action (for construction of the Gettysburg Reqional
Wastewater Treatment Facility).
Kinsey determined that there was very low archaeological poten-
tial in the low areas adjacent to the existing treatment plants
and, consequently, no further archaeological research would be
required prior to expansion of the facilities. Alternative A
requires relocation of a treatment plant at a trailer park south
of US 30, and relocation of the Lake Heritage STP. Should con-
struction of eitner of these facilities involve disturbance to
stream benches or high dry ground adjacent to streams, an
archaeological survey to identify potential archaeological re-
sources may be quired before construction of these facilities
is approved. Tne
-------
by a collection and conveyance system to be constructed adjacent
to the park along US 30 and along the Cumberland Township—
Straban Township border between the Gettysburg STP and US 30.
Sections of the collection and conveyance pipeline corridor that
were previously undisturbed may require an archaeological survey
to locate unrecorded, buried historic or prehistoric sites which
may be disturbed or destroyed. The right-of-way of the proposed
collection system between the Gettysburg STP and US 30, for
example, may pass by Ewell's Civil War Headquarters on US 30 and
the W. H. Montfort Civil War hospital near Zinkand Pond. The
collection system passes Historic Site No. 130 (Figure 111-8,
"r"). Buried archaeological material related to these historic
sites may be disturbed. In addition, the Zinkand Pond area was
determined by Dr. Kinsey to have moderate archaeological poten-
tial, and an archaeological survey to locate any unrecorded
prehistoric material was recommended by Dr. Kinsey.
Alternative C would result in impacts similar to those of Alter-
native B, with the addition of force main and conveyance and
collection system construction southeast of the Trailer Park.
This area, and a proposed overland flow site on a branch of Rock
Creek may require an archaeological reconnaissance survey.
The potential direct impacts of Alterantives D and E on historic
and prehistoric archaeological resources are similar to each
other. Patterns of ground disturbance and potential impacts
along US 30 and near Zinkand Pond are the same as those for
Alternative B, and similar archaeological surveys will be
required. In addition, reconnaissance archaeological surveys may
be undertaken in the corridors of proposed collection and con-
veyance systems between Business Route 15 and PA 34 north of
Gettysburg Borough, and West of PA 34, northwest of Gettysburg
Borough (only if such surveys are funded by EPA). Ground in low
marshy areas adjacent to Rock Creek that would be disturbed by
construction of force mains and collection facilities (Figure
I11-10) was surveyed for prehistoric archaeological resources by
Kinsey (1979). This ground was determined to have low archaeo-
logical potential, and to require no further archaeological
reconnaissance.
Ground to be disturbed by construction of a pump station and
force main and by construction of a treatment plant or land
disposal site south of Lake Heritage may require an archaeo-
logical survey in order to locate unknown archeological
resources. The D. Schaffer Civil War Hospital site is in this
vicinity, and higher ground adjacent to Rock Creek may also
contain historic and prehistoric archaeological sites. Simi-
larly, undisturbed ground to be effected by the construction of
pump stations, force mains, and collection and conveyance systems
around Lake Heritage and to the northwest of Lake Heritage may
require archaeological reconnaissance to determine whether direct
impacts will occur to unknown archaeological sites that are
eligible for the National Register. Intrusion of wastewater
facilities into the Gettysburg Battlefield National Historic
District will constitute an adverse impact on the district.
Adequate professional survey and applicable mitigation would be
required to satisfy requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 665, as amended).
Direct impacts of Alternative F are similar to those of Alterna-
tives D and E, except that additional force mains and collector
systems would be installed along PA 116 between Rock Creek and
Plum Run. Archaeological surveys would be required of undis-
129
-------
turbed sections of these direct impact areas wherever there was a
likelihood of discovering historic or prehistoric archaeological
resources.
In summary, the greatest amount of ground disturbance and, con-
sequently, the greatest potential for direct adverse impacts to
archaeological resources would result from the construction of
Alternatives D, E, or F. Land within the Gettysburg Battlefield
National Historic District would be disturbed by the construction
of any of these three alternatives, and compliance with Section
106 procedures would be required for any direct impact areas that
were not previously surveyed by an archaeologist. During a 1979
preliminary archaeological survey, it was recommended that a more
intensive reconnaissance be conducted of any lands in the Zinkand
Pond area that may be disturbed by the project. All areas adja-
cent to known Civil War and other historic sites should also be
surveyed by an archaeologist.
A minimum amount of ground disturbance would result from the
implementation of Alternative A. However, whichever alternative
is selected, archaeological surveys of direct impact areas that
are undisturbed and previously unsurveyed may be required in
order to determine their archaeological potential. Surveys and
tests will be required in the vicinity of known historic archaeo-
logical sites, within the boundaries of the National Register
District, and in areas of moderate to high archaeological poten-
tial, where Kinsey recommended surveys.
Secondary Impacts—"Secondary" impacts are those that may occur
from induced growth and future property development as a result
of the implementation of a proposed project. The amount of
growth and development for the years 1980-2005 that will occur if
any of Alternatives A-F is implemented will not exceed that
expected if none of the alternatives were to be implemented.
Therefore, indirect impacts on archaeological resources cannot be
directly attributed to construction of any project.
Mitiqative Measures—Presently, potential impacts on archaeo-
logical resources that may result from construction of any of the
alternatives are unknown. Prior to construction of any alterna-
tive proposed for the project, a Phase I archaeological survey
probably will be required. Alternatives where surveys may be
required include Alternatives D, E, and F.
Historic Sites Primary Impacts—"Primary" impacts are those that would result
from constructing or operating any of the proposed alternatives,
and would constitute either beneficial or adverse effects to
historic sites, properties, structures, or objects that are
listed on or determined eligible for, the National Register of
Historic Places. In this section, we discuss primary impacts to
known historic properties presently listed on the National
Register of Historic Places and the Pennsylvania Inventory of
Historic Sites and Landmarks, and those historic structures
determined to be potentially eligible for the National Register
by the HGAC Historic Sites Survey.
"Beneficial effects" of alternatives generally consists of
improvement to the aesthetic setting of historic sites and struc-
tures; such an improvement would result from the removal of
present septic tank failures that cause unpleasant odors and damp
depressions on the ground of structures, or cause the pollution
of streams on and adjacent to such properties. "Adverse effects"
consist of one or more of the following (36 CFR VIII 800, as
amended):
130
-------
• Destruction or alteration of all or part of property;
• Isolation from or alteration of surrounding environment;
• Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that
are out of character with the property or alter its setting;
• Transfer or sale of Federally-owned property without adequate
conditions or restrictions regarding preservation, main-
tenance, or use; and
• Neglect of property resulting in its deterioration or destruc-
tion.
Upgrading the existing Gettysburg Treatment Plant under Alterna-
tive A should have adverse visual effect that is only minor on
the Gettysburg National Military Park; and in general, upgrading
should enhance the overall ambience of the Gettysburg Borough
Historic District by alleviating existing septic problems. No
other direct adverse effects on historic sites listed on or
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places should
result from the construction of Alternative A.
Construction of Alternatives B and C would require installation
of collector pipes adjacent to Historic Site Number 130 on US 30.
If proper care is taken during construction, no adverse impact
should occur to this structure.
Upgrading the Cumberland Treatment Plant north of the Gettysburg
Historic District under Alternative D should have only minor
visual affect on the Gettysburg National Military Park and the
Battlefield Historic District. Erection of a pump station on PA
116 west of the Battlefield Historic District at the East Cavalry
Battlefield Site should have minimal adverse visual affect on the
site.
Primary impacts of Alternative E would be similar to those of
Alternative D, with additional minor visual impact on the Gettys-
burg National Military Park and the Battlefield Historic District
resulting from erection of a pump station on the Cumberland
Township border northwest of Business Route 15. However, up-
grading wastewater treatment facilities in this area should
improve water quality in Rock Creek (see Surface Water Impact
Section) and, in the absence of induced new growth or devel-
opment, improve the ambient quality of these historic sites.
Construction of Alternative F would require erection of c, pump
station within the National Register District at the East Cavalry
Battlefield Site, which may constitute an adverse visual impact
on that historic site (in the vicinity of Plum run and PA 116).
Other impacts north and northeast of Gettysburg Borough would be
similar to those of Alternative E.
In general, direct adverse impacts on historic sites, structures,
properties, and places will be minimal for all alternatives (A,
B, C, D, E, and F). Alternative F would result in the greatest
number of direct adverse impacts on sites listed on the National
Register and on government-owned and administered historic pro-
perties. Upgrading wastewater treatment facilities should have a
beneficial effect by relieving the existing septic problems that
detract from the historic ambience of significant historic sites.
