United States Renion 3
Environmental Protection Six\h and Walnut Streets
Agency Philadelphia, Pa. 19106 September 1981
SEPA Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
Wastewater Management Facilities
Chalfont—New Britain Area,
Pennsylvania
-------
O
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 111
6th AND WALNUT STREETS
PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19106
j m\
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS, AND CITIZENS:
Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in relation to a
request submitted by the Chalfont-New Britain Township Joint Sewage
Authority for Federal funding to plan for wastewater management facilities
for the Chalfont-New Britain and Doylestown areas of Bucks County,
Pennsylvania.
This Draft EIS is issued pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, the Clean Water Act of 1977, and regulations promulgated by the
Agency (40 CFR Part 6, November 6, 1979 and 40 CFK Part 35, September 27,
1978). Comments or questions concerning this Draft EIS should be submitted
to the attention of Ms. Evelyn Schulz at the above address by November 30, 1981.
The purpose of the EIS is to inform you of the potential impacts of this
project and to discuss alternative solutions which were developed through
the EIS process. A number of significant environmental issues along with
public controversy within the planning area prompted EPA to initiate an
Environmental Impact Statement for this project. This issue-oriented Draft
EIS concentrates on the following topics: Regional and local alternatives
to upgrade the quality of wastewater treatment plant effluents in the area;
malfunctioning onrlot wastewater disposal systems; and the primary and
secondary impacts of providing wastewater conveyance facilities.
I want to thank everyone who has participated in this process, especially
members of the Public Participation Advisory Group (PPAG) , who have
monitored the EIS progress and helped determine its direction by meeting
periodically and raising important questions and answers. Their involvement
is reflective of a desire on the part of local citizens and other interest
groups to become part of the decisionmaking process.
A public hearing to solicit testimony concerning the Draft EIS will be held
on November 19, 1981 at the Lenape Junior High School beginning at
7:30 p.m. Individuals and representatives of organizations wishing to
testify at the public hearing are requested to furnish a copy of their
proposed testimony (if possible) along with their name, address, telephone
number and the organization represented, if any, to the EIS Preparation
Section no later than the close of business on November 17, 1981 .
Witnesses should limit their oral presentation to a five-minute summary of
their written testimony. Everyone wishing to testify will be given an
opportunity to do so at the hearing.
I welcome your interest and participation in the EIS process.
U.S. EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
¦jm Arch Street 0IPM52)
Philadelphia, PA 1910-1
Regional Administrator
-------
TD
1^5
,P4
OM
1W
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
on
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
CHALFONT-NEW BRITAIN AREA, PENNSYLVANIA
Prepared By:
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Evelyn B. Schulz, Project Monitor
Prepared with the assistance of:
WAPORA, Inc.
BERWYN, PENNSYLVANIA
Valdis Jurka, Project Manager
Type of Action:
Legislative ( )
Administrative ( X )
-------
Executive Summary
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires each
Federal government agency to prepare an Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) on every major Federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the 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. The EIS
process identifies all possible environmental and economic impacts
and recommends a plan which minimizes adverse impacts and provides
mitigative measures for those which are unavoidable. Federal
funding through EPA's Construction Grants Program is one of the
Federal actions subject to the requirements of NEPA.
In 1978 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) evaluated the
Chalfont-New Britain Township Joint Sewage Authority's (CNBTJSA)
grant application for preparing a wastewater management Facilities
Plan (Step I of a three-step process) and determined that an EIS
was necessary. The PA Department of Environmental Resources
(PA-DER) delineated the planning area to include the Boroughs of
Chalfont, Doylestown, and New Britain; Doylestown and New Britain
Townships; and portions of Plumstead and Warrington Townships.
Issues which this Draft EIS focuses upon include: the background
and history of wastewater management planning; potential changes in
the rate, density, and type of development; water quality concerns;
wastewater treatment needs; and the systematic development and
evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives.
The Facilities
Plan/EIS
Public
Participation/
Coordination
Environmental
Setting
This Draft EIS contains an analysis of wastewater management alter-
natives proposed in CNBTJSA's Draft Facilities Plan. Gilbert Asso-
ciates, Inc., the engineering consultants to CNBTJSA, evaluated the
alternatives in terms of engineering feasibility and cost-effec-
tiveness. EPA has examined the alternatives from an environmental
standpoint. The Facilities Plan and EIS have been prepared through
a coordinated, concurrent approach which is sometimes called
"piggybacking". At the conclusion of the EIS process, EPA will
decide upon which alternatives are cost-effective, environmentally
sound, implementable, and therefore eligible for Federal funding in
the Step II (design) and Step III (construction) phases of the pro-
ject. Through the Construction Grants Program, EPA may provide
75-85% of the cost of planning, design, and construction of
publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities.
Participation by the general public and involved government
agencies has been continuously encouraged throughout the EIS pro-
cess. Methods used tp involve the. public have included newslet?r
ters, pamphlets, public information meetings, and media contacts*
In addition, BIS progress has, been monitored and influenced by a
local Public Participation,Advisory Group which consists of indivi-
dual citizens, representatives of public interest groups, organiza-
tions with economic interest, and public officials.
Population. The estimated, 1980 population of the planning area was
37,580. The area'8 population is expected to increase by 37% to
50,080 by the year 2000. Approximately 25,238 persons presently
reside within areas served by. publicsewers. Approximately 36,675
persons are projected to ires idewi thin the Facilities Plan proposed
sewer service area by the year 2000.
i
-------
Wastewater
Treatment Needs
Wastewater
Treatment
Alternatives
STP Alternatives
and Their impacts
Soils. Much of the area's soils are unsuitable for conventional
on-lot systems. This factor, coupled with a ban on connection to
public sewers, has constrained development in the planning area and
contributed to a high percentage of malfunctioning septic systems.
Surface Water Quality. Waste discharges have depressed water
quality throughout the Neshaminy Basin. As a result, PA-DER estab-
lished water quality standards for the Upper and Lower Neshaminy
Basins in order to protect stocked trout and warmwater fishes. In
1967 wastewater treatment plants in the Basin were ordered to up-
grade the level of treatment they provide to meet these standards.
Wastewater Treatment Plants. All facilities in the planning area
must be upgraded from their present secondary treatment capability
to advanced or tertiary treatment which removes residual biological
oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorus.
The Doylestown Borough plants at Green Street and Harvey Avenue
have a combined capacity of 1.3 million gallons per day (mgd) which
should be adequate through the year 2000. The Chalfont-New Britain
plant is subject to hydraulic overloading at its present capacity
of 2.0 mgd; it is expected that the year 2000 population within its
service area will require a capacity of 3.8 mgd.
On-Lot Systems. Failing on-lot wastewater disposal systems can
cause health hazards and groundwater contamination. An integral
part of the Facilities Plan/EIS process is the assessment of the
need to alleviate on-lot failures. To accomplish this, EPA's Envi-
ronmental Photointerpretation Center (EPIC) took aerial photographs
of the entire area with infrared film in July 1980. When the
photos were analyzed, about 1,100 on-lot systems (principally sep-
tic tank-soil absorption systems) in the area showed signs of
failure or having failed in the past. The EPIC process is intended
to be used as a planning tool, i.e. to identify areas of concen-
trated failures rather than individual problems. Keeping this in
mind, the Facilities Planners outlined five areas where problems
were widespread: Timber Lane, Pebble Ridge - Pebble Hill, Sugar
Bottom, Edison Furlong, and Sandy Pine. Failures were concentrated
in these areas as well as scattered throughout the planning area.
CNBTJSA's Facilities Plan contains nine feasible alternatives for
upgrade and expansion of the planning area sewage treatment plants
(STP). These alternatives incorporate various combinations of the
three existing STPs and/or new regional facilities. Methods to
handle areas with malfunctioning septic systems that are presently
outside of the sewer service area include providing sewers (conven-
tional and innovative types) and establishing a program to rehabil-
itate and maintain the area's on-lot systems.
The following sections contain summaries of the alternatives, their
impacts and their costs as developed during the Facilities
Planning/EIS processes. A No Action alternative is included for
comparison purposes. Before going on to the detailed descriptions,
please consider the relative rankings of the alternatives. The
length of new sewers which would have to be constructed ranges from
0 to 63,000 feet. Project costs range from $10.08 million to
?35.66 million. Both economic costs and adverse environmental
impacts increase with the amount of new construction. All of the
alternatives, excluding No Action, will have a beneficial impact on
the water quality of Neshaminy Creek.
ii
-------
No Action
Alternative
alternative 1
alternative 2
Composite Environmental Ranking
Most Environmentally Sound
I
Least Environmentally Sound
Capital/Construction Costs Ranking
Least Costly
Most Costly
1,2
3B
3 A, 6
4A,4B
5A,5B
1
6
2
3A
3B
4B
4A
5B
5A
The Chalfont, Harvey Avenue, and Green Street plants would continue
to provide only secondary treatment. None of the plants would be
expanded.
New Construction: None required.
Impacts:
• The three plants would be in direct violation o£ an order by PA-
DER to upgrade the level of treatment they currently provide.
This would have a severe adverse impact on the quality of
Neshaminy Creek. The Chalfont plant would remain in a state of
hydraulic overloading and would still be subject to a connection
ban.
Project Costs: $0
The Chalfont, Harvey Avenue, and Green Street plantp would continue
to operate at their present locations. All three plants would be
upgraded to provide tertiary treatment. The Chalfont plant would
be expanded to 3.8 mgd.
New Construction: No new interceptors required.
Impacts:
• Short term disturbance during treatment plant modifications.
Capital/Construction costs: $10.08 million
Operation/Maintenance costs: $860,000
The Chalfont plant vould be expanded to 3.8 mgd and upgraded as
required. Both the Green Street' and Harvey Avenue plants would
continue to provide secondary treatment. Green Street secondary
effluent would be conveyed to a regional Borough of Doylestown
facility at the Harvey Avenue plant for tertiary treatment.
New Construction: A pump station, force main and gravity sewer
would be required to convey the Green Street effluent to Harvey
Avenue.
ill
-------
Impacts:
• Dust, noise, and other disturbance due to construction and
excavation through Doylestown Borough streets
• Possible disruption of known or previously unidentified
historic/archaeological sites
Capital/Construction costs: $11.50 million
Operation/Maintenance costs: $790,000
Alternative 3A All tertiary treatment would be performed at the Chalfont plant
location. The Harvey Avenue and Green Street plants would continue
to provide secondary treatment for flow from the Borough of Doyles-
town. The Chalfont plant would be expanded to 3.8 mgd.
New Construction; A pump station, force main, and gravity sewer
(same as Alternative 2) would convey the Green Street flow to the
Cooks Run interceptor adjacent to the Harvey Avenue plant. Addi-
tional gravity sewer would be constructed parallel to the existing
gravity interceptor to convey Doylestown Borough flows to the
Chalfont plant.
Impacts:
• Dust, noise, and possible disturbance to historic sites during
sewer construction through Doylestown Borough
• Construction-related disturbances in the Cooks Run floodplain
• Possible long-term loss of forested areas, wildlife habitat, and
small wetland areas
• Five stream crossings which would have short-term adverse
effects on water quality and aquatic biota
• Possible disturbances of known historic and archaeological sites
located near the Cooks Run interceptor
• Slight potential for increased development due to sewer availa-
bility
Project construction costs: $15.32 million
Annual operation and maintenance costs: $700,000
Alternative 3B All treatment, tertiary and secondary, would be carried out at the
Chalfont plant (5.1 mgd). The Harvey Avenue and Green Street
plants would be abandoned.
Hew Construction: A pump station, force main and gravity sewer
would be required to convey the Green Street flow to the Cooks Run
interceptor as in Alternative 2. Gravity sewer would be placed
parallel to the Cooks Run interceptor along the portion of its
length from the New Britain Borough border to the Chalfont plant
site.
Impacts:
• Similar to those of Alternative 3A
• The need to construct a parallel sewer along only a portion of
the Cooks Run interceptor (as opposed to its entire length in
Alternative 3A) would somewhat reduce the amount of disturbance
to wetlands, forested areas, and wildlife habitats
iv
-------
• Short-term adverse effects on water quality and aquatic biota
due to four stream crossings
• Slight potential for induced growth due to sewer availability
Capital/Construction costs: $16.98 million
Operation/Maintenance costs: $770,000
lternative 4A All treatment, tertiary and secondary, would be carried out at a
new regional plant (5.1 mgd) in the vicinity of Neshaminy Manor
Center. The Chalfont, Harvey Avenue, and Green Street plants would
be abandoned.
New Construction: The Harvey Avenue flow would be conveyed to the
Chalfont Plant site through the existing Cooks Run interceptor.
A new gravity interceptor would carry the combined Chalfont and
Harvey Avenue flows to a point of connection with an interceptor
from the Green Street Plant. The combined flows from the three
plants would then flow by gravity interceptor to the new regional
plant.
Impacts:
• New construction in the Neshaminy Creek and Country Club Run
floodplains
• Significant loss of forest and disturbance of wildlife habitat
and wetlands
• Possible disturbance to at least twelve historic sites on the
Bucks County Register or Bucks County Inventory
• Short-term adverse effects on water quality and aquatic biota
due to at least ten stream crossings
• High potential for induced development due to sewer service
Capital/Construction costs: 29.42 million
Operation/Maintenance costs: $740,000
lternative 4B All tertiary treatment would be carried out at a new regional plant
in the vicinity of Neshaminy Manor Center. The three existing
plants would continue to provide secondary treatment. The Chalfont
plant would be expanded to 3.8 mgd.
New Construction: New interceptors to convey the Chalfont flow to
Neshaminy Manor Center would be the same as Alternative 4A.
Because of the limited capacity of the Cooks Run Interceptor, a
pump station, force main and gravity interceptor would convey the
Harvey Avenue flow to the Green Street plant. A new gravity inter-
ceptor would convey the Doylestown flows to a point of connection
with the Chalfont secondary effluent. A new, gravity interceptor
along Neshaminy Creek would convey the secondary effluents from all
three sites to the new regional tertiary treatment plant.
Impacts:
e Similar to 4A
e Significant loss of forest and disturbance Of wildlife habitat
and wetlands
e Possible disturbance to at least 12 historic sites on the Bucks
County Register or BucK* County Inventory
v
-------
• Short-term adverse effects on water quality and aquatic biota
due to at least nine stream crossings
• High potential for induced development due to sewer service
m Additional dust, noise and possible disturbance to historic
sites during sewer construction through Doylestown Borough
Capital/Construction costs: 26.14 million
Operation/Maintenance costs: $760,000
Alternative 5B All tertiary treatment would be carried out at a new regional plant
(5.1 mgd) below Dark Hollow Dam in Buckingham Township. The Chal-
font, Harvey Avenue, and Green Street plants would continue to
provide secondary treatment. The Chalfont plant would be expanded
to 3.8 mgd. Extending the discharge point below the dam eliminates
phosphorus removal as a treatment requirement.
Hew Construction: A new gravity interceptor would carry the Chal-
font secondary effluent to a point of connection with a gravity
interceptor from the Green Street plant site. Because of the
limited capacity of the Cooks Hun interceptor, a pump station,
force main, and gravity interceptor would convey the Harvey Avenue
effluent to the Green Street Plant site. Doylestown secondary
effluents would then flow by gravity interceptor to a point of
connection with the Chalfont secondary effluent. The combined
effluents would then flow by gravity interceptor to the Dark Hollow
dam site.
Impacts:
• Similar to 5A
• Significant construction in the Neshaminy Creek and Country Club
Run floodplains
• Significant loss of forest and disturbance to wildlife habitat
and wetlands
• Possible disturbance to at least 12 historic sites on the Bucks
County Register or Bucks County Inventory
• Short-term adverse effects on water quality and aquatic biota
due to at least 18 stream crossings
• Additional noise, dust and possible disturbance to historic
sites during sewer construction through Doylestown Borough
• High potential for induced development due to sewer service
Alternative 6 The Green Street plant would be maintained at its present location
and upgraded. The Harvey Avenue plant would continue to provide
secondary treatment with its secondary effluent being conveyed to
the Chalfont plant for tertiary treatment. Tertiary treatment
facilities at the Chalfont plant would have a capacity of 4.3 mgd.
New Construction: A new gravity interceptor would be placed
parallel to the Cooks Run interceptor to transport Harvey Avenue's
secondary effluent to the Chalfont plant.
Impacts:
• Loss of forest cover and disturbances to wildlife habitat
vi
-------
• New construction in the Neshaminy Creek and Cooks Run flood-
plains
• Possible disruption of several known historic/archaeological
sites
• Short-term degradation of water quality and aquatic biota due to
four stream crossings.
Capital/Construction costs: $11.32 million
Operation/Maintenance costs: $740,000
On-Lot System The feasibility and cost of providing sewers (gravity, vacuum, and
Alternatives pressure types), alternative on-lot systems (septic tank/sand mound
and cluster types), and on-lot system management were compared for
the five areas with high concentrations of malfunctioning systems.
On-lot system management proved to be the most cost-effective
option and had an additional advantage due to its feasibility for
all on-lot systems in the planning area. Under the management
program, no sewer service would be provided to the five areas with
excessive malfunctioning septic systems.
The Facilities Plan outlines a program in which the Bucks County
Water and Sewer Authority, Doylestown Township Municipal Authority,
and CNBTJSA can be the jurisdictional agencies. During the
detailed design (Step II) of the selected alternatives, all on-site
systems would be inspected and all residents would have the option
of joining the program. EPA would provide up to 85% of the cost of
repairing or replacing septic systems of all program members whose
systems were in place by December 27, 1977. Residents who did not
join the program would rehabilitate their systems at their own
expense.
As the program continues, each system would be inspected every
three years. The management agencies would perform necessary
repairs and pumpouts for program members with costs being covered
by annual user fees. Non-members would be issued orders to repair
their systems as necessary at their own expense. Any resident who
did not join the program at its outset would have to obtain certi-
fication that his system was functioning properly before being
allowed to join the established program. As a new member, the
homeowner could be assured that future problems with his system
would be corrected by the management agency.
User Charges Individual user charges are those costs levied on homeowners to
cover the local shares of capital costs and total operation and
maintenance costs. They depend partly on the amount of Federal
funding available for capital or construction costs. The Federal
share is based on: (1) the number of features which are cost-
eligible under Construction Grant Program regulations, (2) the
percentage of Federal funding applied to these features, and (3)
the availability of EPA funds from the Pennsylvania allocation.
EPA may provide up to 85% of the cost of innovative and alternative
wastewater treatment and up to 15% of the cost of conventional
methods. The exact amount will be based on the final design of the
project and also on the future budgets of EPA's Construction Grants
Program and PA-DER's allocation for wastewater treatment projects.
In addition to funding considerations, the exact charges for the
wastewater treatment plant alternatives will be influenced by the
effluent standards to be set by PA-DER and EPA's decision on
funding of advanced treatment for the Chalfont-New Britain area;
these decisions will be made prior to EPA's issuance of a Final
EIS. Effluent standards are the allowable concentrations of pollu-
tants in wastewater treatment plant discharges. User charges in
vii
-------
preliminary
Recommendat ions
Alternatives
Selection Process
the Facilities Plan were based on the existing effluent standards.
If these standards are relaxed slightly based on PA-DER's Stream
Analysis, the annual costs presented below may also decrease. User
charges also were developed in the Facilities Plan based on 0% and
75% Federal funding for Alternative 1 and 0% and 85% Federal
funding for on-lot system management. For Alternative 1, annual
user costs range from $191 to $313 with a 75% Federal grant and
from $286 to $408 with no Federal grant. Annual charges for on-lot
wastewater disposal system management were estimated at $169 with a
Federal grant and $684 with no Federal grant.
The Facilities Plan and the Draft EIS endorse Alternative 1 as the
most cost-effective and environmentally sound means of meeting the
need to upgrade and expand the area's wastewater treatment plants.
The Facilities Plan recommends on-lot wastewater disposal system
management for the portion of the planning area which will not be
served by sewers. EPA endorses the concept of on-lot system
management by providing an incentive through 85% Federal funding.
The success of such a program, however, is contingent upon the
commitment by the jurisdictional agencies who would run the program
and by residents who would participate. As part of the EIS
process, EPA seeks the comments and opinions of government agencies
and citizens on the Draft EIS. EPA will review all comments and
publish a final recommendation on on-lot system management in the
Final EIS.
The wastewater management plans described in CNBTJSA's draft
Facilities Plan and in EPA's draft EIS are based on two
components:
• Wastewater treatment plant configurations which address the need
to upgrade the quality of effluent discharged to Neshaminy
Creek; and
• On-lot wastewater disposal system repair or replacement where
malfunctioning systems have been identified.
Through the concurrent Facilities Planning and EIS processes
alternatives for improved wastewater management have been developed
and evaluated. Details about alternatives which the Facilities
Plan proposes as feasible from an engineering standpoint are
presented for public consideration in the Draft EIS.
Both the costs and environmental impact information should be
reviewed carefully by area residents and other interested parties
to determine which of the alternatives, if any, is preferable
Ample time will be made available to study the material contain**
in the Draft EIS and raise questions. Following public distribn
tion of the Draft EIS, there will be a 45 day review and
period during which time a public hearing will be held as descJib^
in the front of this document. described
The Draft EIS will be distributed to government agencies, citizens
and other interested groups on the mailing list which
Chapter III. Opinions about material contained in the DrJffpJS
should be formulated and comments provided to EPA epa win ^
fully evaluate any comments received and make any necessart nh^n!:
to the alternatives analysis based on these conLnt. \ changes
to substantive comments will be provided in the Pinal
.ill^be coveted following thZ e„a of SI' £[%
viii
-------
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 (Step II) and
construction (Step III) wastewater treatment facilities can then be
processed.
IX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Executive Summary i
Table of Contents xi
List of Tables xii
List of Figures xii
CHAPTER I. The Project's Background 1
EIS Issues 1
History of Wastewater Management Planning 2
Alternatives Selection Process 4
CHAPTER II. Environmental Inventory 7
General Setting 7
Water Supply and Quality 14
Flooding 18
Soil Suitability or On-Site Sewage Disposal 18
Prime Agricultural Lands 21
Population 21
Land Use 21
Historic Sites 33
CHAPTER III. Public Participation and Coordination 39
CHAPTER IV. Description and Development of Alternatives 49
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities 49
Projected Service Area Population 52
Projected Wastewater Flow 53
Doylestown Borough Wastewater Treatment Capacities 53
Chalfont Wastewater Treatment Capacities 53
Preliminary Screening 53
Treatment Plant Alternatives 55
Land Treatment 65
Infiltration/Inflow 68
On-Site Wastewater Disposal 69
EPIC Septic System Analysis 70
On-Site and Collection Alternatives 71
Concentrated Problem Areas 73
Septage Management 73
CHAPTER V. Evaluation of Alternatives 75
Wastewater Treatment Plant Sites 75
Wastewater Conveyance Facilities 78
Costs of Alternative Wastewater Management Plans 88
On-Site Wastewater Management Program 91
CHAPTER VI. Preliminary Recommendations 93
Recommended Plan 93
Chalfont-New Britain Treatment Plant 93
Green Street Treatment Plant 93
Harvey Avenue Treatment Plant 94
User Charges for Public Sewevage 94
On-Site Wastewater Management Program 94
CHAPTER VII. Adverse Environmental Impacts and Mitigating 99
Measures of the Recommended Plan
CHAPTER VIII. Option Areas 103
King's Plaza STP 103
Interim Treatment Plant 103
Buckingham Township 104
References 107
List of Preparers 111
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
Watersheds
9
2
Groundwater Budget
12
3
Water Quality Standards
16
4
Population Growth
23
5
Population Projections
24
6
Land Use
25
7
Housing Unit Projections
29
8
Development Plans
32
9
Historic Sites
35
10
Effluent Limitations
51
11
Existing and Projected Service Area Population
52
12
Future Wastewater Flows
54
13
Soil Suitability for Land Application
66
14
Infiltration/Inflow Quantities
69
15
Treatment Actions by Alternative
76
16
Wastewater Treatment Site Characteristics
77
17
Conveyance Facility Routes by Alternative
79
18
Environmental Assessment of Conveyance Routes
83
19
Prime Agricultural Land Impacts
85
20
Forest Impacts
86
21
Present Worth Estimates
89
22
User Costs for Those with Public Sewerage
95
23
User Charges for the On-Lot System Wastewater
97
Management Program
24
Description of Curative Amendments
105
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Planning Area 8
2 Watersheds 10
3 Floodplains 19
4 Soil Suitability Map 20
5 Prime Agricultural Lands 22
6 Land Use Map 26
7 Future Land Use 28
8 Development Plans 31
9 Cultural Resources 34
10 Municipal Wastewater Facilities
11 Alternative 1
12 Alternative 2
13 Alternative 3A
14 Alternative 3B
15 Alternative 4A
16 Alternative 4B
17 Alternative 5A
18 Alternative 5B
19 Alternative 6
20
21 Routings
50
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
EPIC Survey of Malfunctioning Septic Tank Systems 72
80
xii
-------
Chapter I
1
The Project's Background
-------
CHAPTER I. THE PROJECT'S BACKGROUND
Statutory Authority The proposed action involves federal financial assistance under the
statutory authority of Title II, Section 201(g)(1) of the Clean
Water Act. This authority enables the US Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Administrator to make grants to any State, munici-
pality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the planning,
design, and construction of publicly-owned water pollution control
facilities. EPA regulations for administering the program appear
in 40 CFR 35, Subpart E, Grants for Construction of Treatment
Works.
