analysis of soil erosion, sedimentation and stormwater control in coastal communities, Bucks County, Pennsylvania

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

AN A,NALYSIS OF SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION AND STORNATER

CONTROL IN COASTAL COMMUNITIES,--- BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,,-

COASTAL ZONE SITE VISITS

N'0@@T' C,,111.111 T@.

IL
X
A L

PREPARED BY:

BUCKS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT

IN COOPERATION WITH:
Coastal COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Blot. of EnvifoRmtrfal Resources DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Office of Resources Management
Coastal zone Management Office BUREAU OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
I - WE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
S
624 JUNE 1981
Y4
A53
less .... management
no management 0@
't'c'

1981

T A B L E 0 F C 0 N T E N T S

Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 2

Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3
ci Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . Page 4

Study Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 5

Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 7

LO Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . Page 10

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20
-j-
Q.-
=:;- Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 21
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 23

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 72

CHARTS AND GRAPHS

Figure 1 Location Map

Figure 2 Area of Proposed Land Development in the Coastal Zone Municipalities
C19781) 1979, 19-80')

Figure 3 Number of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans Submitted to Bucks
County Conservation District for Review (1978, 1979, 198o)

Figure 4 Graph Illustrating Comparison of Municipal Population to the Total
Population of the Coastal Zone Municipalities and Bucks County

Figure 5 Land Areas of Coastal Zone Municipalities Compared to Bucks County

Figure 6A Land Areas Falling within Coastal Zone Boundaries

within the Actual Coastal Zone Management Area
Figure 6B Graph Illustrating Percent Land Area of Each Municipality Falling

Figure 7 Acreages by Zoning Class

Figure 8 Land Area in Open Space Versus Development

Figure 9A Number of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans Submitted to Bucks
County Conservation District, Reviewed as Adequate on lst, 2nd, 3rd
Submission (1978, 1979, 198o)

Figure 9B Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans Submitted to Bucks County
Conservation District, Reviewed as Inadequate@1(1978, 1979, 198o)
and Reasons for Inadequacy

Figure 10 Pertinent Regulations and Criteria (Specifically Addressed by Ordinance)

Figure 11 Percentage of Land Area by Zoning Class

Figure 12 Summary of Questionnaire Survey

FORWARD

Having reviewed the Zoning and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances
for each of the municipalities within the Coastal Zone of Bucks County, the
Conservation District Staff opinion is that the existing ordinances and codes
are basically adequate to provide for adequate erosion, sedimentation and storm-
water control. Rules and regulations do not control erosion, sedimentation, or
stormwater problems however. Therefore, the primary concern of the Conservation
District is to see that the implementation of accepted erosion, sedimentation
and stormwater practices takes place in cooperation with.local governments,
according to their existing ordinances and codes.

Suggestions as to how implementation or compliance may be improved have
been made and it has also been suggested that when voluntary compliance is
ineffective, enforcement action be taken in the form of induced compliance..

Population pressures and industrial activities probably exert the greatest
effect on land use; however, local governments should take advantage of local,
county, and regional planning commission decisions as well as setting aside of
recreational lands to offset the negative aspects of development.

Water quantity and quality and the need for water conservation have been
addressed in somewhat general terms, with suggestions being offered to improve
water quality and quantity within the area.

Benefits derived by the District as a result of the study are also briefly
summarized, as are the recommendations which the District anticipates will have
the most positive effect on the estuary.
st The District has accumulated a great deal of supporting information in the
udy process and in the staff's opinion, this supporting information is probably
the most significant information presented in the report. We hope that the
municipalities will pay close attention to the conclusions and recommendations
resulting from the study, and that these have a positive effect on erosion,
sedimentation and stormwater management of the Coastal Zone as well as land use
and related activities.

To assist the municipalities with.tlie implementation of the conclusions and
recommendations, the District staff plans to meet with the municipal officials to
present the completed report, and to review the findings. In addition, workshops
and tours will be scheduled to emphasize and correct problems cited by: the study.

INTRODUCTION

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 CPublic law 92-583), amended 1976,
established a program within the United States Department of Commerce to assist
states with land use management and the handling of the demands on the waters
surrounding the nation@s coast. "A key intent of the Act is management of those
near shore activitiea which have a direct and significant impact on coastal
waters."*

Conservation District participation in the Coastal Zone Management program
reaffirms local authority over land and water in the Coastal Zone and places
emphasis on state and local leadership for the implementation of the Coastal
Zone Management Act activities.

Coastal Zone Management programs within the states are voluntary,* and the
information which follows will briefly introduce the procedure by which the
Bucks County Conservation District became involved with their Coastal Zone
Management Study.

At the September 5, 1980-meeting of the Bucks County Conservation District
Board of Directors, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation, gave an overview of the federal Coastal
Zone Management Program and how it relates to Pennsylvania and the Delaware
Estuary. Municipalities involved in Bucks County include Bristol Township,
Bensalem Township, Falls Township, Bristol Borough, Morrisville Borough and
Tullytown Borough. The purpose, as explained, was to assess and analyze erosion
and sediment control requirements of the previously mentioned municipalities, to
determine how these requirements are administered and to make recommendations as
to how the requirements might be improved. Upon action by the Directors, approval
was given to make application for the Coastal Zone Management grant. The District
Chairman appointed a committee consisting of 3 directors to study the proposal
and keep abreast of progress. The District Conservationist offered United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, assistance should it become
necessary.

At the December Board meeting, a Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation
representative was present to answer questions about the contract. The District
entered into agreement with the Department of Environmental Resources, Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, to carry out the scope of work for the study. Developing and
excuting the contract delayed commencement of the work program.

Actual work was begun February 6, 1981 at which time the Department of
Environmental Resources, the District employees and the Committee met to set the
course for the study and develop procedure.

See Reference 1

FIGURE 1

DURHAM

SPRINGFIELD

IBRIDGETON

MILFORD 7 NOCKAMIXON
@ICHLANO

HAYCOCK

I--- EAST TINICUM
IN E S T I)
ROCXH ILL ROCKNILL II I
BEDMINSTER

N E W

J E R 3 E Y
0 HItILTO IN IN PLUMSTEAD
T I

EW BRITAIN SOLEBURY

D.,.j
00.
r

BUCKINGHAM

DOYLESTOWN

UPPER
WARRINGTON

M A K E FIELD
WARWICK '%, WRI G H T S T 0 IN N

.LOCATION MAP \WARMINSTE\
NORTHAMPTON NEWTOWN .11
Municipalities. I
L6WER
Coastal Zone Boundaries \-,@PPER

\SOUTHAMPTO MIDDLETOWN

'S,' LOWER M A K E F I E L D
SOUTHAMPTON
I
TRIENTON
V I
PH I LADELPHIA
N FALLS

BENSALEM
v BRISTOL T-
SUC'KS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
0 4
SCALE IN MILES

NEW JERSEY

PURPOSE,

Inasmuch as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources is
responsible for erosion and sedimentation control within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and inasmuch as the Department of Environmental Resources prefers
enforcement, interpretation, and problem assessment to be handled on the [email protected]
level, the Bucks County Conservation District agreed to perform a study of the
Coastal Zone Management Area of Bucks County for the Department.

Terms of the agreement were such that the Conservation District would
assess the regulatory mechanisms for erosion and sediment control at the local
government level in the Bucks County Coastal Zone as part of the implementation
of the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program.

Since land use plays an integral part in erosion and sedimentation control,
the District was also asked to look at current land use, discern possible future
trends and make suggestions and recommendations as to how the regulatory pro-
cesses on land use might provide for more efficient and effective erosion and
sedimentation control.
F

1A "AN&
A

Photographs by Paul B. Moyer

STUDY PROCEDURES

Copies of local zoning 'ordinances, subdivision and land development ordinances
and the BOCA* code were the pr@=ary sources of information for the study of the
Bucks County Coastal Zone Management Area. Initially these materials were ob-
tained from the Bucks County Planning Commission, then by personal visits to each
of the municipal offices.

Six lower Bucks County municipalities were surveyed" to determine aspects
of the erosion, sedimentation and surface water control processes on the local
level. Land use was to be reviewed and correlated to present and future activ-
ities as they might affect erosion and sedimentation control.

Local zoning maps, informational maps provided by the Bucks County Planning
Commission and the Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation provided information
relative to land area, populations and current and proposed uses. Soil maps***
provided a detailed soils breakdown of the area. Numerous charts and graphs
were developed in the process and theae are presented as supporting information
to the written report and included in the appendices.

A key word search**** provided the means for the actual review of the Zoning
Ordinances, Subdivision and Land Development Ordinances and related codes. Each
municipality's ordinances were reviewed by three individuals, independent of the
other for the sake of verification. This procedure involves selecting a series
of words -which are felt to be relevant to the subjects at hand, then going
through each ordinance and highlighting thes-e words as they appear in the
ordinance or code. When complete, the search provides data relevant to the
completeness of ordinances and codes, and provides insight into those areas
not specifically addressed which the District staff felt were important to
enhance the implementation of approved erosion and sedimentation control plans.

In studying land uses, areas were measured by the use of a planimeter.
Unless otherwise referenced, that is the method which was used. Zoning maps pro-
vided much of the information relative to land use.

Various overlays were prepared to assist in the presentation of the infor-
mation to the municipal officials and others affected by the study. Soil survey*****
maps provided soils descriptions and information relative to land capability classes.
Localized photography was done in aasociation with site visits to determine the
construction stage of a subdivision or development, adequacy of planned erosion.
and sedimentation control methods, adequacy of stormwater control measures, pre-
I.sence of any erosion and sedimentation control problems. Where problems existed,
were the problems slight, moderate or severe and were there any violation notices
issued (re Chapter 102, Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law) by the Bucks County
Health Department.******

*BOCA - Building Officials & Code Administrators International, Inc.
**See Figure 1
***United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
****See Appendix A
*****See Reference 2
******See Appendix E

A letter to each municipality requested that they summarize their enforce-
ment procedures in writing, complete a questionnaire and return this information
to the Conservation District. A sample letter is included in Appendix C.

Field checks, carried out by the District Staff, consisted of specific site
visits, localized photography and a written report of the visit. These field
checks indicated that incidents of serious erosion do exist within the Coastal
Zone Management Area. Sites with gully erosion (gullies of 2.51 depth) were en-
countered. A chart listing the results of the site visits is summarized in
Appendix E.