In the absence of induced growth or development, which con-
stitutes an adverse indirect effect on National Register pro-
131
-------
perties, such upgrading should provide beneficial effects
offset the minor adverse visual effects of the alterna
Secondary Impacts—Secondary, or "indirect," impacts are creat
by the development that may accompany improvement wasteWat
treatment facilities; such impacts include: I>°Pulation arnuth
and the conversion of undeveloped land to develot>ecj uses Th
impacts are listed in the Criteria of Adverse Effect • ese
tures eligible for the National Register as Pro,nulCi;jt-„f1 hJri?S"
ACHP (36 CFR VIII 800.9). In this section, we. n
Projected development is provided in number of aSres developed
and units per acre. The type of development that is DreseSt?v
th' 6eleCted
The National park Service (n.d.) has designated certain "Critical
Areas": lands that, if they are develoDed i
impact on the Gettysburg National Milita?y Park /FiSSre liiUfi>
and preservation subzones (Figure Ili-fl or 91 \ ntlt' !
development in any of these areas as a result Concentrationof
any alternatives will be considered an adverse impact? lng
132
-------
Construction of Alternative A will result in baseline growth
throughout the project area and secondary impacts would be simi-
lar to those for the "No-Action" Alternative. No indirect
impacts to historic resources can be attributed to the construc-
tion of Alternative A.
Alternative B would result in the development of 48 acres fewer
than baseline in Segment 17, and 60 more acres than baseline in
Segment 4. In Segment 18, 22 fewer acres would be developed. In
Segment 4, 330 units would be concentrated on 88 acres; however,
Segment 4 is not considered to be a critical area by the National
Park Service (nd: 99) and scenic views from the Battleground
Historic District toward Segment 4 were not found to be of high
quality during the 1979 aesthetic resources survey (Figure
III-ll). Views from Segments 8 and 10 toward Segment 4 are
primarily agricultural and compatible; rated scenic. Therefore,
there may be some adverse effect on these views, such an effect
constitutes a secondary impact on the Gettysburg National
Military Park and Battlefield Historic District.
Indirect impacts of Alternative C are similar to those of Alter-
native A, except that in Segment 4 (Figure 111-14), the 59 units
projected for baseline growth will be concentrated on 13 acres
and, therefore, constitute higher density development. Devel-
opment near the National Register district boundary will be no
different from baseline, but higher density development may
occur at a distance from the district. This should not con-
stitute an adverse visual impact.
The potential indirect impacts of Alternatives D and E are simi-
lar. Concentrations of development above baseline projections
would occur in Segments 4 and 7 and in "other" areas in Mount Joy
Township. If Alternative E were selected, population densities
would be the same as baseline in Segment 17, however, fewer acres
would be developed. For both Alternatives D and E, baseline
density would occur in Segment 18, but fewer acres would be
developed. Potential indirect impacts on views from Gettysburg
National Military Park and the Battlefield Historic District
would be similar to those discussed for Alternative B.
If Alternative D were implemented, the visual impact in Segment
18 would be reduced slightly from the projected impact that is
related to baseline development; while increased densities in and
adjacent to the Battlefield Historic District in the vicinity of
East Cavalry Battlefield Site may have an adverse effect upon
views from access roads to the National Battlefield (Station 23,
Figure III-ll) and upon the Historic Distric itself. However,
Segment 7, is not included among the critical areas, which if
developed would have a visual impact on the Park (NPS h.d.: 99).
If Alternative E were selected, adverse visual impacts on views
from Station 10 (Figure III-ll) would be increased over adverse
impacts under baseline conditions and under Alternative D, while
visual impacts in Segment 17 would be additionally reduced.
Projected impacts on historic sites from the construction under
Alternative F would be identical to the impacts under Alternative
E, except that density in Segment 7 would be reduced from 3.9 to
3.8. In addition, the proposed development related to Alterna-
tive F would take place outside of the Gettysburg Historic
District boundary in Segment 7, which reduces the adverse visual
impacts within the district but increases potential adverse
impact on views west from the district.
133
-------
In general, adverse indirect impacts on historic resources from
all alternatives will be minimal. Alternatives B, D, E, and F
would create the greatest negative impact on views from the
Gettysburg National Military Park (Stations 8 and 10, Figure
III-ll) and from the Battlefield Historic District.
Such impacts may be mitigated easily by the installation of
adequate screening devices, such as stands of evergreen trees.
In addition, mitigation could include controls on construction,
controls that specify and/or restrict color, height, and style of
the development that is permitted in areas where projected growth
may result in an adverse effect on scenic historic integrity of
National historic sites and historic sites that are eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigations are dis-
cussed in more detail in Appendix G-8.
Mit-irrative Measures—Minor adverse visual effects are anticipated
on tne historic STstrict and military park during the construc-
tion of wastewater transmission lines and pump stations. Impacts
of transmission lines may be mitigated by limiting bulldozing
only to necessary construction areas, as well as by requiring
prompt mulching and seeding after construction. Measures men-
tioned above should be applied to pump station construction, as
well as measures like the planting of indigenous conifer and
evergreen species to screen pump stations. Pump stations may
also be constructed partially below grade to lessen visual intru-
sion. For additional measures see Appendix G-8.
Aesthetic Resources Primary and Secondary Impacts—Potential impacts to aesthestic
resourcesthat may result from implementing any of the alterna-
tives in the Gettysburg project area are an important considera-
tion, primarily because these impacts are included among the
potential impacts to historic resources. Consideration of these
impacts is required under mandates from the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Executive Order 11593, and
the Advisory Council Procedures for the Protection of Historic
and Cultural Properties (36 CFR Part 800, as amended).
Beneficial impacts on the aesthetic quality of the Gettysburg
area will result from the removal of septic problems that pre-
sently detract from the attractiveness of the Rock Creek stream
channel, and the attractiveness of specific areas where odors and
other problems occur, such beneficial impacts will result from
implementation of any of the alternatives.
Adverse impacts on the long-term aesthetic quality of the plan-
ning area are those that could result from secondary growth
induced by construction of the alternative wastewater management
systems. Many residents of the planning area appreciate the
aesthetic quality of those areas that retain their historic,
nineteenth-century rural character. Such appreciation results
from a knowledge of local history and a familiarity with the
architectural styles of the area, where families have lived for
several generations. The appreciation is shared both by long-
time residents and by tourists who visit the planning area
because of its rural solitude and historic scenic beauty.
Because the aesthetic quality of the architecture throughout the
countryside is an important aspect of the overall scenic quality
of the landscape, any loss of the open space that surrounds the
structures or historic districts diminishes their historic and
aesthetic quality for visitors and local residents. Although a
perception of what is aesthetically pleasing in a landscape is
134
-------
subjective, the historic land uses are familiar to the inhabi-
tants of an area and, therefore are, desirable. Any loss of
aesthetically pleasing landscape would constitute a secondary
adverse impact of the alternatives.
The primary concern in the Gettysburg area is to maintain the
pastoral historic setting of the National Monuments Parks and
historic districts. Development that may intrude upon the land-
scape or that may disrupt current aesthetically pleasing views
from these historic resources would constitute a negative impact
on the aethestic resources of the project area. The potential
adverse impacts on aesthetic resources that would result from
implementing the alternatives are the same as the potential
impacts on historic resources that are discussed in previous
section.
Because none of the alternatives would induce growth or devel-
opment beyond what would occur without the proposed Federally-
funded project, adverse impacts on aesthetic resources that can
be attributed to construction of the proposed wastewater treat-
ment facility alternatives are minimal. Implementation of one
alternative as opposed to another may affect the distribution of
development within the project area; to that extent, any adverse
impacts to aesthetic resources that result may be considered
attributable to the proposed project alternative. Adverse
impacts to the aesthetic quality of the project area may result
from the implementation of Alternatives B, D, E, or F, but as
mentioned above, they are anticipated to be minimal.
Mitiqative Measures—The requirements of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89-665), the Archaeological and
Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 93-291), and Executive
Order 11593 provide for consideration of primary effects on
historic cultural resources that are listed on, or may be eli-
gible for, the National Register of Historic Places. The
requirements apply to Federally funded, licensed, or otherwise
assisted undertakings.
However, such consideration would not be required for privately
funded future development (secondary effects) in the planning
area. It is therefore difficult for EPA to provide adequate
mitigation for secondary adverse effects of land development on
historic properties, although consideration of such effects is
mandated by EPA guidelines for compliance with NEPA.
Alternatives B, D, E, and F are anticipated to have some impact
on non-critical views within the Battlefield Historic District.