Under the Construction Grants Program, EPA may provide up to 75% of
the cost of conventional wastewater treatment systems (sewage
treatment plants and gravity sewers, for example) and up to 85% of
the cost of innovative/alternative systems (land application, sep-
tic system rehabilitation, and pressure sewers, for example).
Grants are awarded from State allocations according to a Federally-
approved State priority system based on the severity of pollution
problems, the need to preserve water quality, and other factors.
In Pennsylvania, the lead State agency is the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources (PA-DER).
These grants are generally awarded in three phases: Step I
(Planning), Step II (Detailed Design), and Step III (Construction).
Applications for each Step in the grant process must be reviewed
and approved by PA-DER and EPA. In September 1979, EPA offered the
Chalfont-New Britain Township Joint Sewage Authority (CNBTJSA) a
Step I (Planning) grant of $88,450 or 75% of the cost to prepare a
wastewater Facilities Plan for the Boroughs of Chalfont, New
Britain, and Doylestown; and for Doylestown, New Britain, Plum-
stead, and Warrington Townships. The remaining 25% will be funded
by the State, CNBTJSA, and the Bucks County Water and Sewer Author-
ity. When CNBTJSA has successfully completed its Facilities plan
and the Plan's recommendations have been approved by EPA and
PA-DER, application(s) for a Step II grant can be made.
NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that
Federal agencies evaluate the potential environmental impacts of
any Federally-funded or permitted project. When the potential for
adverse impacts on natural, human, and/or economic environment is
significant, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared.
The intent of the EIS process is to identify all possible impacts
and to recommend a plan which minimizes adverse impacts and pro-
vides mitigative measures for those which are unavoidable. In 1978
EPA evaluated CNBTJSA's Step I Grant application and determined
that an EIS was necessary.
EIS Issues The decision by EPA to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
was made because of significant social and environmental concerns.
These issues, upon which the EIS will £o£us, are enumerated below:
(1) Background and history of wastewater management planning;
(2) Changes in land use with respect to rate, density, and type?
(3) Air and water quality effects (both primary and secondary
effects);
(4) Wastewater treatment needs; and
(5) Evaluation' of wastewater service alternatives based on a
logical, systematic investigation.
-------
Coordination Between This Draft EIS contains an analysis and evaluation of wastewater
Els and Facility management alternatives proposed in the Facilities Plan prepared by
Planning CNBTJSA, with the aid of Gilbert Associates, Inc. At the con-
clusion of the EIS process, EPA will decide upon which alternatives
will be eligible for funding in the Step II (Design) and Step III
(Construction) phases of the project. The Facility Plan and Draft
EIS have been prepared through a coordinated, concurrent approach
which is sometimes called "piggybacking". By coordinating the two
processes, major issues can be identified and resolved. The intent
of this approach is to provide a wastewater management plan which
is cost-effective, environmentally sound, and eligible for Federal
funding.
History of Wastewater management planning has been a continuing activity for
Wastewater the various communities of central Bucks County. It has also been
Management a complex and difficult process as described in the chronology
Planning below:
1960 The Bucks County Master Sewerage Plan recommended that one
wastewater treatment facility be constructed to serve the
north-central Neshaminy Creek drainage area. This area,
designated as Sewerage Region SR-2, encompassed about 60
square miles including Chalfont, Doylestown and New Britain
population centers.
1966 The Chalfont Borough-New Britain Joint Sewer Authority was
formed. A 700,000 gpd (gallons per day) wastewater treatment
facility was constructed at the approved regional site
identified in the Bucks County Master Sewerage Plan.
Under provisions of the Pennsylvania Sewage Facilities Act
(Act 537, 1966), the Bucks County Master Sewerage Plan was
accepted as the "Official Plan" to direct the planning and
provision of sewerage facilities in the County.
1967 The first major water quality evaluation of the Neshaminy
Creek Basin was conducted in 1967 by the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Health. The 1967 report evaluated waste discharges
into Neshaminy Creek and their effect on water quality. The
report concluded that water quality was depressed throughout
the basin and identified the West Branch of the Neshaminy,
Cooks Run, and Country Club Creek as areas where the problem
was especially acute. This study further defined "B" and "C"
water quality standards, respectively for the upper and lower
Neshaminy Basin.
The Sanitary Water Board of the Pennsylvania Department of
Health ordered upgrading of the Chalfont-New Britain waste-
water treatment facility.
1969 Roy F. Weston, Inc. (1969) concluded that a single regional
advanced wastewater treatment plant be constructed near the
Chalfont-New Britain site. This regional facility was
recommended to serve both the Hatfield (SR-I) as well as the
Chalfont-New Britain Area (SR-II).
1970 The Chalfont-New Britain plant capacity was doubled to 1.4
mgd (million gallons per day) in an expansion where the Bucks
County Water and Sewer Authority owned one-half of the treat-
ment capacity in the newly expanded facility.
The 1960 Bucks County Master Sewerage Plan was updated
(Albright and Friel, Inc. 1970). This Master Plan considered
-------
the 1969 Roy F. Weston report as an integral part of the
update that details the Neshaminy Basin sewerage plans.
A feasibility study (Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1970) was
prepared for the Chalfont-New Britain plant. Recommendations
were made to expand and upgrade the Chalfont-New Britain
wastewater treatment facilities with phase-out of the two
Doylestown Borough facilities. Because of the issuance of
permit to construct an expanded and upgraded facility by the
Hatfield Township Municipal Authority, joint treatment of
wastes from both the Chalfont-New Britain and Hatfield areas
was eliminated from consideration.
1972 A report was prepared (Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. 1972)
for the PA-DER. This study concluded that the most economi-
cal program for wastewater treatment would be achieved by
building a regional facility near the junction of Neshaminy
and Mill Creeks, in Wrightstown serving both the Chalfont-New
Britain, Hatfield and other tributary areas. However, the
study also pointed out that the retention of the Chalfont-New
Britain facility may be preferable in order to maintain flow
in the middle reaches of Neshaminy Creek during dry weather.
The Camp, Dresser and McKee report concluded that within the
Chalfont-New Britain and Hatfield areas the most economical
waste treatment approach would centralize treatment at the
Chalfont-New Britain site with future phase-out of the
Hatfield Township facilities and possible phase-out of the
Lansdale facilities to the Chalfont-New Britain plant.
A second study (Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1972) prepared for
the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority and Chalfont-New
Britain Joint Sewer Authority recommended a physical-chemical
treatment process and an expansion of the Chalfont-New
Britain plant to a 7.0 mgd capacity.
The PA-DER issued an order prohibiting any additional
connections to the Chalfont-New Britain plant because of
overloaded conditions. This order subsequently was modified
during the year to allow acceptance and treatment of up to
2.0 mgd of influent wastewater.
1973 The PA-DER issued a permit for construction of the 7.0 mgd
Chalfont-New Britain facility and placed the construction
grant application for this facility on the State Priority
List.
The Sub-Region II Wastewater Management Commission was
established. The Commission was composed of representatives
of Bucks County, Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority,
Chalfont-New Britain Joint Sewer Authority, and of the ten
municipalities that are located entirely or partially within
Sub-Region II.
1974 The Chalfont-New Britain Joint Sewer Authority was notified
by PA-DER that the funds for the expansion and upgrading of
wastewater treatment facilities at the Chalfont-New Britain
site would be available.
1975 An environmental assessment of the proposed project (Gilbert
Associates 1975) was prepared.
3
-------
EPA determined that the proposed plant expansion to 7.0 mgd
was not cost-effective (expansion to 5.0 mgd was indicated as
a more reasonable capacity) and therefore the Federal govern-
ment could not participate in funding of the expansion.
Consequently, PA-DER withdrew the Chalfont-New Britain
construction permit for the 7.0 mgd facility. Subsequently,
PA-DER issued an order to the two Sewer Authorities (Bucks
and Chalfont-New Britain) and the Sub-Region II municipali-
ties requiring the upgrading of treatment at the Chalfont-New
Britain plant with construction to begin by the first day of
197 6 and completion within 18 months.
1976 The Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority and the Chalfont-
New Britain Joint Sewer Authority in coordination with the
Sub-Region II Wastewater Commission decided to commence Step
I Facilities Planning.
1977 The various members of the Sub-Region II achieved a consensus
on the limits of the planning area. PA-DER formally
delineated the facilities planning area.
1978 An engineering consultant (Gilbert Associates) was selected
to prepare the 201 Facilities Plan.
EPA publishes Notice of Intent to file an EIS. EPA began
preparation of a joint EIS for the Chalfont-New Britain
planning area and the adjacent Buckingham Tonwhsip 201
Study.
1979 EPA offered a Step I (Planning) grant of $88,450 or 75% of
the cost to prepare a Facilities Plan for the Chalfont-New
Britain area. The grant was accepted by the Chalfont-New
Britain Township Joint Sewage Authority (CNBTJSA) as the lead
agency.
The joint EIS process was segregated into separate EIS's for
the Chalfont-New Britain area and Buckingham Township due to
significant differences in the Facilities Planning.
Alternatives The wastewater management plans described in CNBTJSA's draft
Selection Process Facilities Plan and in EPA's draft EIS are based on two
components:
• Wastewater treatment plant configurations which address the need
to upgrade the quality of effluent discharged to Neshaminy
Creek; and
• On-lot wastewater disposal system repair or replacement where
malfunctioning systems have been identified.
Through the concurrent Facilities Planning and EIS processes,
alternatives for improved wastewater management have been developed
and evaluated. Details about alternatives which the Facilities
Plan proposes as feasible from an engineering standpoint are
presented for public consideration in the Draft EIS.
Both the costs and environmental impact information should be
reviewed carefully by area residents and other interested parties
to determine which of the alternatives, if any, is preferable.
Ample time will be made available to study the material contained
in the Draft EIS and raise questions. Following public distribu-
tion of the Draft EIS, there will be a 45 day review and comment
period during which time a public hearinq will be held as described
in the front of this document.
4
-------
The Draft EIS will be distributed to government agencies, citizens,
and other interested groups on the mailing list which appeared in
Chapter III. Opinions about material contained in the Draft EIS
should be formulated and comments provided to EPA. 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 (Step II) and
construction (Step III) wastewater treatment facilities can then be
processed.
5
-------
Chapter II
Environmental Inventory
-------
CHAPTER II. ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY
Introduction The existing environment and the projected future environment are
described in this chapter. These environmental conditions were
subsequently used in the development (Chapter IV) and evaluation
(Chapter V) of alternative wastewater management plans.
As part of the concurrent Facilities Plan/EIS, EPA prepared a
detailed inventory of the existing environmental, social, and
economic conditions in the planning area (WAPORA 1978). The inven-
tory was forwarded to CNBTJSA to aid in the development of alterna-
tive wastewater management plans.
The purpose of the Draft EIS is to familiarize and orient the
reader with those environmental concerns and issues that will be
significantly affected by wastewater management in the Chalfont-New
Britain area. This has been done to make the Draft EIS concise and
issue oriented.
General Setting The Chalfont-New Britain planning area is located in southeastern
Pennsylvania and encompasses 90 square miles. The planning area
includes all of Chalfont, Doylestown, and New Britain Boroughs; all
of Doylestown and New Britain Townships; and portions of Plumstead
and Warrington Townships (Figure 1). These central Bucks County
municipalities are located approximately 22 miles north of Phila-
delphia and 20 miles west of Trenton, New Jersey.
The Chalfont-New Britain planning area lies almost exclusively in
the headwaters of Neshaminy Creek. A small portion of the planning
area, consisting of 3 square miles, drains to Tohickon Creek. Both
Neshaminy and Tohickon Creeks drain into the Delaware River.
The population of the Chalfont-New Britain planning area, has
increased from approximately 12,000 people in 1950 to approximately
39,000 people by the year 1980. Marked changes in land use have
accompanied the threefold increase in population. It is the
changing patterns of population and land use that have brought
about the need to plan wastewater treatment facilities.
Air Quality Air quality in the planning area is generally good. The major
pollutant of concern in the area is ozone (a photochemical
oxidant). This problem is regional in nature as all of Pennsyl-
vania has been classified as not in compliance with the photo-
chemical oxidant standard. Air quality control programs have been
developed to attain compliance.
Climate The Chalfont-New Britain planning area has a modified, humid,
continental climate. The average annual precipitation of the
planning area is approximately 43 inches. This precipitation is
distributed fairly evenly throughout the months of the year. The
lowest monthly average occurs during February (2.6 inches) and the
highest monthly average occurs during July and August (4.2
inches).
The average annual temperature of the planning area is approxi-
mately 51 *F based upon data from Quaker town. Summers are warm and
humid with mean maximum and minimum temperatures for July of 87°F
and 65*F, respectively. Winters are moderately cold with mean
January maximum and minimum temperatures 39*F and 22*F, respec-
tively. The average data of the last spring frost is May 8th and
the average date of the first fall frost is October 4th.
7
-------
-------
Physiography The Chalfont-New Britain planning area is located within the
Triassic Lowlands section of the Piedmont physiographic province of
eastern Pennsylvania. The Lowlands are characterized by low,
northeast-southwest trending ridges which are underlain by bedrock
composed of sedimentary sandstone, sedimentary conglomerate and
igneous diabase. Broad valleys typically occur in areas underlain
by easily eroded sandstones and shale.
Geology The bedrock of the planning area includes igneous, sedimentary, and
metamorphic rock types. The metamorphic Cocalico Phyllite is
Ordivician in age (430-500 million years old) and is the oldest
formation within the Chalfont-New Britain planning area. The
Stockton and Lockatong Formations, which underlie the majority of
the planning area, and the Brunswick Formations are three sedimen-
tary formations within the Newark Group of Triassic Formations
(190-225 million years old). These geologic units have different
physical and chemical characteristics that can affect the siting of
a facility, construction techniques used, and other activities.
Topography Elevations range from a high of 640 feet above mean sea level
(A.M.S.L.) near Naces Corner in the northwestern part of the
planning area to a low of 180 feet A.M.S.L. near Neshaminy Creek in
the southeastern corner of the planning area. Areas having slopes
greater than 15% are found in the planning area. These steep
slopes generally occur on the down dip (i.e., dip of the rock
strata) side of stream valleys.
Watersheds Watersheds in the planning area and their respective coverage areas
are listed in Table 1. Neshaminy Creek, whose watershed comprises
most of the planning area, flows from west to east across the
southern end of the planning area into the Delaware River near
Bristol. Tributaries of the Neshaminy which are located within the
planning area include the North Branch, Pine Run, West Branch, Mill
Creek and Cooks Run (see Figure 2). The northern corner of the
planning area is located in the Tohickon Creek watershed. Tohickon
Creek flows northeast into the Delaware River.
Table 1. Coverage areas within the boundaries of the Chalfont-
New Britain planning area of major watersheds and sub-watersheds.
Coverage
Stream (Acres)
Tohickon Creek (total) 2,100
Tohickon Creek Mainstem 1,532
Geddes Run 568
Neshaminy Creek (total) 34,014
North Branch of Neshaminy Creek 11,006
West Branch of Neshaminy Creek 3,758
Pine Run 4,828
Mill Creek 3,109
Cooks Run 1,995
Neshaminy and Mainstem 9,318
TOTAL 36,114
Streamflows There are no continuous USGS gaging stations within the planning
area. However, the USGS does maintain a gaging station on
Neshaminy Creek near Langhorne, downstream of the planning area.
9
-------
— MAJOR WATERSHED BOUNDARY
-- MINOR WATERSHED BOUNDARY
-------
Published data (Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters 1966)
for the Langhorne station list the average discharge as 278 cfs
(cubic feet per second) for a 28 year period of record, and the
minimum and maximum discharges reported respectively as 1.9 cfs and
49,300 cfs. The minimum annual seven consecutive day flow with a
ten year recurrence interval (MA7CD10) for Langhorne is 9.2 cfs.
The MA7CD10 drought flow is frequently used for water quality
planning purposes. One of the hydrographic modifications that
would occur upon implementation of the Neshaminy Water Supply
System are the minimum flow releases of 8.2 cfs from March 1 to
June 15 and 4.2 cfs during the remainder of the year (NWRA 1979).
This modification would occur at the point of the proposed North
Branch Water Treatment Plant in Chalfont Borough and would then
affect the downstream flow on the main stem of Neshaminy Creek.
Groundwater Supply Because the public water supply in the planning area is derived
totally from wells, the availability and potential depletion of the
groundwater resource has become a prominent issue.
Future population growth and associated development will increase
the demand placed upon water supplies. At the same time the cover-
age by impervious surfaces—roads, parking lots, etc.—serves to
decrease the area available for recharge to the groundwater system.
Therefore, a groundwater budget was prepared for each municipality
in the planning area in order to assess current and projected
demands (see Table 2). This budget is based upon total population,
population density, water demand, and impervious area. Lost
infiltration, recharge reduction, net recharge, total safe yield,
and the total excess or deficit in the groundwater resource are
estimated. As a result, the groundwater budget presented in this
EIS is a simplified analysis that serves as an indicator of the
adequacy of groundwater resources to meet future water supply needs
in years of average precipitation.
Because of much lower population densities in the townships than in
the boroughs, the townships appear to have adequate groundwater
resources to satisfy expected demand. The net recharge in excess
of safe yield for Doylestown and New Britain Townships for 2020 are
calculated at 3.9 million gallons per day (mgd) and 3.8 mgd
respectively, whereas demand is estimated to be 1.2 mgd for Doyles-
town Township and 1.2 mgd for New Britain Township. The difference
between the net recharge in excess of safe yield and the demand is
2.7 mgd and 2.6 mgd for the respective townships. The sections of
Plumstead and Warrington Townships in the planning area are not
expected to experience any serious groundwater deficits since
estimates for the year 2020 indicate demand to be 0.38 mgd (0.027
mgd/sq mi) and 0.27 mgd (0.048 mgd/sq mi), with net recharge in
excess of safe yields of 4.0 mgd and. 1.5 mgd for the respective
townships.
Unlike the townships, t£e boroughs are densely populated and all
are projected to have deficits before the year 2020. Doylestown
Borough is expedted to experience a groundwater deficit by 2020 of
0.35 mgd. New Britain Borough also will be unable to meet its 2020
demand, and will face a deficit of 0.009 mgd. Chalfont Borough is
expected to have a net groundwater excess^of 0.04 mgd by year 2000,
but a deficit of 0.03 mgj} by year 2020.
Water Supply Plans The adequacy of water supplies to meet future needs has been under
considerable study by the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority
(Ntf&A). The WRAS [X979) hag evaluated and analyzed previous
studies (Justin and Courtney 1972, • pennoni Associates, Inc. 1977,
Albright and Priel 1962, Betz Environmental Engineers 1977) and has
n
-------
Table 2. Estimated groundwater budgets in the planning
determined for normal precipitation.
Chalfont Doylestown
FACTOR Borough Borough
Extent of planning area (sq mi) 1.60 2.31
Estimated population
1978 2,947 9,211
2000 4,100 9,940
2020 4,820 10,420
Density (persons/sq mi)
1978 1,840 3,990
2000 2,560 4,300
2020 3,010 4,510
Impervious cover (%)«
1978 17.3 26.0
2000 20.6 27.0
2020 22.5 27.6
Lost infiltraton (inches)
1978 2.1 3.1
2000 2.5 3.2
2020 2.7 3.3
Recharge reduction (000 gpd/sq mi)b
1978 99 148
2000 118 154
2020 128 158
Net recharge (000 gpd/sq mi)
1978 472 423
2000 453 417
2020 443 413
Net recharge in excess of safe yieldc
(000 gpd/sq mi)
1978 222 173
2000 203 167
2020 193 163
Demand (000 gpd/sq mi)d
1978 129 279
2000 179 301
2020 211 316
area for the years 1978, 2000, and 2020. Budget is
Doylestown New Britain New Britain Plumstead Warrington
Township Borough Township Township Township
15.63 1.17 15.27 14.13 5.66
8,360 2,765 6,514 3,550 2,223
12,700 3,550 12,000 4,710 3,080
16,760 4,250 16,700 5,510 3,920
530 2,360 430 250 390
810 3,030 790 330 540
1,070 3,632 1,090 390 690
8.7 19.8 7.6 5.6 7.2
11.0 22.5 10.8 6.6 8.8
12.9 24.7 12.0 7.2 10.1
1.0 2.4 0.9 0.7 0.9
1.3 2.7 1.3 0.8 1.1
1.5 3.0 1.6 0.9 1.2
50 113 43 32 41
63 129 62 38 50
74 141 74 41 58
521 458 528 539 530
508 442 509 533 521
497 430 497 530 513
271 208 278 289 280
258 192 259 283 271
247 180 247 280 263
37.4 165 29.9 17.6 27.5
56.9 212 55.0 23.3 38.1
75.1 254 76.6 27.3 48.5
-------
Table 2. Estimated groundwater Duagets vconcxuueu;.
FACTOR
Excess (deficit) (000 gpd/sq mi)
1978
2000
2020
Chalfont Doylestown Doylestown New Britain New Britain Plumstead Warrington
Borough Borough Township Borough Township Township Township
99.2
23.7
(18.1)
(106)
(134)
(153)
234
201
172
43.6
(20.1)
(74.6)
248
204
170
272
260
252
252
233
215
Excess (deficit) mgd
1978
2000
2020
0.15
0.04
(0.03)
(0.25)
(0.31)
(0.35)
3.06
3.14
2.69
0.05
(0.02)
(0.09)
3.78
3.12
2.60
3.84
3.68
3.57
1 .43
1.32
1 .22
«The percent of impervious cover is estimated by an exponential equation which varies as a function of
population density (Stankowski 1974).
^Assumes 30.48 cm (12 inches) recharge on undeveloped land. This is equivalent to 571,000 pgd/sq mi.
Figure given is reduction in recharge due to impervious surfaces subtracted from gross recharge of
571,006 gpd/sq mi.
°Safe yield equals net recharge of 250,000 gpd/sq mi, which is minimum necessary to maintain streamflow
(0.39 cfs/sq mi of watershed).
^Assumes a 70 pgcd consumption rate.
-------
Neshaminy Water
Supply System
found that the water systems can supply sufficient amounts of water
to satisfy present and immediate future water needs during years of
average precipitation. However, water shortages during drought
years will become increasingly severe in the future. On the basis
of their groundwater resource evaluations using water budgets and
streamflow hydrographs, the NWRA presented firm groundwater yields
(i.e., groundwater available at drought year 1966 water year
conditions) that are significantly less than the groundwater budget
presented above which was based on average precipitation. Thus,
the deficiencies of the groundwater system in meeting water demands
are significantly greater. The NWRA (1979) concludes that a water
system to supplement available groundwater supplies would be
necessary to avoid adverse economic and environmental conditions.
The recommended action is construction of pumping facilities,
transmission mains and a water treatment plant which would divert
water from the Delaware River into the planning area. The PA-DER
(1977) supports this recommendation, recognizing that although
continued groundwater development is a viable shortrange (1990)
alternative, a regional surface water supply is needed to protect
against drought conditions. Furthermore, PA-DER (1977) indicates
that the best apparent solution is a Bucks County regional water
system that utilizes the Point Pleasant diversion. Bucks County
and the Philadelphia Electric Company have recently entered into
agreement (Daily Intelligencer 14 February 1980) for such a
project.
The Neshaminy Water Supply System has been proposed by the NWRA to
meet the water supply needs of Central Bucks and Montgomery
Counties and to provide cooling water to the Philadelphia Electric
Company's Limerick Nuclear Power Plant. The proposed system
consists of the following major components:
(1) North Branch Water Treatment Plant will be constructed with an
initial capacity of 20 mgd (million gallons per day) with a provi-
sion for an expanded capacity to 40 mgd. The North Branch Water
Treatment Plant is to be located on 29 acres in Chalfont Borough at
the confluence of Pine Run and North Branch Neshaminy Creek. Water
to be treated will come from natural flows from Pine Run and North
Branch Neshaminy Creek and from water withdrawn from the Delaware
River at Point Pleasant.
(2) Four water transmission mains will radiate from the proposed
water treatment plant. These water mains range from 18 to 36
inches in diameter and from 13,850 to 30,300 feet in length. The
Chalfont-New Britain wastewater facility planning area" lies
entirely within the areas to be served by the four proposed water
transmission mains.