--p

A, 711

Photographs by Paul B. Moyer

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As a result of interviews with municipal officials, we have determined that
the earth moving and construction phases for subdivisions and land developments
are monitored by the Township Engineer (or his designated agent), the local zoning'
officer, or building inspector. Citizen complaints with regard to erosion, sedi-
mentation, and stormwater management are also handled by the municipal engineer,
zoning officer or building inspector. In Bensalem Township, citizen complaints are
handled as an office procedure (service request) which is brought before the
Township Board of Supervisors. With respect to erosion and sedimentation problems,
the Bensalem Township engineer would ideally like to see problems of this nature
rectified prior to the stabilization and occupation of dwellings; however, occa-
sionally erosion and sedimentation complaints do occur.

Enforcement procedures, where and when they become necessary, are handled
according to information supplied by the municipalities and presented in Appendix C.
Prior to October 1980, the Bucks County Health Department served as the enforcing
agent for the Bureau of Water Quality Management, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources. Subsequent to October 19@0, the responsibility for enforce-
ment of the Clean Streams Law (Chapter 102, Title 25) was transferred to the Bureau
of Soil and Water Conservation, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Violation notices issued by the Bucks County Health Department, acting as an agent
for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, in the years 1978, 1979
and 1980 are significantly low, Three violation notices were issued for the Coastal
Zone; copies of these are presented in Appendix E of this report.

A questionnaire survey of the Coastal Zone Management municipalities provided
the District and the local Soil Conservation Service office with data relative to
the status of existing and proposed developments within the municipalities. This
survey, as well as information gathered while interviewing municipal contact persons,
indicates that development in the three boroughs is very limited, while development
in the three townships is on a much larger scale. For the years 1978, 1979 and 1980
the Conservation District received and reviewed 74 erosion and sedimentation control
plans encompassing 1004 acres* within the six municipalities. Of this total, 989
acres were in the three townships and only 15 acres occurred in the boroughs.

In studying land use for the Coastal Zone Municipalities, the staff concentrated
primarily on zoning classifications." Figure #8 presents a summary of this informa-
tion in more general terms which may be of more value to the average citizen. Also,
along this line, it was determined that residential development was primarily out of
the actual Coastal Zone Management area, and commercial and industrial development
was within the Coastal Zone Management area.

With regard to Erosion and Sedimentation Control Reviews, it was determined
that the municipalities followed the same review procedure. The municipal engineer,
the Bucks County Planning Commission and the Bucks County Conservation District
review the erosion and sedimentation control plans. Our interviews with the munici-
Pa-l officials indicated that they felt that three reviews were sufficient to assure
adequacy of the plan. This subject will also be addressed within the Conclusions of
this report.

*See Figure 2 and 3
**See Appendix B
7.

FIGURE 2

Area of Proposed Land Development in the Coastal Zone Municipalities
(1978, 1979, 1980)

Coastal Zone Area of Proposed
Municipalities Development (Acres)

Bensalem Township 358

Bristol Borough 0

Bristol Township 345

Falls Township 286

Morrisville Borough. 15

Tullytown Borough 0

Total i,oo4

FIGURE 3

Number of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans Submitted to
Bucks County Conservation District for Review (1978, 1979, 1980)
Coastal Zone Number of Erosion and Sediment Control It
Municipalities Plans Submitted to Bucks County
Conservation District-1978, 1979, 1980

Bensalem Township 25

Bristol Borough 0

Bristol Township 26

Falls Township 20

Morrisville Borough 3

Tullytown Borough 0

Total 74

Bucks County 417

Overall, the municipalities were very cooperative in assisting the District;
providing information upon request and discussing elements of erosion and sedi-
mentation control within their municipality*, Due to their size and areas of
responsibility, the boroughs appeared,to be more "community oriented." The six
municipalities visited were well organized and efficiently run. In Tullytown
Borough, the majority of the staff is parttime and many of the complaints from
residents are initially handled by the police chief. Tully-town Borough's Sub-
division and Land Development Ordinance was prepared for the Borough by the Bucks
County Planning Commission. One result of our preliminary meeting with.Bensalem
Township was an invitation to attend and participate in a.public meeting which sought
input for a proposed recreation park within the Township. This invitation was a
direct result of our preliminary meeting.with Bensalem Township officials and their
Citizen Advisory Committee representative to the Coastal Zone.

Throughout the course of our interviews, and the other information gathering
activities, we noted items of interest.which.exhibited a certain amount of unique-
ness to the Coastal Zone Management Area, One of the first items we noticed was
the tendency to divert runoff to the estuary as quickly as possible; the recharging
of groundwater is not specifically addressed. Along this line, our interviews
indicated that many of the natural 'watercourses ha ve been eliminated with the fill-
ing of wet areas in the 195G's in association with the building boom; i.e., Levittown.
Ilaving eliminated these watercourses, those remaining have had to handle increased
volumes and velocities of water; consequently, stream bank erosion is more of a
problem, and this is compounded in Coastal Zone communities because of their location
in the watersheds. Tidal changes occurring in Coastal Zone areas affect the depth
of the water table for lower drainage areas, and considering the fact that the lower
drainage areas are primarily in the actual Coastal Zone Management area,, and we
have established the fact that industrial/commercial activities are predominately
within this area, there is the potential for groundwater pollution if not carefully
monitored.

The District, at one time, had available its own erosion and sedimentation con-
trol handbook for general distribution; however, due to a lack of funds for the pur-
pose of reproducing this handbook, we are now providing a listing" of publications
which are used by the District in the review process. We recommend that anyone not
having a copy of this list obtain a copy to assure uniformity in the submission of
erosion and sedimentation control plans.

See Anpendix C
See Reference 6 and Appendix F

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The implementation of adequate erosion and sedimentation control plans is
of primary importance in the control of accelerated erosion on construction sites.
Not only is erosion and sedimentation control legislated by the Clean Streams Law
and enforceable-by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau
of Soil and Water Conservation., but local municipalities have the necessary ordi-
nances to enforce accelerated erosion control. As part of the study the District
has been asked to make recommendations which will enhance the reduction in soil
loss to acceptable levels. It is the suggestion of the Conservation District
that a preconstruction conference for the purpose of reviewing proposed project
narratives, construction sequences, and suggested recommendations would serve to
establish an open line of communication between all interested parties, and af-
ford the opportunity to assure that recommended construction sequences would be
followed. It has been the District's experience that by following recommended
erosion and sedimentation control practices and performing construction activities
in their proper sequence, accelerated erosion does not occur. Also, this reduces
undesireable soil loss figures, reduces sediment pollution and establishes a bet-
ter reputation for all parties involved. Inasmuch as properly implemented erosion
and sedimentation control measures account for one percent to five percent* of
construction costs Cas estimated by loca-1 government engineers), the District
would also suggest that costs for erosion and sedimentation controls be considered
on the same level as any other construction costs; thereby, reinforcing the cost
effectiveness of doing the job properly the first time.

Along this line, the District feels that local governments and engineering
firms are aware of the rules and regulations concerned with erosion and sedimen-
tation control, and what constitutes a good erosion and sedimentation control
plan; however, the District staff feels that there is definite need for an infor-
mation and education effort for developers, contractors and earth movers to make
them aware that the implementation of good sound erosion and sediment control
measures can save them money rather than cost them money. If persistent violators
are dealt with in such a manner as to make it more profitable to comply, a major
step will be taken to prevent violations of the Clean Streams Law and local ordi-
nances. Reducing violations will not only reduce the amount of soil leaving the
site and polluting the water with sediment, but will also reduce the number of
citizen complaints in the short run and eliminate potential problems before they
occur.

The sharp delineation between commercial/industrial development locations
and residential locations was previously mentioned and the District feels that
this sharp contrast is also unique. Previously published information" provides
insight into the environmentally significant areas existing within the Coastal
Zone Management Area. With regard to erosion, sedimentation and water quality,
unique situations do exist. Biles Island and Money Island serve as river dredge
disposal sites which, when active, eliminate existing vegetative cover and in-
crease the liklihood of erosion and accompanying sediment pollution until vegeta-
tion is reestablished. The Conservation District has been involved with the
United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Soil and Water Conserva-
tion in an effort to assure proper erosion and sediment control practices are
followed during these operations.

*See Appendix C
**See Reference 4 10.

Woodlands play a very important role in protecting the bodies of water
surrounding the various islands, By maintaining forest cover, runoff and
erosion problems are eliminated, Water quality in the system of lakes occur-
ring in the Coastal Zone Management.Area is directly affected by the quality
of the water replenishing them. The majority of the water which replenishes
the system isgroundwater and as previously@-mentioned, groundwater does fluc@
tuate withtidal changes, reemphasizing the need for water quality monitoring.

Resulting from their location in the Coastal Zone Manag ement Area, Falls
Township and Bristol Township are anticipating the development of marinas
within their boundaries. Falls Township has completed the study for their
maxina and expects it to be comp, leted by 1983, Bristol Township is presently
seeking to study the possibility of developing a marina. Realizing that con-
struction activities may result in earth moving, regrading and surface water
management problems, it will be extremely important for those responsible for
monitoring construction activities to assure all necessary plans, narratives
and permits are obtained and local codes and ordinances are followed.

Bensalem Township was found to be unique in that they have a Citizens
Advisory Committee to the Coastal Zone Management Area. The Committee, made
up of representatives of the Bucks County Planning Commission, Bensalem Parks
and Recreation Department and appointed citizen representatives, appointed by
the Township Supervisors, is primarily charged with gathering localized infor-
mation and presenting the information for the purpose of assigning priorities
for the Coastal Zone program. Bensalem representative, Thomas Donnelly, repre-
sents Bucks County on the regional level, at the Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission.

To this point the District staff has covered the physical and demographic
aspects of the Coastal Zone Management municipalities. One extremely important
aspect with respect to erosion and sediment control is the fact that local rules
and regulations appear to be adequate for the purpose of controlling erosion and
sedimentation; however, if implementation according to these rules and regulations
does not take place, then serious erosion does occur and land use related problems
exist.

Figures describing the extent of development and populations within the
Coastal Zone municipalities* indicate that the majority of the area is developed,
and that the population is quite heavily concentrated. If these trends for devel-
opment and population continue, and the proximity to the major metropolitan area
and industrial center indicates that they will, there will no doubt be a need to
consider erosion, sediment and stormwater control to a greater extent than is
currently being considered. If the current situations, which generally rely on
voluntary compliance, fail to prevent serious erosion, induced compliance may be
the answer.

Interviews with municipal contacts (Bristol Township, in particular) indicated
a definite need to emphasize the importance of proper land use planning. As the
land base becomes smaller year after year, and natural water courses become altered,
preplanning and flexibility in zoning will becomemore important, and the off site
aspects of subdivision and land development plans-will require closer attention
especially in the realm of stormwater management.