These views were not considered high quality during the 1979
survey. In order to mitigate the impacts anticipated, however, a
number of actions can be taken. Efforts should be redoubled to
generate interest in conducting township planning and zoning that
would conserve historic resources and landscapes. A conservation
easement program could be initiated by the NPS to inform resi-
dents of the tax advantages that can be realized by deeding
partial interest in their land to the service. The NPS should
also reevaluate their resources to purchase critical lands in
fee-simple or to buy conservation easements from local owners.
Views that may be impacted could be enhanced by establishing and
planting vegetation buffer screens.
Considerable effort has been expended to stimulate local township
interest in conducting comprehensive planning and zoning that
allows for orderly growth to occur while conserving historic
135
-------
sites and structures. Municipalities are authorized nnHov
Pennsylvania Act 167 of 1961, 53 P.S. Section 8001, to delineate
and officially map historic districts and to appoint a
Architectural Review board. This board can advise the townshin
commissioners on the appropriateness of design, heiqht color
and density of residential development in that district Ton
struction, demolition, or alteration cannot take dare ,,nip« I
certificate of appropriateness is issued by the governina bodv
(Strong et al 1979). Additionally, through Planning and zoninq
municipalities can direct higher density development into defined
areas, and designate low density or open space zones into others
Subdivision regulations may be written for each townshm
require design and buffer requirements in the land development
process. For example, a developer could be required to retain*
minimum width of land with fencing or trees to screen
sites from buildings under construction. Additionally thf-I
regulations may require underground installation of utiliti*!!
retention of a certain percentage of open space, and attention'tA
the nature and extent of alterations to designatedhistorS
sites. The PA-DCA has developed the most experience in DlanninS
and zoning and should be consulted for their technical expertise
NPS may wish to establish a conservation easement orooram to
act as recipient to deeds for partial interest in Plands of hiah
historic or scenic value. A "conservation easement" is a l^i
agreement between a property owner and an eligible recioi^ it
non-profit organization, such as HGAC; or a government entiti
such as any municipality or NPS, in which the owner (dono?)
agrees to certain restrictions over his historic propertv and the
recipient (donee) agrees to monitor the property and uphold the
terms of the agreement (Strong et al. 1979).
The degree of protection to the site can vary with each easement
document, but generally the easement restricts, in perpetuity
changes in the use of the land, and states that no constructioA
or alteration of the subject property may occur without the
concurrence of the donee. Under the Tax Reform Act of 1976 as
amended by the Tax Reduction and Simplification Act of 1977
charitable contribution deductions on an individuals income tax
are specifically permitted for gifts of less than the taxpayers
entire interest in property. These can include easement
granted, in perpetuity, for conservation purposes such as his!
torically important land area or structures (Strong et al 1979 4
NPS should investigate the feasibility of 1) purchasing eaBli
ments outright, 2) working with local interest groups to fora Li
easement program, 3) setting up an easement progriun themselves
and approaching property owners, or 4) working with local units
of government in conducting such a program. -local units
NPS could also work directly with local
SstorTc^^
schemes and possibly develop a nurserv for atn v Planting
.eta. shoufd empfoy indiVnoSr^rwf °^eci^
£&£ 9arSyclubTshe ^nsE^-sSi4 id?
2SSEJTS iSSSS ffll &&&
consideration of secondary growth impacts on historic JnoSm
136
-------
resources may be limited to the selection of alternative plans
that would reduce the potential for future development in certain
sections of the planning area in order to retain their historic
integrity while satisfying the need for improved wastewater
management facilities. For further detail of mitigative measures
see Appendix G-8.
Economic Conditions
Introduction The economic impacts of all alternatives are evaluated in this
section. The evaluation of economic impacts consists of an
analysis of user charges, financial burden on users of the waste-
water management facilities, and financial pressure that might
cause lower income residents to move away from the service area
(displacement pressure). The impacts are evaluated for each of
the communities in the service area.
User Charges
User charges are the costs periodically billed to customers of a
wastewater management system. The user charges for the systems
proposed in the EIS alternatives have been calculated for each
community in the service area (see Chapter IV, Costs of Alterna-
tives) and are presented in Table IV-13.
Significant Financial Burden—High-cost wastewater management
facilities may place an excessive financial burden on system
users. Such burdens may cause families to alter their spending
patterns substantially. The Federal government has developed
criteria to identify high-cost wastewater projects (the White
House Rural Development Initiatives 1978). A project is con-
sidered high-cost when the annual user charges are greater than:
• 1.5 percent of median household incomes less than $6,000;
¦ 2.0 percent of median household incomes between $6,000 and
$10,000;
• 2.5 percent of median household incomes greater than $10,000.
The 1980 median household income estimates for each of the ser-
vice area communities are presented in Table v-3. The median
household incomes range from a low of $16,465 in Mount Joy to a
high of $18,885 in Cumberland. According to the Federal cri-
teria, any alternatives having annual user charges exceeding 2.5%
of these median household figures are "high-cost" alternatives.
Therefore, Alternatives C, D, and E are high-cost alternatives
for Straban because under these Alternatives user charges exceed
2.5% of Straban's median annual income. Because income data for
Lake Heritage are lacking, it is impossible to estimate the
median income for Lake Heritage. However, given the relatively
high user charges estimated for Lake Heritage, it is likely that
Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F (especially D, E, and F) are
high-cost alternatives for Lake Heritage.
137
-------
Table V-3. Estimated 1980 Median Household incomes
Median Household 2.5/' of
Municipality Income Median
Gettysburg 18,255 456
Cumberland 18,885 472
Straban 16,900 422
Mount Pleasant 16,635 416
Mount Joy 16,465 412
• financial burden is determined by comparing_annual
Sigmficant finan ^ digtribution of houeeholtJincomes in each
Ufrth?Sce area communities. Only households not facing a
of the service a Kll_jon bf» able to afford the annual
8ignifiCSeS for*LciUti"- Table v-4 shows
user targes W P hoPusehoids in service area communities, except
the percentage oi brook Hills) estimated to face a signi-
^ke barfel'SrS.f the alternatives slgni-
ficant financial rana^s from a low of 5 to 10 percent
fiTnt froTthe alternatives for Mount Joy to a high of 60 to
under each °£ Alternative D for Straban. Despite the absence
65 percent under Alternative D tor ^ra anticipated that a sub-
of income Jata househoids in Lake Heritage (and Hazelbrook
5iSSaio?W ?ace significant financial burden under each of the
alternatives, especially Alternatives D, E, and F.
Table V-4. Financial Burden (% of households)
EIS Alternatives
B C D
Gettysburg Borough 10-15 in ic ¦,
Cumberland Township 15-20 i10-15 10-15 10-15 in ic
straban Township II_f° 15-20 20-25 }5-20 Is-lo
Mount Joy Township s_l0 50-55 60-65 50-55 50-55
Displacement Pressure—"Disnl a
place upon families* to moPve ^ ^ Pressure" is the stress
result of costly user charges ! om the service area as a
by determining the percentage 'of ho!Sp£e^nVressure is measured
charges exceed 5 percent of ann?,«i ? ds for which annual user
pressures induced by each an- nnuai income. The disDl
munities, except fjr *°/ J*e SeTS!
listed m Table V-5. Withfn and . Hazelbrook Hills, are
pressure ranges from a iow of l ~ service area, displacement
burg and Mount Joy under each of th*°e?£ t0 5 Percent fo? Getty?-
percent to 25 percent for str*L alternatives to a high of 20
of the high user ^arges°forS^n under Alternative D Because
in Lake Heritage would probablv t. ge' displacement pressure
alternatives, espec.au, ^
138
-------
Table V-5. Displacement Pressure (% of households)
A
EIS Alternatives
BCD E
F
Gettysburg Borough
Cumberland Township
straban Township
Mount Joy Township
1-5
5-10
5*10
1-5
1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5
5-10 5-10 10-15 5-10
5-10 15-20 20-25 15-20
1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5
1-5
5-10
15-20
1-5
Mitigation The significant financial burden and displacement pressure
attributed to user charges could be mitigated by a loan or grant
from the Farmers Home Administration (FHA) of the USDA. The FHA
assists communities facing high user charges for wastewater
collection and treatment service. Other Federal agencies that
provide financial assistance to communities constructing new
wastewater facilities include the Economic Development Admini-
stration (EDA) of the US Department of Labor, and the US Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through its Community
Development Block Grant program.