Groundwater Quality
(3) The Point Pleasant pumping facilities and associated trans-
mission mains are proposed to withdraw and deliver water from the
Delaware River.
The Neshaminy Water Supply System has different service areas which
would cover the majority of the Chalfont-New Britain planning area.
The existing and^proposed water conveyance systems will in combina-
tion provide public water supplies to all of the planning area
except a portion of Plumstead Township. y
Contamination of the groundwater resource also affects the quantity
of high quality water available for water supply purwses ft
number of wells in the planning area have been tested foJ' both
trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) aftf? ttSse
chemicals were found in wells in Montgomery County! m?he
planning area, only one well, in Chalfont Borough, has been ta£en
14
-------
off-line since early September 1979 due to PCE contamination. The
Chalfont Water Company and the Bucks County Health Department
stated (personal communications, Ms. Warren, Mr. Noll, 4 March
1980) that there have been no problems in supplying water with one
less well in operation but, in the event of a serious drought, it
may be necessary to put this well back on-line (dependent upon the
PCE level at that time). Also, if further contamination results, a
burden will be placed on the fresh groundwater supply and a re-
evaluation of estimated safe yields and the availability of the
water supply alternate situation will be necessary.
Surface Water The first major water quality evaluation of the Neshaminy Creek
Quality Basin was conducted in 1967 by the Pennsylvania Department of
Health. The 1967 report evaluated waste discharges into Neshaminy
Creek and their effect on water quality. The report concluded that
water quality was depressed throughout the Basin and identified the
West Branch of the Neshaminy, Cooks Run, and Country Club Creek as
areas where the problem was especially severe.
Ten years later the COWAMP/208 Water Quality Plan (DVRPC 1977)
reached essentially the same conclusion. As a result of the 1967
study the upper portion of the Neshaminy Basin, including the
streams in the planning area, was designated as "B" quality water.
The Upper Neshaminy Basin extends from the headwaters downstream
from the proposed PA-614 dam on the mainstem of Neshaminy Creek.
The "B" quality criteria have since been altered by Chapter 93 of
the rules and regulations of the PA-DER. Current water quality
criteria for the Upper Neshaminy Basin are presented in Table 3.
The protected uses in the Upper Neshaminy Basin are the maintenance
of stocked trout from February 15 to July 21 and maintenance and
propagation of fish species and additional flora and fauna which
are indigenous to a warm water habitat. Downstream of the dam site
to its confluence with the Delaware River, Neshaminy Creek is
subject to "C" quality criteria. Neshaming "C" are less stringent
than "B" criteria and the protected water use is warmwater fishes.
The quality of wastewater that sewage treatment plants in the Basin
can discharge to the Neshaminy Creek is defined by PA-DER. PA-DER
is currently analyzing results of' a stream survey conducted above
and below the treatment plants in the Chalfont-New Britain area.
Based on the results, PA-DER will determine whether to revise the
effluent limitations (maximum allowable concentrations of specific
pollutants in wastewater) for the Chalfont-New Britain and Doyles-
town Borough sewage treatment plants.
Non Point Sources In addition to the significant point source pollution problems in
the planning area, there are pollutant loads imposed on the streams
from a number o£ diffuse sources. The DVRPC (1977) indicated that
the most serious non-point source problems are erosion and sedimen-
tation. The high erodibility pf soils coupled with agriculture,
urban and suburban runoff; construction; and roadside drainage were
identified as the probable causes, of accelerated erosion (DVRPC
1977). DVRPC (1977) also indicated that malfunctioning on-lot
sewage disposal systems are considered a major problem in the
Basin.
Aquatic Biota Studies conducted in the planning, area, have shown that the macroin-
vertebrate fauna of West Branch, Cooks Run, Country Club Creek, and
Neshaminy Creek are affected by moderate to severe water pollution
(Strekal 1976a,b; BCPC 1977; Broadfoot etal. 1969 and 1970). The
Bucks County Planning Commission 11911) reported that the reduction
in species diversity was most severe below the various wastewater
treatment plants in the planning area. Cooks Run appears to be the
15
-------
Table 3. Specific water quality criteria for Upper Neshaminy Basin, source to PA-614 Dam
on the mainstem of Neshaminy Creek (PA Bulletin 1979).
PARAMETER
Aluminum
Alkalinity
Arsenic
Bacteria
Chromium
Color
Copper
Cyanide
Dissolved Oxygen
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Nitrite plus Nitrate
PH
CRITERIA
Not to exceed 0.1 of the 96-hour LC50 for representative important
species as determined through substantial available literature
data or bioassay tests tailored to the ambient quality of the
receiving waters.
Equal to or greater than 20 mg/1 as CaCC>3, except where natural
conditions are less. Where discharges are to waters with 20 mg/1
or less alkalinity, the discharge should not further reduce the
alkalinity of the receiving waters.
Not to exceed 0.05 mg/1.
During the swimming season (May 1 through September 30), the fecal
coliform level shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 per 100
milliliters (ml) based on five consecutive samples each sample
collected on different days; for the remainder of the year, the
nr?-!eve ,S?f L not exceed a geometric mean of 2,000
per 100 milliliters (ml) based on five consecutive samples
collected on different days.
Not to exceed 0.05 mg/1 as hexavalent chromium.
S?o^rn^o^^Hh1UnitS^n £he Plat*-num~cobalt scale; no other
colors perceptible to the human eye.
Not to exceed 0.1 of the 96-hour LC50 for representative important
species as determined through substantial available literature
ceceiving^watec's.tests to «« ™bie„t quali^1f th.
Not to exceed 0.005 m/l as free cyanide (HCN + CN-|.
& —xo£
year, minimum daily average o£ 5.o\)i no va?ue Sss^hanl.O
Not to exceed 2.0 mg/1.
dissolved°iron^ m9/1 38 t0tal ir°n; not to exceed 0.3 mg/1 as
for representative1im^taJt°species1asrdet°1 ?f Jhe 96"hour hC5°
substantial available literature data Sr m® through
to the ambient quality of the receiving waJe?"^ t68tS tail°te
Not to exceed 1.0 mg/1.
Not to exceed 0.01 of the 96-hour irsn *
important species as determined throfinv> wrepresentative
literature data or bioassay tests ta??or.S* antial available .
of the receiving waters. tailored to the ambient qualifcJ
Not to exceed 10 mg/1 as nitrogen.
Not less than 6.0 and not more than 9.0.
16
-------
Table 3. Specific water quality criteria for Upper Neshaminy Basin (concluded).
Phenolics Not to exceed 0.005 mg/1.
Phosphorus Not more than 0.03 mg/1.
(Total Soluble as P)
Temperature For the period 2/15 to 7/31, no^rise when ambient temperature is
74*F, or above; not more than 5*F rise above ambient temperature
until stream temperature reaches 74*F, not to be changed by more
than 2*F during any one-hour period; for the remainder of the
year, no rise when ambient temperature is 87*F or above; not more
than 5*F rise above ambient temperature until stream temperature
reaches 87*F, not to be changed by more than 2*F during any
one-hour period.
Total Dissolved Solids Not more than 500 mg/1 as a monthly average value; not more than
750 mg/1 at any time.
Turbidity For the period 5/15 - 9/15 of any year, not more than 40 NTU; for
ther period 9/16 - 5/14 of any year, not more than 100 NTU.
zinc Not to exceed 0.01 o£ the 96-hour LC50 for representative
important species as determined through substantial available
literature data or bioassay tests tailored to the ambient quality
of the receiving waters.
17
-------
Flooding
Flood Control
Structures
Soil Suitability for
On-Site Sewage
Disposal
most severely affected (Strekal 1976b). During a 1978 site visit
by WAPORA, Inc. personnel to Cooks Run, no fish or macroinverte-
brate fauna were observed immediately above or below the outfall.
Only limited work has been conducted on fish populations in the
planning area. Electroshocking surveys conducted from 1968-70
indicated that in the streams of the planning area with no signifi-
cant discharges 10-20 species of fish could usually be collected
(Broadfoot et al 1969, 1970, 1971). They reported high (18-19
species) diversity below the Chalfont-New Britain plant, low to
medium (7-8 species) diversity below the Doylestown-Green Street
plant and an almost complete absence (0-1 species) of fish below
the Doylestown-Harvey Avenue plant. Personnel from the Bucks
County Planning Commission believe that chlorine toxicity is the
most likely explanation for the observed reduction in diversity
below the treatment plants.
The Chalfont-New Britain planning area is prone to flooding during
all months of the year. The worst floods occur as a result of
spring rains combined with snowmelt or summer rains during tropical
storms. Large magnitude floods . occurred during 1933, 1955, and
1971. The most severe flood occurred in August 1955 as a result of
Hurricane Diane. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
has designated the 1955 flood episode as one of 100 year probable
recurrence. The floodplains are mapped in Figure 3.
Three dams have been constructed in the planning area for flood
control purposes — PA 617 (North Branch Neshaminy Creek), PA 616
(Pine Run), and PA 615 (unnamed tributary, Neshaminy Creek, New
Britain Township). These dams have drainage areas of 10,112,
6,010, and 2,170 acres, respectively. PA 617 forms a reservoir
named Lake Galena which may also be utilized for water supply
purposes and recreation. In addition, another dam, PA 614, is pro-
posed for construction on the Neshaminy Creek downstream of the
planning area. At this time, PA 614 is planned for design with a
permanent pool. The requirement that nitrogen and phosphorus be
removed from wastewater discharged in the planning area is based
upon the need to prevent eutrophication in the stream above this
dam. Construction of the dam may begin as early as 1983
(conversation with Robert Flowers, NWRA, on July 13, 1981).
The PA—DER has classified all soil series that occur in Pennsyl-
vania into 15 groups, based on their suitability for subsurface
disposal of wastewater effluent (Chapter 73 of Title 25, PA Rules
and Regulations). Soil series may be judged to be unsuitable for
subsurface disposal systems due to flooding, seasonal high water
table, shallow soils, or other pollution hazards. The PA-DER regu-
lations further define these groups by general categories. Within
the planning area, Category A soils generally are suitable for sub-
surface disposal of wastes. Areas that contain Groups 1, 7, or 9
soils within Category A require site-specific testing to ensure
suitability for subsurface disposal. Generally, however, these
soils do not have seasonal high water tables, severe flooding
hazards, extreme shallowness, or limestone bedrock. Categories B,
C, ana E soils may be unsuitable for wastewater disposal, and
intensive on-site investigation is required to ascertain adequacy.
Categories D and F are unsuitable for subsurface disposal systems.
Most of the planning area is unsuitable for on-site systems. Of
the remaining portions of the planning area, more areas are adapta-
ble to elevated sand mounds than are suitable for conventional
septic tank-soil absorption systems (Figure 4). Almost all of the
land which is suitable for on-lot systems in the planning area has
been developed. Most of the remaining vacant areas are unsuitable
18
-------
FIGURE 3
FLOODPLAINS
| 1 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE
uiitiMii LEVEES
DAMS
-------
i
^•:s>v
iSSSSSSX
11111111
'
¦¦.'.¦&>¦ ^
ti~$,
V ./O;" •'*•";• j*C
^ x \
Hil
f^$$3¥S8
Sssss^S
< . v':-N
s^ssswn
llllll
||||||s
FIGURE 4
SOIL SUITABILITY
\ |
" <
GENERALLY SUITABLE FOR ON-SITE SYSTEM
ADAPTABLE
ELEVATED SAND MOUNDS ARE
SAND MOUNDS
SEPTIC TANKS AND ELEVATED
ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE
UNCLASSIFIED
-------
•rime Agricultural
Lands
'Population Growth
Population
Projections
xisting Land Use
for on-lot systems, putting a limitation on present and future
development in the area.
Several categories of agricultural land have been recognized by the
EPA as worthy of protection from conversion to non-farmland uses.
Within the planning area these categories include Prime Farmland
and Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance. Prime Farmland is
undeveloped land that offers the best combination of physical and
chemical characteristics for the production of food, feed, forage,
fiber, and oilseed crops. Additional Farmland of Statewide
Importance is farmland other than that which has been designated as
Prime Farmland but which also is felt to be an important producer
of crops on a statewide level. The loss of important agricultural
lands is detrimental to the quality of the environment. In addi-
tion to producing valuable crops, farmlands reduce runoff by
absorbing precipitation, aid in replenishing groundwater supplies,
and buffer environmentally sensitive areas from encroaching
development.
Bucks County is rich in productive farmland. Significant agricul-
tural lands cover 56% of the planning area; 17% is Prime Farmland,
and 39% is Farmland of Statewide Importance (see Figure 5).
The Chalfont-New Britain planning area municipalities have experi-
enced significant population growth since 1950. Between 1950 and
19&0, all municipalities more than tripled in population, except
for Doylestown Borough and Plumstead Township which had smaller
increases. The Townships of Doylestown, New Britain, and Warring-
ton experienced the greatest increases, although for Warrington,
most of that growth occurred outside the study area.
Table 4 presents population growth for the planning area municipal-
ities, Bucks County, and the Philadelphia Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area (SMSA).
Population projections for the planning area were discussed at a
public meeting of the Sub Region II Wastewater Management Commis-
sion on 8 March 1979. Representatives of PA-DER, Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission, the Bucks County Planning Commission,
and the general public were in attendance. A subsequent meeting
among these parties resulted in acceptance of revised population
projections for the planning area (Table 5). These population
projections were developed by considering estimates prepared by
municipal, county, and regional organizations in light of the most
current growth trends in the planning area.
Table 6 lists the number of acres devoted to each land use in the
planning area municipalities for the year 1975 (BCPC 1977).
Similar information is also presented for the Central Bucks region
and Bucks County. For the planning area municipalities, agricul-
ture accounted for the largest single use of the land (37%) in
1975. Residential uses occupied approximately 30% of the land.
About 20% of the land in the planning area was vacant or undevel-
oped. The other categories of land use (manufacturing and mining,
trades and commerce, utilities, government and education, and parks
and entertainment) each accounted for 2 to 3 percent o£ the total
land area. The land use patterns within the planning area are
depicted in Figure 6. These patterns were mapped on the basis of
recent aerial photography and field checking during preparation of
the CIS.
21
-------
N)
!-0
CLASS ONE-SLIGHT LIMITATION
CLASS TWO-MODERATE LIMITATION
| | CLASS THREE-SEVERE LIMITATION
1 | CLASS FOUR-VERY SEVERE LIMITATION
NOTE' CLASS ONE AND TWO ARE CLASSIFIED AS
PRIME A6RICULTURAL LANDS
-------
Table 4. Population increase and growth rates for the Chalfont-New Britain planning area,
1950-1980. (Data from BCPC 1971, 1977; BCPC 1972; Plumstead Township Planning Commission
1962; US-DOC 1971, 1980). N/A indicates data unavailable.
POPULATION
MUNICIPALITY 1950
Chalfont Borough 828
Doylestown Borough 5,262
Doylestown Township 2,364
New Britain Borough 581
New Britain Township 1,367
Plumstead Township 2,353
Warrington Township 2,336
Bucks County 144,620
Philadelphia SMSA N/A
1960 1970 1980
1,410 2,366 2,785
5,917 8,270 8,718
3,795 6,613 11,790
1,109 2,428 2,506
3,090 5,207 7,342
3,355 4,682 5,088
4,148 7,550 10,659
308,567 416,728 474,713
4,342,897 4,817,914 N/A
PERCENT CHANGE
MUNICIPALITY
Chalfont Borough
Doylestown Borough
Doylestown Township
New Britain Borough
New Britain Township
Plumstead Township
Warrington Township
Bucks County
Philadelphia SMSA
1950-1960
1960-1970
1970-1980
70.3
67.8
17.7
12.4
39.8
5.4
60.5
74.3
78.3
90.9
118.9
3.2
126.0
68.5
41.0
42.6
39.6
8.7
77.6
82.0
41.2
113.4
35.1
13.9
N/A
10.9
N/A
23
-------
Table 5. Population projections for wastewater facility planning in the Chalfont-New
Britain planning area, 1980 to 2000.
POPULATION
MUNICIPALITY
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Chalfont Borough
3,120
3,430
3,740
3,920
4,100
Doylestown Borough
9,460
9,580
9,700
9,820
9,940
Doylestown Township
8,650
9,660
10,670
11,680
12 ,700
New Britain Borough
2,860
3,030
3,200
3,370
3,550
New Britain Township
7,320
8,480
9,650
10,810
12,000
Plumstead Township^
3,920
4,110
4,310
4,510
4,210
Warrington Township^
2,250
3,460
2,660
2,870
3,080
Total
37,580
40,760
43,930
46,980
50,080
aPart of Township within Facility Planning Area.
24
-------
Table 6. Land use of the Chalfont-New Britain PA planning area Municipalities in 1975 in acres (BCPC 1977).
MUNICIPAL IT*
Chalfont Borough
Doylestovn Borough
Doylestovn Township
New Britain Borough
(lew Britain Township
Pluastead Township
Warrington Township
ng Are*
clpallties
Nunic:
Central Bucks County
Bucks County
RESIDENTIAL
5(4.4
976.8
3.660.7
344.1
2.534.0
2.791.8
3.116.1
13,987.9
42,053.5
106,466
AGRICULTURE
78.3
0
2.041.8
11.8
3.697.9
8.740.4
2.708.5
17,278.7
63,354.2
147,595
MANUFACTURE
t
MINING
25.0
35.8
168.0
37.8
78.6
207.7
327.3
880.2
2,485.8
12,683
TRADE
&
COMMERCE
74.5
146.9
575.3
139.3
113.1
208.6
259.7
1,517.4
4,444.4
11,707
UTILITIES
12.1
65.1
274.2
15.7
38.4
123.1
96.2
624.8
2,425.7
6,894
GOVERNMENT
&
EDUCATION
4.5
93.8
545.2
5.3
156.9
11.6
104.4
921.7
3,097.5
5,776
PARKS
fc
ENTERTAINMENT
31.3
105.5
186.5
14.1
562.3
282.1
210.8
1,392.6
4,958.0
20,495
VACANT
6
UNDEVELOPED
233.7
53.9
2.551.4
179.7
2,591.6
2.149.5
1,887.4
9,647.2
26,047.3
79,772
TOTAL
1,023.8
1,477.8
10,003.1
747.8
9,772.8
14,514.8
8,710.4
46,250.5
148,866.4
391,388
-------
K>
| 1 LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
I 1 MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
HIGH DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
1 1 MULTI -FAMILY
FARMHOUSE 8 ADJACENT BUILDINGS
I | INSTITUTIONAL
USUI INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL
| 1 UTILITY, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION
r 1 RECREATIONAL
| | OPEN/UNDEVELOPED
Hi QUARRY
r~~l WATER BODY
-------
Future Land Use Maps were prepared to depict existing (1979) and future (1990,
1995, 2000, and 2020) land development scenarios in the planning
area. Figure 7 shows the year 2000 land development scenario. The
amount of future development is based upon a reasonable rate o£
population growth for the planning area (see Table 7).
The purpose of projecting future land use is to provide a basis for
wastewater management planning. The future land uses will act to
guide the choice of appropriate technologies for wastewater
collection and treatment. The planning for wastewater facilities
is intended to accommodate but not to accelerate future growth.
Development A five step methodology was used to develop the maps which estimate
Projection future land development. The five steps include:
Methodology
• The existing land use map was used to identify existing vacant
and developed lands;
• Zoning district and land use maps of each municipality were
studied to identify vacant lands which were zoned for residen-
tial development.
• Environmental constraints to development (floodplains, steep
slopes, etc.) were mapped and used in overlay fashion to deter-
mine which of the vacant lands actually could be developed.
• The incremental population projections of each municipality were
translated into dwelling unit projections based on estimates of
average household size; and
• The dwelling units projected were allocated to residentially
developable land according to relative development advantages
and anticipated dwelling unit densities for the years 1990,
1995, 2000, and 2020.
The process of-estimating and identifying future development areas
should be considered as a scenario in which future land development
is extrapolated from existing conditions. The maps prepared as a
product of this process do not constitute future land use plans for
these municipalities nor do they represent a detailed parcel-
specific evaluation of development opportunity.
Projected residential development within the planning area was
distributed using a growth attractiveness analysis* This analysis
relied on location determinants, such ass
• Access to employment centers
• Access to Misting and planned infrastructure
• Access to community services and bifchiwi amenities.
in conjunction with the gatowtn attractiveness analysis, the
following lcey as sumptions model
• All future r«»taihtial aevei,<>pntont trap assumed to occur in areas
currently zoned for residential per
• Maximum aliowaoie aensities, as prescribed fay municipal zoning
ordinances, were used to estimate the development potential of
land areas;
27
-------
to
00
CZ3 LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
I [ MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY
HIGH DENSITY SINGLE-BVMILY
MULTI -FAMILY
FARMHOUSE ft ADJACENT BUILDINGS
1 1 INSTITUTIONAL
HH INDUSTRIAL
§» COMMERCIAL
1 1 UTILITY, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION
m RECREATIONAL
I I OPEN/UNDEVELOPED
QUARRY
1~~H WATER BOOY
-------
Table 7. Population and housing unit projections.
Municipality Projection 1979
(existing
Chalfont Borough
Population
Dwelling Units
3,033
947
Doylestown Borough
Population
Dwelling Units
9,335
3,618
Doylestown Township
Population
Dwelling Units
8,505
2,779
New Britain Borough
Population
Dwelling Units
2,812
671
New Britain Township
Population
Dwelling Units
6,917
2,034
Plumstead Township*
Population
Dwelling Units
3,735
1,216
Warrington Township*
Population
Dwelling Units
2,236
604
Total Planning Area
36,573
11,869
* Planning area portion only
1-2020,
by municipality.
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2020
3,120
3,430
3,740
3,920
4,100
4,820
1,023
1,174
1,312
1,395
1,480
1,740
9,460
9,580
9,700
9,820
9,940
10,420
3,739
3,786
3,804
3,866
3,929
4,118
8,650
9,660
10,670
11,680
12,700
16,760
3,089
3,591
3,996
4,441
4,941
6,521
2,860
3,030
3,200
3,370
3,550
4,250
673
725
765
812
865
1,036
7,320
8,480
9,650
10,810
12,000
16,700
2,464
2,996
3,521
3,931
4,332
6,028
3,920
4,110
4,310
4,510
4,710
5,510
1,370
1,452
1,523
1,605
1,641
1,919
2,250
2,460
2,660
2,870
3,080
3,920
696
791
877
969
1,054
1,342
37,580
40,750
43,930
46,980
50,080
62,380
13,054
14,515
15,978
17,019
18,242
22,704
-------
• Any environmental performance standards stipulated by municipal
zoning ordinances were considered applicable for estimating or
locating future development;
• Municipal comprehensive plans were consulted and used to verify
the objectives of local land management controls as defined by
the zoning ordinance. Substantive judgments were required in
instances in which comprehensive plans were considered
outdated.
Development Current plans for development in the Chalfont-New Britain area were
Proposals compiled from county and municipal records. Although development
plans are highly subject to change with the housing market and
other factors, they are good indicators of the locations and sizes
of developments to be anticipated in the future. The treatment
plant capacities and service areas developed during the Facilities
Planning/EIS processes are based on population and land use projec-
tions for the next 20 years, rather than on individual development
plans which are pending at this time. The development plans are
presented in this Draft EIS for information purposes only.
In all, 33 plans for residential development were documented (Table
8 and Figure 8). These proposals exist in varying stages of
review, from sketch plans to approved developments which are under
construction. The majority (2,953 out of 5,737 total units) of the
proposed units are located within one of the existing public sewer
service areas. Of the remainder, most (1,562 units) are within
areas proposed for an extension of the existing sewer service
area.
Economic Growth Total employment in the planning area municipalities increased
dramatically between 1960 and 1970. While employment in Bucks
County grew by 79.3%, the number of jobs in the planning area
municipalities increased by 106.8%. The municipalities that showed
the greatest employment growth during that decade were New Britain
Township (+325%), Chalfont Borough (+206%), and Warrington Township
(+203%).
Between 1970 and 1976, employment growth stablilized, with the
total number of jobs in the planning area increasing by only 0.2%.
Employment levels actually declined in three of the seven planning
area municipalities: Chalfont Borough (-26%), Doylestown Borough
(-10%), and Warrington Township (-7%). Employment in New Britain
Borough grew at the highest rate (64.1%). During this same 1970-76
period, the number of jobs in Bucks County increased by 19.7%.
Industrial Growth Industrial growth in the planning area has been hampered in recent
years by the lack of new highway bonstruction and difficulties in
obtaining sewer service (Telephone conversation, Mr. A. Heddon,
Bucks County Industrial Development Corporation, 24 January 1979).
The only four-lane highway in the planning area is Rt 611 to
Doylestown. The expansion of Rt. 202 to four lanes has been
planned for many years, but has not been completed. The sewer
connection ban imposed by several planning area municipalities also
has restricted industrial development.
Since there is an ample supply of vacant land ih the planninq area
economic activity would lifcely increase once the transportation and
sewer issues have been resolved.