*See Figures 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7, 8

FTGURE 4

Graph Illustrating the Comparison of Municipal Population to the
Total Population of the Coastal Zone Municipalities and Bucks County

Bensalem Twp. 28.2
10.27

Bristol Boro. 7.0
2.53

Bristol Twp. 13.22 36.4

20.8
Falls Twp.
7.58

Morrisville Boro. 6.4
2.34

Tullytown Boro. 1.2
0.45

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
P2.

jF7.58
-1

Percent Population versus total Coastal Zone Municipalities

Percent Population versus Bucks County

12.

Obviously the location of the Coastal Zone at the base of several watersheds
and subwatersheds has a direct effect on the amount of sediment and stormwater
runoff which accumulates and is deposited in the Coastal Zone. If more time and
resources were available,, aspects of the aerial survey may have warranted more
detailed study of the Poquessing, Neshaminy and Delaware Watersheds, Specific
questions are anticipated from the individual municipalities concerning these
photographs and hopefully these questions can be directed to those individuals
of agencies responsible for solving problems, whether they be erosion and sediment
controll stormwater, land use, toxic waste or others.

The drought which has gripped the Delaware River Basin since May of 1980 has
taught the public the importance of water conservation, and the District feels that
it is important to mention the fact that the recharging of groundwater supplies
should be taken into consideration wherever possible, the use of grassed wat-erways
versus storm sewers, and the requiring of water conservation plumbing fixtures in
all new construction or remodeling, are only a few suggestions which will serve to
improve the availability and quality of water for residential and industrial users.
Technical expertise is available to local governments and industrial users of large
volumes of water through the Bureau-of Resources Programming, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, as to how water can be conserved and used
more efficiently.

The results of the District's site visits, presented in Appendix C, reinforce
the need for some type of control over the implementation of erosion and sedimen-
tation control plans. Currently, unless a citizen complaint is received, violations
often go unnoticed. This points up the importance of citizen involvement, and the
need for workable procedures to rectify and enforce violation notices. The pre-
viously mentioned Citizens Advisory Committee from Bensalem Township may be a
recommendation which other municipalities would like to consider to assist them
in becoming aware of problems occurring within their Coastal Zone.

In general,-erosion and sedimentation control plan reviews, performed by the
District's Soil Conservationist, follow the same general procedure. Each plan is
unique, and must be addressed with this uniqueness in mind; however, in the course
of the study the District has determined that there are three general reasons why
plans, as submitted, are deemed inadequate. Broadly stated, these reasons are
erosion control, sediment control and stormwater management. Figures 9A and 9B
provide a more detailed summary of inadequate plans and the reasons for their
inadequacy.

Population and industrial trends will probably dictate land use to a greater
extent than existing zoning; however, proper planning and setting aside recreation
areas will have somewhat of an offsetting effect with respect to population and
industrial activity. The existence of the Delaware River as a transportation
route has probably exerted the primary influence on the previously mentioned delin-
eation between the industrial/commercial and residential areas of-the Coastal Zone.
The District does not anticipate any significant change in this situation; however,
an increased interest in the use of the estuary for recreational purposes is seen,
and the District anticipates that this will indirectly affect water quality in a
positive way,

13.

From the information presented, the District's major recommendations are:

1) "To assure that the implementation of an approved erosion, sedimentation
and stormwater control plan does occur.tr

Unless implementation occurs, the review process becomes useless, and the
credibility of those performing the review is weakened. For the purpose of
controlling accelerated erosion, the erosion and sedimentation control plan
review can be the most effective tool when it is understood that implementation
of the approved plan will be required or construction will be halted.

2) "To establish a system of preconstruction conferences."

At this time, those involved with a proposed project would meet to discuss
the project narrative, construction sequence, and any suggested recommendations
or changes. As a side benefit, the line of communications should be greatly
improved.

3) "To make the public aware of the importance that citizen involvement has
in preventing erosion, sedimentation and stormwater problems.",

As a lead agency for erosion control on the local level, the Conservation
District should accept the responsibility for coordinating efforts directed
toward an informed public. The District should also cooperate with the local
governments to encourage citizen involvement.

4) "To develop a sound information and education program for contractors
and developers (i.e., those directly involved in earth moving)."

As a coordinating agency, the Conservation District should call upon its many
local, state and federal cooperating agencies to assist in the presentation
of information which will result in the proper implementation of erosion,
sedimentation and stormwater plans.

In conclusion, this study has been a definite asset to the Conservation
District Staff in a number of ways. The Staff has become more *familiar with the
Coastal Zone Management Area municipalities, with their management and codes and
enforcement staff and with the existing and planned land uses. A great deal has
been learned about local government and its programs. Also, the District feels
a greater degree of accessibility with those involved with the study, and hopes
that they feel the same toward the District having been involved in this study
in the Coastal Zone.

14.

FIGURE 5

Land Areas of Coastal Zone Municipalities Versus Bucks County

Area* Percent Area of
Coastal Zone Square Municipality Versus
Municipalities Miles Acres Bucks County

Bensalem Township 20.9 13,36o 3.4
Bristol Borough 1.8 1,180 0.3
Bristol Township 17.2 10,980 2.8
Falls Township 26.4 16,920 4.3
Morrisville Borough 2.0 1,250 0.3
Tullytown Borough 2.1 1,320 0.3

Total 70.4 45,01 0 11.4

Bucks County- 620.0 396,8oo

Area information compiled from Bucks County Planning Commission
1980 Municipal Directory

FIGURE 6A

Land Areas Falling Within Coastal Zone Boundaries

Area of Munici- Percent Area of
Coastal Zone Area pality within Municipality within
Municipalities (Acres) Coastal Zone (Acres) Coastal Zone

Bensalem Township 13,36o 3,030 22.7
Bristol Borough 1,180 280 23.7
Bristol Township 10,980 2,390 21.8
Falls Township 16,9,2o 9,450 55.8
Morrisville Borough. 1,250 44o 35.2
Tullytown Borough 1,320 950 72.0

Total 45@010 16,54o

Bucks County 396,800

15.

FIGURE 6B
Graph Illustrating the Percent Land Area of Each.14unicipality
Falling within the Coastal Zone Management Area
Per-cent land area of Bucks County actually in the Coastal Zone Management Area

Bensalem Twp. 22.7%

Bristol Boro. 23.7%

Bristol Twp. 21.8%

Falls TiNP. 55.8%

Morrisville Boro. 35.2%

Tullytown Boro. 72.0%

BUCKS COUNTY NN 4.17%

16.

FIGURE 7

@creage by Zoning Class

Area (Acres)

Coastal Zone Resi- Histor- Commer- Indus- Sanitary Farming Total Area
Municipality dential ical cial trial Landfill & Mining (Acres)
Bensalem Township (Data unavailable - 13,360.o
currently in process of revising zoning maps.)
tBristol Borough 538.9 53.8 236.4 350.9 0.0 0.0 1,180.0

Bristol Township 7,o84.1 0.0 647.1 3,248.8 0.0 o.o lo,98o.o

Falls Township 4,756.o 52.5 1,341.8 9,539.4 164.4 1,o65-9 16,920.0

Morrisville Borough 946.4 0.0 113.0 190.6 0.0 0.0 1,250.0

Tullytown Borough 280.2 0.0 101.7 938.1 0.0 0.0 1,320.0

FIGURE 8

Land Area in Open Space Versus Development
Coastal Zone *Percent *Percent Ratio of Open Space
Municipalities Open Space Developed Versus Development

Bensalem Township 25 75 1:3

Bristol Borough 1 99 1:99

Bristol Township 25 75 1:3

Falls Township 30 70 1:2.3

Morrisville Borough 1 99 1:99

Tully-town Borough 4o 6o 1:1.5

Average 20.3 79.7 1:3.9
*Percentages estimated by municipal officials

17.

FIGURE 9A

Number of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans Submitted to
Bucks County Conservation District That Were Reviewed as Adequate
on lst, 2nd, 3rd Submission (1978, 1979, 198o).

Total Number
Coastal Zone lst 2nd 3rd of Adequate
Municipalities Submission Submission Submission Submissions

Bensalem Township 6 10 3 19

Bristol Borough - - - -
Bristol Township 10 6 2 18
Falls Township 7 7 1 15
Morrisville Borough 1 0 0 1

Tullytown,Borough - - - -

Total 24 23 6 53

Percent 45.3 43.4 11.3

18.

FIGURE 9B

List of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans Submitted to
Bucks County Conservation District That Were Reviewed as-
Inadequate (1978, 1979, 1980) and Reasons for Inadequacy
BENSALEM TOWNSHIP *E *S *St

1. Dumont Valley X X X
2. Faulkner Cadillac X
3. Metropolitan Industrial Center X X
4. Mini Storage Center X X
5. Roy Rogers X X X
6. Winding Brook X X

BRISTOL TOWNSHIP

7. Bristol Newspaper Recycling X X
8. Cibro Petroleum Inc. X X X
9. Clarion Company Tract X X
10. New Building - Turnpike Industrial Center X
11. Penn-Jersey Service Center X
12. S.C.P. Contractors, Inc. X X X
13. Wistarwood Sections I, II, III X X
14. Worthington Associates X
FALLS TOWNSHIP

15. Breezy Acres Mobile Home Park X X X
16. Brewer I s Outlet X X X
17. Disposal Dredging Sites - Delaware River x X
18. Red Oak Village Apartments X X
19, T.C.A. Office Warehouse X

MORRISVILLE BOROUGH
20. Melvin Court Project" X X X
21. Morrisville School District** X X

E = Erosion problem
S = Sedimentation problem
St= Stormwater problem

See Appendix E

19.

REFERENCES

1) The Role of Conservation Districts in the Coastal Zone Management ProEram,
U.. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
(December 19-9
.7.1

2) Soil Survey of Bucks and.Philadelphia Counties, Pennsylvania, United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, CJulY 1975)

3) Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Chapter 102, Title 25

4) Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Working Paper, Four Environmentally Significant
Areas, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, (November 1976)

5) Important Farmlands Map, State of Pennsylvania, (April 1981), U. S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service

6) Memorandum: Publications Used in Land Development Reviews, Bucks County
Conservation District, L. J. Manai, CJanuary 23, 1981)

7) The Concise American Heritag2 Dictionary, C198o), William Morris (editor)

8) Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Manual, CApril 15, 1978), Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, prepared by Afton Schadel, Thomas B. Koons,
Gerald W. Root

9) Elementary Soil and Water Engineering, (1971) Glenn 0. Schwab, Kenneth K. Barnes,
Richard K. Frevert, Talcott W-. Edminster

10) Falls Township, Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, Chapter 191, (.1978)

11) Morrisville Borough.Zoning Ordinance, Bucks County Planning Commission, (October 1980)

12) Approved Practices in Soil Conservation, Albert B. Foster, (1973)

13) Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in Developing
Areas, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, (July 1975)

14) Municipal Directory, Bucks County, 1980., Bucks County Planning Commission

20.

