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






        /Nesharniny Creek
          Nonpoint Pollution and Wetlands Study

          Volume 2-Technical Supplement
















          September 1994


          Prepared by:

          Bucks County Planning Commission
          The Almshouse
          Neshaminy Manor Center
          Doylestown, PA 18901
          (215) 345-3400









             Neshaminy Creek
             Nonpoint Pollution and Wetlands Study
             Volume 2-Technical Supplement









             September 1994



             Prepared by:
   Z         Bucks County Planning Commission
             The Almshouse
             Neshaminy Manor Center
             Doylestown, PA 18901
             (215) 345-3400

             Acknowledgments

             Bucks County Conservation District
             CZM Steering Committee of DVRPC
             PaDER Coastal Zone Management Program
             @ ational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
             Stcly Area Municipalities














                       Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program
               Nesharniny Creek Nonpoint Pollution and Wetlands Study



                                      September 1994

                           DER Grant/Contract No. CZ11: 93. 04PD
                                   Grant Task No. 93264



           A REPORT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
           TO THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION PURSUANT
           TO NOAA AWARD NO. NA37070351






                                    ecasbL


              PEPIN SYLVANIA
                                              lonE                V-10


           The project was financed in part through' a federal Coastal Zone Management Grant from
           the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, with funds provided by
           NOAA. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
           reflect the views of NOAA of any of its subagencies.



















                                                                 COUNTY COMISSIONERS:
                                                                 Andrew L. Warren, chairman
                                                                     Mark S. Schweiker
                                                                      Sandra A. Miller

                                                                        Credits

                    Project Management/Coordination

                    Robert E. Moore                              Executive Director
                    Vitor A. Vicente                             Director, County-wide Planning
                    George F. Spotts                             Director, Community Planning
                    Dennis P. Livrone                            Senior Environmental Planner, Project Manager
                    Timothy A. Koehler                           Senior Comprehensive Planner



                    Planning Staff

                    Theresa M. Bentley                           Environmental Planner
                    Suzanne Ravenscroft                          Environmental Planner
                    Mary A. Marano                               Environmental Planner
                    Richard G. Brahler                           Comprehensive Planner
                    David A. Sabastian                           Comprehensive Planner
                    Robert H. Keough                             GIS Planner



                    Drafting Staff

                    Roberta L. Wilburn                           Project Director
                    Ernest F. Hoferica                           Graphics Coordinator
                    Susan L. Stewart                             Illustrator
                    Kay Schulberger                              Draftsperson



                    Administrative Staff

                    Margaret A. Creeden                          Office Supervisor
                    Katherine R. Connery                         Clerical Supervisor
                    Dolores J. Diamond                           Clerical Researcher
                    Janet A. Moore                               Clerk Stenographer
                    Mary J. Witzel I                             Clerk Stenographer
                    Cheryl D. Zabinski                           Library Technician/Editor
                    Michelle D. Clements                         Billing Clerk
                    Gail L. Gioia.                               Receptionist








                     Table of Contents


                     Appendix A      Agency Directory
                     Appendix B      Excerpts from Sucks County Continuum
                     Appendix C      Bucks County Wetlands Plant List
                     Appendix D      Field Observations and Notes
                     Appendix E      Role and Management of Stormwater in NPS Transport
                     Appendix F      Species Location Information - PNDI
                     Appendix G      Species Location Information - Morris Arboretum
                     Appendix H      Information from EPA Section 6217 Guidance Document

                     Glossary


                     Bibliography




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                .-
 I
 I
                                      APPENDIX A
 I                                 Agency Directory
 I
 I                                     -
 I








               Appendix A

               AGENCY DIRECTORY

               For more information related to coastal zone management, the Delaware Estuary,
               stormwater management, and wetlands protection and acquisition, contact the following
               agencies:

               Coastal Zone:

               Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
               Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
               400 Market Street, 11 th Floor
               P.O. Box 8555
               Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
               (717) 787-2529

               Delaware Estuary:

               The Delaware Estuary Program
               c/o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               841 Chestnut Street
               Philadelphia, PA 19107
               1-800-445-4935
               (215) 597-9977


               Stormwater Management:

               Pennsylvania Departinent of Environmental Resources
               Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
               400 Market Street, I I th Floor
               P. 0. Box 8555
               Harrisburg, PA 17105-8555
               (717) 783-7577

               Bucks County Planning Commission
               The Almshouse, Neshaminy Manor Center
               Doylestown, PA 18901
               (215) 345-3400

               Bucks County Conservation District
               924 Town Center
               New Britain, PA 18901-5182
               (215) 345-7577









                                                                                                    A-1














                 Wetlands Protection:

                 U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
                 Regulatory Branch
                 Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East
                 Philadelphia, PA 19107
                 (215) 656-6734

                 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                 Tobyhanna Army Depot
                 I I I Midway Road, Building 1015
                 Tobyhanna, PA 18466-5031
                 (717) 894-1275

                 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Region M, Environme'ntal Services Division
                 841 Chestnut Street
                 Philadelphia, PA 19107
                 (215) 597-9301
                 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
                 Water Management Program
                 Soils and Waterway Section
                 555 North Lane
                 Lee Park, Suite 6010
                 Conshohocken, PA 19428
                 (610) 832-6131
                 Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
                 Education and Information Office
                 P. 0. 67000
                 Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000
                 (717) 657-4518

                 The Nature Conservancy
                 1211 Chestnut Street
                 12th Floor
                 Philadelphia, PA 19107
                 (215) 963-1400











                 A-2




  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
                                                               APPENDIX B
  I                                    Excerpts from Bucks County Continuum
  I
  I
  I







                                       Excerpts from
                   Bucks County Continuum

               Land Use                                      Demographics
               Socio-Economics                      Community Facilities






                          two
















                                flucksCountyPlanningCommission
                                        The AInnhouse
                                    Neshaminy Manor Center
                                     Doylestown, PA 18901
                                        (215) 345-3400
                       000@-










                                                                              B-1







                    Lower Bucks Region








                                                                                  SPRINCFIELD      OL;RHk%i




                                                      MILFORD         aKhladt
                                                                          owr

                                                                       RICHLAND
                                                                                                   %OCKAMIXON
                                                                                                                SRIDCETON A
                                                                                    HAYCOCK




                                                       W01 X(JLKHILL EAST ROCKHILL                       TINICLm


                                                                                    BEDMINSTER





                                                                    HILLTOWN

                                                                                            PtUmSTEAD



                                                                        NEW BRITAIN


                                                                                                           vi
                                                                                                            SOLEBURY
                                                                           IV
                                                                             DOYLESTOWN
                                                                                             BUCKINGHAM
                           COUNTY REGIONS
                                                                     WARRINCTON
                           AND PLANNING AREAS

                                                                                WARWICK
                           LIPPER                                                            WROATSTOws%
                                 I  QUAKERTOWN                           RMINSTE:.\                        UPPER MAKIFIELD
                                11  PALISADES                                       VII            --vul
                               III  PENNRIDGE                                        NOR rHAMPTON
                                                                                                     NEWTOWN           /4
                           CENTRAL
                                                                              UPPER
                               I V  DOYLESTOWN
                                                                              THAMPTON\

                                V   BUCKINGHAM

                               VI   SOLEBURY

                               V11  NORTHAMPTON
                                                                          MILAIM.P"I
                              VIII  NEWTOWN

                           LOWER

                                IX BENSALEM
                                 X  MIDDLETOWN                                                                             Z"

                                XI  PENNSBURY                                                                           . . . . . . .

                               XII  BRISTOL
                                                                                                           A













































































                                                                                                                     B-2







                        Re_qional Profile                                                                                                                                         Lower Sucks Region

                        Lower Bucks is the most urbanized region in the county. This condition can be attributed to several factors including concentrations of industry in
                        the region, the construction of the Levittown and Fairless Hills subdivisions in the late 1950s and development pressures spilling over from the
                        Philadelphia and Trenton areas. The land area for the region is 109 square miles or about 18 percent of the total land area of the county. While
                        the overall population density is higher than the rest of the county, there are still numerous natural resources and critical plant and wildlife habitats
                        throughout the region. Most of the critical habitats are associated with the Delaware River and Neshaminy Creek. The region contains a vast
                        number of riverine, estuary, and upland wetlands, There are two state and eight count, parks throughout this region, including a portion of                                           the
                        Delaware Canal State Park. With mounting growth pressures, especially in the 1950s and 1960s, adequate infrastructure and services have been
                        provided to serve local communities. With an extensive transportation network, as well as public water and sewer facilities both residential and
                        non-residential development has thrived. Public transportation includes SEPTA commuter rail service on the Trenton and West Trenton lines.
                        SEPTA bus service, Bucks County Transit service and various privately-owned bus companies. The Delaware River also provides shipping
                        access for raw materials and goods movement. The school districts located in this region include Neshaminy, Pennsbury, Morrisville, Brls,o,
                        Borough, Bristol Township, and Bensalem.