The largest single category of employment in the planning area is
manufacturing. Jobs in manufacturing accounted for 34.1% of the
total employment in the planning area in 1976. The next three
largest categories of employment were retail trade (15 9%)
30
-------
-------
Table 8. Proposed developments. UC = under construction; FA = final approval; SK.P. = sketch plan;
PA = preliminary approval.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREA
Gross Zoning
MUNICIPALITY NAME Acres Units Density District Density Status
Chalfont Borough
Doylestown Borough
Doylestown Borough
Doylestown Borough
Doylestown Township
Doylestown Township
New Britain Borough
New Britain Borough
New Britain Borough
New Britain Township
New Britain Township
New Britain Township
New Britain Township
New Britain Township
New Britain Township
New Britain Township
Rosemore Estates*
Barrington
Sandy Ridge Twins
Sidney D. Simon
Westwyk*
Old Colonial Greene
New Britain Mews
Holly Hill Farm
Nicholas
Highlands*
Fairwooods*
Neshaminy Meadows
Strand-Carew
Rocky Meadows
Tower Hill Glen*
Woodbrook*
90
9
32
4.5
33
43
9
12
18
170
193
13
26
46
23
28
144
256
148
124
256
316
64
18
100
930
274
10
15
220
20
49
1.6
R-1
2.34
UC
28.4
CR-H
29.2
FA
4.6
R-3
4.0
FA
R-2
3.5
R-2A
5.0
27.6
CR-H
29.2
FA
7.7
R2b
6.0
Connected
7.3
R2b
6.0
Connected
7.1
R-2
20.0
UC
1.5
R-1
2.2
UC
5.6
R-2
9.6
SK.P.
5.5
RR
4.4
UC
1.4
RR
2.2-4.4
UC
0.8
RR
2.2
UC
0.6
RR
2.2
FA
SR-1
0.9
4.8
RR
4.4
UC
0.9
SR-2
.46
FA
1.75
RR
2.2
FA
SR-1
ro
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE AREA
Doylestown Township
Cedar Crest Farm*
55
62
1.1
R-1
1.09
PA
Plumstead Township
Belmont Farm*
98
54
0.6
R-1
1.09
UC
Plumstead Township
Fox Hunt Estates
265
203
0.8
R-2
1.09
FA
Plumstead Township
Morrison
93
53
0.6
R-1
R—4
1.09
1 4
FA
Plumstead Township
Old Mill Estates
57
198
3.5
IV »
R-3
3.5
UC
Plumstead Township
Plumstead Estates
46
60
1.3
R-4
1.4
SK.P.
Plumstead Township
New Town
117
702
6.0
R-4
1.4
SK.P.
Plumstead Township
Plumstead Mews
82
230
2.8
R-4
1.4
SK.P.
OUTSIDE SEWERED
AREAS
Doylestown Township
Doylestown Acres
25
23
0.9
R-1
1.09
FA
Doylestown Township
Warrington C.C.
156
439
2.8
R-2b
6.0
SK.P.
Doylestown Township
Valley View
58
52
0.9
OL
1.09
FA
Doylestown Township
Castle Valley
170
17
0.1
R-1
1.09
FA
New Britain Township
Trieste Tract
106
10
0.1
Agr-Rec.
0.2
FA
New Britain Township
Thomas Flood
65
200
3.1
SR-2
0.5
SK.P.
Plumstead Township
Stoney Brook
175
13
0.7
R-4
1.4
UC
Warrington Township
Bristol Rd. Assoc.
97
522
5.4
R-1
1.9
PA
'Developments affected by PA-DER 1979 ban (seeking to get ITP).
-------
Archaeological
Sites
Historic Sites
government services (14.1%), and professional services (11.5%).
These were also the four largest categories of employment in the
County as a whole in 1976.
A review of the 1978 National Register of Historic Places (43 FR
No. 26:5287-5291) and monthly supplements through September 1978,
indicated that no prehistoric archaeological sites are listed on or
are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in the
Chalfont-New Britain planning area. The archaeological site files
maintained by the Pennsylvania Office of Historic Preservation at
the William Penn Memorial Museum, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, has no
record of archaeological sites in the planning area, or in the
entire Townships of New Britain, Plumstead, Warrington, and Doyles-
town (Orally, Mr. Vance Packard, Associate Curator, Office of
Historic Preservation, 6 October 1978).
The Bucks County Historical Society at the Mercer Museum in Doyles-
town retains a collection of Mercer's notes on prehistoric site
locations. During the 1890's Henry Mercer collected information
about Indian campsite, village, and workshop locations in Bucks
County. The present condition of many of the sites is unknown.
Those sites recorded in the Chalfont-New Britain planning area are
depicted in Figure 9.
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and
Executive Order 11593 requires that, prior to implementation of a
Federally funded project, the impact of the project on any cultural
resources which are listed on or may be eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places be considered. Determination of those
structures, districts, properties, or objects within the area of
potential impact of the project which appear to be eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places should be made in consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Officer.
Endangered and
Threatened Plant
Species
Endangered and
reatened Wildlife
An inventory of known historic, architectural and cultural
resources has been prepared for the planning area. Those historic
structures, sites, and properties which were listed on either the
National Register of Historic Places (NR), the Pennsylvania
Inventory of Historic Places (PI), or the Bucks County Register of
Historic Sites (BCR) are listed and described in Table 9, which is
keyed to figure 9. About 1200 additional historic cultural
resources were listed on the Bucks County Inventory of Historic
Sites (BCI). Because the amount of information recorded for each
resource was variable, and because these historic values had not
been examined and evaluated by Bucks County Conservancy, these
historic places were not mapped and described individually. For
planning purposes, where clusters of historic properties recorded
on the Bucks County Inventory occurred, areas were delineated as
potential historically sensitive'areas.
No plant species which are currently designated' or proposed for
Federal designation as endangered or threatened are known to occur
in the planning, area. On the basis o® available range information
five plant species proposed for endangered status could possibly
occur in the planning area (Ayensu and DeFilipps 1978; 41 FR
117:24524-24572, 16 June 1976).* These are th$ small whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoluides), spreading globe flower (Trollius
laxus), an orchid (Habenarla peramoena), golden seal (Hydrastis
canadensis) and ginseng (Panax quinquefoliusr Ayensu and DeFilipps
1978). ~
No amphibian, reptile, or mammal classified a* endangered or
threatened with extinction under the Federal Endangered SpfciM Act
of 1973 is known to inhabit tne planning area. The southern bald
33
-------
¦
—1
-------
Table 9. Inventory of historic stuctures, places and properties. NR = National
Register, PI = Pennsylvania Inventory, BCR = Bucks County Register, BCI = Bucks
County Inventory.
DOYLESTOWN BOROUGH
Location Status Name
A' NR, PI, BCR Duncan Pugh House
A NR, PI, BCR James Lorah House
B NR, PI, BCR Mercer Museum and Bucks County Historical
Society
C NR, PI, BCR The Fountain House
D PI, BCR Washington House or the Knickerbocker-
Davis Home
E PI, BCR Doylestown Agriculture Works
F BCR The Magra Residence
U, V, X, PI Doylestown Historic District: The
Y, Z, District indicated in Figure 9 includes
BB-JJ; the following structures. A part of the
00; NN; Doylestown Historic District is listed on
QQ-tt the National Register (Shaw Historic
District). The Shaw Historic District is
bounded by South Main, Ashland, Bridge,
and South Clinton Streets.
0 PI, BCI Old Emergency Hospital
V PI, BCI Presbyterian Church
X PI, BCI Swartzlander House
Y PI, BCI Musgrave House
Z PI,BCI Masonic Temple
BB PIr BCI Log Cabin
CC PI» BCI Lenape Hall
DD PIf BCI Intellingencer Building
EE PIf BCI The Harvey House
FF PI, BCI Hart Buildings
GG PI, BCI Greek Revival Building
HH PIr BCI Gothic Townhouse
II PI, BCI Federal Townhouse
jj PI, BCI Doylestown Prison
UN PI, BCI Caretaker's House
35
-------
Inventory of historic stuctures, places and properties (concluded)
DOYLESTOWN BOROUGH (concluded)
Status
Name
PI| bCI Brick Townhouses
PI, BCI Doylestown Borough School
PI, BCI Stone Gothic House
PI, BCI Townhouse
PIf gel Victorian House
DOYLESTOWN TOWNSHIP
NR, PI, BCR Fonthill
NR, PI, BCR Moravian Pottery and Tile Works
PI, BCR The Hare Place
BCR "Painswick Hall", Farm No. 3, Delaware
' Valley College
BCR Harry Steinback House
Bcr Robert A. Home Home
bcr Farm No. 1 at Delaware Valley College
Bcr James Pass Nelson House
bcr Bridgepoint School
PX Pine Valley Covered Bridge
PIf BCI Worthington House
PI, BCI Stone Farm House
PI, BCI Martin Residence
PI, BCI General W. W. H. David Residence
PI, BCR Clemens Homestead
PI, BCR Carpenter's Gothic House
PI, BCR Ranulph Bye House
NEW BRITAIN BOROUGH
BCR New Britain Baptist Church
NEW BRITAIN TOWNSHIP
NR, PIf BCR James Morgan Homestead
bcr Elias J. Mowry House
36
-------
eagle, American perigrene falcon, and possibly Kirtland's warbler
which are considered endangered at the Federal level may pass
through the planning area during their annual migrations. None of
these birds are known or expected to utilize the planning area for
breeding purposes.
No bird or mammal considered endangered at the State level is known
or expected to occur in the planning area. The planning area
includes the ranges of the coastal plain leopard frog, the bog
turtle, the red-bellied turtle, and the eastern mud turtle, which
are considered endangered species in Pennsylvania (PA Fish Commis-
sion 1977). Due to their specific habitat requirements, it is
unlikely that they occur in the planning area.
37
-------
I
Chapter III
Public Participation and Coordination
-------
CHAPTER III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION
Introduction Throughout the preparation of this Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
continuously 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 wastewater
management strategies, and in assessing potential impacts. EIS
newsletters, pamphlets, advertisements and meetings with the public
have been used to insure that all concerned parties were involved
in the EIS decision-making process.
Public Participation EPA regulations as described in 40 CFR 25 and 35.917 require that
Advisory Group the Facilities Planning/EIS process ongoing in the Chalfont-New
Britain area be accomplished by a full-scale public participation
program. During the early stages of the process, the Chalfont-New
Britain Joint Sewage Authority (CNBTJSA) appointed Mr. Harold
Sursa, Executive Director of the Bucks County Water and Sewer
Authority, as Public Participation Coordinator for the Facilities
Planning activities. A Public Participation Advisory Group (PPAG)
was established to provide area citizens an opportunity to closely
participate in the Facilities Planning/EIS process. The PPAG
represents a cross-section of the general public, consisting of
equal representation from individual citizens, public interest
groups, economic interest groups, and public officials. Mr. Sursa
has scheduled meetings and acted as a liason between the PPAG,
Gilbert Associates, Inc. (the Facilities Planning engineering
firm), CNBTJSA, and representatives of EPA and PA-DER. The PPAG
was established in order to provide a mechanism whereby all inter-
ested parties and participating municipalities would be informed of
developments during the Facilities Planning/EIS process through
their representatives on the PPAG, so that the ultimate choice in a
wastewater management plan for the area reflects local opinions and
advice.
The PPAG held a total of 13 meetings over the period from April
1980 through July 1981. Four .of these meetings were public
meetings and two were held jointly with the Sub-Region II Waste-
water Management Commission. Ms. Thelma Schmidt served as secre-
tary for the PPAG and has insured that adequate records of each
meeting were distributed to all persons and groups who have
expressed an interest in the project. Mr. Robert Moore, Director
of the Bucks County Planning Commission was elected by the PPAG to
serve as chairman and Mr. John Soderberg served as vice-chairman.
Because there was a considerable amount of technical and govern-
mental jargon associated with wastewater treatment planning, the
PPAG chose to have a Technical Review Commitee to review chapters
of the Facilities Plan for presentation to the PPAG in a more
understandable form. The PPAG also chose to establish a Report
Writing Committee to summarize their ideas and input for the Facil-
ities Plan/EIS and a Publicity Committee. The PPAG, intended to be
advisory to CNBTJSA as the grantee, will make a formal recommenda-
tion on the Group's preferred alternative after a public hearing is
held to solicit comments on the Facilities Plan.
Although at times some PPAG members have undoubtedly questioned
their precise role or their effect on the results of the EIS, their
presence has provided a most important public forum in which to
discuss any wastewater management issue, and has prepared the way
for the upcoming selection and implementation of a long-term solu-
tion to the area's wastewater treatment problems. Below is a list
of the PPAG members and their affiliations.
39
-------
Newsletters/
Pamphlets
Public Meetings
Public Participation Advisory Group
Harold Sursa, Coordinator
Citizens
Beverly Goulding, Buckingham Township
Bill Cadden, Doylestown Borough
John Soderberg, Doylestown Borough
Jack Nelson, Doylestown Borough
Dale Whittenberger, Doylestown Township
Harold Rothstein, Doylestown Township
Richard Moxey, New Britain Borough
Rolf Dethlefson, New Britain Township
Douglas McGill, Chalfont Borough
Nick Pasicznyk, Plumstead Township
James Rowan, Chalfont Borough
Public Interest Groups
Barbara Evans, League of Women Voters
Dorothy Batchelder, Bucks County Conservation Alliance
Economic Interest Groups
Frank McCartney, Bucks County Builders Association
Alan Hedden, Bucks County Industrial Development Authority
Will Heiser, Bucks County Chapter, Pennsylvania Society of
Professional Engineers
Weldon Harrison, Central Bucks Chamber of Commerce
Public Officials
Evelyn Schulz, US Environmental Protection Agency
John Fabian, PA Department of Environmental Resources
Robert Gallagher, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
Robert Moore, Bucks County Planning Commission
Robert Roop, Buckingham Township
George Getz, Chalfont Borough
John Carson, Doylestown Township
Louis Bienas, New Britain Township
Robert Benner, New Britain Township
Herman Silverman, Plumstead Township
Leonard Point, Warrington Township
At the beginning of the EIS process, EPA prepared and distributed
pamphlets about the EIS to the public. The pamphlets were
distributed via local post offices to all residents within the
planning area. In addition, public meeting announcements were
advertised in the Daily Intellingencer and Today's Spirit. Press
releases were forwarded to all area newspapers and radio stations.
EPA prepared periodic newsletters that were distributed to
residents, groups and government officials who wished to be kept
advised of the progress, the preliminary technical findings, the
completion of project milestones, and other general information
about the EIS.
Since preparation of the Chalfont-New Britain and Buckingham EIS's
began in August 1978, EPA has conducted three public information
meetings in the study area.. These meetings were designed to
involve the public in all decisions as fully as possible. The
information that EPA obtained from. the people familiar with the
local situation and also those who will be most affected by the
outcome of the EIS was invaluable. The following meeting®
40
-------
generated considerable dialogue between EPA, PA-DER, the Facilities
Planners, and the general public:
Date
Location
Topics Discussed
September 3, 1978
October 30, 1980
May 5,1981
Lenape Jr. High
School, Doylestown
Lenape Jr. High
School, Doylestown
Lenape Jr. High
School, Doylestown
EIS process, scope and
issues
EIS issues,
environmental
inventory
Wastewater management
alternatives and their
impacts
Central Contacts
Committee
The Central Contacts Committee was established to monitor progress
on the Chalfont-New Britian EIS. Its .purpose was to insure that
wastewater management planning efforts were consistent with Federal
and State regulations, as well as coordinated with county and
regional planning efforts. The Committee met at various milestones
throughout the project to discuss and resolve issues as they arose.
The following persons are members of the Committee.
Evelyn Schulz
Joseph Piotrowski
Barbara D'Angelo
John Fabian
Harold Sursa
Kenyon Clarke
Robert Moore
Robert Gallagher
Thomas Concannon
Valdis Jurka
EPA — EIS Preparation Section
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia PA 19106
EPA — Construction Grants
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia PA 19106
PA Department of Environmental Resources
1875 New Hope Street
Norristown PA 19401
Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority
Neshaminy Manor Center
Doylestown PA 18901
Chalfont-New Britain Township Joint Sewage
Authority
101 N. Main Street
Chal£ont PA 18914.
Bucks County Planning Commission
22-28 South Main Street
Doylestown PA 18901
Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission
Penn Towers Building
1819 J. F. Kennedy Boulevard
Philadelphia PA 19103
Gilbert Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1498
Reading PA 19603
WAPORA, Inc.
511 Old Lancaster Road
Berwyn PA 193.12
41
-------
Issues and Concerns A number of issues and concerns have been raised at meetings of the
PPAG, Sub-Region II Wastewater Management Commission, Central Con-
tacts Committee, and the general public. Most discussions have
focused on the level of treatment which the wastewater treatment
plants in the area must achieve and the associated costs of
advanced wastewater treatment. These concerns are summarized
below.
• Extent of sewer service — How far should public sewerage be
extended based on the problems and needs of the area?
• On-site wastewater management district — Are failing septic
systems prevalent enough to warrant creation of a program for
rehabilitation and maintenance? Will such a program be adequate
to correct existing problems and those projected to occur over
the next 20 years?
• Efluent limits — The wastewater treatment standards which the
area facilities must meet are set by PA-DER according to the
existing and intended quality of Neshaminy Creek. Results of a
stream survey to define allowable pollutant concentrations in
discharges are pending.
• Per capita wastewater flows and infiltration/inflow — The
existing per capita wastewater flow rates are high due to the
amount of infiltration/inflow when it enters the Chalfont-New
Birtain and Doylestown Borough wastewater treatment plants. How
much of the infiltration/inflow can be removed and what will the
per capita flows be from future residential/commercial
customers?
• Construction of Dark Hollow Dam — The presence of a permanent
pool above the proposed Dark Hollow Dam is, in part, the cause
of the phosphorus removal requirement for sewage treatment
plants in the Upper Neshaminy Basin.
• Ammonia, nitrate and nitrite-nitrogen concentrations in
Neshaminy Creek — The tertiary treatment required for all
sewage treatment plants in the Upper Neshaminy Basin should help
prevent excessive concentrations from occurring.
• Phosphorus concentrations in Neshaminy Creek — Phosphorus
removal is required of all sewage treatment plants in the Upper
Neshaminy Basin which should control excessive plant growth and
eutrophication.
•- Chlorine toxicity to fish and macroinvertebrates below sewaqe
treatment plant outfalls in Neshaminy Basin.
• Heavy metal toxicity to aquatic biota » A substantial portion
of heavy metals in wastewater are associated with suspended
solids. Their content should be reduced substantially be the
residual suspended solids removal required of treatment plants
in 1-hA nlanninri at* a a
42
-------
CHALFONT EIS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Council on Environmental Quality
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Agricultural Lands Study
US Bureau of Prison
US Department of Agriculture
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 Interior
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Pish and Wildlife Service
National Water Resource Analysis
Group/Eastern Energy Land Use Team
National Park Service
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Marine Environmental Protection
Division
US Department of Treasury
us General Services Administration
Water Resources Council
STATE AGENCIES
Department of Commerce
Department of Community Affairs
Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Air Quality
Bureau of Water Quality Management
State Health Center
Department of Health
DISTRIBUTION LIST
STATE AGENCIES (continued)
Fish Commission
Game Commission
Historical and Museum Commission
State Clearinghouse
LOCAL AGENCIES
Buckingham Township
Board of Supervisors
Bucks County
Commissioners
Conservation District
Health Department
Historical Tourist Commission
Planning Commission
Solid Refuse Administration Board
Water and Sewer Authority
Chalfont Borough
Council
Planning Commission
Chalfont-New Britain Township Joint
Sewage Authority
Delaware River Basin Commission
Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission
Doylestown Borough
Council
Planning Commission
Streets and water Engineers
Doylestown Township
Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
Municipal Authority
Nesharainy Water Resouroes Authority
New Britain Borough
Council
Planning Commission
New Britain Township
Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
Zoning Hearing Board,
Plumstead Township
Board of Supervisors
Planning Commission
43
-------
LOCAL AGENCIES (continued)
CITIZENS GROUPS
Warrington Township
Board of Supervisors
Municipal Authority
Planning Commission
Water and Sewer Commission
Zoning Hearing Board
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Honorable Richard Thornburgh
Governor of Pennsylvania
Honorable H. John Heinz, III
United States Senator
Honorable Arlen Specter
United States Senator
Honorable Lawrence Coughlin
United States Representative
Honorable James K. Coyne
United States Representative
Honorable Richard T. Schulze
United States Representative
Honorable Steward J. Greenleaf
Pennsylvania Senate
Honorable H. Craig Lewis
Pennsylvania Senate
Honorable Edward L. Howard
Pennsylvania Senate
Honorable John M. Rodgers
Pennsylvania Representative
Honorable Jim Greenwood
Pennsylvania Representative
Honorable Benjamin H. Wilson
Pennsylvania Representative
Honorable Edward Burns
Pennsylvania Representative
Honorable James J. A. Gallagher
Pennsylvania Representative
Honorable James L. Wright, Jr.
Pennsylvania Representative
Honorable Paul L. Clymer
Pennsylvania Representative
America the Beautiful Fund
Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central
Atlantic States, Inc.
Bucks County Audubon Society
Bucks County Board of Realtors
Bucks County Builders Association
Bucks County Conservation Alliance
Bucks County Farmers Association
Bucks County Fish and Game Association
Bucks County Historical Society
Bucks County Industrial Development
Authority
Bucks County Land Use Task Force
Central Bucks Chamber of Commerce
Citizen's Advisory Council to PA
Department of Environmental Resources
Concerned Citizens
Doylestown Township Civic Association
Environmental Defence Fund
Environmental Policy Center
League of Women Voters
Pennsylvania
Doylestown
National Parks and Conservation
Association
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
New Britain Civic Association
Oxbow Meadows Civic Association
Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Inc.
Pennsylvania Society of Professional
Engineers - Bucks County Chapter
Pennsylvania Sanitary Disposal
Association
Plumstead Township Civic Association
Sierra Club
Pennsylvania Chapter
Southwestern Group
Soil Conservation Society of America
The Wildlife Society
Tri-County Conservancy of the
Brandywine, Inc.
Trout Unlimited
Village Improvement Association
Water Resources Association of the
Delaware River Basin
Water Pollution Control Association
Wilderness Society
Women's Political Caucus
MEDIA
Newspapers
Beacon News
Bucks Advisor
Bucks County Courier Times
44
-------
MEDIA (continued)
CITIZENS
Newspapers (continued)
Bucks County News Bureau
Bucks County News Service
Daily Intellingencer
Daily News
Evening Bulletin
Doylestown
Montgomery County Bureau
Inquirer
Doylestown
Philadelphia
Suburban News Bureau
Montgomeryville Spirit
New Hope Gazette
North Penn Reporter
Progress Newspapers, Inc.
The Reporter
Times Herald
Today's Post
Today's Spirit
Television
WCAU-TV
WKBS-TV
WPHL-TV
WPVI-TV
WTAF-TV
KYW-TV
Radio
KYW-AM
WBCB-
WBVX-
WCAU-AM
WCSD-FM
WDAS-AM
WFIL-AM
WFLN-AM
WHAT-AM
WIP-AM
WZZD-AM
LIBRARIES
Bucks County Free Library
Melinda Cox £ree Library
Warminster Township Free Library
OTHER
Gilbert/Commonwealth Engineers and
Consultants
International Research and Evaluation'
Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc.
WAPORA, Inc.
Adamski, Robert E.
Ashburn, Jan
Auerbach, Elizabeth
Baeutigam, Robert O.
Baker, Robert J.
Baldwin, Mr. and Mrs.
Bauer, Philip
Benecke, H. 0.
Benner, Robert
Berjstusni, Gary
Bischaff, Mr. and Mrs. U.
Braun, Jayne
Breish, Joseph
Brown, B.
Brown, C. Morel1
Brown, Robert
Brown, Vince
Brownlow, James C. II
Buckley, Daniel Jr.
Byers, Bob
Cadden, Bill D.
Capetola, Robert J.
Carley, H. Edwin
Carr, Beverly
Carr, George M.
Carson, John
Chamberlain, Donald
Clark, William
Cogshall, J.
Coia, Mr. and Mrs. Anthony L.
Concannon, Ms.
Conray, N.
Cope, Richard
Cordell, David
Cotton, Robert
Crouthamel, Barbara
Curboney, F.
Dalton, John M.
Danaghy, R. E.
Davenport, John
Davies, Mr. and Mrs. J.
De?azio, Anthony
Deigardo, Jim
Dengler, F.
de Richemond, Mr. and Mrs.
Dethlefsen, Rolf
Devine, James W.
Donaghy, Mr.
Dunbar, Mr. and Mrs.
Ehne, Charles
Ender, John
Eyre, Ken
Feldbaumer, William C.
Ferreron, 8. Thomas Jr.