1 * Catch 'basin - An oversized storm-vater inlet used to trap, and hold stormwater
runoff.

2. Culvert A drain crossing under a road or embankment. (CAHD)

3. Cut face The exposed soil surface usually resulting from excavation.

4. Detention basin - A structure built for the purpose of temporary storage of
runoff and the release of runoff at controlled sites.

5. Drainage - The removal of excess surface or groundwater from land by means .of
surface or subsurface drains, infiltration, ponding and other accepted measures.

Drainage easement - The permissive use of a parcel of land for the purpose of
removing surface water runoff from another parcel, subdivision or development.

7. Drainage facility - Any swale, pipe, culvert, storm sewer, detention basin, or
structure constructed for the purpose of diverting or carrying surface water
off streets, public rights-of-way, parks, recreation areas, or any part of any
subdivision or land development. CFalis S & LD)

8. Dwelling unit - Any room or group of rooms forming a single habitable unit with.
facilities for living, cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities for one family.

9. Easement - A grant of the use of a parcel of land to.the public, a corporation,
or person, for a specified purpose. (Falls S & LD)

10. Erosion - The natural process by which the surface of the land is worn away by
the action of water, wind or chemical action. (E & S)

11. Land development - The constructing, installing, placing, planting, or building
of surface structures such as utility lines, shopping centers, golf courses,
apartment complexes, schools, roads, highways, parking areas, or any other
similar activity. (E & S)

12. Natural drainage - The movement of excess surface water through.a parcel of land
by artificial means. This includes swaling, ditching, contouring and other
related existing topographical conditions.

13. One-hundred year storm - A storm that, on the average, is likely to occur once
every one-hundred years. A storm that has a one percent chance of occurring
each year, although the storm may occur in any year.

14. Open space.- Land used for recreation, resource protection amenity, or buffers,
and is freely accessible to all residents. (Morrisville Z)

15. Runoff rate - The velocity with which precipitation makes its way toward stream
channels, lakes or oceans as surface flow. (.ESWEj

16. Service request - A complaint handling form developed and used by Bensalem
Township to assure residents that complaints are attended to,

17. Settlement - The shrinking action of fill,

21.

18. Silt trap - Natural or man-made devices designed to prevent the movement of
sediment at certain locations,

19. Stabilization - The proper placing, grading, and/or covering of soil, rock, or
earth to insure their resistance to erosion, sliding, or other movement. E & S)

20. Storm drainage system - A drainage system specifically designed for the transport,
storage, and release of stormwater. These systems are especially found in areas
with a high percentage of impervious area.

21. Subdivision - The division or redivision of a lot, tract, or parcel of land by
any means into two or more lots, tracts, parcels or other division of land
including changes in existing lot lines for the purpose, whether immediate or
future, of lease, transfer of ownership, or building or lot development, (E & S)

22. Subsurface drainage - The removal of excess water using underground"structures
such as pipes, tiles, and related structures. (ESWE)

23. Surface drainage - The removal of excess water using open ditches, field drains,
land grading, and related structures. (ESWE)

24. Swale - An excavated drainageway located across or along the perimeter of
disturbed areas. CS & S)

25. Topographical conditions - The existing chaxacteristics of the land.

26. Topographically unstable - An area determined by site investigation to be
unsuitable for development, discharge and/or other activities due to natural
or existing land conditions.

27. Watershed - The total land area, regardless of size, above a given point on a
waterway that contributes runoff water to the flow at that point. (SC)

CADH The Concise American Heritage Dictionary, (1980) William Morris (editor)
E & S Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Manual, (4-15-78) Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, prepared by Afton V. Schadel,
Thomas B. Koons, Gerald W. Root
ESWE 'Elementary Soil and Water Engineering, (1971) Glenn 0. Schwab, Kenneth K. Barnes,
Richaxd K. Frevert, Talcott W. Edminster
Falls S & LD Falls Township Subdivision and Land Development Chapter 191, (1978)
Morrisville Z Morrisville Borough Zoning Ordinance, (October 1980) Bucks County
Planning Commission
SC - Approved Practices in Soil Conservation, (1973) Albert B. Foster
S & S - Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in Developing
Areas, (July 1975) United States Department of'Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service

22.

APPENDICES

Appendix A Key Words

Appendix B Charts and Graphs

Appendix C Questionnaire Survey and
Local Enforcement Data

Appendix D Soils Data

Appendix E Site Visit Data/Relative to
Base Map and Violation 'Notices

Appendix F List of Publications Used in
Land Development Reviews

23.

a
I
I
'I
I
A
I
I APPENDIX A
KEY WORDS
i
I
I
I
I

I
I

24.

APPENDIX A

0 0 0
KEY WORD 4; REKARKS

Bucks County
Conservation District +

building *+ *+ *+ *+
*Indicates this word
building coverage *+ *+ *+ 1*+ is addressed in the
I Zoning Ordinance
building density I
*+ + *+ I*+
buffer strip *+ *+ *+ *+ *+
I I +Indicates this word
cartway I
*+ + + + is addressed in the
Subdivision and
conservation + *+ + Land Development
Ordinance
contour(s)
*+ *+ + *+ *+

cul-de-sac
*+ + + + +
*+Indicates this word
culvert
+ + + *+I + is addressed in both
curb drainage the Zoning and
Subdivision and
Land Development
cut + + + + *+ Ordinance
drainage *+ *+ *+
drainage (natural) + + I
I + *+
drainage swale + + +1
dredging

driveway
*+ + *+
easement *+ + I + + *+
easement (drainage) + + + + +
easement (temporary) +

erosion
+ + *+ *+

excavating
+ *+ *+

fill *+ *+ + *+ *+

flood(ing)

flood hazard +

25.

APPENDIX A

A@' e.,
e; ^Y
0
0 0
. @) @y
KEY WORD RETVIARKS
grade Ling I- *+ *+ *+ *+ #+
grade (minimum) + + + + +

grade (riaximum) + + + +

impervious Cpervious) *+ *+

inlet + +

ground cover *+ +

ground water *+ +

landscaping *+ *+ *+ *+ *+

landscaping requirements +

lawn *+ *+ *+ *+

mining

obstruction

open space

paving
parking area(s) *+

pipe

plan (sketch)

plan (-preliminary)
plan (final) + + + + +
planting(_s) *+ *+ *+ *+ *+
planting strip *+ + + + *+

pollution

resid ential *+ *+ *+ *+

right-of-way

runoff
f + + + *+
. L
sanitary landfill

26.

0
APPENDIX A

ej ^Y ^Y 0
0 0
YQ
KEY WORD 4@ REMARKS

sediment + *+ *+

sedimentation + *+ *+
seeding + Falls Township men-
service request tions Bucks County
0 Conservation District
sewage concerning mudslide
sewer (storm) *+ *+ *+ *+ *+ prone areas.
*+ + + *+ *+
sidewalk *+ *+ *+ *+ Bristol Township states
that Bucks County
sliding (.soil) *+ Conservation District
should receive one copy
slope *+ + + *+ *+ of final plan for major
subdivision and nonres-
sodding + idential development.
soil *+ + Bristol Township prior
soil condition to excavating or grading
+ + + developer should consult
stable with Bucks County
Conservation District.

stream
+
streets OIndicates Bensalem
*+ *+ *+ + + Township complaint
surface water *+ handling mechanism.
waste disposal *+

waste storage

water

watercourse

waterway(s)
*+ + + + *+
wetland(s) + *+

yard
*+ *+ *+ *+

27.

I
I
I
I

I
I APPENDIX B

I CHARTS AND GRAPHS
I
I
I
I
I
1,
I
I
I
I
I
a 28.

FIGURE 10
PERTINENT REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA
(Specifically Addressed by Ordinance)
Municipalities Building S & L D Plumbing Zoning Grading Stormwater Open Space Others

Bensalem Twp. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Flood Plain
BOCA Planting or Landscaping
Drainage Easement

Bristol Boro Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Drainage Easement
BOCA Flood Plain
Planting or Landscaping

Bristol Twp. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Buffer Yards
BOCA Flood Plain
Drainage Easement

Falls Twp. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Flood Plain
N) BOCA (recreation Planting or Landscaping
space) Drainage Easement

Morrisville Boro Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Drainage Easement
BOCA Flood Plain
Planting

Tullytown Boro Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Flood Hazard Requirements
Written *BOCA Buffer Yards
by BCPC

Remarks: BCPC=Bucks BOCA Codes used by all
County municipalities
Planning *BOCA Plumbing by
Commission selection

APPENDIX B

Summary of Zoning Code Abbreviations

Bristol Borough

R-1 Residence District
R-2 Residence District
H Historical District
NC Neighborhood Commercial District
cc Central Commercial District
HC Highway Commercial District
I Industrial District
M-1 Modified Industrial District

Bristol Township

R-1 Residence Districts
R-2 Residence Districts
R-3 Residence Districts
R-4 Residence District
C Commercial Districts
CN Commercial Neighborhood Districts
CS Shopping Center Districts
M-1 Light Manufacturing Districts
M-2 Heavy Manufacturing Districts
P-I Planned Industrial Districts
R-T Residence Districts
C-SS Commercial Service Station Districts
P-0 Professional Office Commercial Districts

Falls Township

NCR Neighborhood Conservation Residential
LR Low-Density Residential
LMR Low-Medium Density Residential
MR Medium-Density Residential
MHR Medium-High Density Residential
HR High-Density Residential
HR-E High-Density Residential (Elderly)
MHP Mobile Home Park
HD Historical District
BP Business and Professional District
HC Highway Commercial
SC Shopping Center Commercial
NC Neighborhood Commercial
CR 'Commercial Recreation
FM Farming and Mining
LI Light Industrial
HI Heavy Industrial
PIP Planned Industrial Park
MP Metal Production and Port District
SL Sanitary Landfill
TT Transportation Terminals

30.

APPENDIX B

Summary of Zoning Code Abbreviations

Morrisville Borough

R-1 Residential District
R-2 Residential District
R-P-A Residential District
R-3 Residential District
R-4 Residential District
C-1 Central Commercial District
@C-2 Shopping Cent,er District
C-3 Neighborhood Commercial District
L-I Light Industrial District
I Industrial District

Tullytown Borough

R-1 Residential 1 District
R-2 Residential 2 District
BC Borough -Center District
C Commercial District
SC Shopping Center District
LI Light Industrial District

(Bensalem Township has not been included due to current revision process taking
place within the Township.)

31.