                        Land Use CharacteristicalDevelopment Trends

                                                                                      1990 Land Use Characteristics (in acres)

                                                           Single-      Multi       Rural        Ag. Mining &            Commer-       Trans &       Gov't &          Park
                              Planning Area                 family     family        Res.                   Manu.            clef         util.       Instit.      & Rec.       Vacant        Total
                        '-densaiern Area                      5,301         851          583        302         1,071          1,760        2,329:        1,980       1,024       1,843       17,044
                        Middletown Area                       3,945         297          340        9611          235          1,300        1,117         1,158:      2,195       1,911       13,459
                        Pennsbury Area                        6,427         3801         928     2,902          5,253          1,231        4,131:         864        1,462       4,896,      28,474
                        Bristol Area                          3,418,        2761             48         0       1,2271           815        2,559:         824,         658       1,537       11,362
                        Regional Total                       19,0911      1,8041       1,899     4,165          7,7861         5,1106@     10,136'        4,826:      5,339       10,187      70,339





                                             1990 Land Use Percentages                                                                        Development Trends
                                                                                                          Lower Bucks contains the largest overall percentage of mining and manufacturing
                                                       Other'                                             acreage in the county, which is a testament to its industrial-based origin. Over 70
                                 Vacant                 5%                         Single-Family          percent of the region is intensely developed leaving less than one-quarter of the
                                                                                       28%                re  .on in either agricultural, rural residential, or vacant land uses; and a
                                    14%                                                                   suittantiall portion of this land is either restrictive natural resource areas or
                                                                                                          idle/vacant lands left over from manufacturing operations. With extensive
                                                                                                          transportation and Infrastructure, development is expected to continue throughout
                            8%                                                                            this region although at a lower rate than in the past. As open space for
                         Park &                                                                           development becomes more scarce and various areas reach build-out capacity,
                           Rec.                                                                 Agri-     growth will decrease significantly. With minimal land left for development,
                                                                                              culture     potential future growth will be linked to infill, adaptive reuse, and redevelopment
                                                                                                          in urbanizing areas, along with improvements and upgrades in infrastructure.
                                                                       N,                    6%
                            Gov't &
                             Instit.         14-/*
                                     Transp. & Mlities                71Y6          Mining & Manuf.
                                                              Commercial
                                      'Oftr wckWa Muitl-Faffwy (3%) wW Rtfal Residwtlal (3%)


                                                                                   1970-1990 Land Use Comparison Percentage

                                                                      Residential                   Agriculture/Vacant                          Non-Residential                     Park & Recreation
                              Planning Area                  1970        1980 ,       1990       1970         1980          1990          1970 '       -1980          1990    1   1970        1980         1990
                        Bensalem Area                           40%         39%         38%         36%           23%            14%          21%i         320/61       42%:1         2%           6%          6%
                        Middletown Area                         33%         28%         33%         29%           34%            22%          1 V/O;       26%1         28%1         21%;         12%         16%
                        Pennsbury Area                          23%         23%         25%         59%           35%            290/6        15%1         34%1         401/611       2%'          8%          5%
                        Bristol Area                            41%         34%         33%         32%           17%            140/6        25%1         41%1         48%1          2%'          8%          6%
                        Lower Region Total                      32%         30%         31%         44%           29%            221/61       18-/.:       33%1;        401/6!        6%.          8%          8%







                                                                                                                                                                                              B-3






                Lower Bucks Region
                                                                                                                                                                                   OemOgraphics