Summary The impacts of each wastewater management alternative on
the natural environments, population, land use, archaeological
and historic resources, and the local economy are described in
the preceeding chapter. The impact discussion considers both
primary and secondary effects of the alternatives. "Primary"
impacts are those directly related to the construction and opera-
tion of sewage collection, transmission, and treatment faci-
lities. "Secondary" impacts are project-induced effects, such as
residential development, in areas with soils unsuitable for
on-site wastewater treatment as a result of introduction of
centralized wastewater treatment facilities.
This EIS estimated that wastewater management alternatives will
have only minimal adverse impacts on the existing natural envi-
ronment (air quality, earth resources, water resouces, and aqua-
tic biota). Some positive impacts will result from eliminating
water pollution in Rock Creek; these will be achieved by imple-
menting any alternative except the No-Action. For example,
dissolved oxygen level in Rock Creek will increase substantially
under all alternatives. Secondary impacts on the natural envi-
ronment will be insignificant because of negligible induced
growth over the projected baseline growth rate.
From a study area perspective, the effects on population created
by each of the six EIS alternatives do not differ significantly
from those that are anticipated under baseline conditions. This
lack of significant variation from the baseline growth is ex-
plained by the fact that, for each EIS alternative, the sewage
capacity of collection and conveyance facilities has been de-
signed carefully to accommodate sewage flows of both existing and
projected baseline population and dwelling units. As a result of
this careful engineering design, the potential for adverse
effects from induced growth has been avoided for the study area.
Impacts on archaeological sites, historic sites, and aesthetic
resources will be limited to short-term effects resulting from
construction of the proposed wastewater collection and treatment
facilities. Earth-moving activities related to construction of
139
-------
pump stations, force mains, collection and conveyance systems,
and treatment plants may result in some limited disturbance to]
or destruction of, buried historic or archaeological resources'.
Detailed assessment of potential adverse impacts can only be
analyzed by a professional historical/archaeological reconnais-
sance .
The economic impacts of the EIS alternatives are also evaluated
in the preceding chapter. This evaluation includes an analysis
of user charges, financial burden on users of the wastewater
management facilities, and displacement pressure on lower income
residents to move away from the areas as a result of project
costs.
140
-------
CHAPTER VI
Comparison of Alternatives
-------
CHAPTER VI.
COMPARISON OF
ALTERNATIVES
Additional Screening/ The project costs for each of six EIS alternatives (A,B,C,D,E,F)
Modified Alternatives were presented in Chapter IV in terms of total present worth,
local shares and user charges by municipality. The environ-
mental, economic, and social impacts associated with each of
these alternatives were discussed in Chapter V immediately
following the cost calculations.
EPA presented detailed information about these six alternatives
to local officials and the Public Advisory Group during this
past summer. Many constructive comments were received and EPA
used these comments along with the cost analysis and impact
evaluations to further screen and revise the alternatives prior
to completion of the Draft EIS.
Alternative E, which called for expansion of the existing
Gettysburg STP and construction of a new Lake Heritage land
treatment system, was eliminated from further consideration due
to high total cost plus uncertainties about suitable site
acquisition for a land treatment system. Alternative F which
consisted of a single regional STP at the existing Gettysburg
STP site to handle all segments' flow (including Lake Heritage),
was eliminated due to numerous adverse environmental impacts and
questions about the availability of adequate acreage for STP
expansion. Revised Alternatives D and E were developed in
response to a PAG suggestion that certain components of existing
alternatives be merged to form new alternatives, in hopes of
arriving at the most acceptable combination.
Revised Alternative D is derived from parts of previous
Alternatives C and D. The major change involves serving the
Lake Heritage area segments by on-site systems rather than by
sewering. Revised Alternative E is formed from parts of
previous Alternatives D and E. It calls for sewering the Lake
Heritage segments with treatment at a new STP and expanding the
Gettysburg STP to accommodate the remaining segments.
The remaining five feasible alternatives are presented on the
following pages, along with considerations concerning costs and
environmental impacts. All five will provide for elimination of
major existng sources of water pollution and are implementable
through existing local government bodies.
141
-------
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
A1 tec native
Major Components
Seqements Served
Sewered?
A
Upgrade Gettysburg STP
1 r 3
Yes
Upgrade Cumberland STP
2
Yes
Construct New STP for Schaff's Trailer
Park
Part of 4
Yes
Construct NEW STP for Lake Heritage
holding tanks
7-11
No
Improve on-site systems as needed
4,7-12,14-17,18,20
No
B
Upgrade Gettysburg STP
1,3,4
Yes
Upgrade Cumberland STP
2
Yes
Construct New STP for Lake Heritage
holding tanks
7-11
No
Improve on-site systems as needed
7-12,14-17,18,20
No
C
Upgrade Gettysburg STP
1,3
Yes
Upgrade Cumberland STP
2
Yes
Construct Land Application system for
Segment 4
4
Yes
Construct New STP for Lake Heritage
holding tanks
7-11
No
Improve on-site systems
7-12,14-17,18,20
No
D
Upgrade Gettysburg STP
1,3,4,18
Yes
Upgrade Cumberland STP
2,17
Yes
Construct New STP for Lake Heritage
7-11
No
Improve on-site systems
12,14-16,20
No
E
Upgrade Gettysburg STP
1-4,17-18
Yes
Construct New Lake Heritage STP
7-11,20
Yes
Improve on-site systems
12,14-16
No
-------
0^
OJ
F
1 18
*
' . ' " v '
SEGMENT SERVED BY
PARK
FIGURE vi-1
1,3 GETTYSBURG STP
2 CUMBERLAND STP
7,8,9,10,11 NEW LAKE HERITAGE STP
4,17,18 ON-SITE SYSTEMS
TRAILER NEW SCHAFF STp
ALTERNATIVE A-LIMITED ACTION
-------
in
if 18
SEGMENT SERVED BY
1,3,4 GETTYSBURG STP
2 CUMBERLAND STP
7,8,9,10,11 NEW LAKE HERITAGE STP
17,18 ON-SITE SYSTEMS
FIGURE VI-2
ALTERNATIVE B
-------
4*.
-J
LAND
APPLICATION
I
SEGMENT SERVED BY
"Hs
c* / .A
vW ^ W
n - / , ' - ¦*%
GETTYSBURG STP
CUMBERLAND STP
7,8,9,10,11 NEW LAKE HERITAGE STP
4 OVERLAND FLOW
17,18 ON-SITE SYSTEMS
FIGURE VI-3
ALTERNATIVE C
-------
f.
7
X K>/
SEGMENT SERVED BY
1,3,4,18 GETTYSBURG STP
2,17 CUMBERLAND STP
7,8,9,10,11 NEW LAKE HERITAGE STP
FIGURE 3ZH
NEW ALTERNATIVE D
-------
U1
f
V
/
, /
lo
-------
Impact Considerations This section compares the impacts associated with each of the
— five alternatives. Impacts of revised Alternatives D and E are
derived from the impact assessment related to previous
Alternatives C, D, and E.
The impact evaluation indicates that all five alternatives will
have minimum adverse impacts on the existing natural environment
(e.g., air quality, earth resources, water resources,
terrestrial biota, and aquatic biota). In addition, all five
alternatives will have a favorable impact on water quality by
eliminating water pollution problems in the study area. For
example, dissolved oxygen levels in Rock Creek under summer
critical flow conditions will increase significantly to meet the
PA-DER water quality criterion. The only slight difference in
impact among all alternatives may be in the operation of STP's
and overland flow facilities. Operation of the overland flow
system in Alternative C has a smaller probability of error that
operation of STP's and therefore, is more fail-safe.
From an overall study are a perspective, the effects on
population, land use, and community services due to each of the
EIS alternatives do not differ significantly from those which
are anticipated under the baseline condition. The baseline
condition is defined as the total level and pattern of growth
that is expected to occur in the study area through the year
2005, if present trends of growth continue.
Each EIS alternative will generate approximately the same total
number of dwelling units and population in the study area as
were projected in the baseline for future land use and
population. This lack of significant variation from the
baseline future land use is explained by the fact that, for each
EIS alternative, the sewage capacity at the site (or sites) of
treatment has been designed carefully to accommodate sewage
flows adequate for existing and most baseline projected dwelling
units.
153
-------
^ 52 .v-srs
development can n« Se and pattern However, this slight dif-
ferent amo^galternatives has been found to generate insigni-
ficant impact in the study area.
c „Ul.rai resource impacts, the alternatives that
In £55 JwSS 5IKSrb,„« P»iU have higher potential
generate more 9 A historic sites. For example, con-
impact on ar^®e°'L^.on and conveyance systems as well as pumping
struction ofcollectionand convey n Jrbance than constrUction
stations w^lll ^avRevs^®g rT^refore, alternatives which call for
of overland flow lQng distance conveyance systems and
pumping1 stations for Lake Heritage area would be less desirable
from environmental standpoint.