APPENDIX B
FIGURE 11

Percentage of Municipal Land Area by Zoning Class

BRISTOL BOROUGH

Zone Area *(Acres) Percent Area
R-1 173.5 14-70
R-2 365.4 30-97
H 53,8 4.56
NC 9.8 o.83
cc 63.6 5.39
HC 163.0 13.81
1 315.4 26-73
M-1 35.5 3.01
1,180.0

BRISTOL TOWNSHIP

Zone Area *CAcres) Percent Area
R-1 [email protected] 10-74
R-2 2,323.3 21.16
R-3 3,531.0 32.16
R-4 24.2 0.22
C 613.7 5.59
CN 7.7 0.07
CS 24.2 0.22
M-1 828.9 7.55
M-2 1,948.9- 17-75
P-I 471.0 4.29
R-T 26.4 0.24
C-SS 1.1 0.01
P-0 0.4 <0.01
lo,98o.o

Areas hand calculated using planimeter

32.

APPENDIX B
FIGURE 11

Percentage of Municipal Land Area by @@cning Class

FALLS TOWNSHIP

Zone Area *(Acres) Percent Area
NCR 2,345.1 13.86
LR 1,055.8 6.24
IRR 148.9 0.88
MR 155.6 0.92
MHR 26T.3 1.58
BR 468.6 2-TT
HRE 4o.6 0.24
MHP 2T4.1 1.62
HD 52.5 0.31
BP 50.8 0.30
HC 24T.0 1.46
SC 86.3 0.51
NC 1T4.3 1.03
CR T83.4 4.63
FM l,o65-9 6.30
LI 1,245.3 T-36
HI 4,321.3 25-54
PIP 742.8 4.39
MP 3,189.4 18.85
SL 164.4 0.97
TT 4o.6 0.24
16,920.0
Areas hand calculated using planimeter

33.

APPENDIX B
FIGURE 11

Percentage of Municipal Land Area by Zoning Class

MORRISVILLE BOROUGH

Zone Area *(Acres) Percent Area
R-1 147.6 11.81
R-2 54o.2 43.22
R-2A 173.0 13.84
R-3 54.o 4.32
R-4 31.6 2.53
C-1 45.8 3.66
C-2 25.8 2.o6
C-3 41.4 3.31
L-I 34.9 2.79
1 155.7 12.46

1,250.0

TULLYTOWN BOROUGH

Zone Area *(Acres) Percent Area
R-1 217.3 16.46
R-2 26.3 1.99
BC 36.6 2.77
C 6.3 o.48
SC 95.4 7.23
LI 938.1 71-07

1,320.0

Areas hand calculated using planimeter

34.

I
I
.I
I
I
I APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY AND
I LOCAL ENFORCEMENT DATA
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 35.

APPEMIX C
BUCKS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT

BOX 16, 4259 SWAMP ROAD
DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 48901
2151348-1166

MEMORANDUM:

TO: Coastal Zone Municipalities

FROM:: John Thomas, Executive Assistant

SUBJECT: Oluestionnaire/Coastal Zone Study

DATE: April 24, 1981 (Arbor Day)

Could you please complete the following questionnaire to assist

the Dietrict in the completion of our Coastal Zone Management Study.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

36.

APPENDIX C
FIGURE 12
Summary of questionnaire Survey*
Number of Responses
Question Question Intent Yes NO

1 Do many erosion, sedimentation and stormwater problems
exist in your municipality? 3 2
2,3 Is there potential for future development in your
municipality? 3 2
4 Are construction activities monitored locally? 5 0
5 Are erosion,,sedimentation and stormwater problems among
the most prevalent violations of local codes and ordinances? 0 5
6 Does your municipality experience unique situations relative
to its location in the Coastal Zone Management Area? 5 0

7 How effective is the current erosion and sedimentation control
program? (Yes answer indicates effective.) 5 0
8 Is there a concern for erosion control within the municipality? 3 2

9 Can you estimate construction costs attributed to erosion and
sedimentation control? 4 1

10 Suggest changes to the erosion and sedimentation control program? 3 2

Response not received from Morrisville Borough

37.

APPENDIX C
MUNICIPALITY DATE SENT

RESPONDENT TITLE

1. Has your municipality experienced many problems with erosion an d sediment
control, or stormwater?

2.Ivithere much potential for future development in your municipality?

3. What percentage of your municipality would you say is available for
development?

4. Who monitors construction activities for your municipality?

5. What is the most prevalent violation to your local codes and ordinances?

6. Has your municipality encountered any unique problems due to the fact that
you are located in the Coastal Zone?

7. Based on your experience, how effectivedo you feel the Erosion and
Sedimantation Program has been since enactment of the Clean Streams Law?

Very effective Moderately effective

Slightly effective Not effective

8. Do you feel that there is a concern for erosion control in your
municipality?
Yes- No

9. Can you estimate (based upon experience) what percentage of con struction
costs are attributed to erosion control?

10. What changes would you make to the Erosion and Sediment Control program?

38.

APPENDIX C
DATE SENT
MUNICIPALITY

RESPONDENT TITLE

1. Has your municipality experienced many problems with erosion and sediment
control, or stormwater?

2.Iirthere much potential for future development in your,municipality?

3. What percentage of your municipality would you say is available for
development?

4. Who monitors construction activities for your municipality?

5. What is the most prevalent violation to your local codes and ordinances?

6. Has your municipality encountered any unique problems due to the fact that
you are located in the Coastal Zone?

7. Based on your experience, how effective (it) you feel the Erosion and
Sedimantation Program has been since enactment of the Clean Streams Law?

Very effective Moderately effective

Slightly effective- Not effective

8. Do you feel that there is a concern for erosion control in your
municipality?

Yes No

9. Can you estimate (based upon experience) what percentage of construction
costs are attributed to erosion control?

10. What changes would you make to the Erosion and Sediment Control program?

39.

DATE SENT
MUNICIPALITY

RESPONDENT

1. Has your municipality experienced many problems with erosion and sediment
control, or stormwaTer

2 Is there much potential for future development in your municipality?

3. What percentage of your municipality would you say is available for
development?
4. Who monitors construction activities for your municipality?

5. What is the most prevalent violation to your local codes and ordinances?

6. Has your municipality encountered any unique problems due to the fact that
,you are located in the Coastal Zone?

7. Bused on your experience, how offective do you feel the Erosion and
Sedimantation Program has been since enactment of the Clean Streams Law?

Very effective Moderately effective

Slightly effective-- Not effective

8. Do you feel that there is a concern for erosion control in your
municipality?
Yes- No

9. Can you estimate (based upon experience) what percentage of construction
costs are attributed to erosion control?

10. What changes would you make to the Erosion and Sediment Control program?

DATE SENT APPENDIX C
MUNICIPALITY
Tullytown Borough

RESP0MDENT Joseph G. Caruso, P.E. Of TITLE Borough Engineers
William G. Major Associates
1. Has your municipality experienced many problems with erosion and sediment
control, or stormwater? Yes. Erosion along Martin's Creek.

2.Is there much potential for future development in your municipality?
Moderate

3. What percentage of your municipality would you say is available for
development?
40%

4 Who monitors construction activities for your municipality?
Building Inspector
5. What is the most prevalent violation to your local codes and ordinances?
Safety violations of the Fire Code
6. Has your municipality encountered any unique problems due to the fact that
you are located in the Coastal Zone?
Yes., erosion of stream banks a problem due to location in the watershed.

7. Based on your experience, how effective do you feel tile Erosion and
Sedimantation Program has been since enactment of the Clean Streams Law?

Very effective X Moderately effective

Slightty effective Not effective

8. Do you feel. that there is a concern for erosion control in your
municipality?
Yes X No

9. Can you estimate (based upon experience) what percentage of construction
cost are attributed to croston control?
1 to 5%

10. What changes would you make to the Erosion and Sediment Control program?
More site visits to insure compliance with approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan and funding should be provided to alleviate
continual erosion areas. Otherwise, program is reasonable, pro-
ductive in reducing sediment pollution and erosion and reviews
are generally helpful and quick.

41.

APPENDIX C
MUNICIPALITY DATE SENT

TITLE
RESPONDENT

1. Has your municipality experienced many problems with erosion and sediment
control, or stormwater?

2. Is there much potential for future development in your municipality?

3. What percentage of your municipality would you say is available for
A,
development?

4. Who monitors construction activities for your municipality?

5. What is the most prevalent violation to your local codes and ordinances?

6. Has your municipality encountered any unique problems due to the fact that
you are located in the Coastal Zone?

7. Based on your experience, how effective do you feel the Erosion and
Sedimantation Program has been since enactment of the Clean Streams Law?

Very effective Moderately effective

Slightly effective Not effective

8. Do you feel that there is a concern for erosion control in your
municipality?
Yes No

9. Can you estimate (based upon experience) what percentage of construction
costs are attributed to erosion control?

10. What changes would you make to the Erosion and Sediment Control program?

42.

APPENDIX C

SUPPLEMENTAL TO QUESTIONAIRE SURVEY
BENSALEM TOWNSHIP

What changes would you make to the Erosion and Sediment Control Program?
Tom Tams, Township Engineer: Bensalem Township
Re: Chaper 102 and pages 8-9 E & S Control Manual, DER

a - State specifically that run off calculations should be furnished;
not just the method used.

b - Consider flexibility in cost determination. (for off site surface water control)

c - Recommed - rock berms, filter fabric instead of hay bales.

d - Encourage the use of clean off areas.

e - Study norous pavement - seems to be adequate on level area (parking lots)
not good for roads, (you have to get rid of water on the roads).

f - Stages of construction, could be shown in drawings vs. narritive.

43.

APPENDIX +C
MUNICIPALITY DATE SENT

RESPONDENT TITLE

1. Has your municipality experienced many problems with erosion and sediment
control, or stormwater?

2. Is there much potential for future development in your municipality?

3. What percentage of your municipality would you say is available for
development?

4. Who monitors construction activities for your municipality?

5. What is the most prevalent violation your local codes and ordinances?

6. Has your municipality encountered any unique problems due to the fact that
you are located in the Coastal Zone?

7. Based on your experience, how effective do you feel the Erosion and
Sedimantation Program has been since enactment of the Clean Streams Law?

Very effective Moderately effective-

Slightly effective Not effective

8. Do you feel that there is a concern for erosion control in your
municipality? No
Yes

9. Can you estimate (based upon experience) what percentage of construction
costs are attributed to erosion control?

10. What changes would you make to the Erosion And Sediment Control program?

44.