                                  1980-1990 Population and Housing Comparison                                                                  Population Trend
                                                                                             ----F -Pe
                     Characteristics                    1980                1990           Amount               rcent
                                                                  -                     -Change I           Change             3,50,000 -
                Population                                249,156             267,5041          18,3481         7.36%1
                Population Density                   2,288/sq.mi.      2,427/sq.mi. 1      139/sq.mi.;          6,080/401      300,000 -
                Housing Units                               87,979             99,609   1       11,6301         1-3.22%11
                Total Households                            83,033             94,8301          11,7971         1 @. 2 =10/6   250,000
                Average Household Size                         2.97                2.791          -0-181        -6.06%i
                                                                                                                               200,000 -
                Owner Vacancy Rate                            1.3%              1.2             -0.1%1
                Renter Vacancy Rate                        11.1 %               9.6%1           -1.5%1                         150,000 -

                                 Origin of New Residents (1985-1990)
                                                                                                                               100.000 -
                -fo--tal                               Origin of Now Residents
                New Residents Within                    Phila-         Other Areas            Other                            50,000 -
                     1985-1990         Bucks          delphia            wrin PA             States
                     89,284           51,080           12,221                                                                          0
                                                                           6,971             25,983                                                                                          --
                                                                                                                                       1980         1990           2000         2010         2020
                                                                                                                                                                  Middle        Middle       Middle




                                      1990 Population Pyramid (by age group)                                                                Dwelling Units Trend


                                   Male                                                            Female                      140,000    7
                     85+                                             d=                                                        120,000
                  80-84                                           sit=
                  75-79
                                                               Emit:=
                  70-74                                                                                                        100,000
                  65-69
                  60-64
                  55-59                                                                                                        80,000
                  50-54
                  45-49
                  40-44                                                                                                        60,000
                  35-39
                  30-34                                                                                                        40.000
                  25-29
                  20-24
                  15-19                                                                                                        20,000
                     0- 4
                     5-9                                                                                                               0
                     0-4
                                                                                                                                       1980        1990           2000          2010         2020
                        15.000        10.000        5.000            0          5,000         10,000       151,000                                               Middle         Middle       Middle
                                                                                                                         1



                                      2020 Population Pyramid (by age group)                                                              Labor Forceffimployment Trends


                                   Male                                                            Female                      180,000

                     85+                                                                                                       160,000
                  80-84                                         Mlt=
                  75-79                                                                                                        140,000
                  70-74
                  65-69                                                                                                        120,000
                  6D-64
                  55-59                                                                                                        100,000
                  50-54
                  45-49                                                                                                        80,000
                  40-44
                  35-39                                                                                                        60,000
                  30-34
                  25-29                                                                                                        40,000
                  20-24
                  1
                        9                                                                                                      20,000
                  1-0--114
                     5-9                                                                                                               0
                     0-4                  -                                                                                            1980        1990           2000          2010         2020
                        15,000        10.000        5.000            0          S,000         10,000       1 5,DOO                                               Middle         Middle       Middle




                                                                                                                                                                                             B-4






                 Socio-Economic                                                                                                   Lower Sucks Region

                                                    Population, Housing, Labor Force, Employment Projections
                                       1990                    2000                 1               2010                                 2020
                 Characteristics       Census       Low        Middle       High        Low         Middle      High         Low        Middle      High
                 Population            267,504      270,930;   279,6901     284,400,1  279,380!;    293,060     307,810 271,670        300,780 34     -1,250
                 Housing               99,609       106,170i   108,8001     109,960 i  112,35011    116,650     120,520     113,980    123,460 128,860
                 Labor Force           146,124      148,0501   152,8401     155,4201   152,8401'    160,290     168,330     148,550    164,460 186,680
                 Employment            139,370      141,140 i  145,6901     148,1501   145,7001     152,750     160,470     141,590    156,740 177,840

                               Home Sales and Median Home Prices
                                       (2nd Quarter) 1987-1992                                               Median Home Sale Price

                                                    Home       Median
                                       Year         Sales      Price                      $140,000 -
                                       1987         1,284      $95,000                     $120,000   -
                                       1988         1,054   $120,000
                                       1989         1,042   $11 1930                       $100,000   -
                                       1990         963     $123,000                                                                                       1
                                       1991         919    1sipqjo                         $80,000    -
                                       1992         896     $120,01111                     $60,000