¦;« the Gettvsburq area is for the maintenance
AfPthparDastoral historic setting of the National Monuments,
2 u ia Historic District. Loss of aesthetically pleasing
as a result of development stemming from the introduc-
of washer treatment facilities constitute a secondary
adverse environmental impact. Although none of the alternatives
•T? borate a Significant influx of new growth within the study
«e, "SitS of a particular alternative may affect the
Retribution Of development and may result m minor adverse
distribution oiFvalues Qf ^ arga For example( Alter.
im??ve b would result in development of 60 more acres in Segment
Sthan under baseline conditions as a result of redistribution.
This would result in some impact on an area defined as not having
hi«h aualitv scenic view. Under other alternatives, develop-
iJvTahove baseline projections would occur in Segment 4. How-
evX, the impact again would be upon areas not having high quali-
ty views.
r to mitigate the impacts anticipated, however, a number
if actions can be taken. Efforts should be redoubled to generate
interest in conducting township planning and zoning to conserve
iictoric resources and landscapes. A conservation easement
nroaram could be inititated by the National Park Service (NPS),
+v£ townships, or historic Gettysburg-Adams County inc., to
inform residents of the tax advantages that can be realized in
H«»Pdina over partial interest in their lands. NPS should also
reevaluate their resources to purchase critical lands in fee
Rimole or to buy conservation easements from local owners.
Vistas that are anticipated to be impacted could be enhanced by
establishing landscaped buffer screens.
mat Comparison
The present worth analysis of the remaining feasible alternatives
are presented in Table VI-1.
154
-------
Table VI-1. Present Worth Costs of Alternatives (in millions of
dollars, 4th quarter, 1979)
Collection
On-Site
conveyance
Alternative
systems
Sewer
I/I
STP's
A
5.1
0.5
1.0
8.5
B
7.5
2.6
1.0
8.7
C
7.5
2.5
1.0
8.5
D
3.4
8.1
1.0
9.4
E
0.7
14.0
1.0
8.5
Overland
Exist-
Total
flow
ing
Present
Treatment
Debt
Worth
A
0.3
15.4
B
-
0.3
20.0
C
1.0
0.3
20.8
D
-
0.3
22 .1
E
-
0.3
23 .1
From a present worth standpoint, Alternative A, limited action is
certainly the least expensive alternative. However, because of
its limited scope of services compared with those provided by
other alternatives, Alternative A should not be compared directly
with other alternatives. Alternatives D and E are the most
costly alternatives. Between them, Alternative E is more expen-
sive because of the high cost to sewer the Lake Heritage area as
well as to upgrade the Gettysburg and Cumberland STP's. Alterna-
tives B and C are slightly less expensive than Alternatives D and
E.
User charges for all municipalities under each alternative are
shown in Table IV-2. There is little difference in user charges
for each alternative except for the Lake Heritage sewered alter-
native (revised Alternative E). User charges for the Lake
Heritage area under revised Alternative E is $548 per household
per year. Compared with the user charge under previous Alterna-
tive D ($1,241), revised Alternative E offers a substantial
reduction (over 50%) in user charge, mainly because of the 85%
Federal funding considered in the calculation of user charge for
revised Alternative E. As a result, the sewered alternative for
the Lake Heritage area becomes very competitive compared with the
on-site system alternatives.
Table VI-2. Estimated 1985 Annual User Charges by Municipality
(dollars per household, 4th quarter 1979)
Alternative
Gettysburg
Cumberland
Straban
Lake
Heritage
Mt.
Joy
A
123
253
245
406
126
B
124
274
300
461
126
C
124
274
430
461
126
D
124
312
479
488
126
E
118
267
436
548
126
155
-------
Alternative Through the EIS process, several alternatives for improved waste-
Selection Process water management have been developed and evaluated. Details
about the five most feasible of these, in EPA's view, are
presented for public consideration in the Draft EIS.
Both the costs and environmental impact information should be
carefully reviewed by area residents and other interested
parties to determine which of the alternatives, if any, is
preferable. Reviewers should especially study the support
information and methodology upon which the alternatives are
based. Opinions about this information and the alternatives
themselves should be formulated and comments provided to EPA.
Ample time will be available to study this matter and raise
questions. Following public distribution of the Draft EIS,
there will he a 45 day review and comment period during which
time a public hearing will be held as described in the Draft EIS
cover letter.
EPA will carefully evaluate any comments received and make any
necessary changes to the alternatives analysis based on these
comments. A response to substantive comments will be provided
in the Final EIS, which will be completed following the end of
the Draft EIS review period. Also in the Final EIS, EPA will
identify a recommended alternative for implementation, with
consideration given to public comments, local government
positions, and the cost and impact evaluations described in the
Draft EIS. EPA will also indicate whether other alternatives
may also be accceptable and can be considered for Federal
funding.
Following publication of the Final EIS, each local jurisdiction
or municipal authority must decide which course of action they
wish to pursue. If local decisions are consistent with the
results of the EIS, applications for Federal funding to design
and construct wastewater treatment facilities can then be
processed.
156
-------
REFERENCES
AND GLOSSARY
-------
REFERENCES
Adams County Planning Commission. 1968. Comprehensive County
Plan for Water and Sewage Systems, Adams County. In con-
junction with Clifton E. Rodgers and Associates, Harrisburg,
PA. 147p.
Adams County Planning Commission. 1970. Adams County Comprehen-
sive County Plan. In conjunction with Clifton E. Rodgers
and Associates, Harrisburg, PA. Three technical reports and
a summary report: Part 1, Background Information; Part 2,
Planning Proposals; part 3, Implementation Program; Summary
Report, variously paged.
Adams County Planning Commission. No date. Adams County Land
Subdivision Regulations. Gettysburg, PA. 32p.
Adams County Planning Commission. No date. Adams County Pro-
posed Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. Gettys-
burg, PA. 51p.
Adams County Planning Commission. No date. Housing Study: An
Analysis of the 1970 Census Data. Gettysburg, PA. 52p.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 1977. A Plan to Pre-
serve the Historic Resources of the Gettysburg Area of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC. 40p.
Air Quality Report. 1978. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Department of Environmental Resources - Bureau of Air
Quality and Noise Control. Harrisburg, PA.
Beranek, L. L. 1971. Noise and Vibration Control. McGraw-Hill,
Inc. 650pp.
Black, Terry. (oral communication). June 22, 1979. Conversa-
tion between Terry Black, Air Quality Engineer, PennDER,
York, Pennsylvania and David L. Bush, Air Quality Scientist,
WAPORA, Inc., NY, NY.
Borough of Gettysburg. 1977. The Gettysburg Borough Zoning
Ordinance (Ordinance 902-75, October 13, 1975, Article 1,
Section 100; Revised January 11, 1977). Gettysburg, PA.
252p.
Buchart-Horn, Inc. 1978. Cumberland Township Authority 201
Facilities Plan, Report on Program Requirements Memorandum
78-9, US Route 140 Area. York, PA. Variously paged.
Burchell, Robert W. and David Listokin. 1978. The Fiscal Impact
Handbook. Center for Urban Polisy Research, New Brunswick,
NJ. 48Op.
Clean Air Act Amendments. 1977. Public Law 95-95. 95th
Congress. August 7, 1977.
Climate of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. June, 1977. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Environmental
Data Service. National Climatic Center. Asheville, NC.
157
-------
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Title 25. 1971-1972. Rules and
Regulations. Part I. Department of Environmental Re-
sources. Subpart C. Protection of Natural Resources.
Article III - Air Resources. Chapter 131 - Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
Cumberland Township Board of Supervisors. 1973. The Cumberland
Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance
(No. 28), Cumberland Township, PA. 47p. (includes Proposed
Revisions of June 7, 1979)
EPA. 1974. Population Distribution of the United States As a
Function of Outdoor Noise Level. 5501a-74-009. Washington,
DC.
Federal Register. 1971-79. National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
Federal Register. September 12, 1978. States Attainment Status.
Gannet Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1976. Wastewater
Management Facilities Plan (201) 197b: Volumes 1 and 2.
Prepared for the Gettysburg Municipal Authority, Harrisburg,
PA. Vol.1, 125p; Vol. 2, 250p.
Gettysburg Area School District (GASD). 1973. A Long Range
Development Plan (revised). Gettysburg, PA.
Gettysburg Area School District. 1978. Table of Grade Enroll-
ments 1965-1966 Through 1977-1978, and Projected Enrollments
1977-1978 Through 1987-1988. Gettysburg, PA.