MUNICIPALITY Bristal Boro. DATE SENT APPENDIX C

RESPONDENT Schilling TITLE Zoning Officer

1. Has your municipality experienced many problems with erosion and sediment
control, or stormwater? Not Much

2.Is there much potential for future development in your municipality?
No

3. What percentage of your municipality would you say is available for
development? 5-10% Maximum

4. Who monitors construction activities for your municipality?
Liscences & Inspections

5. What is the most prevalent violation to your local codes and ordinances?
Rental Units Deteriorating / Absentee Owners

6. Has your municipality encountered any unique problems due to the fact that
you are located in the Coastal Zone?
OTTER Creek
7. Based on your experience, How effective do you feel the Erosion and
Sedimentation Program has been since enactment of the Clean Stream Law?

Very effective Moderately effective _X_

Slightly effective Not effective

8. Do you feel that there is a concern for erosion control in your
municipality?
Yes No ___X____

9. Can you estimate (based upon experience) what percentage of construction
costs are attributed to erosion control?

5% Maximum

10 What changes would you make to the Erosion and Sediment Control program?

45.

APPENDIX C

MEMORANDUM

To: Bruce Campbell

From: John A. Thomas, Executive Assistant

Subject: Effectiveness of the Erosion and Sediment Control Program

Date: May 29, 1981

With regard to our telephone conversntion of this date, could you please
summarize what chpnges you would make to the Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program, as administered by Pennsylavnia.Department of Environ-
mental Resources., based upon Chanpter 102, of the Clean Streams Law.

46.

AFFFMTX C
WILLIAM G. MAJOR ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS -ARCHITECTS* PLANNERS -SURVEYORS

BRANCH OFFICE EXECUTIVE OFFICES
1 10 MILL STREET
P. 0. BOX 530 P. 0. BOX 603
BURLINGTON. NEW JERSEY 080 16 BRISTOL. PENNSYLVANIA 19007
609 386-4438 April 16, 1981 21 S 785-3288

Bucks County Conservation.District
Box 16, 4259 Swamp Road
Doylestown, PA 18901

Att: Mr. John A. Thomas
Executive Assistant

Re: Erosion, Sediment and
Stormwater Problems

Dear John:-

This letter is written in response to your letter of April
@4, 1981 requesting information regarding enforcement of local
municipalitiesl-ordinances.regarding the subject.

Other than infrequent requests-'for advice from local munic-
ipalities we have very little to do with enforcement of such
ordinances. However, the Bucks County bridge reconstruction pro-
gram involves work which necessarily must comply with all local
ordinances. Applicable provisions are considered when planning
work operations and an attempt to eliminate or reduce erosion
and stream pollution is made by incorporating anti-pollution and
erosion control devices on the construction drawings. On these
projects, effective enforcement is maintained by.our full-time
Inspector who requires.the Contractor to comply with the con-
struction drawings and specifications. If planned methods prove
ineffective, the Engineer-is alerted and additional or different
measures may be ordered to obtain the desired results..

Summing up then, our enforcement primarily consists of full-
time supervision of the Contractor'5 activities with enforcement
provisions specified in the Contra t Documents and special au-
thority granted the Engineer by th@se documents even in unforeseen
circumstances.

Very truly youri,

J09'e'ph G. Caruso, P.E.
WILLIAM G. MAJOR ASSOCIATES, INC.
JGC/pb Bucks County Engineers
47.

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP APPENDIX C
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

633-2500

3800 HULMEVILLE ROAD, BENSALEM, PA. 19020

OFFICEOF: Superintendent of Parks and Recreation

MEMORANDUM

TO: Kenneth D. Kugel, Chief Planner
Bucks County Planning Commission

Gera-ld 1-1. Sudick, Ass"M Managear
Coastal.Zone Management Office

Michael,A. Wolf, Chief
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

John Thomas
Bucks County Conservation Dis-trlic-11--@

FROM: Jerry A. Andree, Superintendent
Parks and Recreation Department

SUBJECT: James Armstrong Memorial Park

DATE: April.16, 1981

The first public meeting to receive public input on
the development of the Master Plan for James Armstrong
Memorial Park will be held on Tuesday, April 26 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Township Municipal Building. Your input and
direc tion would be most appreciated at this meeting.

JAA/ti

cc. Natalie Strange, Township Manager
Tom Donnelly
Jim Graft, Carroll Engineering

48.

APPENDIX C
BENSALEM TOWNSHIP

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

639-2500

3800 HULMEVILLE ROAD, BENSALEM, PA. 19020

OFFICE OF: Township Manager

Aoril 20, 1981

Mr.. John A. Thomas
Executive Assistant
Bucks County Conservation District
Box 16, 4259 Swamp Road
Doylestown, Pa. 18901

Dear Mr-. Thomas:

In response to your April 14, 1981 letter requesting,
Bensalem Townships' policies and procedures by which
erosion and sediment, stormwater problems are handled.

Enclosed is, a copy of Ordinance 212 which requires
a permit to alter land in Bensalem, the permit approval
is given by the Board of Supervisors upon the recommendation
of our full.time Township Engineer.

if you have any further questions, please feel free
to contact me.

Very truly yours,

Str ge
ownship Mana er-

Encl.
NAS/sd

49.

APPENDIX C

ORDINANCE NO. 212

AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE AND CONTROL ANY
GRADING OR ALTERATION OF LAND, PROPERTY OR
REAL ESTATE IN BENSALEM TOWNSHIP WHICH HAS
THE EFFECT OR ALTERING OR INCREASING OR
DECREASING THE COURSE AND FLOW OF SURFACE
OR GROUND WATER: PROVIDING FOR THE PRIOR
APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, THE
ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PROVIDING FOR
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION.

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the Township
of Bensalem is of the opinion that the unregulated and
uncontrolled grading, alterationor other like change
to land, property or real estate levels has the effect
of altering or increasing or decreasing the course and
flow of surface or ground waters and is detrimental
to both lands adjacent to such and to the Township in
general, and such creates a hazard and is detrimental
to the public safety, health and general welfare, and
such threatens substantially the efforts of the Town-
ship of Bensalem to carry out its general purpose.

NOW THEREFORE, be it enacted and ordained and
it is hereby enacted and ordained that:

1. It shall be unlawful without the prior approval
of the Board of Supervisors of Bensalem Township and
the issuance of a permit by the Board of Supervisors for
any person, partnership, firm or corporation to change,
grade, or in any way alter any land, property or real
estate -in Bensalem Towhsnip so as to cause, allow or
permit surface waters or ground watei@_sto flow in an in-
creased or decreased manner, or in a direction such
surface waters or ground waters would not normaily take.

2. For purposes of this urdinance, surface water is
defined as waters which normally flow on the surface of the
ground, such as creeks, brooks, rivers, lakes and ponds;
waters on the surface of the ground created by rain or snow;
and waters which are of a casual or vagrant character, such
as puddles and all temporary flows of water on the surface
of the ground which have no definite course and have no
substantial or permanent existence.

3. For purposes of this Ordinance, ground water is
defined as water of underground streams, channels, artesian
basins, reservoirs, lakes and other occurences of water
in and under tne grounds, whether percolating or otherwise.

50.

APPENDIX C

4. Any person, firm or corporation violating any
of the provisions or this Ordinance shall be subject to
a fine not exceeding Three Hundred (@30u.00) Dollars.
each and every violation of this urdinance, on each day
that any provisions of this Ordinance shall have been
violated shall be contrued as a separate and distinct
violation thereof. All fines imposed under this Or-
ainance shall be collected by suit or summary proceedings
brought in the name ot the Township before-any District
Justice of the Peace. Proceedings for the violation of
this Ordinance and for tne collection of fines imposed
nereby may De commenced by warrant or by summons at the
discretion of the District Justice of the Peace before
whom the proceeding is-begun.

5. Ordinance Number 140 enacted October zO, 1971,
and ail ordinances or parts of Ordinances inconsistent
,with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed,
to the extent ot their inconsistency.

b. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase or portion or this Ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of compentent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provisions and such holding
shall not afrect the validity of tne remaining portion of'
this Ordinance.

7. This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days
after its enactment.

Ordained and Enacted this 22nd day of October, 1976.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BENSALEM TOWNSHIP

Stephen J. Kelly

Herbert H. Braden

Donald Bell

William P. McFadden

ATTEST

Natalie A. Strange
Secretary- Treasurer

51.

I
i
I
i
I
I
APPENDIX D
I SOILS DATA
I
I I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I -
I
I
1 52.

CONS-1 USDA Soil Conservation Service
2-69 Harrisburg, Pa.
Code Cons-14)

LAND CAPABILITY CLASSES

LAND SUITED FOR CULTIVATION AND OTHER USES

Moderate limitations which may
[@@A S S reduce the choice of plants and/or
Few limitations which restrict use. 111 require simple conservation
measures.

Severe limitations which may reduce Very severe limitations which
choice of plants and/or require restrict the choice of plants and
special conservation measures. require very careful management
[E@ and/or conservation measures.

LAND LIMITED IN USES - GENERALLY NOT SUITED FOR CULTIVATION

Severe limitations which are Severe limitations. Generally un-
impractical to remove. Use is suited for cultivation. Use is largely
limited largely to pasture, limited to pasture, woodland, wild-
woodland, or wildlife. life, or some recreation.

Very severe limitations. Unsuited Very severe limitations. Use is
for cultivation. Use largely limited limited to watershed protection,
to pasture, woodland, wildlife, or wildlife, or some recreation.
some recreation. CAPABILITY SUBCLASSES
(e) Erosion; (w) Wetness or flooding, or both; (s) Shallowness, droughtiness,
stoniness, or low fertility, or a combination of these conditions.

MEANING OF SYMBOLS AND LINES ON YOUR COLORED MAP

Soil
Slope C*h 01:@'

-Erosion

SLOPE EROSION
A - Nearly level D - Moderately Steep 1 - Slight erosion
B - Gently sloping E - Steep 2 - Moderate erosion
C - Moderately sloping F - Very steep 3 - Severe erosion
4 - Very severe erosion

DESCRIPTION OF THE SOIL MAPPING UNITS IDENTIFIED ON YOUR LAND

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1978 -710-628
p@e

APPENDIX D

SOILS IN THE COASTAL ZONE - DESCRIPTION

1. AgA - Alton gravelly loam, 0 to 3% slopes, IIIs-l

This deep, well-drained, nearly level soil formed in very gravelly outwash
material derived from shale, sandstone, quartzite, and some limestone. This
soil is droughty but is suited to most crops commonly grown in the area. The
erosion hazard is slight to moderate.

2. AgB - Alton gravelly loam, 3 to 8% slopes, IIIs-l
This deep, well-drained, gently sloping soil formed in very gravelly outwash
material derived from shale, sandstone, quartzite, and some limestone. This
soil is droughty but is suited to most crops commonly grown in the area. The
erosion hazard is slight to moderate.