                              1980 - 1990 Educational Attainment                           $40,000

                             Characteristics                   1980         1990           $20,000
                 -Persons 25 Years Old and Over                143,693    173,208               $0
                 Percent High School Graduates                 73%          81%                         1987    1988    1989    1990      1991     1992
                 Percent 4 or more years of College            16%          21%

                                1980 Resident Employment by Type                                    1990 Resident Employment by Type






                                                                                                                                        Mining,
                                                                      Mining,                                                       Manufacturing,         i
                                                                  Manufacturing,                                                    Construction &
                                 Other*                           Construction &                       Other*
                                  17%                                 Agriculture                       18%                           Agriculture
                                                                                                                                            28%
                                                                          35%







                      26%
                     Services                                                                   30%
                                                                                              Services
                                                                                                                                          24%
                                                           22%                                                                 Wholesale/Retail Trade
                                                Wholesale/Retail Trade





                       *Other includes F.I.R.E. (6%), Gov't (4%) and Transp. &                *Other includes F.I.R.E. (7%), GoVt (4%) and Transp. &
                                            Utilities (7%)                                                          Utilities (7%)






                                                                                                                                              B-5





          Bensalem Planning Arve
          Lower Bucks Region                                                                   community Fe








                                                             SA 13      0
                                                            L. 0      E R

                                                   S     U T H A        P,     0 N
                                                                        A
        LEGEND:                             321

               MUNICIPAL BUILDING
          0    POLICE STATION                                    0
          A    FIRE STATION
               AMBULANCE / RESCUE SQUAD
          *    HOSPITAL
          *    LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY                               +
          *    PUBLIC SCHOOL                                           0                  0
          0    PRIVATE SCHOOL
          ow   COLLEGE                                                                             0
               LIBRARY
               AIRPORT

               COUNTY, STATE PARKS AND GAMELANDS                132
                                                                   0                       0
        NOTE. This MP is intended to ilkstrate only ft type and general
        tion of primary =nmunify facilities ittrougrw ft pLaming area.

                                                                                513                       A
        MUNICIPALITIES:
        Bensalem Township                                              IS E N      A L E
        Lower Southampton Township


                                                           A

                                                                  0              195i
                                                       13





                                               A




                                           DELAWARE





                                                                              a/vER






                                                                                                            B-6





                                                                                                                                                        Bensalem Planning Area
                     Planning Area Profile                                                                                                                   Lower Bucks Region

                     The Bensalem planning area is intensely developed with about one third of the area composed of single-family detached residential land use.
                     The planning area is about 27 square miles which constitutes about 24 percent of the region and four percent of the county. The planning
                     area has limited natural resources. remaining. However, within the Neshaminy State Park there are numerous wetlands plant species of
                     concern located in an inter-tidal freshwater mudflat. The Franklin Limestone, a special geologic formation is also located in the eastern portion
                     of Lower Southampton Township. Parks, other than municipal parks, are limited to the Neshaminy State Park, the county's Delaware River
                     Access Area which has boat launching facilities. Transportation routes are extensive and include major arterials such as U.S. Route 1 and
                     state routes 132, 513, 532, 213, and 232 and access to both Interstate 95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Commuter rail (SEPTA's Trenton
                     and West Trenton lines) and bus service are also available along with shipping access through the Delaware River. Water and sewer service
                     is almost entirely public and the area is served by the Bensalem and Neshaminy school districts.







                     Land Use CharacteristicsIDevelopment                    Trends

                                                                       1990 Land Use Characteristics (in acres)

                                                     Single-    Muld-     Rural        Ag. Mining & Commer- Trans. &; Govt & Parks Vacant                               Total
                            Municipality              family    family     Res.                  Manu.         cial    I   Util.      Instit     & Rec.
                     :Bensalem Township            1    3,245       753        313       192           885       1,503;       1,7581     1,678@        815,     1,633.  12,775
                     Lower Southampton Twp@             2,056        98        270       110           186          257:       S71!        302!       209;       21or      4,269.
                     Planning Area Total                5,301       851        583       302         1,071       1,760;      2,3291     1,980 i     1,024!      1,843.  17,044