Gettysburg Area School District. 1979a. Budget Document 1979-
1980. Gettysburg, PA. 42p.
Gettysburg Area School District. 1979b. Long Term Development
Plan. Gettysburg, PA.
Gettysburg-Cumberland Demonstration Program: Technical Report
#2, Ecological Studies. (In Conjunction with Wallace,
McHarg, Roberts and Todd, and Gladstone Associates;
Philadelphia, PA) Harrrisburg, PA. 60p.
Gettysburg Municipal Authority. 1977. Water Supply system
Improvement Study. Harrisburg, PA. 80p.
Gettysburg Municipal Authority. 1978b. Report on Operation of
Water System for the Period October 1, 1977 to September 30,
1978. Gettysburg, PA. 17p.
Health Resources Planning and Development, Inc. 1979. Acute
Inpatient Care (Draft) Section of the Health System Plan.
Camp Hill, PA. 312-414pp.
Holzworth, George C. January, 1972. Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds
and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Con-
tiguous United States. EPA Publication AP-101. Research
Triangle Park, NC.
Hughey, Ronald E. 1973. Aquatic Biology Investigation of the
Gettysburg Sewage Treatment Plant on Rock Creek, Adams
County. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
Stream File 5.11.2, 7p.
158
-------
Hughey, Ronald E. 1978. Aquatic biological investigations of
Rock Creek, Adams County. Pennsylvania Department of Envi-
ronmental Resources, Stream File 5.11.2, 3p.
Lake Heritage Property Owner's Association, Inc. 1973. Revised
Bylaws, Code of Regulations. Gettysburg, PA. 8p.
Littlestown Area School District (LASD). 1978a. Proposed budget
1978-1979. Littlestown, PA. 17p.
Littlestown Area School District. 1978b. Long range development
plan. Section 8: School facilities (3p.), Section 4: Pupil
enrollment projections (2p.) Littlestown, PA.
Mount Joy Board of Supervisors. 1979. Mount Joy Township sub-
division and land development ordinance. Mount Joy, PA.
74p.
Mount Pleasant Township Board of Supervisors. 1972. The Mount
Pleasant Township subdivision and land development regula-
tion. Mount Pleasant, PA. 39p.
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Service.
1972. Pennsylvania Orchard and Vineyard Survey. Harris-
burg, PA. 38p.
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Crop Reporting Service.
1977. 1976 Crop and Livestock Annual Summary, CRS-67.
Harrisburg, PA.
Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, Bureau of Employment
Security. 1979. Labor Market Analyst, Annual Planning
Report: York Labor Market Area, Pennsylvania. York, PA.
52p.
Pennsylvania Department of Commerce, Bureau of Statistics. Re-
search and Planning. 1978. Pennsylvania County Industry
Report: Adams County. Harrisburg, PA. 27p.
Pennsylvania Department of Commerce. No Date. Adams County
Industrial Report (Release No. M-5-70). Harrisburg, PA.
25p.
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs (DCA). 1970 Through
1977. Local Government Financial Statistics: Adams County.
Harrisburg, PA. Variously paged.
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 1972a. Gettys-
burg-Cumberland Demonstration Program: Technical Report #1,
Economic Studies. (In Conjunction with Wallace, McHarg,
Roberts, and Todd, and Gladstone Associates; Philadelphia,
PA) Harrisburg, PA. 70p.
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 1972b. Gettys-
burg-Cumberland Demonstration Program (In Conjunction with
Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd, and Gladstone Asso-
ciates; Philadelphia, PA). Harrisburg, PA. 155p.
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 1975. A Study
of the Economic Impact of the Gettysburg National Military
Park and Tourism on the Gettysburg Area. Harrisburg, PA.
155p.
159
-------
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 1979a. Annual
Budget of the Township of Cumberland for the Year 1979.
Harrisburg, PA. 7p.
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 1979b. Draft
Gettysburg Borough Comprehensive Plan (unadopted). Harris-
burg, PA. (Unpaginated).
Pennsylvania Department Community Affairs. 1979c. Annual Budget
Report and Guide for Mount Pleasant Township for the Year
1979. Harrisburg, PA. 26p.
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 1979d. Annual
Budget for Adams County, PA for the Year 1979. Harrisburg,
PA. 57p.
Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 1979e. Cumberland
Township Comprehensive Plan. Harrisburg, PA. Variously
paged.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. 1971 Through 1979. Audi-
tor's Reports (DECO-502) and Annual Financial Reports
(DECO-500) for Gettysburg Area School District, and Littles-
town Area School District. Harrisburg, PA. Variously
paged.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. 1979a. A Listing of
Pennsylvania Non-public Schools Having Elementary Enroll-
ments 1978-1979. Harrisburg, PA. 172p.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. 1979b. A Listing of
Pennsylvania Non-public Schools Having Secondary Enrollments
1978-1979. Harrisburg, PA.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. 1979C. Perpetual School
Building Inventory Listing as of September 15, 1978.
[Public] School Buildings in Operation 1978-1979. Harris-
burg, PA. 287p.
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. 1970. Through
1979. York Labor Market Letter. Bureau of Employment
Security, York, PA. Variously paged.
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. 1976. Pennsyl-
vania Occupational Projections. Bureau of Employment
Security, Labor Market Information Section, Research and
Statistics Division. Harrisburg, PA. 586p.
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. 1979. Annual
Planning Report, Fiscal Year 1980. Bureau of Employment
Security, Labor Market Analyst for York, Pennsylvania.
Harrisburg, PA. 50p.
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. 1977. Pennsylvania
Traffic Data Annual Report: 1977 (and 1975 Traffic Volume
Map of Adams County). Bureau of Transportation Planning
Statistics. Harrisburg, PA. 40p.
Pennsylvania Office of State Planning and Development. 1974a.
Net Migration by Age, Sex, and Race in Selected Counties
1960-1970. Harrisburg, PA.
Pennsylvania Office of State Planning and Development. 1974b.
Patterns of Commutation in Pennsylvania by County. Harris-
burg, PA. 78p.
160
-------
Pennsylvania Office of State Planning and Development. 1978.
Pennsulvania Projection Series Summary Report (No. 78
PPS-1), State Economic and Social Research Data Center.
Harrisburg, PA. Unpaginated.
Regional Science Research Institute. 1976. Housing Requirements
and Needs in Pennsylvania: 1970-1990. (A Report to the
PA-DCA). Philadelphia, PA. 151p.
State Industrial Directories, Inc. 1972. Pennsylvania State
Industrial Directory. New York, NY. pp.G-13 Through
G-16.
Straban Township Board of Supervisors. 1964. Land Subdivision
Regulations. Straban, PA.
Straban Township Board of Supervisors. 1974. Buidlign Permit
Ordinance. Straban, PA.
Straban Township Board of Supervisors. 1978. Annual [Budget]
Report to the Treasurer. Straban, PA.
Straban Township Board of Supervisors. No Date. Development
Potential - 1981 (Map). Straban, PA.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (DOC). 1971.
1970 Census of Population, General Population Characteris-
tics: Pennsylvania (PC (1) - B40). US Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC. 287p.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1972. 1970
Census of Population, Detailed Characteristics: Pennsyl-
vania (PC(1) - D40). US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1973. 1970
Census of Population and Housing. York, PA, SMSA Census
Tracts. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1977. Projec-
tions of the Population of the United States, 1977 to 2050.
Series P-25, No. 704. US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC. 87p.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1978. Illus-
trative projections of State Populations: 1975 to 2000
(Advance Report). Series P-25, No. 735. US Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC. 4p.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1979a. Projec-
tions of the Number of Households and Families: 1979 to
1995. Series P-25, No. 805. US Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC. 22p.
US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1979b. 1976
Population Estimates and 1975 and Revised 1974 Per Capita
Income Estimates for Counties, Incorporated Places, and
Selected Minor Civil Divisions in Pennsylvania. Series
P-25, No. 777. US Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC. 42p.
US Department of Interior, National Park Service. 1979. Draft
General Management Plan (for) Gettysburg National Military
Park, Pennsylvania. 126p.
161
-------
US Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Undated.
Revised Draft General Management Plan for the Gettysburg
National Military Park, Pennsylvania. 141p.
US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Undated.
Draft general management plan and draft environmental
assessment for the Gettysburg National Cemetary.
Pennsylvania. 117p.
US Water Resources Council. 1972. OBERS Projections, Regional
Economic Activity in the United states. Series E.
Washington, DC.
Van Orden, Dean. (oral communication). June 22, 1979. Conver-
sation Between Dean Van Orden, Air Quality Engineer,
PennDER, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and David L. Bush, Air
Quality Scientist, WAPORA, Inc., NY, NY.