Fitzgerald, Dan
Flick, Kenneth Mrs.
Frabotta, Frank
Frekot, Mr. and Mrs;
45
-------
CITIZENS (continued)
CITIZENS (continued)
French, Ellery W.
Mount, William
Fritz, Mr. and Mrs.
Moxey, Richard T.
Gaetzberger, M.
Mueller, J. R.
Gagner, G. J.
Murphy, R. D.
Gallagher, Raymond
Murray, Don
Gallaton, Steven
Neamond, Janet
Gampper, James H.
Nelson, Jack F.
Gascinf, Stephen J.
Nobel, Mr.
Gatwalt, Paulette
Noftsger, Michael, D.
Gemalouli, Ed
Noll, L.
Gill, Earl P. Sr.
Olsen, Robert F.
Gilmore, Steven D.
O'Molesky, Mark
Gilmour, C. Allan
Ota, Charles
Goehorig, John
Ott, Laura Jean
Gornian, Vincent
Pasicznyk, Nick
Goulding, Beverly A.
Pasicznyk, Dave
Grand, Lucille
Pilecki, Alex
Groenveld, Dave
Post, Frank
Guagas, Mr. and Mrs.
Pratt, Barry
Hall, E. F.
Prince, Albert R.
Hall, Patricia R.
Prosser, Donald W.
Hamilton, Harold
Rabenold, George
Hanauer, Richard
Reardon, David L.
Happ, W. J. Jr.
Redman, S. H.
Hatcher, Doris
Reed, David
Haulta, Jeffrey
Richards, James
Heim, Mr. and Mrs. Stephen
Rickert, Dennis W.
Holmen, P. C.
Roland, S.
Hour, Robert A.
Rothstein, Harold
Horn, E. A.
Rottrack, John H.
Hutchinson, Robert
Roop, Robert
Jarin, Barney
Rowan, James P.
Jaylor, Joseph
Ryan, Nancy Bell
Kahn, Harry
Ryan, James
Kerns, Ira
Saunders, Gail
Kerns, M. V.
Scherb, Ester
Kianz, S. P.
Scherb, William
Kiel, James S.
Schloo, William
Knap, C. H.
Schmidt, Gordon
Knight, Ernest
Schul, Emma
Kurilla, Joseph
Schute, V. J.
Lamina, Francis
Seckie, Catharine J.
Lancaster, Graham
Shaffer, Robert G.
Lavenguth, Stephanie
Shemenski, Joseph
Linn, Marie
Siegel, K.
Lorenz, Jerry
Spinnler, Joseph F.
Lugar, Robert C.
Sprawls, Michael
Lyons, William F., Ill
Sterys, Julian J.
MacTough, Mr. and Mrs.
Stevens, Janet
Mahn, Jack
Stranburg, Lil
Maiabito, Gina
Styles, Roger E.
Manella, Mr.
Sugden, Harry
Manne, Robert E.
Tabako, P.
Mayer, Barbara
Terney, Betty
McCarty, Donna
Thompson, Mr. and Mrs
McGill, Douglas, R., Sr.
Titsworth, R.
McLaughlin, R.
Tomlinson, Cyrus
Morehouse, Daniel E.
Triplett, Mr. and Mrs
Morris, John F.
Veamand, David V.
Mount, Marty
Varcoe, Wilson
46
-------
CITIZENS (continued)
VJalsh, Joseph P.
Warren, Joseph
West, Robert
White, Ashton
White, Roger Greenlees
Whitehead, W. Norman
Whittenborger, R. Dale
Whittenburger, R. Dale
Wieland, Dick
Williams, Chip
Wolfe, Ron
Wramer, Lorraine
Yesk, Dot
Yost, Richard
Zommer, Ken
-------
Chapter IV
Description and Development of Alternatives
-------
CHAPTER IV. DESCRIPTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
Municipal Sewer
Service Areas
Required wastewater
Treatment
There are currently three major municipal sewage treatment plants
(STPs) within the Chalfont-New Britain planning area. These
facilities, Chalfont-New Britain STP, Green Street STP, and Harvey
Avenue STP, have rated design capacities of 2.0 mgd, 0.7 mgd, and
0.6 mgd, respectively (Figure 10). They each provide secondary
levels of wastewater treatment removing approximately 90% of the
pollutants from the wastewater. Of the three facilities, Doyles-
town Borough owns and operates the two plants (Green Street and
Harvey Avenue) within its corporate limits. The Chalfont-New
Britain facility is owned and operated by the Chalfont-New Britain
Township Joint Sewer Authority and in part by the Bucks County
Water and Sewer Authority (BWSA). It is the Bucks County Water and
Sewer Authority and the Chalfont-New Britain Joint Sewer Authority
that match the local share of the Step I Planning grant.
Each of the existing STPs is presently operating at, or close to,
capacity. The Chalfont facility occasionally experiences hydraulic
overloading, particularly during periods of prolonged rainfall
which contributes extraneous flows to the wastewater known as
infiltration and inflow (I/I). Since June 1979 the PA-DER has
enforced a ban on the issuance of new connections to connect to the
sewerage system of the Chalfont facility because of inadequate
sewage treatment capacity. As a result, a number of approved
developments have been unable to either begin or complete construc-
tion. Doylestown Borough has made recent improvements to its
wastewater facilities. However, additional improvements are
necessary to upgrade the level of treatment efficiency to meet the
discharge conditions required by PA-DER.
Together, the three municipal facilities provide sewerage service
to approximately 22,235 people, or 60% of the planning area popula-
tion. The existing sewer service area of these facilities is
depicted in Figure 10.
The degree o£ treatment required is based on effluent limitations
set in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
These limits are set by the Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources (PA-DER) according to the quality and intended or
protected use of the stream to which effluent will be discharged.
PA-DER (1979) water quality criteria and pa-DER NPDBS permit condi-
tions regulate in-stream and STP effluent pollutant concentrations
respectively, in the Neshaminy Creek Basin. In order to meet the
effluent criteria established by PA-DSR, planning area STPs will
have to provide additional treatment so that 97 to 99% of
wastewater pollutants are removed. Table 10 lists the effluent
limitations that are currently in force. PA-DEI* has conducted
water quality stream surveys which ere likely to influence effluent
limitations. It is not improbable that the effluent limitations
will become less stringent, a* the water juality system is better
understood and smaller margins of safety are needed. If less
stringent effluent limitations are established, th*n some cost
savings in upgrading the municipal wastewater facilities can be
expected.
EPA has a review policy (EPA 197?) tot wastewater treatment
oroiects designed to meet efflueht requirements more stringent than
secondary treatment. This review> goal is to ensure that the
level of wastewater treatment in fully justified. Unless fully
Justified, Federal funding of all or ^he unjustified part of the
project may be postponed.
49
-------
FIGURE 10
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES
BOUNDARY OF SEWER SERVICE
W/T. EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREA
mi PROJECTED SERVICE AREA
• MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY
-------
Table 10. Effluent limitations for municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
Parameter
5 day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(May 1 to October 31)
(November 1 to April 30)
Suspended Solids
Ammonia Nitrogen
(June 1 to October 31)
(November 1 to May 31)
Total Nitrogen
(June 1 to October 31)
(November 1 to May 31)
Total Soluble Phosphate
Fecal Coliform
pH
Dissolved Oxygen
Monthly Average
Limitation (mg/1)
4
8
15
3
9
8
24
0.2
200/100 ml
6 to 9 standard units at all times
5.0 mg/1 minimum at anytime
51
-------
Privately Owned
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
Projected Service
Area Population
Water quality parameters whose concentrations within the study area
are frequently in violation of the established criteria include:
dissolved oxygen, effluent BODs, effluent total suspended solids,
effluent ammonia nitrogen, effluent total nitrogen, effluent and
in-stream phosphate, chromium, nickel, zinc, and copper. Chlorine
concentrations, for which there is no state criteria, are often
present in levels toxic to aquatic biota and in excess of the
EPA (1976) criteria of 0.01 ing/1 below all STPs in the basin
(Strekal 1976a & b).
In addition to these municipal facilities, there are three pri-
vately owned, smaller wastewater treatment facilities in the
planning area. The Briarwood wastewater treatment facility,
located in New Britain Township within the service area of the
Chalfont STP, was built in 1963 with a capacity of 0.08 mgd to
serve the Lenape Village development. This facility is not in
continuous use, but is periodically reactivated when requested by
PA-DER in order to provide additional capacity at times when the
Chalfont facility becomes hydraulically overloaded. The Valley
View Trailer Park treatment facility, located on Route 611 in
Plumstead Township, has a rated capacity of 0.04 mgd. The facility
was built in 1963 to serve the Valley View Trailer Park. The
Neshaminy Manor Center treatment facility serves the Center in
Doylestown Township. The plant has a rated capacity of 0.1 mgd
with current flows of approximately 0.06 mgd.
The planning area population is projected to increase by about
13,500 persons (37%) between 1980 and 2000. Based on topography,
soil suitability for on-lot systems, proximity to existing sewerage
facilities, and the location of projected development, an expanded
sewer service area has been proposed (Gilbert Associates 1981)
(Figure IV-1) to accomodate a portion of this future increase. The
total estimated number of persons within this proposed sewer
service area by year 2000 is 36,675. Table 11 presents the exist-
ing and projected populations within the proposed sewer service
boundaries.
Table 11. Existing and projected population within proposed
service area.
1980
% Change
2000
Chalfont Borough
3,033
9,335
2,397
2,813
4,789
2,872
35.2
6.5
142.6
26.2
98.8
30.6
4,100
9,940
5,815
3,550
9,519
3,751
Doylestown Borough
Doylestown Township
New Britain Borough
New Britain Township
Plumstead Township
SEWER SERVICE AREA TOTAL 25,238
45.3
36,675
municipality or authority which owns and operates the systems
52
-------
rojected Wastewater
Flow
Doylestown Borough
astewater Treatment
Capacities
Chalfont Wastewater
Treatment Capacity
Preliminary
Screening
Table 12 summarizes wastewater flows projected during the planning
period, i.e. through the year 2000. These flows are disaggregated
by wastewater treatment plant service area. The derivation of
these flows is described in the Facility Plan (Gilbert Associates,
Inc. 1981) and is outlined in the notes to Table 12.
These wastewater flow projections show that flows to the Harvey
Avenue plant would slightly exceed its capacity. Since the other
Doylestown Borough facility (Green Street) would have some excess
capacity and small residential/commercial flow increases are
projected, the Facility Plan recommends that the existing waste-
water treatment capacities be maintained and future industrial
flows be directed towards the Green Street plant. The combined
capacities of the Doylestown Borough plants is expected to be
adequate to accomodate the 605 additional persons projected by the
year 2000.
The projected wastewater flow to the Chalfont-New Britain waste-
water treatment plant (3.8 mgd) would exceed its current 2.0 mgd
capacity. An additional 1.8 mgd capacity would be required to
accomodate the additional 10,832 persons projected to reside within
the proposed service area by the year 2000.
The Chalfont-New Britain Facility Plan describes alternative
wastewater management plans to meet the existing and future needs
of the Chalfont-New Britain planning area. The development of
these alternatives proceeded in a systematic manner in which
numerous options for collection, treatment, and disposal of
wastewater were screened in order to satisfy six basic objectives:
• technically feasible, yet readily adaptable to the planning
area.
• capable of meeting the wastewater treatment needs of the area
for the next 20 years
• least expensive while placing a minimal financial burden on the
communities within the planning area
• environmentally acceptable with a minimum amount of adverse
impacts
• implementable from administrative, reaulatory, and legal
standpoints
• acceptable to the public.
Preliminary screening of alternatives considered the following
approaches:
• no action alternative
• utilization and optimization of existing facilities; and
• regional alternatives.
No-Action The no action alternative was not considered to be a viable alter-
Alternative native for two reasons. First, it would not satisfy the current
need to upgrade the existing treatment plants and it would not
correct the currently identified on-lot wastewater system failures.
Second, it would not provide the hydraulic capacity at the Chalfont
plant for future connections nor would it solve the problems of
future on-lot system failures.
53
-------
Table 12. Future wastewater flows, mgd.
Existing Non-Removable
Minimums I/I
Future
Residential/
Commercial
Future
Industrial Total
Existing
Wastewater
Treatment
Capacity
Doylestown Borough
Harvey Avenue 0.47
Green Street 0.35
Subtotal 0.82
Chalfont
CNBTJSA 0.87
BCWSA 0.45
Subtotal 1.32
0.13
0.21
0.34
0.15
0.51
0.66
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.88
0.78
1 .66
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.09
0.09
0.18
0.67
0.63
1.30
1.99
1.83
3.82
0.6
0.7
1.30
2.0
NOTES:
Existing minimums - determined from annual minimum week flow records.
Non-removable I/I - estimated quantity of infiltration/inflow which cannot be
removed from the wastewater collection system.
Future residential/commercial - based on the existing gallons per day per person
(gpcd) values and the additional projected sewered population (existing gpcd
values for residential/commercial flows are 125 for Doylestown Borough
facilities and 153 for the Chalfont plant).
Future industrial - based on EPA criteria, which permits using 5% of the total
design flow exclusive of existing or documented future industrial flows.
54
-------
Optimum use and operation of existing facilities would only
partially meet the wastewater needs of the Chalfont-New Britain
Planning Area. Flows to the Harvey Avenue plant are projected to
exceed the present capacity but could be redirected and handled at
the Green Street facility. The Chalfont plant, however, would not
be able to handle the additional 1.8 mgd flow projected by year
2000. Furthermore, none of the existing treatment plants could
comply with the proposed treatment standards without additional
equipment. Improved maintenance of existing on-lot systems would
minimize, but not eliminate completely, the identified mal-
functioning systems throughout the planning area.
Treatment Plant Regional alternatives which involve combining the flows from the
Alternatives existing treatment plants at one or more of the existing sites or
at new-sites were examined. The objective was to examine all
possible combinations to identify a solution which is cost-
effective for short-term (construction) and long-term (operation
and maintenance) costs.
Alternative 1. The three existing treatment plants would be main-
tained at their present locations and upgraded to meet the new
effluent requirements. The Chalfont facility would be expanded
from 2.0 mgd to 3.8 mgd capacity (Figure 11).
Alternative 2. The Harvey Avenue and Green Street plants would
continue to provide secondary treatment. Their secondary effluents
would be combined for tertiary treatment at a regional Borough of
Doylestown facility at the Harvey Avenue location which has more
available space. A new pump station, force main, and gravity sewer
would be required to convey the Green Street effluent to the Harvey
Avenue Plant. The Chalfont plant would be expanded to 3.8 mgd and
upgraded (Figure 12).
Alternative 3A. All tertiary treatment would be performed at an
expanded Chalfont treatment plant site (5.1 mgd). The Harvey
Avenue and Green Street plants would be maintained as secondary
facilities. The same pump station, gravity sewer, and force main
as in Alternative 2 would be required to convey Green Street flow
to the Cooks Run interceptor, and a parallel sewer to Cooks Run
would be required to convey the secondary treated effluent to the
Chalfont site for tertiary treatment (Figure 13).
Alternative 3B. All treatment (secondary and tertiary) would be
carried out at an expanded Chalfont plant (5.1 mgd); the Harvey
Avenue and Greet Street plants would be abandoned. Force main and
gravity sewer would be required to convey Green Street's flow to
the Cooks Run interceptor. The Cooks Run interceptor does not have
sufficient capacity to convey all of Doylestown flow and would
require a parallel relief sewer for a portion of its length to the
Chalfont plant (Figure 14).
Alternative 4A. All treatment (secondary and tertiary) would be
carried out at a new site (5.1 mgd capacity) in the vicinity of the
Neshaminy Manor Center. Each of the existing treatment plants
would be abandoned. Harvey Avenue flow would connect into the
Cook's Run interceptor and would flow by gravity to the Chalfont
plant site area. New interceptors would be required to convey the
flows from the Chalfont and Greet Street plants to the new treat-
ment site (Figure 15).
Alternative 4B. All tertiary treatment (5.1 mgd capacity) would be
conducted at a new regional site in the vicinity of Neshaminy Manor
Center. The existing secondary treatment facilities would remain
Optimum Use and
Operation of
Existing Facilities
55
-------
*1 FIGURE II
}| ALTERNATIVE I
S SECONDARY TREATMENT
T TERTIARY TREATMENT
0 EXISTING TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
PROPOSED TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
••m* PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
EXISTING GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
PROPOSED GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
15" PROPOSED SEWER DIAMETER
~ PROPOSED PUMPING STATION
-------
*1 FIGURE 12
Jj ALTERNATIVE 2
S SECONDARY TREATMENT
T TERTIARY TREATMENT
0 EXISTING TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
(£ PROPOSED TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
•mm PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
mmm EXISTING GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
¦»•«» PROPOSED GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
15" PROPOSED SEWER DIAMETER
A PROPOSED PUMPING STATION
-------
51
FIGURE 13
ALTERNATIVE 3A
S SECONDARY TREATMENT
T TERTIARY TREATMENT
0 EXISTING TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
PROPOSED TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
••••• PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
EXISTING GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
PROPOSED GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
15" PROPOSED SEWER DIAMETER
~ PROPOSED PUMPING STATION
-------
FIGURE 14
ALTERNATIVE 3B
S SECONDARY TREATMENT
T TERTIARY TREATMENT
0 EXISTING TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
^ PROPOSED TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
•h* PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
EXISTING GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
PROPOSED GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
15" PROPOSED SEWER DIAMETER
A PROPOSED PUMPING STATION
-------
o
FIGURE 15
ALTERNATIVE 4A
S SECONDARY TREATMENT
T TERTIARY TREATMENT
0 EXISTING TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
PROPOSED TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
••m* PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
—» EXISTING GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
PROPOSED GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
15" PROPOSED SEWER DIAMETER
A PROPOSED PUMPING STATION
-------
FIGURE 16
ALTERNATIVE 4B
S SECONDARY TREATMENT
T TERTIARY TREATMENT
0 EXISTING TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
PROPOSED TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
•mm PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
EXISTING GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
••• PROPOSED GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
15" PROPOSED SEWER DIAMETER
~ PROPOSED PUMPING STATION
-------
NS
\
¦f y
\ \ ."
1
v' ,
i >
V
^saT
S SECONDARY TREATMENT
T TERTIARY TREATMENT
0 EXISTING TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
PROPOSED TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
EXISTING GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
PROPOSED GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
15" PROPOSED SEWER DIAMETER
PROPOSED PUMPING STATION
-------
ON
u>
T '
FIGURE 18
ALTERNATIVE 5B
S SECONDARY TREATMENT
T TERTIARY TREATMENT
% EXISTING TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
@ PROPOSED TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
••m* PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
EXISTING GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
mmm PROPOSED GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
15" PROPOSED SEWER DIAMETER
~ PROPOSED PUMPING STATION
-------
*1 FIGURE 19
J ALTERNATIVE 6
S SECONDARY TREATMENT
T TERTIARY TREATMENT
0 EXISTING TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
PROPOSED TREATMENT (PLANT SITE)
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
—» EXISTING GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
PROPOSED GRAVITY INTERCEPTOR
15" PROPOSED SEWER DIAMETER
A PROPOSED PUMPING STATION
-------
in service. New interceptors would be required to convey secondary
effluents from the Chalfont plant and Green Street area to the new
site. Because the secondary effluent from Harvey Avenue could not
be placed in the Cooks Run interceptor for conveyance to the
regional site, a pump station, force main, and gravity sewer will
be required to deliver the flow via the Green Street plant area
(Figure 16).
Alternative 5A. A new tertiary regional treatment plant (5.1 mgd
capacity) would be constructed at a site located below the proposed
Dark Hollow Dam. The treatment facility would not be required to
remove phosphorus from the wastewater, as Neshaminy Creek HC"
criteria prevail. Each of the existing secondary treatment plants
would be abandoned and new interceptors to the site below Dark
Hollow Dam would be required (Figure 17).
Alternative 5B. The existing secondary treatment facilities would
be maintained. New interceptors conveying secondarily treated
effluent would be constructed to a site located below the proposed
Dark Hollow Dam. At this site tertiary treatment would be provided
to meet Neshaminy Creek "C" criteria — no phosphorus removal would
be required (Figure 18).
Alternative 6. The Green Street plant would be maintained and
upgraded. The Harvey Aveiiue treatment .plant would also continue to
perform secondary treatment; however, its treated flow will be
directed to Chalfont for tertiary treatment. The tertiary treat-
ment facilities will have a capacity of 4.3 mgd. A sewer parallel
to the Cook Run interceptor will be required to separate the raw
sewage from the treated wastewater (Figure 19).
Sludge Disposal The Facilities Plan recommends that the ultimate disposal of sludge
generated at the treatment facilities be accomplished via land
application to approved sites; some appropriate sites may be those
identified during the investigation of soils for land application
of wastewater. Sludge disposal is currently contracted to private
haulers.
Land Treatment Land treatment of wastewater was considered as a possible alterna-
tive for the Chalfont-New Britain planning area in light of the
stringent treatment requirements for wastewater discharged to
Neshaminy Creek. Of the three major methods of land application
(slow rate spray irrigation, rapid infiltration, and overland flow)
spray irrigation was examined in detail. since it would be able to
provide the highest degree of phosphate removal.
The soils were evaluated with respect to their potential suita-
bility for land application of wastewaters. Table 13 lists the
soils with their depths to seasonal high water table and bedrock
with a judgment as to their suitability. Approximately 650 acres
of suitable soils are needed to effectively treat the entire 5.1
mgd flow from the planning area. However, sufficient suitable
soils could not be located to treat all of this flow.
The possibility of treating a portion of the flow from one or more
of the three existing plants by spray irrigation was then consi-
dered. Ten potential spray irrigation sites, all located in
Doylestown Township, were identified. These sites could effec-
tively treat a total of 1.41 mgd flow from the three existing
treatment plants as followsChalfdnt 0.82 mgd, Green Street 0.26
mgd, and Harvey Avenue 0.33 mgd. Since only a small proportion of
the total projected wastewater flow can effectively be treated by
spray irrigation on the limited amotarit of suitable soils, expanded
65
-------
Table 13. Soil suitability for land application.
Soil Series
Depth to
Seasonal
High
Water Table Bedrock
(feet) (feet)
Suitability for Land Applicatic
Abbottstown
Allenwood
Alluvial land
Alton
Bedington
Bowmansville
Chalfont
Chester
Clarksburg
Culleoka
Doylestown
Duffield
Duncannon
Fallsington
Hatboro
Howell
Klinesville
Lansdale
Lawrenceville
Lehigh
Manor
Marsh:
1/2-1 1/2
>4
3 1/2-5
3 1/2-10
Properties are too
variable to estimate
>5
>4
0-1 1/2
1/2-1 1/2
>4
1 1/2-3
>3
0-1/2
>4
>4
0-1/2
0-1/2
>5
>3
>3
1 1/2-3
1-2
>3
4-100
4-7
3 1/2-12
4-6
5-10
5
2-3 1/2
4-7
4-10
>4
>5
5-10
>10
1-1 1/2
4-7
4-8
3 1/2-5
4-12
Properties are too
variable to estimate
unsuitable; depth to seasonal
high water table
suitable
unsuitable
suitable
suitable
unsuitable; depth to seasonal
high water table
unsuitable; depth to seasonal
high water table
suitable
marginal; depth to seasonal
high water table
marginal; depth to bedrock
unsuitable; depth to seasonal
high water table
suitable
suitable
unsuitable; depth to seasonal
high water table
unsuitable; depth to seasonal
high water table
suitable
unsuitable; depth to bedrock
suitable
marginal; depth to seasonal
high water table
unsuitable; depth to seasonal
high water table
suitable
unsuitable
66
-------
Table 13. Soil suitability for land application (concluded).
Soil Series
Depth to
Seasonal
High
Water Table Bedrock
(feet)
(feet)
Suitability for Land Application
Mount Lucas
Neshaminy
Penn
Pope
Readington
Reaville
Rowland
Steinsburg
Towhee
Urban land
Urbana
Washington
Weikert
Woodstown
1-2
>4
>4
>3
1 1/2-3
1-2
1-2
>4
0-1/2
1-2
>3
>3
1 1/2-3
5-10
4-10
1 1/2-3 1/2
>5
3 1/2-6
1 1/2-2 1/2
3 1/2-6
2-3 1/2
4-8
4-6
5-10
1-1 1/2
4^-12
marginal; depth to seasonal
high water table
suitable
marginal; depth to bedrock
suitable
marginal; depth to seasonal
high water table
unsuitable; depth to seasonal
high water table and bedrock
marginal; depth to seasonal
high water table
suitable
unsuitable; depth to seasonal
high water table
probably unsuitable because land
is developed
unsuitable; depth to seasonal
high water table
suitable
unsuitable; depth to bedrock
marginal; depth to seasonal high
water table
67
-------
and upgraded tertiary facilities still would be required to treat
the remainder. A cost comparison using present worth analysis was
performed. This analysis led to the conclusion that spray
irrigation is not an economically feasible alternative for the
Chalfont-New Britain planning area. Had there not already been a
substantial pre-existing investment in wastewater treatment
facilities, the cost-effectiveness of land treatment systems could
be substantially improved.