                                      1990 Land Use Percentages                                                               Development Trends
                                                                                              Most of the intense growth in the Bensalem planning area occurred from the early 1950s
                                                                                              through the 1970s. Many of the factors that would encourage growth are found in the
                                          Other'                                              Bensalem planning area, namely proximity to Philadelphia, great transportation access,
                                           10%                               ingle-Family     and its strong economic presence in the region. Currently, only about one sixth of the
                            Vacant                                                            planning area is composed of either agricultural, rural residential. or vacant lands. The
                             110/10                                             31%           area is diversified with a full range ot residential and non-residential uses. Bensalem
                                                                                              Township has a similar proportion of residential and non-residential uses with several
                           %                                                                  concentration areas of commercial and industrial development (e.g., shopping centers,
                          6%                                                                  industrial/business parks). Lower Southampton Township, however, is more residential in
                       Park &
                                                                                              overall character. Although the area is anticipated to continue to grow, limited
                        Rec.                                                                  developable land will curtail growth opportunities. Infill, adaptive reuse and redevelopment
                                                                                              projects may play an increasing more important role in future growth.


                              %
                                                                                 6%
                       Gov      I stit.
                                                                                 g & Manuf.
                          Transp. & Utilities 14%                Commercial
                                  kKk" Murd-Family (5%). Rwal AeL (4%) wW AgftLftre (2%)


                                                                         1970-1990 Land Use Comparison Percentage

                                                              Residential                Agriculture/Vacant                    Non-Residential                  Park & Recreation
                            Municipality             1970       19W        1990      1970        19W          1990     1  1970        1980        Im         1970       1980        1990
                     Bensalem Township                   35%1      34%1       32%        39%          25%          16%,       23%         34%1       46%1        2%!        6%:        6%
                     Lower Southampton Twp,;             56%1      52%1       53%        26%          18%          11%@        16%1       25%1       31%1        2%:        5%.        5%
                     Planning Area Total           1     40%1     39%1        38%        36%          23%         14%i        21%1        32%1       42%1        2%:        6%         6%









                                                                                                                                                                       B-7






                Bensalem Planning Area
                Lower Bucks Region                                                                                                                                            DemOqraohics



                                 1980-1990 Population an             d Housing Comparison                                                       Population Trend

                                                                                        Amount       I Percent
                        Characteristics                1980              1990           Change       I  Change            90,000
                Population                                70,704            76,6481            5,944        8.41%,
                Population Density                 2,648/sq.mi.      2,870/sq.mi. I     222/sq.mi.          8.38%1        80,000
                Housing Units                             26,951            29,9761            3,025       11.22%         70,000
                Total Households                          24,989            28,0251            3,036       12.15%         60,000
                Average Household Size                       2.80               2.71           -0.09i      -3.21%         50,000
                Owner Vacancy Rate                           1.3%              1.3%            0.0%1
                Renter Vacancy Rate                                                                                       40,000
                                                          12.6%             12.0%              -0.6%1
                                 Origin of New Residents (1965-1990)                                                      30,000
                        Total                        Origin of Now Residents                                              20,000
                New Residents Within                   Phil&-        Other Area          Other                            10,000
                        1985-1990      Bucks        delphis            wfin PA           States
                        28,015         13,611         8,031             2.821
                                                                                         6,373
                                                                                                                                1980          1990          2000          2010          2020
                                                                                                                                                            Middle        Middle        Middle
                                                                                                                                                                                                __j



                                     1990 Population Pyramid (by age group)                                                                   Dwelling Units Trend


                                        Male                                              Female                          40,000
                        85+                                                                                               35,000
                        80-84
                        75-79                                                                                             30,000
                        70-74
                        6S-69
                        60-64                                                                                             25,000
                        55-59
                        50-54                                                                                             20,000
                        45-49
                        40 44
                        35-39                                                                                             15,000
                        3G-34 @0001                                                                                       10,000
                        25-29
                        20-24
                        15-19                                                                                             5.000                                                                    1
                        10-14
                        5-9                                                                                                     0
                        0-4                                                                                                     1980          1990          2000          2010          2020
                        4,000    3,000     2,000       1.000         0    1,000      2.0'00    3.000     4,000                                              Middle        Middle        Middle



                                     2020 Population Pyramid (by age group)                                                           Lab  or Force/Employment Trends