WAPORA, Inc. 1979. Chlorine Toxicity Survey Data. Report Sub-
mitted to USEPA Region II.
162
-------
GLOSSARY
ADSORPTION. Process by which one material is attached to
another, such as an organic on activated carbon. It is a
surface phenomenon.
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT. Wastewater treatment beyond the sec-
ondary or biological stage, whice includes removal of
nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen and a high per-
centage of suspended solids. Advanced waste treatment, also
known as tertiary treatment, is the "polishing stage" of
wastewater treatment and produces a high quality of
effluent.
AERATION. The process of being supplied or impregnated with air.
Aeration is used in wastewater treatment to foster bio-
logical purification.
AEROBIC. Refers to life or processes that occur only in the pre-
sence of free oxygen.
ALLUVIAL. Pertaining to material that has been carried by a
stream.
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGY. Alternative waste treatment processes
and techniques are proven methods to provide for the re-
claiming and reuse of water, productively recycle waste-
water consituents or otherwise eliminate the discharge of
pollutants, or recover energy. Alternative technologies may
not be variants of conventional biological or physical/
chemical treatment.
AMBIENT AIR. The unconfined portion of the atmosphere; the out-
side air.
ANEROBIC. Refers to life of processes that occur in the absence
of free oxygen.
AQUATIC PLANTS. Plants that grow in water, either floating on
the surface, or rotted emergent or submergent.
AQUIFER. Water-bearing geologic stratum.
AQUILUDE. (Natural barrier) a water-bearing formation of rela-
tively low permeability that will not yield usable quanti-
ties of water to wells.
BACK HOE. A piece of construction machinery used for scooping
large pits so that soil can be examined for wastewater dis-
posal suitability.
BACTERIA. Any of a large group of microscopic plants living in
soil, water or organic matter, important to man because of
their chemical effects as in nitrogen fixation, putrefaction
or fermentation, or as pathogens.
BAR SCREEN. In wastewater treatment, a screen that removes large
floating and suspended solids.
BASE FLOW. The rate of movement of water in a stream channel
which occurs typically during rainless periods when stream
flow is maintained largely or entirely by discharges of
groundwater.
163
-------
BEDROCK. The solid rock benath the soil and subsoil.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD). A measure of the amount of
oxygen consumed in the biological processes that decompose
organic matter in water. Large amounts of organic waste use
up large amounts of dissolved oxygen; thus, the greater the
degree of pollution, the greater the BOD.
BIOTA. The plants and animals of an area.
BOD . See "Biochemical Oxygen Demand." Standard measurement is
5 made for 5 days at 20°C.
CAPITAL COSTS. All costs associated with installation (as
opposed to operation) of a project.
CESSPOOL. A lined or partially lined underground pit into which
raw household wastewater is discharges and from which the
liquid seeps into the surrounding soil. Sometimes called
leaching cesspool.
CHLORINATION. The application of chlorine to drinking water,
sewage, or industrial waste for disinfection or oxidation
of undesirable compounds.
CLARIFIER. A settling tank.
CLUSTER SYSTEM. Any syste,, whether publicly or privately owned,
for the collection of sewage or industrial wastes of a
liquid nature from two or more lots, and the treatment and/
or disposal of the sewage or industrial waste on one or more
of the lots or at any other site.
COLIFORM BACTERIA. Members of a large group of bacteris that
flourish in the feces and/or intestines of warm-blooded
animals, including man. Fecal coliform bacteria, parti-
cularly Escherichia coli (E. coli), enter water mostly in
fecal matter, such as sewage or feedlot runoff. Coliform
bacteria apprently do not cause serious human diseases, but
these organisms are abundant in polluted waters and they are
fairly easy to detect. The abundance of colifrom bacteria
in water, therefore, indicates the probability of the occur-
rence of such disease-producing bodies (pathogens) as
Salmonella, Shigella, and enteric viruses. These pathogens
are relatively difficult to detect.
COLIFORM ORGANISM. Any of a number of organisms common to the
intestinal tract of man and animals whose presence in waste-
water is an indicator of pollution and of potentially dan-
gerous bacterial contamination.
COMBINED SEWER. Carries sanitary wastes as well as stormwater.
COMMINUTOR. Grinds up large solids as a preparation for further
wastewater treatment.
CONNECTION FEE. Fee charged by municipality to hook up house
connection to lateral sewer.
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND (cfs). A measure of the amount of water
passing a given point.
DECIBEL (db). Measure of sound intensity.
164
-------
DIATOM. A member of a group of microscopic, single-celled
plants found in both fresh and salt water. The limey
or siliceous cell walls (shells) of diatoms may accumulate
in enormous numbers in sediments.
DIGESTION. SEE Sludge Digestion.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO). The oxygen gas (02) dissolved in water or
sewage. Adequate oxygen is necessary for maintenance of
fish and other aquatic organisms. Low DO concentrations
sometimes are dut to the presence, in inadequately treated
wastewater, of high levels of organics compounds.
DRAINAGE BASIN. (1) An area from which surface runoff is carried
away by a single drainage system. Also called catchment
area, watershed, drainage area. (2) The largest natural
drainage area subdivision of a continent. The United States
has been divided at one time or another, for various
administrative purposed, into some 12 to 18 drainage basins.
DRYWELL. A device for small installations, comprising one or
more pits extending into porous strata and lined with open-
jointed stone, concrete block, precast concrete or similar
walls, capped, and provided with a means of access, such as
a manhold cover. It serves to introduce into the ground, by
seepage, the partly treated effluent of a water-carriage
wastewater disposal system.
EFFLUENT. Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely
treated, or in its natural state, flowing out of a reser-
vior, basin, treatment plant, or industrial plant, or part
thereof.
ELEVATED MOUND. A mound, generally constructed of sand, to which
settled wastewater is applied. Usually used in areas where
conventional on-site treatment is inadequate.
ENDANGERED SPECIES (FEDERAL CLASSIFICATION). Any species of
animal or plant declared to be in known danger of extinction
throughout all or a singificant part of its range. Pro-
tected under Public Law 93-205 as amended.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS). A document required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (PL 91-190, 1969) when a
Federal action would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. Used in the decision-making process to
evaluate the anticipated effects (impacts) of the proposed
action on the human, biological and physical environment.
EROSIN. The process by which an object is eroded, or worn away,
by the action of wind, water, glacial ice, or combinations
of these agents. Sometimes used to refer to results of
chemical actions or temperature changes. Erosion may be
accelerated by human activities.
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION. A process by which water is evaporated and/
or transpired front water, soil, and plant surfaces.
FECAL CLOIFORM BACTERIA. See Coliform Bacteria.
FORCE MAIN. Pipe designed to carry wastewater under pressure.
165
-------
GLACILA DEPOSIT. A landform of rock, soil, and earth material
deposited by a melting glacier. Such material was ori-
ginally picked up by the glacier and carried along its
path; it usually varies in texture from very fine rock
flour to large boulders. Named according to their location
and shape.
GRAVITY FLOW. Flow of wastewater through a sewer or wastewater
treatment plant in which gravity provides the motivating
force.
GRAVITY SYSTEM. A system of conduits (open or closed) in which
no liquid pumping is required.
GROUNDWATER. Water that is below the water table.
GROUNDWATER RUNOFF. Groundwater that is discharged into a stream
channel as spring or seepage water.
HABITAT. The specific place or the general kind of site in which
a plant or animal normally lives during all or part of its
life cycle. An area in which the requirements of a specific
plant or animal are met.
HOLDING TANK. Enclosed tank, usually of fiberglass or concrete,
for the storage of wastewater prior to removal or disposal
at another location.
HOLDING TANK. A watertight receptacle which receives and retains
sewage and is designed and constructed to facilitate ulti-
mate disposal of the sewage at another site. Holding tanks
include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Chemical toilet - A toilet using chemical that
discharge to a holding tank.
b. Retention tank - A holding tank to which sewage is
conveyed by a water carrying system.
c. Privy - A holding tank designed to receive sewage
water under pressure is not available.
IMHOFF TANK. Outmoded form of sewage treatment. Consists of a
tank in which both primary clarification and sludge disges-
tion are carried out.
INFILTRATION. The flow of a fluid into a substance through pores
or small openings. Commonly used in hydrology to denote
the flow of water into soil material.
INFILTRATION/INFLOW (I/I). Total quantity of water entering a
sewer system, infiltration means entry through such sources
as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or manhole
walls. Inflow signifies discharge into the sewer system
through service connections from such sources as area or
foundation drainage, springs and swamps, storm water, street
wash water, or sewers.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES. Technologies whose use has not been
widely documented by experience. They may not be variants
of conventional biological or physical/chemical treatment
but offer promise as methods for conservation of energy or
wastewater constituents, or contribut to the elimination of
discharge of pollutants.