Flow and Waste Water supply shortages and the increasingly high cost for providing
Reduction new water supplies and wastewater treatment have caused EPA to
consider the impacts of flow and waste load reduction measures in
all wastewater projects funded under the Construction Grants
Program.
Flow and waste load reduction techniques can be incorporated into a
local, publicly-oriented, water conservation program. If
effective, this program can reduce water usage, lessening the
amount of water that has to be supplied and subsequently treated as
wastewater. This situation can lead to reduced operation and
maintenance costs for both water and sewage systems, reduced
service charges to water and sewer customers, and delayed need for
new treatment facilities or expansions. Expensive development of
new and increasingly scarce water supplies also may be avoided.
Various methods of flow and waste load reduction were evaluated in
terms of their applicability to the Chalfont-New Britain planning
area. The methods examined included:
• Reduction of excessive infiltration and inflow (I/I) in existing
collection and conveyance facilities
• Reuse and recycling of sanitary discharges prior to treatment
• installation in individual homes of water saving devices for
toilets, showers, and laundry facilities
• Metering of water consumption accompanied by a graduated water
use rate structure
• Continued use of functioning on-lot systems within the service
areas of public sewer systems
• Enactment of special ordinances to legally restrict the manner
in which water and sewerage facilities are constructed or
installed
• Establishment of public participation/information programs to
make citizens aware of the need and desirability to conserve
water and to allow public input on types of flow and waste load
reduction methods to be used.
Of these flow and waste reduction measures, all were considered to
be feasible except for reuse/recycling. The actual implementation
of any of these measures would be the decision and responsibility
of county, municipal, or other local entities.
Infiltration/Inflow One major problem is the existence of excessive infiltration/inflow
in the sewers. Water from infiltration/inflow (I/I) sources
reduces the capability of sewer systems and treatment facilities to
transport ana treat domestic and industrial wastewaters*
oo
-------
Infiltration occurs when water enters the sewer system from the
ground through cracked or broken pipe, defective pipe joints or
improper connections. Infiltration depends on; groundwater levels,
precipitation, and percolation of surface waters. It is at its
maximum during high groundwater conditions and extended wet weather
periods.
Inflow is defined as water entering the sewer system from such
sources as roof drains, cellar, yard and area drains, sump pumps,
cross-connections from storm sewers, catch basins, and manhole
covers. Inflow occurs during periods of precipitation and surface
runoff.
Sewer system rehabilitation is an expensive process and not always
successful in the long-term. Therefore, it is usually more cost-
effective to treat a portion of the I/I flow which enters the
sewage treatment plant.
Of the I/I quantities in Table 14 it has been estimated that it
would be possible to cost-effectively remove 20 percent of these
extraneous flows. Because of the serious extent of I/I problems in
the planning area a Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) is under-
way to define the costs of rehabilitation and repair versus the
benefits obtained. The detailed design (Step 2) of the project
will incorporate the information gained during the SSES.
Table 14. Infiltration/inflow (I/I) quantities
Average Daily
Minimum
I/I
Non-Removable
Flow (mqd)
Flow (mgd)
(mqd)
I/I (mqd)
Doylestown Borouqh
Harvey Avenue
0.64
0.47
0.17
0.13
Green Street
0.61
0.35
0.26
0.21
Chalfont
CNBTJSA
1.06
0.87
0.19
0.15
BCWSA
1.09
0.45
0.64
0.51
n-site Wastewater Throughout the remainder of the planning area a large number of
Disposal homes and businesses utilize on-site systems for the treatment and
disposal of their wastewater. Mot. all of these systems are
operating properly and may, in some cases, pose a threat to ground-
water supplies and/or the public health.
An integral part of the Facilities Plan/BIS process is the evalua-
tion o£ the need to repair or replace failing septic systems. This
"needs documentation" can be accomplished in a number of ways.
Several approaches were used in the Chalfant-New Britain area.
First, soil maps showing suitabilities for on-site systems and maps
of existing housing densities were compared* The relative densi-
ties o£ housing developments an4 the general unsuitability of soils
implied that failing eept,ic systems were probably a significant
problem and that certain areas were prone to failures. Bucks
County Health Department records of on-site system repairs and
alterations were then reviewed. The information obtained from the
files was based primarily on complaints and violation notices.
Property owners may be reluctant to file complaints especially if
69
-------
their own system may not be operating properly. Consequently, the
number of malfunctioning systems was likely to be underestimated.
The County does not currently perform regular inspections of all
on-site systems after they have been installed. The locations of
known repairs and alterations did not correlate well with the soils
information. Consequently, it was not adequate to assess the
potential success of continued use of on-site systems in the
planning area over the next 20 years. As a result, EPA decided to
use an advanced technology to better define the current status of
all on-site systems within the 100 square mile planning area.
EPIC Septic System In July 1980 a septic system analysis of the planning area was
Analysis performed by the EPA Environmental Photographic Interpretation
Center (EPIC). The EPIC analysis involved a remote sensing tech-
nique using color and color infrared aerial photography to detect
septic system malfunctions and surfacing septic effluent.
The basic technique relies on the photo-interpretation of charac-
teristic patterns of plant foliage distress and excessive soil
moisture levels utilizing color infrared films. These methods are
used to identify those septic tank malfunctions that are noticeable
on the ground surface. Those malfunctions in which sewage backs up
into the house or septic tank effluent percolates too rapidly
through the soil to be adequately renovated cannot be detected by
aerial imagery. The actual causes of septic tank failures may be
from one or more of the following (Slonecker 1980):
(1) The soil in the absorption field has too slow a percolation
rate to allow for adequate assimilation, filtration, and bio-
degration of sewage effluent flowing into it.
(2) The septic system is installed too close to an underlying
impervious layer.
(3) The septic system is installed in an area where the seasonal
water table is too high for its designed use.
(4) The soil in the absorption field has too high a percolation
rate for effective attenuation of the septic effluent prior to
its reaching the underlying groundwater.
(5) Mechanical malfunctions, or breakage, in the septic tank, dis-
tribution box, and/or drainfield pipes have occured.
(6) Caustic, toxic or otherwise harmful substances which could
kill bacteria in the septic tank and/or absorption field, and
cause subsequent clogging, have been introduced into the
septic system.
(7)
All or part of the system has been improperly installed.
The EPIC is an indicator that major problems exist and not
necessarily that each data point unquestionably defines a problem*
Conversely, there may be additional malfunctions that were not
identified. Thus, the use of EPIC data should be limited to f
planning tool. A house-to-house survey would be required to detail
the site-specific remedial measures. The development of alterna-
tive wastewater management plans can be based on the planning
tools, resulting in an overall framework to solve the area'*
problems•
r^i f™1,0 . reP°rtel a total o£ 1,118 hones in «>•
Chalfont New Britain acea have septic system problems of varyi^
70
-------
degrees (Figure 20). These data indicate that the planning area is
experiencing severe problems with on-site wastewater systems and
that the problems are widely scattered as well as clustered.
Six areas in the planning area were identified as having signifi-
cant problems with on-lot systems (Timber Lane, Pebble Ridge,
Pebble Hill, Sugar Bottom, Edison Furlong, and Sandy Pine). These
six areas, because of the large number of concentrated failures,
warrant special consideration for wastewater management solutions.
However, the extensive nature of the on-site problems indicates
that continuation o£ existing practices will result in similar
problems with future on-site systems. These problems, which do not
directly nor exclusively correlate with soil suitability factors,
also can be related to improper or inadequate installation, opera-
tion, and maintenance of the systems as well as the density of
development in areas using these systems. The needs for adequate
wastewater treatment and disposal in these scattered areas also has
been addressed.
On-site and Various on-lot and centralized wastewater systems were evaluated in
Collection terms of applicability to the planning area. These systems are
Alternatives being considered for those areas that are not currently sewered.
Factors considered in screening the alternatives included, but were
not limited to, climate, geology, soils, groundwater conditions,
topography, and lot size. Five on-lot systems and four collection
systems were examined:
On-Lot Systems
• septic tank-soil absorption system
• septic tank-mound system
• septic tank-evapotranspiration system
• septic tank-sand filter system
• cluster systems
Collection Systems
• conventional gravity sewers
• pressure sewers using either septic tank effluent pumps or
grinder pumps
• small diameter gravity sewers
• vacuum sewers.
This preliminary screening process led totheconclusion that only
septic tanks with sand mounds and cluster systems would be feasible
on-lot system solutions in the Ch«lfont-Hew Britain planning area.
Gravity, pressure, and vacuum sewers were all considered feasible
collection systems.
n-Lot Wastewater Malfunctioning septic systems can often be repaired to operate
nagement Program successfully provided they receive proper operation and mainte-
nance. EPA will participate in the initial funding of rehabilita-
tion or replacement ol on-lot systems if a management prog rain is
established to ensure that this will be a maintained tucoaran.
71
-------
ro
FIGURE 20
EPIC SURVEY OF MALFUNCTIONING
SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS
SEWERED AREAS
CHALFONT/NEW BRITAIN E.I.S.
BUCKINGHAM E.I.S.
STUDY AREA
• SURFACE FAILURE
o SEASONAL FAILURE
* SEASONAL STRESS
-------
Establishment of such a program has been proposed in the Facilities
Plan as feasible for the Chalfont-New Britain area (see Chapter VI
for a detailed discussion).
Concentrated Problem The six unsewered areas which have been identified with concen-
Areas trated on-lot malfunctions were examined for various wastewater
management solutions. Viable alternatives to provide wastewater
collection capability included: gravity sewers, vacuum sewers,
pressure sewers, septic tanks with sand mounds, cluster systems,
and on-lot system management.
The first three previously mentioned alternatives require treatment
by a conventional treatment facility. Due to Sandy Pine's location
in relation to the existing sewer system in the planning area, its
flow was assumed to be able to be treated at the Chalfont
facility.
Due to its location, Pebble Hill was assumed to have, the option to
have its wastewater treated at the proposed King's Plaza plant or
the Green Street plant. The Pebble Ridge area was assumed to be
able to have its flow treated either at the existing Chalfont plant
or the proposed Kings Plaza plant. An economic analysis indicated
that the proposed Kings Plaza plant was the most cost-effective
location for treatment of Pebble Hill and Pebble Ridge. Therefore,
the remaining areas were also assumed to be treated at Kings
Plaza.
Septage Management Septage wastes are the residuals pumped from septic tanks by
haulers. Currently, a county-wide septage management study is on-
going (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1981a). This study is being
conducted separately, but in coordination with the Chalfpnt-New
Britain wastewater facility planning efforts. Preliminary results
of the septage management study indicate that the Chalfont-New
Britain wastewater treatment facility, located in Central Bucks
County, is a logical site for accepting septage for treatment. The
reasons in the septage management study are:
(1) The proximity of the Chalfont-New Britain plant to septage
generated within Bucks County — more than 60% of septage
generated is within 15 miles of the plant.
(2) The Chalfont-New Britain plant is larger than other facilities
(Dublin and Quakertown) and may be less prone to wastewater
treatment upsets.
(3) The sensitivity of the receiving stream (Neshaminy Creek) is
less than the receiving streams of the Dublin and Quakertown
plants.
(4) The ability to qualify and receive ceaeral grants is greater
for the Chalfont-New Britain plant due to the fact that a 201
Study is ongoing in the area*
The projected volume of septage to be received at the Chalfont-New
Britain plant has been estimated (Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc.
1981a) as follows*
Annual - 9.1 million gallons per rear
Peak - 105,000 gallons pet day for 30 days
Average Daily - 35,000 gallons per day (based on 5.days/week)
However, concerns have been raised over the ability of wastewater
treatment at Chalfonfc-Sew Britain to meet the existing effluent
73
-------
limitations in the event that the high-strength septage were added.
If the effluent limits are relaxed on the basis of PA-DER's stream
analysis, septage treatment at the Chalfont-New Britain plant would
become a more viable alternative. Pilot-scale testing during the
Step 2 (detailed design) phase of the project will determine the
chemical dosages and treatment processes required to maintain comp-
liance with effluent standards. if septage treatment at the
Chalfont plant proves to be not technically feasible, greater
utilization of land disposal (agricultural) sites and/or other area
treatment plants would be required.
74
-------
Chapter V
Evaluation of Alternatives
-------
CHAPTER V. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant Sites
nt-New Britain
STP
vey Avenue STP
The environmental consequences of providing wastewater treatment
facilities can be primary (construction-related noise, dust or
other disturbances) and secondary (increased development and loss
of environmental values due to the availability of sewer service).
In the case of the Chalfont-New Britain planning area, EPA's
environmental review focused on the two components of each alterna-
tive wastewater management plan: construction of new and/or modi-
fication of existing wastewater treatment plant sites; and con-
struction of new interceptors to convey wastewater flows to the
treatment plants. The nine alternative wastewater management plans
were carefully evaluated in terms of their potential impact on:
floodplains, wetlands, prime agricultural lands, forests, steep
slopes, wildlife habitats, historic/archaeological sites, stream
crossings, ease of bedrock excavation (blasting requirements), and
growth induced by the availability of sewer service. The following
composite ranking in terms of environmental acceptability was
developed:
most environmentally sound
I
least environmentally sound
Environmental
Ranking
1/2
3
4/5
6/7
8/9
Alternative
1/2
3B
3A/6
4A/4B
5A/5B
The nine regional wastewater alternatives propose various actions
which involve the three existing municipal treatment plants and/or
one of two new regional facilities (Table 15). The extent to which
the sites can accommodate new or expanded facilities depends
largely on the characteristics at, and adjacent to, these sites
(Table 16).
This location is suitable for any of the proposed new treatment
facility alternatives. The existing Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)
site is surrounded by agricultural land and is isolated from
sensitive land uses, thereby minimizing the effect of potential
noise and odor problems. Ample developable land exists at or
adjacent to the site to accommodate new construction for upgrading
to tertiary treatment and expansion of the facility. Where new
construction is required (Alternatives 1, 2, 3A, 3B, and 6) care
should be taken to keep the Neshaminy Creek floodplain free of
obstructions.
Land is available at this site, or immediately adjacent in
Doylestown Township, to accommodate proposed new wastewater
facilities. Alternative 2 involves the most extensive amount of
additional facilities, in order to upgrade to tertiary treatment
levels and accommodate expanded capacity. Part of the site is
within the 100 year floodplain of CookB Run, however, and the
nearest residence is approximately 500 feet south of the site.
most of the 5 acres are already being utilized and residences exist
in close proximity to the site. None of the proposed alternatives
would require extensive additional facilities, however. No
expanded capacity is proposed. Alternatives 2, 3A, and 3B each
involve the addition of a pump station which easily could be accom-
modated at the site. Alternatives 1 and 6 propose to upgrade the
existing facility to tertiary levels.. The facilities necessary to
75
-------
Table 15. Treatment actions to be undertaken at existing and proposed sewage treatment
plants (STPs), by alternative.
Plant/Action 1 2 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B 6_
CMB STP
Phase Out X X
Upgrade to Tertiary Level X X X X X
Expand X X X X X
Keep as is XX
Add Pump Station
Harvey Avenue STP
Phase Out XX X
Upgrade to Tertiary Level X X
Expand X
Keep as is XXX
Add Pump Station X X
Green Street STP
Phase Out
Upgrade to Tertiary Level X
Expand
Keep as is XX
Add Pump Station X X
New King's Plaza STP
Tertiary Treatment X
Secondary and Tertiary
Treatment X
New Dark Hollow Dam STP
Tertiary Treatment
Secondary and Tertiary
Treatment
I V
-------
ible 16. wastewater treatment site characteristics as they relate to potential new facility
construction and/or expansion. "Expansion Potential" primarily is based on availability of
suitable land and proximity to sensitive land uses (eg., residential, floodplain).
Existing
Property
Area (Acres)
Chalfont-
New Britain
STP
15
Harvey
Avenue STP
25*
Green
Street
STP
Kings Plaza
Area
STP (Proposed)
Unknown
Dark Hollow
Dam STP
(Proposed)
Unknown
Surrounding
Uses
Agriculture
Forest
Agriculture
Industry
Residential
Forest
Highway
Agriculture
Forest
Agriculture
Forest
Nearest 1,000 ft/North,
Home/Direction East
>1,500 ft/
500 ft/South 200 ft/West Northeast 1,000 ft/North
Bedrock
Stockton
Arkose
Stockton
Arkose
Stockton
Arkose
Stockton
Arkose
Unknown
Property in
Floodplain
Western edge
in Neshaminy
Creek FP
Northern
1/3 in Cooks
Run FP
Most in Part in
Country Club Neshaminy
Run FP Creek FP
Unknown
Expansion
Potential
Good
Fair
Poor
Good
Good
'Includes land shared with Borough Maintenance Facilities.
rr
-------
Proposed Kings
Plaza Area STP
Proposed Dark Hollow
Dam STP
Wastewater
Conveyance
Facilities
accomplish this action likely could be accommodated at the site,
although floodproofing measures may be required since most of the
site is within the 100 year floodplain of Country Club Run.
Alternatives 4A and 4b propose entirely new wastewater treatment
facilities for this site. Ample land is available at this location
to accommodate these proposed facilities. Residences are distant
enough to preclude potential noise or odor problems. The Neshaminy
Creek floodplain on this (northern) side of the stream extends from
100 to 200 feet in width and should be avoided. Concurrently,
destruction of forest can be avoided since most of the floodplain
is covered by forest.
Alternatives 5A and 5B propose entirely new wastewater treatment
facilities at this site. Since the proposed site is located in
Warwick Township and is outside of the 201/EIS planning area, data
were not collected for the area. Therefore, an evaluation similar
to those presented above is not possible. However, utilization of
other data sources (principally, aerial photos of the area at a
scale of 1" = 1,000' dated February 1973), several factors can be
determined or surmised. The proposed site is secluded from resi-
dential and other developed land uses, situated on land which is
predominantly a mixture of farmland and forests along a bend in
Neshaminy Creek. This location makes the site favorable for poten-
tial future expansion (if necessary) and also precludes potential
noise or odor problems. The site is likely to be within the 100
year floodplain of the Creek. Potential adverse effects on
historic/archaeologic resources cannot be determined. Soil types
within the proposed site area also are unknown, but may be classi-
fied as prime or unique farmland. Construction at this site is
likely to result in some loss of forest and at least temporary
disruptions to wildlife movements and habitat.
The environmental impacts associated with wastewater conveyance
facilities can be both primary (construction-related) and secondary
(indirect or induced by the operation and availablity of wastewater
services). The nine regional wastewater alternatives involve new
conveyance facilities ranging in construction requirements from no
new sewer lines to approximately 63,000 feet of lines. Those
alternatives which require new conveyance facilities (Alternatives
2 through 6) represent various combinations of six different
routing segments (see Table 17 and Figure 21). These six routings
are assessed in this section in relation to the following para-
meters: floodplains, wetlands, prime agricultural lands, forests,
steep slopes, wildlife, historical/archaeological resources, stream
crossings, ease of bedrock excavation, and induced growth
potential.
Routing A; Alternatives 2, 3A. 3B, 4B. 5B
Green Street to Harvey Avenue (approximately 7,070 feet)
This routing traverses Doylestown Borough. No significant impacts
are anticipated on floodplains, prime agricultural lands, geology,
wetlands, steep slopes, forests, or wildlife. No stream crossings
are required.
Primary impacts will result from effects of short-term construction
(dust, noise, and other inconveniences) due to building through
Borough streets.
78
-------
Table 17.
Correlation of conveyance facility routes with treatment alternatives.
Route
A
B
C
D
E
F
Description
Green Street STP - Harvey Avenue STP
CNB Interceptor at Harvey Avenue STP -
New Britain Borough Border
New Britain Borough Border - CNB STP
CNB STP - New Kings Plaza STP
Green Street outfall - Kings Plaza Interceptor
Kings Plaza STP area - Dark Hollow Dam STP
Approximate Distance
(feet)
7,070
6,535
11,860
31,545
5,395
19,000
Approximate Total
Alternative Routes Distance (feet)
1
None
0
2
A
7,070
3A*
A, B, C
25,464
3B*
A, C
18,930
4A*
D, E
36,940
4b
A, D, E
44,010
5A*
D, E, P
55,940
5B
A, D, E, F
63,010
6*
B, C
18,395
*Alternatives 3A, 3Br 4A, 5A, and 6, would, in addition, require a certain length of sewer
to connect the Harvey Avenue STP outfall with the existing CNB interceptor.
-------
FIGURE 21
ROUTINGS
ROUTE DESCRIPTION
A GREEN ST. STP - HARVEY AVE. STP
p CNB INTERCEPTOR AT HARVEY AVE. STP-
° NEW BRITAIN BORO BORDER
C NEW BRITAIN BORO BORDER-CNB STP
D CNB STP- NEW KINGS PLAZA STP
F GREEN ST. OUTFALL-KINGS PLAZA
11 INTERCEPTOR
- KINGS PLAZA STP AREA-DARK HOLLOW
¦ DAM STP
-------
This routing passes through the Borough Historic District and will
pass numerous identified and/or registered historic sites. Care
must be exercised not to disturb any of these sites. Potentially
new, previously identified historic or archaeologic sites may be
encountered by the attendance of a qualified archaeologist.
Routing B: Alternatives 3A, 6
CNB Interceptor at Harvey Avenue STP to New Britain Borough Border
(approximately 6,535 feet)
This routing parallels the existing CNB interceptor along the
northern side of Cooks Run Creek. No significant impacts on wet-
lands, geology, prime agricultural lands, steep slopes, or stream
crossings are anticipated.
This routing will cause short-term, construction-related distur-
bances to the Cooks Run floodplain, forested areas, and wildlife
habitat. Loss of forest cover and permanent disruption of wildlife
corridors could be long-term impacts. One identified prehistoric,
archaeological site (#26*) is located near this routing and also
could be effected.
Routing C: Alternatives 3A, 3B, 6
New Britain Borough border - CNB STP (approximately 11,860 feet)
This routing continues to parallel the existing CNB interceptor
along Cooks Run Creek and then Neshaminy Creek to the Chalfont-New
Britain STP. No significant impacts on wetlands, steep slopes,
geology, prime agricultural lands, or historic/archaeological
resources are anticipated. The routing does, however, pass near
several historic sites identified on the Bucks County Inventory,
and special care should be exercised in those areas.
This routing will cause short-term, construction-related disrup-
tions to the Cooks Run and Neshaminy Creeks floodplains, forested
areas, wildlife habitat, and also will require four stream
crossings. Loss of forest cover and permanent disruption of wild-
life corridors could be long-term impacts.
Routing Dt Alternatives 4A, 4b, 5a, 5B
Chalfont-New Britain STP New Kings Plaaa STP (approximately
31,545 feet)
This routing follows the Neshaminy Creek along the northern side.
No significant impacts on prime agricultural lands, steep slopes,
or historical/archaeological resources are anticipated. However,
one historic site on the Bucks County Register and at least six
historic sites on the Bucks County Inventory are close to this
alignment, and special care should be exercised during construction
in those areas.
Significant loss of forest, new, construction in floodplains, and
disturbance of wildlife habitat and cosridors are associated with
this routing. The potential for encountering wetlands is likely,
*Site of Indian battle at Vauxtown. Many relics of the battle were
collected from this hill and adjacent fields near Vauxtown.
81
-------
particularly along the southern one-half of this alignment. Up to
seven stream crossings will be required.
Some of the adverse effects associated with this routing
(especially those on forests, floodplains, and wildlife corridors)
can be minimized by a realignment a short distance further from the
Neshaminy Creek, if feasible.
This routing primarily passes through Lockatong argillite bedrock,
the upper few feet of which may be excavated moderately easily.
Unweathered bedrock of this type could require blasting.
Routing E: Alternatives 4A, 4b, 5B
Green Street STP outfall - Kings Plaza Interceptor (approximately
5,395 feet)
This routing follows the eastern side of Country Club Run Creek and
requires two stream crossings. No significant impacts on wetlands,
steep slopes, prime agricultural lands, or wildlife corridors are
anticipated. At least five historic sites on the Bucks County
Inventory are adjacent to this routing and care should be exercised
during construction in those areas.
This routing will create short-term, construction-related distur-
bances to the Country Club Run floodplain, forested areas, and
wildlife habitat. Some loss of forest cover could be a long-term
impact.
This routing primarily passes through Lockatong argillite bedrock,
the upper few feet of which may be excavated moderately easily.
Unweathered bedrock of this type could require blasting.