                                       Male                                                Female                         50,000
                        85+                                                                                               45,000
                        80-84                                                                                             40,000
                        75-79
                        70-74                                                                                             35,000 C,
                        65-69
                        60-64                                                                                             30,000
                        55-59
                        50-54                                                                                             25,000
                        45-49
                        40-44                                                                                             20.000
                        35-39
                        30-34                                                                                             15,000                                      G--
                        25-29                                                                                             10.000
                        20-24
                        15-19                                        or-                                                  5,000
                        G-14
                        5-9                                                                                                     0
                        0-4                                                                                                     1980          1990          2000          2010          2020       1
                        4,000    3,000      2,000      1.000         0     1,000     2,000     3,000- 4,000                                                 Middle        Middle        Middle



                                                                                                                                                                                        B-8






                                                                                                                                  Bensalem Planning Area
                    Socio-Economics                                                                                                   Lower Bucks Region


                                                       Population, Housing, Labor Force, Employment Projections

                                           1990                     2000                                2010                                2020
                     Characteristics     Census        Low          Middle       High   I   Low         Middle      High        Low         Middle      High
                    Population             76,648      79,8001      82,380       83,760     82,9001     86,930      91,300      79,100      87,580      99,360
                    Housing                29,976      32,7401      33,560;;     33,9101    35,230      36,580      37,800      35,390      38,330      40,010
                    Labor Force            42,654.     44,4101      45,8401      46,6201    46,1601     48,420      50,840      44,040      48,760      55,410
                    Employment             40,742      42,3701      43,730!     .444801     44,030      46,150      48,490      41,980      46,480      52,730

                                   Home Sales and Median Home Prices
                                           (2nd Quarter) 1987-1992                                                  Median Home Sale Price

                                                      Home          Median
                                           Year       Sales         Price                       $140,000  -
                                           1987        326          $98,250
                                                                                                $120,000  -
                                           1988        313      $117,900
                                           1989        291      $131,500                       $100,000   -
                                           1990        276      $126,450                        $80,000   -
                                           1991        206      $120,500
                                           1992        177      $119,900                        $60,000

                                  1980 - 1990 Educational Attainment                            $40,000

                                  Characteristics                   1980         1990           $20,000
                    Persons 25 Years Old and Over                   41,306     49,353                 $0
                    Percent High School Graduates                   73%          80%                        1987    1988    1989     1990     1991    1992
                    Percent 4 or more years of College              17%          21%

                                    1980 Resident Employment by Type                                    1990 Resident Employment by Type





                                                                        Mining,                                                              Mining,
                                                                                                                                         Manufacturing,
                                                                    Manufacturing,
                                                                                                                                         Construction &
                                     Other*                         Construction &                          Other*                          Agriculture
                                       16%                            Agriculture                           18%
                                                                            31%                                                                 27%





                          27-/.
                        S
                         ervices                                                                      32'y4o
                                                                                                   Services                                     23%
                                                                    26%                                                            Wholesale/Retail Trade
                                                    Wholesale/Retail Trade




                             *Other includes F.I.R.E. (6%), Gov't (5%) and Transp. &               *Other includes F.I.R.E. (7%), Gov't (41/6) and Transp. &
                                                   Utilities (8%)                                                       Utilities (7%)





                                                                                                                                            B-9





             Bensalem Township
             Bensalem Planning Area




             Municipal Profile
                                       Date of Incorporation:                          1692
                                       Type of Government:                            Board of Supervisors
                                       School District:                                Bensalem
                                       Land Area/Water Area:                      Land: 19.96 sq. mi.          Water: 0.99 sq. mi.
                                       Utilities:
                                                               Water              Public: 98.6%                  Well: 1.4%
                                                               Sewer              Public: 98.9%              On-Site: 1.1%