166
-------
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS. Sewers used to collect the flows from main
and truck sewers and carry them to a central point for
treatment and discharge. In a comined sewer system, where
street runoff from rains is allowed to enter the system
along with the sewage, interceptor sewers allow some of the
sewage to flow untreated directly into the receiving stream
to prevent the treatment plant from being overloaded.
LAGOON. In wastewager treatment, a shallow pond, usually man-
made, in which sunlight, algal and bacterial action and
oxygen interact to restore the wastewater to a reasonable
state of purity.
LAND TREATMENT. A method of treatment in which soil, air, vege-
tation, bacteria, and/or fungi are employed to remove pol-
lutants from wastewater. In its simplest form, the method
includes three steps: (1) pretreatment to screen out large
solids; (2) secondary treatment and chlorination; and (3)
application to cropland, pasture, or natural vegetation to
allow plants and soil microorganisms to remove additional
pollutants. Some of the applied wastewater evaporates, and
the remainder may be allowed to percolate to the water
table, discharged through drain tiles, or reclaimed by
wells.
LIMITING ZONE. Any soil horizen in the soil profile or underly-
ing strata which shall include indication of seasonal water
table, including perched water table, determined by direc-
observation or by observation of soil mottling, or rock
formation and impervious strata which shall include rock
which is so slowly permeable that is prevents downward pas-
sage of effluent, rock with open joints or solution chan-
nels, and masses of shattered rock fragments with insuf-
ficient fine soil to fill the voids between the coarse
fragments.
LOAM. The textural class name for soil having a moderate amount
of sand, silt, and clay. Loam soils contain 7 to 27% of
clay, 28 to 50% of silt, and less than 52% of sand.
MACROPHYTE. A large (not microscopic) plant, usually in an
aquatic habitat.
MECHANICAL AERATION. Method of aerating the microorganisms in
the aeration tank by beating and splashing the surface.
MILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY (mgd). Commonly used to express rate
of flow.
MILLIGRAM PER LITER (mg/1). A concentration of 1/100 gram of a
substance in 1 liter of water. Because 1 liter of pure
water weights 1,000 grams, the concentration also can be
stated as 1 ppm (part per million, by weight). Used to
measure and report the concentrations of most substances
that commonly occur in natural and polluted waters.
NON-POINT SOURCE. A general source of pollution. Surface water
runoff is an example as it does not originate from a singel
source and is not easily controlled.
NUTRIENTS. Elements or compounde essential as raw materials for
the growth and development of organisms, especially carbon,
oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus.
167
-------
OUTCROP. Places where the underlying rock protudes through the
overlying soil and is exposed at the surface.
OVERBURDEN. The unconsolidated mantle of weathered rock and soil
material on the earth's surface; loose rock material over-
lying a mineral deposit near the earth's surface.
OXIDATION POND. Method of wastewater treatment allowing biode-
gradation take place in a shallow pond.
PARAMETER. Any of a set of physical properties whoc values
determine characteristics or behavior.
PERCOLATION. The downward movement of water through pore spaces
or larger voids in soil or rock.
PERMEABILITY. The property or capacity of porous rock, sediment,
or soil to transmit a fluid, usually water, or air, it is a
measrue of the relative ease of flow under unequal pres-
sures. Terms used to describe the permeability of soil are:
slow, less than 0.2 inch per hour; moderately slow, 0.2 to
0.63 inch; moderate, 0.63 to 2.0 inches; moderately rapid,
2.0 to 6.3 inches; and rapid, more than 6.3 inches per hour.
A very slow class and a very rapid class also may be
recognized.
PHOTOSYNTHESIS. The process by which sugar is manufactured in
plant cells, requiring carbon dioxide, water, light, and
chlorophyll.
POINT SOURCE. A stationary source of a large individual emis-
sion. This is a general definition; point source is legally
and precisely defined in Federal regulations.
POTABLE WATER. Safe and pleasing water.
PREHISTORIC. A term which describes the period of human devel-
opment that occurred before the advent of written records.
More generally, any period in geologic time before written
history.
PRESENT WORTH. The sume of money that must be set aside at the
beginning of the planning period in order to amortize the
costs of a project over the planning period.
PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM. A wastewater collection system in which
household wastes are collected in the building drain and
conveyed therein to the pretreatment and/or pressurization
facility. The system consists of two major elements the
on-site or pressurization facility, and the primary conduc-
tor pressurized sewer main.
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND. Land which has the best combination of
physical and chemical characteristics for producina hi oh
yields of fool, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed croDS
They are protected by existing local zoning ordinance or
preferential assessments. once or
PUMP STATION. A structure used for pumping wastewater to a
higher elevation.
RAPID INFILTRATION. A form of land treatment where wastewater
is placed into spreading basins and applied to th. u J.
percolate into the soil. ppnea to the land to
168
-------
RAPID INFILTRATION BASIN. Unlined wastewater lagoons designed to
that all or part of the wastewater percolates into the
underlying soil
RARE SPECIES. A species not Endangered or Threatened but uncom-
mon and deserving of further study and monitoring. Peri-
pheral species, not listed as threatened, may be included in
this category along with those species that were once
"threatened" or "endangered" but now have increasing or
protected, stable populations. Used as official classifica-
tion by some states.
RAW SEWAGE. Untreated domestic or commercial wastewater.
RAW SLUDGE. Slurry from the bottom of the primary clarifer.
RECHARGE. The process by which water is added to an aquifer.
Used also to indicate the water that is added. Natural re-
charge occurs when water from rainfall or a stream enters
the ground and percolates to the water table. Artificial
recharge by spreading water on absorptive ground over an
aquifer or by injecting water through wells is used to store
water and to protect groundwater against the intrusion of
sea water.
RUNOFF. Surface runoff is the water from rainfall, melted snow
or irrigation water that flows over the surface of the
land. Groundwater runoff, or seepage flow from groundwater,
is the water that enters the ground and reappears as surface
water. Hydraulic runoff is groundwater runoff plus the sur-
face runoff that flows to stream channels, and represents
that part of the precipitation on a drainage basin that is
discharged from the basin as streamflow. Runoff can pick up
pollutants from the air or the land and carry them to the
receiving waters.
SANITARY LANDFILL. Solid waste disposal in the ground using
approved techniques.
SANITARY SEWERS. Sewers that transport only domestic or com-
mercial sewage, storm water runoff is carried in a
separate system. See sewer.
SECONDARY TREATMENT. The second stage in the treatment of
wastewater in which bacteria are utilized to decompose the
organic matter in sewage. This step is accomplished by us-
ing such processes as a trickling filter or activated
sludge. Effective secondary treatment processes remove
virtually all floating solids and settleable solids as
well as 90% of BOD ans suspended solids. Disinfection of
the effluent by chlorination customarily is the last step
in this process.
SEDIMENTATION. Transportation of soil particles through stream
channels caused by both environmental and human activities.
SEPTIC TANK. An underground tank used for the collection of
domestic wastes. Bacteria in the wastes decompose the
organic matter, and the sludge settles to the bottom. The
effluent flows through drains into the ground. Sludge is
pumped out at regular intervals.
SEPTIC TANK EFFLUENT PUMP (STEP). Pump designed to transfer
settled wastewater from a septic tank to a sewer.
169
-------
SEPTIC TANK SOIL ABSORPTION SYSTEM (ST/SAS). A system of waste-
water disposal in which large solids are retained in a tank;
fine solids and liquids are dispersed into the surrounding
soil by a system of pipes.
SEWER, LATERAL. A sewer designed and installed to collect
sewage from a limited number of individual properties and
conduct is to a trunk sewer. Also known s a street sewer or
collecting sewer.
SEWAGE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (SEO). The official of the local
agency who issues and reviews permit applications and con-
ducts such investigations and inspections as are necessary
to implement that act and the rules and regulations there-
under .
SEWWR AUTHORITY. A municipal authority providing sewerage ser-
vices. Sewer, combined. See combined sewer.
SEWER, STORM. A conduit that collects and transports storm-
water runoff. I many sewerage system, storm sewers are
separate from those carrying sanitary or industrial waste-
water .
SEWER, TRUNK. A sewer designed and installed to collect sewage
from a number of lateral sewers and conduct it to an inter-
ceptor sewer or, in some cases, to a sewage treatment plant.
SLOPE. The incline of the surface of the land. It is usaully
expressed as a percent (%) of slope that equals the number
of feet of fall per 100 feet in horizonal distance.
170
-------
------- |