Routing F: Alternatives 5A, 5B
Kings Plaza STP area - Proposed Dark Hollow Dam STP (approximately
19,000 feet)
This routing follows Neshaminy Creek south through Doylestown
Township, Buckingham Township, and Warwick Township. Since the
latter two are located outside the 201/EIS planning area, existing
environmental data for approximately 14,500 feet of this routing
were not collected. However, no significant impacts on prime
agricultural lands or steep slopes are anticipated.
This routing will create short-term, construction-related distur-
bances to the Neshaminy Creek floodplain, forested areas, wildlife
habitat, and the water quality and aquatic biota as a result of
nine stream crossings. Long-term impacts associated with this
routing potentially include loss of forest and small wetlands
disruption. Most of this alignment passes through Lockatong
argillite bedrock, the upper few feet of which may be excavated
moderately easily. Unweathered bedrock of this type however
could require blasting. Historic and/or archaeologic' sites in
Warwick Township were not explored for this study. The potential
for disruption of such sites during construction must therefore be
considered an adverse effect.
The specific routings associated with each alternative were
combined to develop a composite environmental assessment for each
alternative. Table 18 presents the relative effects of each of the
nine alternatives in terms of ten environmental parameters. The
82
-------
Table 18. Environmental assessment of alternative wastewater conveyance facilities.
ALTERNATIVE
Parameter
100-year Floodplain
(amount of new
construction in)
Wetlands
(possibility
of encounter)
Prime Agricultural
Land
(amount disturbed)
Forest Cover
(amount disturbed)
Slopes greater
than 15%
(construction on)
Wildlife
(hab itat/corridors
disturbed)
Historical/Archaeo-
logical Sites
(extent of encounter)
Stream Crossings
(number)
Bedrock Excavation
(possibility o£
blasting required)
Growth Inducement
Potential
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
none none medium medium high
none none medium low
high
high
high
high
high
none none medium low
none none none
none
none none medium low
none high high
high
none none five* four'
high
none
high
high
ten*
high
none
high
high
nine
high
none
high
high
5B
high
high
high
none
high
high
medium
medium
none none minor minor minor minor minor minor minor
medium
none
medium
high
nineteen* eighteen five*
none none none
none none none
none
low
medium medium mwdium medium none
high
low
high
low
none
•Includes crossing Cooks Run Creek from Harvey Avenue STP outfall to connect with CNB interceptor.
-------
ten parameters, the factors considered in developing a relative
evaluation, and the environmental ranking of alternatives (from
most sound to least) are described below.
Floodplains The relative amount of new facility construction that occurs in the
100-year floodplain (as delineated in the National Flood Insurance
Program) was the basis for ranking this parameter. Except in Route
A (through Doylestown Borough) each of the proposed new inter-
ceptors is located within the floodplain of the stream it
parallels, so the severity of the impact relates to the total
length of new sewer.
Degree of Impact Alternative
least 1, 2
13B
3A, 6
4A, 4B
greatest 5A, 5B
Wetlands Aerial photographs (scale 1" = 1,000') used to develop a Vegetation
and Land Cover figure (scale 1" = 2,000')/ indicated that there
were numerous patches of wetlands (too small to be mapped at the
figure scale) adjacent to Neshaminy Creek, Cooks Run, and Country
Club Run near Routings B, D, E, and F. Unmapped patches of
wetlands could also occur near Routing C. Only Alternatives 1 and
2 definitely would not encounter or disturb wetlands.
Degree of Impact Alternative
least 1, 2
I 3B
3A, 6
f 4A, 4B
greatest 5A, 5B
Prime Agricultural The capability classification system used by the USDA-SCS in the
Land Soil Survey for Bucks and Philadelphia Counties (1975) was the
basis for determining prime agricultural land and the related
effects of the alternatives. All identified Pennsylvania Prime
Agricultural Lands in the planning area are in the Capability
Classes I or II. At most, about 3% of any alternative's total
conveyance construction will disturb Class I or II soils (Table
19).
Degree of Impact Alternative
least 1, 2
greatest 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6
Forest Cover The amount of forest traversed by the alternative sewer routes was
measured on the vegetation and land cover map (Table 20). The
follows^ Sl9nificance of forest disturbance was considered as
Low ~ up to 5,000 feet disturbed
Medium — 5,000 to 10,000 feet
High — greater than 10,000 feet.
84
-------
Table 19. Prime agricultural land (Class I and II) disturbed by new conveyance construction, by
alternative.
Prime Agricultural/
Capability Class
1
2
3A
3B
Alternative/Feet
4a 4b
5A*
5B*
6
I
0
0
0
0
370
370
0
0
0
II
0
0
535
140
390
390
1 ,485
1 ,090
535
III
0
0
1,115
690
5,500
5,500
1,115
690
1,115
IV
0
7,070
23,815
18,1000
37,750
39,340
47,230
16,745
Prime Agricultural/
Capability Class
1
2
3A
Alternative/Percent
3B 4A 4b
5A
5B
6
I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
II
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.7
1.1
0.9
2.7
1 .7
2.9
X and II
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.7
2.1
1.7
2.7
1 .7
2.9
III
0.0
0.0
4.4
3.6
0.1
12.3
2.0
1.1
6.1
IV
0.0
100.0
93.5
95.6
83.1
84.4
70.3
75.0
91 .0
*Ho data for 14,000
feet of
conveyance through Warwick
and Buckingham Townships
-------
Table 20. Forest disturbed by new construction of conveyance facilities.
Approximate Total Forest Disturbed as
Forest Disturbed* % of Total New
Alternative (Feet) Conveyance Distance
1 0 0.0
2 0 0.0
3A 6,938 26.6
3B 4,441 22.8
4A 21,653 58.6
4B 21,653 49.2
5A 36,653 65.5
5B 36,653 58.2
6 6,938 37.7
*Total forest disturbed includes interior forest as well as edge forest.
-------
Steep Slopes
Wildlife
Historical/
Archaeological
Resources
Stream Crossings
Degree of Impact
least
I
greatest
Alternative
1, 2
3B
3A, 6
4A, 4B
5A, 5B
Slopes greater than 15% were considered steep in terms of potential
construction-related erosion and sedimentation problems. None of
the proposed conveyance facilities are on slopes 15% or greater,
thus they all rank equally.
Floodplains and forests (usually concurrently) provide desireable
habitat and corridors for safe movement of much of the wildlife in
the planning area. The combined effects on these two parameters
for each alternative was considered as the basis for the valuation
of relative impacts on wildlife.
Degree of Impact
least
greatest
Alternative
1, 2
3B
3A, 6
4A, 4B
5A, 5B
Numerous individual and collective historic and archaeological
sites were identified in the inventory chapter. Route A traverses
an Historic District in Doylestown Borough with which are
associated specific protection regulations. Many identified and
registered historic sites are within the border of this Historic
District, including a site listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. Construction of wastewater conveyance facilities
through this sensitive Historic District was evaluated as
potentially significant in terms of effects on historic resources.
However, new conveyance facilities will be constructed in existing
roadways and should not adversely affect the historic sites, most
of which are buildings. Secondary consideration in evaluating
effects on historic resources was given to the number of known
sites that exist along the routes of proposed new conveyance
facilities.
Degree of Impact
least
greatest
Alternative
1
2
3A, 3B, 6
4A
4B
5A
5B
USGS topographic maps (scale 1:24,000) of the planning area were
used to count the number of streams to be crossed by conveyance
facilities under each alternative. Construction across streams
causes short-term, adverse effects on water quality and aquatic
biota.
87
-------
Geology-Bedrock
Excavation
Induced Growth
Degree of Impact
least
greatest
Alternative
1, 2
3B
3A, 4B, 6
4A
5B
5A
Construction of conveyance facilities for wastewater can involve
cutting into bedrock. The portions of the planning area proposed
for conveyance facilities are underlain by two formations: either
Stockton Arkose or Lockatong Argillite. Excavation is relatively
easy in the Stockton formation, but unweathered Lockatong could
require blasting. Routes D, E, and F (Alternatives 4A, 4B, 5A, and
5b) are underlain by Lockatong Argillite.
Blasting
Requirement
least
t
greatest
Alternative
1, 2, 3A, 3B, 6
4A, 4B
5A, 5B
The potential for secondary development is directly related to the
alignment of new sewers through presently undeveloped areas.
Secondary development is that which is induced by the availability
of sewers in areas that otherwise would not develop, or would
develop at a slower rate or lower density. Routings D, E, and F
each traverse large areas of undeveloped land and thereby entail
some potential for growth inducement. The majority of the soils on
lands adjacent to these three routings are classified as unsuitable
for standard on-site wastewater disposal systems. Most of the
undeveloped land is zoned for low to medium density residential
uses. Furthermore, the possibility exists that, were sewerage
facilities to be made available through these areas, the current
zoning could be amended to permit more intensive residential
development. Consequently Alternatives 4A and 5a have the greatest
potential for growth inducement along the proposed conveyance
routes which extend beyond the proposed sewer service area. In
addition, Alternative 3B has a small probability of inducing new
development by the addition of a parallel conveyance sewer along
Cooks Run Creek. Such development, however, would likely be con-
fined to the planned sewer service area. Under Alternatives 4B and
5B the proposed new conveyance lines carry effluent already treated
to secondary levels. Although it is conceivable that new develop-
ment could connect into such a sewer, privately funded facilities
would first be necessary to treat wastes to secondary levels prior
to connection. The disincentives to bear this additional cost
sharply limit the potential for induced development along these
lines.
COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE
WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT PLANS
Growth
Inducement
least
I
greatest
Alternative
1» 2, 3A, 6
3B
4B, 5B
4A, 5A
Table 21 presents the costs of the alternative wastewater manage-
ment plans and includes the capital cost to implement the alterna-
tive, the annual cost of operation and maintenance, and the salvage
value at the end of the planning period.
88
-------
1
Table 21. Present worth cost estimates of alternative wastewater management plans
(Gilbert Associates 1981).
Alternate
1
2
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
5B
6
Project Cost
(millions of
dollars)
$10.08
11 .50
15.32
16.98
29.42
26.14
35.66
32.38
1 1.42
Annual Operation
and Maintenance
Cost (millions
of dollars)
$0.86
0.79
0.70
0.77
0.74
0.76
0.65
0.68
0.74
Salvage Value
(millions of
dollars)
$ 7.76
6.76
9.26
10.09
17.82
16.11
23.73
22.02
6.71
Total Present
Worth (millions
of dollars)
$17.16
18.09
20.36
22.49
32.61
30.38
36.50
33.98
17.51
Alternative 1 - Local Treatment
Alternative 2 - Chalfont Alone and Harvey Combined with Green
Alternative 3A - All Tertiary Treatment at Chalfont with Harvey and Green providing
Secondary Treatment
Alternative 3B - All Treatment at Chalfont, Harvey and Green Abandoned
Alternative 4A - All Treatment at a Regional Site (Vicinity of Neshaminy Manor Center)
Alternative 4b - Only Tertiary at a Regional Site (Vicinity of Neshaminy Manor Center),
Existing Plants Provide Secondary Treatment
Alternative 5A - All Treatment Below Dark Hollow Dam
Alternative 5B - Only Tertiary Below Dark Hollow Dam, Existing Plants Provide Secondary
Treatment
Alternative 6 - Green Street Alone, Combine Tertiary Facilities of Harvey Avenue and
Chalfont
89
-------
IMPLEMENTATION
CAPABILITY AND
COMPATIBILITY
The following definitions explain the different cost elements and
their significance:
Present Worth: The sum of money (which if invested now at a given
rate) that would provide all necessary expenditures over the life
of the project.
The present worth is used to compare projects on an equal basis.
It enables a parallel comparison of alternatives which may cost
more initially but are more economical to operate and maintain as
contrasted with alternatives that are less costly to construct but
more expensive to operate and maintain.
Project Cost: The costs necessary to construct wastewater treat-
ment facilities. These include both the costs of construction and
non-construction costs (e.g. engineering, legal, and administrative
costs). These costs are eligible for Federal funding under the
Construction Grants Program.
Operation and Maintenance: (frequently referred to as O&M) The
costs of normal operation and maintenance of facilities, including
electricity, chemicals, labor and other consumable items. These
annual costs are not eligible for federal funding and must be borne
by the users of the system.
Salvage Value: The mandated planning period for wastewater facili-
ties is 20 years. At the end of the planning period, most compo-
nents are still useful. The salvage value is used to represent the
dollar value of still useful components at the end of twenty
years.
Alternative 1, the maintenance of treatment at each of the three
existing plants, is the most cost-effective with a total present
worth cost of $17.16 million. Alternative 6, maintenance of treat-
ment at Green Street, but combining Harvey Avenue and Chalfont
flows for treatment at Chalfont, is close in cost to Alternative 1
with a present worth cost of $17.51 million. Alternatives 4 and 5
which propose completely new regional facilities are significantly
more expensive. The ranking of alternatives from least to greatest
cost is as follows:
Present Worth
Ranking
Alternative
least costly
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
6
2
3A
3B
4b
4A
by Alternatives 2, 6, 3A, 3B, 4B, 4A, 5B, and 5A.
90
-------
Alternatives 1 and 2 were judged almost equal with respect to
implementation capability and compatibility. The ranking of alter-
natives from most "implementable" to least implementable is as
follows:
Implementability
Ranking Alternative
most implementable 1 2
2 1
3 3A/3B
4
5 6
6 4A
7 5A
r 8 4B
least implementable 9 5B
ON-SITE WASTEWATER The EPIC aerial infrared survey in 1980 identified approximately
MANAGEMENT 900 on-lot sewage disposal system failures throughout the planning
area. Of these only about 65 are located within the proposed sewer
service area and could be resolved by connection to the regional
sewerage system. Of the remainder, many are clustered in six
specific locations. In a manner similar to that used for the
treatment plant alternatives, the Facilities Plan rated the on-lot
system alternatives according to cost-effectiveness, implementation
requirements and reliability. The on-lot system management program
received the highest scroe, followed by gravity sewers, cluster
systems, pressure sewers, sand mounds, and vacuum sewers. The
Chalfont-New Britain Facility Plan recommends as the most cost-
effective solution that the clustered as well as scattered homes
with on-lot problems become customers in a management program (see
Chapter VI for additional details).
Grant Eligibility During the detailed design (Step 2) of a management program, a
planning area-wide inspection of on-site systems will identify
those systems which are malfunctioning. Without the management
program, these systems would then need to be corrected with the
property owner responsible for the costs. However, with the
management program, 85% of the repair and/or rehabilitation costs
will be eligible for funding by EPA Program Requirements Memorandum
79-8, Small Wastewater Systems.
It should be noted that one of the key eligibility criteria is that
the principal residence or small commercial establishment must have
been constructed before December 27, 1977. Thus, homes built after
this date including new homes to be built during the planning
period would not be eligible for 85% funding. In addition, Federal
funding would be limited only to those homeowners whose systems
were identified as failing during the 12-month Step II (design)
phase of the project and as a result elected to join the management
programs. The rationale is that EPA will help remedy existing
problems, but will not spend water pollution control funds to solve
future problems.
Environmental The environmental effects of such a program are almotft entirely
impacts beneficial. Mo development will be induced. Groundwater quality
will be improved and recharged at the point of withdrawal. A
limited amount of construction or rehabilitation would be required
to upgrade or replace existing systems. This activity will result
-------
in localized adverse air and noise effects. Those effects will be
short-term and relatively insignificant. The construction also may
have a short-term beneficial effect on local employment. No loss
of forest or wildlife habitat are anticipated. Existing odor and
health problems associated with some of the malfunctioning systems
will be alleviated.
92
-------
Chapter VI
Preliminary Recommendations
i
-------
CHAPTER VI. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
The Recommended Plan Following a detailed analysis of alternatives according to costs,
engineering feasibility, and implementability, the Facilities
Planners chose to recommend a wastewater management plan that is
the most cost-effective and implementable. The selected plan is
comprehensive, as it provides solutions through Alternative 1 for
the advanced treatment required for areas served by public sewer-
age, as well as for the rest of the planning area which relies on
on-site wastewater disposal methods. Alternative 1 recommends
upgrading the three existing municipal wastewater treatment facili-
ties and expanding the Chalfont-New Britain plant. EPA's screening
and evaluation process (Chapter V) has concluded that Alternative 1
is also the most environmentally sound of the nine alternatives
proposed in the Facilities Plan. Alternative 1 is endorsed by EPA
as the most cost-effective, environmentally sound and implementable
means of meeting the 20-year needs of the planning area. Under
Alternative 2, tertiary treatment for the Borough of Doylestown
would be provided by a regional facility at the Harvey Avenue
plant. The total present worth cost of Alternative 2 would be
$930,000 greater or only 5.4% more than Alternative 1. The
environmental impacts of Alternative 2 would be short-term and
principally related to sewer construction through Borough streets.
Because of the minimal differences in cost and impacts, EPA may
also consider Alternative 2 as eligible for Federal funding,
although Alternative 1 is EPA's preferred alternative.
The Facilities Plan also recommends establishment of an on-site
wastewater management program to address the problem of mal-
functioning septic systems in areas which will not be served by
sewers. The Chalfont-New Britain Township Joint Sewage Authority,
the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority, and the Doylestown
Township Municipal Authority are jurisdictional agencies. EPA
endorses and encourages the concept of on-lot wastewater system
management by providing up to 85% Federal funding rather than the
maximum of 75% funding allowed for conventional treatment plants.
The success of such a management program, however, is based upon
the committments by the jurisdictional agencies to operate, the
program and the local residents to participate. In such a
situation, EPA will recommend its preferred alternative in the
Final EIS after having reveiwed and evaluated comments from those
who would participate.
This facility is recommended to expand its design capacity to 3.8-
mgd from the existing capacity of 2.0 'mgd. The rotating biological
disc process, RBC, was chosen to accomplish both nitrification and
denitrification at the Chalfont plant. Filtration was selected to
accomplish residual BOD/SS removals. The sludge treatment train is
recommended to be comprised of gravity thickening, anaerobic diges-
tion, belt filter press and application to the land. In the case
of each unit process for the Chalfont plant, the process selected
also had the least present worth cost.
No change in the existing design capacity of 0.7 mgd is recommended
for this facility. The parallel operation of the existing
trickling filter plant and the activated sludge plant can be con-
verted to a series operation to obtain nitrification. Therefore,
no new units will be needed at Green Street to accomplish nitrifi-
cation. RBC's were selected to accomplish denitrification along
with filtration to obtain residual BOD/SS removal. Despite a
higher present worth cost, filtration was selected over micro-
screening due to the very low BOD and total nitrogen effluent
requirements. It was felt that microscreening would not reliably
Chalfont-New Britain
Treatment Plant
Green Street
Treatment Plant
93
-------
Harvey Avenue
Treatment Plant
Phosphorus Removal
User Charges for
Public Sewerage
On-Site Wastewater
Management Program
Federal Funding
meet the new effluent standards. Furthermore, filtration has a
significantly lower energy requirement than microscreening. Sludge
generated at Green Street will be treated as presently by: anaero-
bic and aerobic digestion with liquid sludge hauling. Gravity
thickening of sludge will be added prior to digestion.
Projected wastewater flows to this facility are expected to exceed
slightly the present 0.6 mgd capacity. However, no additional
capacity is recommended. Instead, it was recommended that the
minor amount of additional flow be redirected to the Green Street
plant where there is expected to be unused capacity. Activated
sludge was recommended for nitrification over the RBC process even
though RBC's exhibited a lower present worth cost. The Harvey
Avenue waste strength is considerably stronger than either the
Chalfont or Green Street waste. Therefore, it was decided that the
added flexibility of the activated sludge process would be
necessary to meet the effluent requirements. RBC's were selected
for denitrification along with filtration to obtain residual BOD/SS
removals. As was the case with Green Street, filtration was not
the least cost alternative, but the effluent requirement necessi-
tates filtration.
Sludge handling would be maintained as previously accomplished, by
aerobic digestion and liquid sludge hauling to the land. A gravity
thickener is required.
Phosphorus removal also will be required at each plant. Bench
scale or pilot plant data will be needed to determine which coagu-
lant will be used and where that coagulant will be added. That
work will be accomplished during Step II (detailed design). It has
been assumed that a separate coagulation/flocculation clarifier
will be used to accomplish phosphorus removal. No expansions or
relief sewers are envisioned for the Borough of Doylestown. It is
possible that relief sewers may be required for portions of Cooks
Run. Further analysis will be possible upon completion of the
infiltration/inflow study during Step II.
The calculation of costs associated with public sewerage of the
selected plan is presented in Table 22. Construction and project
costs, and average user charges are broken out according to sewer
authority and also are presented as they would be both with and
without a 75% EPA grant.
A program of on-lot system management is recommended in the
Facility Plan as the most cost-effective and environmentally sound
solution for those areas exhibiting a need and lacking centralized
sewage service. A system of gravity sewers which ranked first in
terms of long-term reliability, received an overall second place
ranking largely due to high cost.
EPA will provide up to 85% funding for rehabilitation or replace-
ment of individual on-site systems if a management agency is
established to insure that they are operated and maintained
properly. Tasks which the management agency must accomplish
include: planning; system design, evaluation, and inspection;
supervision of construction; and operation nd maintenance. As with
centralized wastewater treatment, the issues of legal and fiscal
authority, agency administration, project financing, and user
charges must all be resolved by the authority who controls the
on-site management program.
At the present time, the Bucks County Health Department issues
building permits, oversees construction and inspects completed
94
-------
Table 22. User Costs for those with public sewerage (Gilbert Associates 1981).
SO
Ul
ITEM
Construction Cost
IS* Contingency
Total
Project Cost
Grant Eligible Coat (90%)
75% Federal Grant
Bond Issue*
Annual Bond Paysent - 8% # 40 yrs (S/yr)
Annual WWTP OM Cost ($/yr)
Total Annual Cost for Expansion
and/or upgrading
Huaber of Equivalent Dwelling Units -
1981 (BCWSA t CNBTJSA)
Cost per EDO for Upgrading and
Expansion
CWLFOWr WflP
BOROUGH OF OQYI FSTOWN
75% Federal
Grant
$6.03 x 10«
0.90 x 10®
SS.4J x
$9.35 x 10S
$8.41 X 106
$6.31 x 106
$3.04 x 106
$255,000
*o Federal
Grant
$6.03 x 106
0.90 x 10*
sorrres
$9.35 x 106
0
0
$9.35 x 106
$784,000
Green St. Harvey Ave.
75% Federal Grant
Green St. Harvey Ave.
No Federal Grant
$0.79 x 106
0.12 x 106
$0.41 x 166
$1.23 x 106
$1.11 x 106
$0.83 x 106
$0.40 x 106
$ 34,000
$0.66 x 106
0.10 X 106
$6.16 x 166
$1.03 x 106
$0.93 X 106
$0.70 X 106
$0.33 X 106
$ 28,000
$0.79 X 106
0.12 x 106
$0.91 x 106
$1.23 x 106
0
0
$1.23 x 106
$103,000
$0.66 x 10®
0.10 x 106
$0.76 X 106
$1.03 x 10«
0
0
$1.03 x 10«
$ 91,000
$435.000 (2.0 agd) $435.000 (2.0 agd) $225.000 (0.7 agd) $203.000 (0.6 »gd) $225.000 (0.7 mgd) $203.000 (0.6 mgd)
$690,000
5; 578
$ 123
$1,219,000
5,578
$ 218
$259,000
$231,000
$328,000
$294,000
3,750
$ 131
3,750
$ 166
Authority CHBTJSA BCWSA CNBTJSA BCWSA
Existing Sewer OM, Administration
1 Bond Payawnt Coat per EDO $ 68 $190 $ 68 $190
Total Future Projected User Cost $191 $313 $286 $408
Present User Coat $105 $220 $105 $220
$ 54
$ 185
$ 100
$ 54
$ 220
$ too
A - Bond Issue » Project Cost - Federal Cost
B - Total Annual Cost.for Expansion and/or Upgrading
« Annual Bond Payment +
Annual
OtH Cost
-------
installation of on-site systems. They also respond to complaints
and issue repair permits for failing systems. There is, however,
no structure for regular inspection of each system in the planning
area. Maintenance remains the responsibility of the homeowner who
is often unfamiliar with the operation and upkeep of on-site
systems. Rehabilitation and repair of on-site systems under this
framework would not be eligible for Federal funding. The munici-
palities could elect to proceed with "business as usual" but
totally at the expense of local government and residents.
Recommended Agencies The Facility Plan recommends that the Chalfont-New Britain Township
Joint Sewerage Authority, the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authori-
ty, and the Doylestown Township Municipal Sewerage Authority become
the on-lot system wastewater management agencies for their respec-
tive jurisdictional areas. The functions to be performed by these
agencies and the manner in which they are performed are a matter
for each of the agencies to determine on their own.