3. CeB - Chester silt loam, 3 to 8% slopes, IIe-2
This deep, well-drained, gently sloping soil formed in loamy material weathered
chiefly from gneiss and schist. It is found on sides and tops of ridges. Most
of this soil is used for crops and pasture. The erosion hazard is slight to high.

4 Fa - Fallsington silt loam, gravelly subsoil variant, 0 to 3% slopes, IIIw-2

This deep, poorly-drained, nearly level soil formed in loamy, material of mixed
Coastal Plain sediment. It is mainly found in slight depressions and at the
base of low slopes. The water table rises to or near the surface during wet
seasons. Thus, the soil is generally wet and poorly suited to crops. It is
suited to water-tolerant pasture, grasses, and trees. The erosion hazard is
slight.

5. Ha - Hatboro silt loam, 0 to 3% slopes, IVw-l

This deep, poorly drained, nearly level soil formed in loamy alluvium that washed
from upland soils underlain by gneiss, schist, and diabase. It is found on smooth
or slightly concave flood plains. Most of the soil is used for pasture or is idle.
The hazard of flooding and high wa ter table limit most nonfarm uses of this soil.
The erosion hazard is slight.

6. LgA - Lawrenceville silt loam, 0 to 3% slopes, IIw-2
This deep, moderately well drained, nearly level soil formed in silty windblown
deposits underlain by a variety of material weathered chiefly from shale and sand-
stone. It is found in smooth to concave areas of low relief in the silt-mantled
uplands. It is suited to most cultivated crops commonly grown in the area. The
seasonal high water table and moderately slow permeability limit most nonfarm
uses of this soil. The erosion hazard is slight to high.

7. MaC - Manor loam, 8 to 15% slopes, IIIe-3
This deep, well-drained, steep soil formed in loamy material weathered from
schist and gneiss. It is found on sides of ridges and hills. Almost all of
this soil is used for park developments or crops. The erosion hazard is mod-
erate to high.

8.. Mli - Marsh, VIIIW'l
This soil is along shorelines subject to ponding or tidal overflow or is in
depressions where runoff collects. The soil material consists mostly of loamy
to clayey marine and alluvial deposits, Best suited to wildlife and esthetic
uses. Most nonfarm uses are limited by flooding and wetness.
54.

APPENDIX D
9. PoA - Pope loam, 0 to 5% slopes, TIwl
This deep, well-drained, nearly level soil formed in loamy alluvial sediment
derived from weathered shale, sandstone, quartz, and limestone. Found along
the flood plains of the Delaware River, this soil is subject to flooding during
periods of intense rain. It is best suited for cultivated crops. The erosion
hazard is slight to moderate.

10. PpA - Pope loam, terrace, 3 to 10% slopes, IIe-l

This deep, well drained, gently sloping soil formed in loamy alluvial sediment
derived from weathered shale, sandstone, quartz, and limestone. It lies above
the present level of flooding. It is well suited to most cultivated crops
commonly grown in the area. The erosion hazard is slight to moderate.

11. Ro - Rowland silt loam, 0 to 3% slopes, IIw-l

This deep, well drained to somewhat poorly drained, nearly level soil formed in
loamy alluvium that washed from upland soils and is underlain by red and brown
shale and sandstone. Located on the flood plains, it has a seasonal high water
table. It is suited to most cultivated crops common in the area. The erosion
hazard is slight.

12. Ub - Urban land, 0 to 8% slopes
Urban land is in highly developed areas where structures and works cover much
of the land making soil identification impractical. The soils and foundation
materials are highly variable. This land type can be found on uplands, on
terraces on the Coastal Plain, and on the flood-plain.

13. Uc - Urban land, Abbottstown-complex, 0 to 8% slopes
This complex is about 60% Urban land, 35% Abbottstown silt loam, and 5% included
soils. The seasonal high water table and slow permeability limit most nonfarm
uses. Most areas of these soils are urban.

14. UdB - Urban land, Chester complex, 0 to 8% slopes
This complex is about 60% Urban land, 35% Chester soil, and 5% included soils.
Good drainage and nearly level to gentle slopes make this complex only slightly
limited for most nonfarm uses. Most areas are urban.

15. UdC - Urban land, Chester complex, 8 to 15% slopes
This complex is about 60% Urban land, 35% Chester soil, and 5% included soils.
Slope limits most nonfarm uses. Most areas are urban.

16. Uh - Urban land, Howell complex, 0 to 15% slopes
This complex is about 60% Urban land, 35% Howell silt loam, and 5% included soils.
Slow permeability limits nonfarm uses. Most areas are urban.

17. WoA - Woodstown silt loam, 0 to 5% slopes, IIw-2
This deep, moderately well drained, nearly level soil formed in loamy, old Coastal
Plain sediment. It is found at the base of slopes and in depressional areas.
The seasonal high water table limits most@nonfarm uses. It is suited to most
cultivated crops common to the area. The erosion hazard is slight.

55.

I
I
i
I
I
I
I APPENDIX E
SITE VISIT DATA/RELATIVE TO BASE MAP
I VIOLATION NOTICES
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I

I
I
1 56.

I APPENDIX E

MORRISVILLE BOROUGH ID#1302
Name of Site MORRISVILLE PAVEMENT DESIGN & DATA BCPC# BCCD# 1

Condition Inactive Active Stable X

E & S Problems Yes No x Sl ight, Moderate, Severe
Date Construction Began lo/8o
Month Year

Violation Notic.es NO

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes X No

To control runoff? les X No

FALLS TOWNSHIP
Name of Site HARTMAN PARK - PENNS GRANT BCPC# BCCD# 2

Condition Ina ctive Active C Stable C X I

E & S Problems Yes X No Slight, Moderate, Severe

Date Construction Began 8/8o
Month Year

Violation Notices NO

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?
Yes No X
To control runoff? Yes x No

FALLS TOWNSHIP
Name of Site PIZZI TRACT BCPC# BCCr# 3

Condition Inactive Active Stable C X

E & S Problems Yes No X Slight, Moderate, Severe

Date Construction Began 10/80
Month Year

Violation Notices NO

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?
Yes No X
To control runoff? Yes- No X

57.

APPENDIX E

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP
Name of Site WINDING BnOOK BCpC# 4889 BCCD# 4

Condition Inactive Active X Stable

E & S Problems. Yes No X Slight, Moderate, Severe

Date Construction Began June/July 180
Month Year

Violation Notices NO

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes X No

To control runoff? Yes X No

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP
Name of Site NESHAMINY INTERPLEX BCPC# BCCD# 5

Condition Inactive Active C Stable -C X I

E & S Problems Yes No X Slight, Moderate, Severe

Date Construction Began 10/78
Month Year

Violation Notices NO

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Ye.% X NO

To control runoff? Yes X NO

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP
Name of Site EVERGREEN TRACT BCpC# 2788 BCcr# 6

Condition Inactive X Active Stable
E & S Problems Yes 'X NO Slight, Moderate, S evere -EXTREMELY
-31+ gullies
Date Construction Began lst section began 1975-Section 1 stabilized. Remaining
Month Year sections were open and left bare.
Large channel (gully) erosion occur-
Violation Notices NO ing on this site. Needs to be
stabilized.
Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?
Yes No X
To control runoff? Yes No X

58.

APPENDIX E

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP
Name of Site TREVOSE OFFICE BUILDING BCPC# 4526 BCCD# 7

Condition Inactive ( X Active Stable
E & S Problem's Ye's X No Slight, Moderate, Severe

Date Construction Began
Month Year

Violation Notices NO

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes No X No detention basin
To control runoff? Yes INO X installed.

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP
Name of Site WOOD RIVER VILLAGE BCpC# 2539 BCCD# 8

Condition Inactive Active C X Stable C

E & S Problems Yes X No Slight, Moderate Severe
Bank and gully
Date Construction Began 2/80
Month Year

Violation Notices YES

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?
Yes No X
To control runoff? Yes NO X

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP
Name of Site PARCEL K ST EAK AND ALE Bcpc# 3783 BCCLI# 9

Condition Inactive Active St able ( x
E & S Problems Yes No X Slight, Moderate, Severe
Date Construction Began 4/77
Month Year

Violation Notices NO

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and.sedimentation control?

Yes x NO
To control runoff? Yes x No

59.

APPENDIX E

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP 0
Name of Site NESHAMINY VILLAGE BCpC# 2539 BCCD# 10

Condition Inactive Active Stable ( X

E & S Problems Yes No X Slight, Moderate, Severe

Date Construction Began 10/80
Month Year

Violation Notices No

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?
Yes x No
To control runoff? les X No

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP
Name of Site RAN[BLERS II BCPC# BCCD# 11

Condition Ina ctive C Active C X Stable C

E & S Problems Yes X No Slight, Moderate, Severe-3' gullies
Swales heavily eroded
Date Construction Began .-Banks heavily eroded
Month Year Sediment pollution in the creek

Violation Notices Potential

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?
Yes NO X Jute matting was not
To control runoff? Yes No X installed.

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP
Name of Site EVERGREENE TRACT BCPC# BCCIV 12

Condition Inactive X Active Stable

E & S Problems Yes No Slight, Moderate, Severe
Evergreene has final approval.
Date Construction Began Month Year Construction has not started.

Violation Notices

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes No

To control runoff? Yes. NO

6o.

APPENDIX E

BRISTOL TOWNSHIP
Name of Site KINDER CARE' BCPC# 3308-A BCCD# 13

Condition Inactive Active St able ( X

E & S Problems. Yes No- x Slig Moderate, Severe

Date Construction Began
Month Year

Violation Notices

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?
Yes X No
To control runoff? Yes X No

BRISTOL TOWNSHIP
Name of Site HAROLD J. BROWN BCPC# BCCD# 14

Condition Inactive Active C Stable C X I

E & S Problems Yes No- y qlight, Moderate, Severe

Date Construction Began
Month Year

Violation Notices

Were measures instal-led adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

@, I Yes X No

To control runoff? Yes X No

BRISTOL TOWNSHIP
Name of Site FAIRBRIDGE WEST BCPC# BCCr# 15

Condition Inactive Active Stable X

E & S Problems Yes No' X Slight, Moderate, Severe
Date Construction Began Month Year

Viol ation Notices

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes X NO

To control runoff? Yes X No

61.

APPENDIX E

BRISTOL TOWNSHIP
Name of Site HEADLEY MANOR BCpC# 4347 BCCD# 16

Condition Inactive Active St. able ( X
E & S Problem's Ye's No X Slight, Moderate, Severe
Date Construction Began 10/80
Month Year

Violation Notices NO

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes X No
To control runoff? Yes X No

Name of Site BCPC# BCCD#

Condition Inactive Active C Stable -C I

E & S Problems Yes NO Slight, Moderate, Severe
Date Construction Began Month Year

Violation Notices

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes No

To control runoff? Yes NO

Name of Site BCPC// BCCD#

Condition Inactive Active Stable

E & S Problems Yes No Slight, Moderate, Severe
Date Construction Began Month Year

Violation Notices

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and.@edimentation control?

Yes No

To control runoff? Yes No

62.

APPENDIX E

MORRISVILLE BOROUGH
'Name of Site MORRISVILLE BORO SCHOOL DISTRICT BCPC# BCCD# A

Condition Inactive ( X Active Stable

E & S Problems Yes No Slight, Moderate, Severe
Date Construction Began Month N/A Year N/A
Violation Notices NEVER BUILT

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes No

To control runoff? Yes No

MORRISVILLE BOROUGH
Name of Site MELVIN COURT BCPC# BCCD# B

@Iondition Inactive .( X Active C Stable -C

E & S Problems Yes NO Slight, Moderate, Severe
Date Construction Began Month N/A Year NIA

Violation Notices NO NEVER BUILT

Were measures ins talled adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes No

To control runoff? Yes NO

BRISTOL TOIMSHIP
Name of Site ORCHARD RUN BCpc.# 4766 BCCr# C

Condition Inactive x Active Stable ( -

E & S Problems Yes NO' Slight, Moderate, S evere

Date Construction Began Developer Jack Blumberg has not
Month Year submitted final plans.

Violation Notices

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes No

To control runoff? Yes NO

63.

APPENDIX E

BRISTOL TOWNSHIP
BRISTOL NEWSPAPER RECYCLING D
Name of Site BCPC# BCCD

Condition Inactive ( X Active Stable
E & S Problem'
s Yes No Slight, Moderate, Severe
Date Construction Began No construction The plan never was realized.
Month Year NO EARTH WAS DISTURBED.
Violation Notices No NO dROUND COVER ESTABLISHED.

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes No
To control runoff? Yes No

BRISTOL TOWNSHIP
Name of Site EDGELY PLACE BCPC# 1555-A- BCCD# E

Condition Inactive C X Active Stable C I

E & S Problems Yes No Slight, Moderate, Severe
Final plan approved November 1.2, 1980.-
Date Construction Began -Construction has not yet begun. This
Month Year project was never built. There is an
on-going controversy concerning a wet-
.Violation Notices land. Edgley Place is proposed to be.
constructed on this wetland.
Were measures installed adequate for erosion and sedimentation control?

Yes No

To control runoff? Yes NO

BRISTOL TOWNSHIP
Name of Site BRISTOL PARK TWINS BCPC# BCCr# F

Condition Inactive X Active Stable

E & S Problems Yes No Slight, Moderate, Severe

Date Construction Began This project was never realized.
Month Year The tax parcel is still vacant.

Violation Notices

Were measures installed adequate for erosion and.sedimentation control?

Yes No

To control runoff? Yes No

64.-

APPENDIX E

Violation Notices Issued by
Bucks County Health Department
(1978, 1979, 1980)
Re: Erosion and Sedimentation Control

1. Galilee Village Inc. (Falls Township)
17 Penn Valley Road May 5, 1978
Levittown, PA 19054 Citizen Complaint

2. Wood River Village (Bensalem Township)
Altman-Korman Joint Venture February 7, 1980
Two Neshaminy Interplex Citizen Complaint
Trevose, PA

3. Shafer Middle School (Bensalem Township)
Bensalem, PA May 24, 1978
Citizen Complaint

65.

e
APPENDIX E

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

ly Neshaminy Manor Center, Doylestown, Pa. 18901 -215-343-2800

FIELD OFFICES
410 Bath Road, Bristol, Pa. 19007 - 788-0491
515 W. End Blvd. Quakertown, Pa. 18951 - 536-6500 Z

Comm- Ganniksionen-
GEORGE M. METZGER 0tairtna)? Edmund K. 'lindernuth, K.D., M.P.H.
G. ROGER BOWERS. Esq. Direclor
JOSEPH F. CATANIA

June 12, 1978

CERTIFIED MAIL

Mr. G. Rosen, President
Galilee Village, Inc.
17 Penn Valley Road
Levittown, Pennsylvania 19054

SUBJECT: Violation Notice
Discharge of Silt-laden Water to
State Waters, Galilee Village
Falls Township, Bucks County

Dear Mr. Rosen:

An inspection at the subject location on June 8, 1978, by Peter
G. Noll, Environmental Protection Specialist with this Department,
found that the final stabilization of the grounds of the subject
apartment complex has not been done. It was observed that severe
soil erosion is reaching the stormwater drains, hence to an unnamed
tributary of Rock Run Creek.

Failure to completely implement the soil erosion control plan for
the project and the discharge of silt-laden water to State Waters are
violations of Chapter 102, Erosion, Control (copy enclosed) and the
Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and prompt corrective action is
required.

Please notify us in writing within seven (7) days of your receipt
of this letter of the measures taken to stabilize the site and the date
by which compliance was obtained.

Very truly yours,

'
AWW/nk Albert Wills, P. E. , Chief
cc: See attached Division of Environmental Engineering
66.

Certified Mail APPENDIX E
Mr. G. Rosen, President
Galilee Village, Inc. June 12, 1978

cc: Ronald E. Vaughn Associates
Mr. Leonard Elkins
Singer-Agnes Construction Co.
Regional Sanitary Engineer
Central Files DER

67-

APPENDIX E
BUCKS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT

U)X 16, 4259 @WAMP ROAD
DOYHI JOWN, PINNSYLVANIA 1890;
2151348 -1166

July 25, 1,980

Pickering, Corts and Sununerson, Inc.
South State Road
Newtown, Pa. 18940

Subject: Wood River Village
Bensalem Township, Bucks County

Gentlemen:

This correspondence pertains to the erosion, sedimentation control and
stormwater management plan for the captioned project. The Bucks County
Conservation District's current review dated June 16, 1980 indicates the
plan is inadequate. The weasons are included in the review.

The plan, as submitted, was conceptually appropriate. However, there
were areas of concern which were not resolved. Due to the extent of
development of the site, these concerns are not paramount to the
stablization of the site. It would not be advisable to implement
changes in the plan at this time.

If further assistance is needed or additional information desired feel
free to contact me at 348-tl66.

Sincerely yours,

Lonnie Manai
Sdil Conservationist

CC: Bensalem Township
BCPC
SCS
File

68.

ARTHUR LEA STABLER & ASSOCIATES APPERDIX E
ARCHITECTS
637A FREDERICK STREET, HANOVER, PENNSYLVANIA 17331

June 13, 1978

Re: Robert K. Shafer Middle School

At 10 o'clock on Monday morning, June 12, 1978, a meeting was held at the
above captioned job site with the following people present:

Peter G. Noll -- County of Bucks, Department of Health
Ruth Piscitelli -- County of Bucks, Conservation District
John Deacon, William Ricker -- Bensalem Township School District, Owner
James Darrah, Win Miller -- William Spencer Erwin, Associates, Inc., Engineers
William Whalen, William Ka.lmes, S.T.C. Construction Co., General Contractor
Arthur L. Stabler -- Arthur Lea Stabler & Associates, Architect

This meeting was requested by Mr. Noll to review progress to date on the
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program for this project.

Minimal site area has been disturbed, primarily where the building is to
go and the temporary driveway. An earth berm has been placed around the
building site as indicated on the drawings but no stone spillways are in-
stalled. Mr. Noll has requested that these two stone spillways be instal-
led. A statement was given to Mr. Deacon by Mr. Noll that this work was
not in accordance with plans and that other proposed work has not been
done. Mr. Deacon indicated that it was the intent of the School Board to
follow the plans and meet with Mr. Noll to satisfy him if and when any
proposed modifications are to be made.

A letter is to be sent to the Township informing them that the School
Board would do what is necessary to fullfill the requirements of the
Department of Environmental Resources in reducing the amount of erosion
and sedimentation leaving the site.

ALS/rm Arthur Lea Stabler, AIA

Copy to: Peter G. Noll
Ruth Piscitelli
John Deacon
William Ricker
William Spencer Erwin Associates
S.T.C. Construction Co.
File

69.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX F
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS USED IN
I LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
1 70.

APPEND= F
BUCKS COUNTY CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOX 16, 4259 SWAMP ROAD
DOYLESTOWN'PENNSYLVANIA 18901
215 j 348-1166

MEMORANDUM

TO: John.A. Thomas, Executive Assistant

FROM: Lonnie J. Manai, Soil Conservationist

SUBJECT: Publications Used in'Land Development Reviews

DATE: January 23, 1981

Mr. Thomas, as you have requested per our conversation of January 22, 1981, the following
is a list of publications the Bucks County Conservation District utilizes in the review
of erosion, sedimentation control and stormwater management plans:

PUBLICATION AGENCY

1 - Standards & Specifications USDA - SCS
Technical Guide - Section TV

2 - Engineering Field Manual USDA - SCS

3 - Standards & Specifications for USDA - SCS Maryland
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control in Developing Areas

4 - Directory of Soil Erosion and PA - DER
Sedimentation Control Practices

5 - Urban Hydrology for Small USDA SCS Engineering Division
Watersheds - T.R. #55

.6 - Soil Erosion and Sedimentation PA - DER
Control Manual

7 - Runoff Calculations PA - DER, Bureau of Soil & Water
Conservation

8 - Michigan Soil Erosion and Division of Land-Resource Programs,
Sedimentation Control Guidebook Department of Natural Resources

9 - Agronomy Guide PA State University Extension Service

LJM/msj

71.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The study of the Bucks County Coastal Zone Management Area has been pre-
pared by the Bucks County Conservation District for the Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation. Staff mem-
bers directly responsible for the final report's contents were:

John A. Thomas, Executive Assistant
Joan M. Cummings, Soil Conservationist
Lonnie J. Manai, Soil Conservationist

Special thanks are to be extended to: Bensalem Township Manager,
Natalie A. Strange; Bensalem Township Engineer, Thomas W. Tams; Bristol
Borough Manager, Fidel Esposito; Bristol Township Manager, N. Michael Merkl;
Assistant to Falls Township Manager, Sue Patton; Morrisville Zoning Officer/
Building Inspector, Harry F. Falkenstein; and Tullytown Borough Engineer,
Joseph Caruso. District Secretary Martha Jameson should also be recognized
for her numerous hours of typing and retyping which resulted in the final
revision prior to the published report.

The District is also appreciative of the many contributions from the Bucks
County Planning Commission.

72.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1111211111111111 1
3 6668 14102 33841