Currently the Bucks County Health Department approves the design of
new systems and repairs/alterations made to existing systems. Any
jurisdictional agency should coordinate its on-lot management
program with the Bucks County Health Department including septage
management. In the development of an On-Lot System Wastewater
Management Program each jurisdictional agency must establish
procedures to ensure that:
• Any new on-lot system, system rehabilitation, or system modifi-
cation is properly designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained;
• Periodic maintenance checks and pump-outs are performed;
• Area wells are sampled periodically to detect any potential
effects on groundwater (to be coordinated with PA-DER); and
• User fees are adequate to cover program administration as well
as inspection, operation, maintenance, and disposal functions.
System Customers The^ jurisdictional agencies must obtain the cooperation of the
municipalities within this area to inspect and permit of operation
on-lot systems within the municipality. Receiving such authorityt
the agency could then proceed to inspect all on-lot systems.
the time of initial inspection (at the outset of the program) the
owners of those systems would have the option of becoming a custo"
mer of the agency, whether their system passed or failed the
inspection. A non-customer of the program must allow and pay fot
an inspection of his on-lot system once every three years. The
responsibility to correct any system malfunctions noted in the
inspection is borne at full cost by each non-customer homeowner. £
customer, on the other hand, would pay an annual user charge and
allow unlimited access to his on-lot system at all reasonable tiro®®
for such purposes as inspection, monitoring, rehabilitation, an<*
maintenance. These services, and even replacement of the system*
if necessary, would be provided to all customers at no additions*
charge beyond the annual user charge. The project and construction
costs, as well as user charges, for the on-lot system management
program are presented in Table 23. These costs are presented
they would be both with and without 85% funding by EPA.
EPA would participate in the funding of repairs to systems whicJ|
are identified as having problems at the outset of the progt®^
only. Once the program is established, annual fees collected fro"
customers must cover the operation and maintenance of the progr#®'
96
-------
Table 23. User charges for the on-lot system wastewater management program (Gilbert
Associates 1981).
ITEM
Construction and Rehabilitation Cost
15% Contingency
Total
Project Cost
85% Federal Grant
Bond IssueA
Annual Bond Payment - 8% @ 40 years ($/y*)
Annual O&M ($/yr)
Total Annual Cost*5
Number of Customersc
Projected User Cost
85% Federal
Grant
$3.87 x 106
0.58 x 106
$4.45 x 106
$6.00 x 106
$5.10 x 106
$0.90 x 106
$ 74,000
67.000
$141,000
833
$ 169
No Federal
Grant
$3.87 x 106
0.58 x 106
$4.45 x 106
$6.00 x 106
0
$6.00 x 106
$503,000
67,000
$570,000
833
$ 684
A Bond Issue » Project Co8t ~ Annual O&M Cost identified
B Total Annual Cost - Annual Bo"* ^'injunctions within the Study Area identisiea
C Includes all seasonal and surface maitunc
by EPIC (1980).
*7
-------
including repair or replacement of any new failures which are
identified during regular inspections.
It should be noted that one of the key eligibility criteria is that
the principal residence or small comercial establishment was con-
structed before December 27, 1977. Thus, homes built after this
date including new homes to be built during the planning period
would not be eligible for 85% funding — the premise being that EPA
will help remedy existing problems, but will not spend water
pollution control funds to solve future problems.
Do We Want It? It is up to the participating municipalities and designated juris-
dictional to decide whether or not they wish to operate an on-site
wastewater management program. Creating such a program would be
analogous to adding a municipal service such as trash collection or
road maintenance. The public health benefit and costs would be
borne by the members of the program. The success of the program
would be directly related to the degree of commitment by those who
could participate. There are a number of questions which merit
your consideration as you formulate opinions and comments:
• The decision that you make will be yours to live with for the
next 20 years.
• A septic system management program will not allow homes to be
built where septic tank permits have been denied in the past
because of poor soils.
• The costs presented are based on the assumption that all home-
owners with septic tank problems will join the program and will
remain in the program for the 20 year planning period. What
assurances will these have to be to prevent residents from
joining in order to have expensive repairs done and then
dropping out to leave the remaining customers with the bill?
• What actions will be necessary if a homeowner should refuse to
make necessary repairs to his on-lot system?
• Should all homeowners with septic tanks be required to join the
program as a form of "septic tank insurance"?
Yes, We Do If the participating municipalities and designated jurisdictional
agencies concur with the recommendations of the Facilities Plan/ElS
that an on-site management system should be an integral part of the
20-year wastewater management plan, then EPA would consider a Step
II (detailed design) application for Federal funding in the Con"
struction Grants Program. During Step II, each septic system in
the area would be inspected to determine: whether or not a failure
exists; the cause of the failure (i.e., broken lateral, clogged
drainfield, etc.); and whether the system should be repaired or
replaced. Also during Step II, the actual details of the manage"
ment agency(s), the required ordinances and agreements, and more
accurate costs than those prsented in Table 23 would have to be
developed.
No Thanks If the participating municipalities and designated jurisdictions do
"ot a9re® to adopt a septic system management program, then no
turther design work would be done. a Federal grant would not be
issued for the detailed design (Step II) of a program if no granfc
application(s) were received.
98
-------
Chapter VII
Adverse Impacts and Mitigating Measures
-------
CHAPTER VII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATING MEASURES
OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
Air Quality
Noise
No significant adverse environmental impact is anticipated as a
result of the implementation of the recommended plan. The
increased quality of effluent discharges would have a beneficial
impact on the water quality and aquatic biota of Neshaminy Creek.
The adverse impacts associated with the upgrading/expansion of the
three existing treatment plants, as well as the institution of an
on-lot system management program, are identified below. Appro-
priate measures to minimize adverse effects also are listed.
IMPACTS:
• Minor, short-term air quality deterioration in the vicinity of
the three treatment plants during construction activities for
upgrading and expansion of treatment facilities. These include
generation of fugitive dust and engine emissions from construc-
tion vehicles. Similar, but less significant, localized effects
will be associated with activities involving the repair or
replacement of malfunctioning on-lot systems throughout the
planning area during the course of the planning period.
• Potential increased odors from the expanded Chalfont treatment
plant. This effect is primary in nature, resulting from the
operation of sewage treatment processes. Although potentially
long term, the effect is expected to be minimal.
• Odors resulting from future on-lot system malfunctions due to
non-membership in the on-lot management program. Such malfunc-
tions could persist for up to three years until the periodic
inspection identifies and corrects them.
MITIGATIONS:
• Spraying water on soils exposed during construction activities
to reduce dust;
• Using properly maintained construction vehicles equipped with
effective emission control devices;
• Proper operation and maintenance of unit treatment processes to
control, or contain on-site* any odors produced;
• Careful inspection of on-lot systems, with reinspection after
any required rehabilitation, to minimize malfunctions between
inspections.
IMPACTS s
• Localized, short-term increases in noise levels in the vicinity
of each of the three treatment plants due to construction acti-
vities for upgrading and/or expansion. Similar, but less signi-
ficant, noise increases at each lot which requires correction or
replacement of a malfunctioning, septic system.
Long-term noise impacts of treatment plant operations at each of
the three sites. Additional unit processes at the two Doyles-
town plants for tertiary levels of treatment, and the expanded
and upgraded Chalfont plant operations, will not significantly
increase ambient noise levels, however.
99
-------
MITIGATIONS:
• Proper operation and maintenance using best available technology
(and buffers, if necessary) will reduce construction equipment
and operational noise.
• Enforcement of local noise control ordinances also will minimize
noise effects.
Surface Water IMPACTS:
Quality
• Increased erosion and sedimentation. Each of the three treat-
ment plants is located adjacent to the stream to which it dis-
charges. Construction activity associated with upgrading or
expansion will result in short-term adverse effects to these
streams, although to a minimal degree.
MITIGATIONS:
• Temporary siltation basins should be constructed and maintained
until a cover is re-established fully on the area disturbed
during construction.
Groundwater IMPACT:
Recharge
• Future development which connects to the expanded Chalfont
facility rather than utilizing on-site treatment will reduce
groundwater recharge correspondingly. This situation represents
a long-term secondary impact as it relates to the availability
of public sewage services.
MITIGATIONS:
• The amount of groundwater recharge lost by eliminating on-site
wastewater disposal systems may be reduced by use of water
conserving devices in homes.
Energy IMPACTS:
• Construction and operation of expanded and/or upgraded facili-
ties at each of the treatment plants will result in a long-term
irretrievable commitment of energy resources. The additional
energy requirements associated with the operation of new unit
processes at the three treatment plants were calculated to be
1,076 kilowatt-hours (KWH) per year. The energy requirements
associated with the construction of the new treatment facilities
was not estimated.
• Implementation and operation of
Program also is associated with
energy resources. The relative
MITIGATIONS:
the On-Lot System Management
an irretrievable commitment of
amount was not calculated.
• The selected plan for centralized wastewater treatment involves
the least amount of new construction of all of the alternatives
considered. Therefore, although the energy associated with new
construction activities was not calculated, it is reasonable to
expect that the energy needs are less than the other
alternatives.
• The operation-related energy commitment of 1 ,076 KWH per year is
unavoidable since each of the treatment plants must upgrade
their facilities to meet PA-DER effluent criteria. The
100
-------
treatment processes selected represent the most energy-efficient
means of accomplishing the required level of treatment given
other constraints such as cost-effectiveness and reliability.
Land Commitment IMPACT:
• New facilities constructed at each of the three treatment plant
sites for the purpose of upgrading and/or expansion will irre-
versibly preclude alternative uses of that land during the life
of the system. Vegetation and other visual amenities currently
at the site will be destroyed.
MITIGATION:
• The area of disturbance should be minimized. Any vegetation on
the area to be excavated should be removed in sods, balls, or
blocks of soil and stockpiled for replanting. Stockpiled vege-
tation should be replanted, or revegetation should be
accomplished, as soon as possible.
User Costs IMPACT:
• Implementation of the selected plan for wastewater services will
result in an increase in the annual user charge for customers.
Currently, Doylestown Borough residents pay approximately $100
per household for sewerage service. With Federal funding this
cost will rise to $185; without to $220. Sewered residents in
Chalfont Borough and New Britain Township now pay $105 per
household which would increase to either $191 or $286 depending
upon Federal funding. Sewered residents in New Britain Borough,
Doylestown Township, and Plumstead Township now pay $220 per
household. This cost would rise to either $313 or $408
depending on Federal funding. Non-sewered residents of the
planning area currently pay no annual charge. Implementation of
the On-Lot Management Program would result in an annual cost of
either $169 or $684, depending on funding, to customers of the
agency. Non-customers would be required to pay a fee for a
periodic inspection.
MITIGATION:
• The selected plan represents the least costly alternative for
managing wastewater needs in the planning area. Bach of the
other alternatives considered would necessitate larger increases
in the annual user cost for sewerage services. Therefore,
during the process of screening and selecting an alternative,
this impact has been mitigated. Furthermore, funding of between
75% and 85% for the eligible project costs will significantly
reduce the annual user charges.
101
-------
Chapter VIII
Option Areas
-------
CHAPTER VIII. OPTION AREAS
PA
There are two proposed wastewater treatment facilities (King's
Plaza and Interim Treatment Plant) which have been proposed by
private interests. The construction of these facilities is not
eligible for any federal funding from EPA's Construction Grants
Program for publicly-owned treatment works. Therefore, these
facilities are beyond the specific scope of the 201 wastewater
facility planning study conducted for the Chalfont—New Britain
area. These two facilities are portrayed in this special section
in order to provide a comprehensive view. In addition, potential
development actions in Buckingham Township (curative amendments)
were considered. One way of treating the wastewater to be
generated from these potential developments is to make use of
wastewater treatment facilities in the Chalfont-New Britain
planning area.
King's Plaza STP During the summer of 1980 the Doylestown Township Board of Super-
visors approved a revision to the township sewage facility plan to
allow construciton of a privately-built sewage treatment plant
(STP) near the King's Plaza shoppping center. The agreement with
the developer (the Barnes Organization) culminated five years of
negotiations over the size of the site and capacity required. The
proposed STP will be constructed on 1.8 acres of land on the north
side of Almshouse Road near Route 611. The plant, designed to
handle at least 325,000 gallons per day (gpd), is proposed to serve
the King's Plaza Shopping Center, a proposed 385-unit Summit Ridge
development at the Warrington Country Club, the Barn Cinema, Gran-
daddy's Restaurant, and Holbert's Volkswagen. The facility will
replace a temporary holding tank which presently handles sewage
from the shopping center. The new STP will be privately built by
the developer at a cost of $0.65 to $1.0 million and then will be
turned over to the township and will be operated by the Doylestown
Township Municipal Authority. Bucks County government has an
option to utilize 80,000 gpd of capacity from the plant or to
request an expansion of the plant's capacity to 425,000 gpd in
order to serve the Neshaminy Manor Complex on the northwest side of
Route 611.
Interim Treatment During June of 1979 the PA-DER issued a ban on the issuance of
Plant building permits for construction that proposed to connect to the
public sewerage system of the Chalfont-New Britain treatment plant.
The ban was issued because PA-DER had determined that the Chalfont-
New Britain STP was polluting the Neshaminy Creek with overflows of
sewage. As a result of the ban, several private developers formed
an organization called Interim Treatment Plant (ITP), Inc. which
proposed to expand the capacity of the overloaded plant at no cost
to the sewage authority. The proposed temporary expansion would
allow the developers to continue or complete the construction of
developments previously approved by the municipalities, but fore-
stalled by the DER ban. All or parts of at least nine proposed
residential developments in the municipalities of the 201/EIS
planning area have been suggested for connection to the ITP. These
nine developments together account for almost 2,000 dwelling units,
some of which already are connected to the Chalfont-New Britain
STP.
ITP, Inc. has estimated that the sewer plant expansion would cost
about $1.0 million and would be financed entirely by the
developers. Upon completion of construction, the plant would be
turned over to the Chalfont-New Britain authority, who would then
operate it as an interim facility until the 201/EIS study was
completed.
103
-------
Buckingham Township
Background
of the Curative
Amendments
Location and Size
of Projects
jssible Wastewater
Management
Alternatives
Buckingham Township is adjacent to the Chalfont-New Britain
planning area. Buckingham is preparing its own wastewater facility
plan which considers meeting its existing and future needs.
Buckingham gave special consideration to the "curative
amendments".
In 1974, development interests filed amendments to the Buckingham
Township zoning ordinance. The landowners challenged the zoning
ordinance (enacted 1951) because it restricted new residential
development to single-family units with minimum lot sizes of 10,000
square feet. In 1975 after adoption of a new zoning ordinance, the
Township rejected the amendments on the grounds that the new zoning
ordinance essentially "cured" the problems cited by the landowners'
curative amendments.
The courts have supported the zoning appeals of the seven land-
owners, but the Township may be allowed to impose reasonable
restrictions on the implementation of the proposed developments.
The court decision stated that the zoning ordinance prevented the
construction of apartments, townhouses, and a mobile home park.
The current status of the curative amendments still is uncertain.
In 1980, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed Act 249 which
requires that a developer must sign a statement that he was unaware
of a pending ordinance when the curative amendment was filed. The
effect that this Act, passed after the curative amendments were
submitted, has on the amendments has not been resolved. Further-
more, the "reasonable restrictions" have not been established, but
they may affect the total number of units proposed.
The seven curative amendment sites are presented in Table 24. At
3.2 persons per dwelling unit, this represents a population
increase of 25,904. The 1970 population was 5,150 and in 1975 it
was 6,956. Preliminary reports from the US Census indicate that
the 1980 population was 8,817. During the past 20 years the popu-
lation of Buckingham Township approximately doubled. These seven
proposed developments alone would triple the population during the
next 20 years. This level of growth far exceeds populations
projections for the Township prepared by the Bucks County Planning
Commission and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
The Buckingham Township Draft Facility Plan (Tatman and Lee Associ-
ates, Inc. 1981) examined both on and off-site wastewater treatment
options for the curative amendments. On site treatment and dis-
posal alternatives were not considered applicable largely due to
the proposed development densities which leave insufficient area
for wastewater facilities. Viable alternatives considered consist
of spray irrigation and stream discharge and were divided into
those applicable for the Northern sites and for the Southern sites,
as follows:
I U4
-------
Table 24. Summary description of the seven curative amendments in Buckingham Township, PA
(Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1980).
SITES
Northern Sites
1 Enders
2 Yaroshuk
3 Barness
4 Schlanger
5 Enders/Sheddon
Sub-Total, Northern Sites
Southern Sites
6 Fairway-Smith
7 Ciccone
Sub-Total, Southern Sites
TOTAL, ALL SITES
ACREAGE
58.12
92.10
346.66
53.85
85.31
636.04
158.00
120.23
278.23
ssssas
914.27
DWELLING
UNITS
612
893
3,023
524
840
5,892
1 ,001
1 ,202
2,203
S2S9SS
8,095
PROJECTED WASTEWATER
FLOWS (qpd)*
137 ,000
200,000
677,000
118,000
188,000
1 ,320,000
224,000
269.000
493,000
SSMSSSSS
1 ,813,000
~Based on 3.2 persons per dwelling unit and residential wastewater flow of
70 gpcd.
105
-------
NORTHERN SITES
SOUTHERN SITES
• stream discharge at one central
point for all five curative
sites.
• stream discharge by sewering
to Chalfont-New Britain waste-
water treatment plant.
• land disposal (spray irriga-
tion) on other parcels in area
for all five curative sites.
• land disposal (spray irriga-
tion) on curative sites.
• stream discharge at one
central point (Mill Creek)
for both curative sites.
• stream discharge at each
curative site.
• land disposal (spray irriga-
tion) on other parcels in
area for both curative sites.
• land disposal (spray irriga-
tion) on curative sites.
One of the alternatives for handling the wastewater from the
northern curative sites (5,892 dwelling units, 1.3 mgd wastewater
flow) called for treatment at the Chalfont-New Britain plant. This
was based on examination in the Chalfont-New Britain Facility Plan
of the potential for wastewater treatment facilities in the
Chalfont-New Britain planning area to accept the additional waste-
water flows. However, the acceptance of wastewater flows at the
Chalfont-New Britain facility would be dependent on several factors
including:
• the necessary improvements (expansion and upgrading) at
Chalfont-New Britain facility need to have been made —
currently it is estimated that the Chalfont project is at least
46 months away from being operational without any contributions
from the curative amendments,
• approval by the US-EPA Regional Administrator to approve the
additional needed capacity in the Chalfont-New Britain facility,
and
• agreements among representatives of the curative amendments and
the Chalfont-New Britain and Bucks County Sewer and Water
Authorities.
106
-------
REFERENCES
Albright and Friel, Inc. 1962. A study of the water resources of
central Montgomery County, Montgomery County Planning
Commission.
Albright and Friel, Inc. 1970. Bucks County, Pennsylvania
Sewerage Facilities Plan. Philadelphia PA, variously paged.
Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc. 1977. Water supply study for
Montgomery County PA, Plymouth Meeting PA.
Broadfoot, D., J. Mertz and J. Powell Jr. 1969. Water quality
monitoring program -- year end report. Natural Resources
Division Bucks County Planning Commission.
Broadfoot, D., J. Mertz and J. Powell Jr. 1970. Water quality
monitoring program — supplemental report I - data update
1970. Natural Resources Division Bucks County Planning
Commission.
Broadfoot, D., J. Mertz and J. Powell Jr. 1971. Water quality
monitoring program -- supplemental report II - data update
1971. Natural Resources Division Bucks County Planning
Commission.
Bucks County Conservancy. 1978a. The Bucks County Inventory of
Historic Places. Unpublished card file. Doylestown PA.
Bucks County Conservancy. 1978b. The Bucks County Register of
Historic Sites. Unpublished records. Doylestown PA.
Bucks County Planning Commission (BCPC). 1977. Sewage and
streams. 214 p.
Camp, Dresser, and McKee Inc. 1972. Wastewater treatment, Upper
Neshaminy Creek. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources. 179 p.
Conant, Roger. 1975. A field guide to reptiles and amphibians.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston MA, 428 p.
Daily Intelligencer. 14 February 1980. Doylestown PA.
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC). 1978.
COWAMP/208 water quality management plan, southeastern
Pennsylvania. Philadelphia PA, variously paged.
EPA. 1976. Quality criteria for water. Washington D.C. 256 p.
EPA. 1979. Grant funding of projects requiring treatment more
stringent than secondary. PRM 79-7. Washington, D.C. 9 p.
Ernst, Carl H., and Roger W. Borbour. 1972. Turtles of the United
States. The University Press of Kentucky, Lexington KY,
347 p.
Gilbert Associates Inc. 1970. Feasibility study of upgrading and
expansion at waste teratment facility to provide advanced
waste treatment. Variously paged.
Gilbert Associates Inc. 1972. Preliminary engineering report,
upgrading and expansion of wastewater treatment plant. 86 p.
107
-------
Gilbert Associates Inc. 1975. Chalfont-New Britain Joint Sewage
Authority environmental assessment for construction grant.
43 p.
Gilbert Associates, Inc. 1981, Chaltont-New Britain Township
Joint Sewage Authority 201 Facilities Plan. Reading PA,
variously paged.
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 1979a. National
Register of Historic Places. 44 FR No. 26:7572-7573; 6
February 1979. Washington DC.
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 1979b. National
Register of Historic Places: additions, deletions and
corrections, 6 March 1979, 5 June 1979. Washington DC.
Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service. 1981. National
Register of Historic Places: annual listing of historic
properties. 46 FR No. 22:10658. 3 February 1981.
Washington DC.
G. M. Hopkins & Company. 1876. Atlas of Bucks County,
Pennsylvania. G.M. Hopkins & Company, Philadelphia PA.
Justin & Courtney. 1972. Updated master plan for water supply,
Bucks County, PA. Philadelphia PA, variously paged.
Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. 1979. Environmental report
on Neshaminy Water Supply System. Doylestown PA. Variously
paged.
Pennoni Associates, Inc. 1977. Central Bucks County water supply
study. Philadelphia PA.
Pennsylvania Bulletin. 1979. Revisions to water quality
standards, wastewater treatment requirements, and industrial
wastes. Harrisburg PA.
Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters. 1966. Pennsylvani;
streamflow characteristics low flow frequency and flow
duration. Harrisburg PA, 289 p.
Pennsylvania Fish Commission. 1977. Endangered species.
Harrisburg PA, 1 p.
Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission. 1978. Pennsylvania
Inventory of Historic Places: Bucks County. Harrisburg PA.
Plumstead Township Planning Commission. 1962. Land development
plan. 16 p.
Seegert, G. L., A. S. Brooks, and D. O. Latimer. The effects of a
30-minute exposure of selected Lake Michigan fishes and
invertebrates to residual chlorine. Presented at the
Biofouling Workshop, June 16, 17, 1975. Johns Hopkins
University. Baltimore MD.
Shoemaker, Ann G. 1919-1944. The red man in Bucks County. Bound
unpublished manuscript. Bucks County Historical Society,
Doylestown PA.
Slonecker, Terrence. 1980. Septic systems analysis Bucks County
PA, Chalfont-New Britain EIS, Buckingham EIS. Bionetics Corp
Warrenton VA. 15 p.
108
-------
Stankowski, S. J. 197 4. Magnitude and frequency of floods in New
Jersey with effects of urbanization. US Geological Survey.
46 p.
Strekal. 1976a. Aquatic biology investigation - Green Street STP
- Country Club Creek. Bucks County Health Dept.
Strekal. 1976b. Aquatic biology investigation - Harvey Avenue STP
- Cooks Run. Bucks County Health Dept.
Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1981a. Formulation of the
recommended septage management plan for septage management
study, Bucks County PA. Wilmington DE. Variously paged.
Tatman and Lee Associates, Inc. 1981b. Draft 201 Facilities Plan
Study, Buckingham Township, Bucks County PA. Wilmington DE,
variously paged.
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). FEIS Neshaminy Creek
watershed project, Bucks and Montgomery Counties PA.
Harrisburg PA. 218 p.
US Department of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service
(USDA-SCS). 1975. Soil survey of Bucks and Philadelphia
counties. In cooperation with the Pennsylvania State
University, University Park PA. Washington DC, 130 p.
US Department of Commerce (US-DOC). 1971. General population
characteristics Pennsylvania 1970 census of population.
Social and Economical Statistics Administration, Bureau of the
Census, Washington DC.
Weston, R. 1969. Neshaminy Creek Basin. Roy F. Weston -
Environmental Scientists and Engineers, West Chester, PA.
42 p.
109
-------
PREPARERS This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by the US
Environmental Protection Agency - Region III, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania with assistance from WAPORA, Inc.
Key personnel from EPA included:
Evelyn Schulz Project Monitor
Richard V. Pepino Assistant Project Monitor
Rosemarie Baldino Production Advisor
Key personnel from WAPORA, Inc. included:
David J. Lechel
Valdis Jurka
Stephen P. Kunz
John Munro
Elizabeth Righter
Joseph Andrea
Jerome Gold
Elizabeth Kolb
Susan Beal
Project Administrator
Project Manager
Planrier
Terrestrial Biologist
Archaeologist
Aquatic Biologist
Graphics Manager
Graphics Specialist
Production Assistant
111
------- |