             Land Use Characteristics/Development Trends

                    1990 Land Use Characteristics (in acres)                                             1990 Land Use Percentage

             Land Use                                                      Acres
             Single-Family Residential                                            3,245.
             Multi-Family Residential                                             753
             Rural Residential                                                    313i
             Agricultural                                                         192,
             'Mining and Manufacturing_                                           88S'                             Other*
                                                                                                  Vacant
             Commercial                                                           1,503;                             4%                     Single-Family
                                                                                                      13%
             .Transportation and Utilities                                        1,758'                                                    25%
             Government and Institution                                           1,67AI
                                                                                               6%
             Park and Recreation                                                  815:    Park &
             Vacant                                                               1,6331i  Rec. i
                                                                                                                                                    Mufti-
             Total                                                                12,7751t
                                                                                                                                                     amily
                                                                                                                                                   6
                                                                                                                                                     %
                                                                                             13%
                            1970-1990 Land Use Comparison
                                                                                           Govt &
                                      (by Percentage)
                                                                                          Institutional    14%                      12%        Mining &
                    General                                                                                                  Commercial      Manufacturing
                                                                                                         Transp. &
                   Land Use              -1970             1980      11    1990                          Uiltities
             Residential                         35%;;           34%j             32%1
             Agricultural/Vacant
                                                 39%i            25%1             16%1
             Non-Residential                     23%!!           34%1             46%
             Park and Recreation                  2%!             6%1             6%!          *Other includes Rural Residential (3%) and Agriculture (Vo)



             Demographics


                     1980-1990 Population and Housing Comparislon                                                     Population Trend

                                                                         Amount          Percent
                                                                                         Change          70,OW
                                                                                                         60,000 i
                Characteristics            1980            1990      i   Change      :_
             Population                       52,399i         56,788i             4,389:     8.38%li  1: 50,0001;1__@
             Population Density        2,653/sq.mi.i 2,839/sq.mi.!        186/sq.mi.:        7.01%1      40.000
             Housing Units                    20,766i         22,711              1,947i     9.38%;l     30,000
                                                                                                         20,000
             Total Households                  18,9X          20,9641             2,0      10.74%        10,000
             Avg. Household Size                 2.73;;          2.68!            -0.05i   -1.83%!;
                                                                                                             01
             ',Owner Vacancy Rate                1.40&                            O.M                        1980      1990      2000      2010      2020
                                                                                                                                Middle    Middle    Middle
             Renter Vacancy Rate               13.5%           12.9%,             -0.6%.




                                                                                                                                                  B-10




                                              (Cont.)                                                                                                               Bensalem Township
                      Demographics                                                                                                                            Bensalem Planning Area

                                                                   Population, Housing, Labor Force, Employment Projections

                                                  1990                              2000                                           2010                                   2020
                        Characteristics          Census            Low              Middle            High           Low        Middle          High        Low          Middle        _t:@Igh
                      Population                    56,788         59,0501           60,9601           61,9801       61,560        64,550       67,790      58,320        64,580         73,260
                      Housing                       22,713         24,830            25,460            25,7201       26,910        27,940       28,870-     26,980        29,220         30,500
                      Labor Force                   31,532         32,790            33,850            34,4201       34,210        35,880!      37,670 @    32,410        35,880         40,800
                      Employment                    29,965,        31,120            32,120            32,6701       32,460-       34,020       35,750      30,730        34,020         38.590



                      Soclo-Economics

                                           1980 - 1990 Household Comparison                                                        1990 Resident Employment by Type

                                      Characteristics                               1980              1990
                      Median Household Income                                       $19,356            $38,488
                      Median Home Value                                             $52,700          $117,400
                      Median Gross Rent                                                  $260              $538                                                       Mining, Manufacturing,
                                                                                                                                                                           Construction &
                                            Home Sales and Median Home Prices                                                      Other*                                    Agriculture
                                                     (2nd Quarter) 1987-1992                                                                                                      26%
                                                                   Home             Median
                                                  Year             Sales            Price
                                                  1987             223              $86,900
                                                  1988             231              $110,000
                                                  1989             226              $128,200
                                                  1990             226              $125,250
                                                  1991             162              $115,000                                    3rl.                                              3%
                                                                                                                                                                                  2
                                            1     1992             128              $113.900
                                                                                                                             Services                                 Wholesale/Retail Trade

                                           1980 - 1990 Educational Attainment

                                      Characteristics                               1980              1990
                                                                                                                                *Other includes F.I.R.E. (80/6), Gov't (5%) and Transp. &
                      Percent High School Graduates                                 72.8%           79.9%                                             Utilities (7%)
                      Percent 4 or more years of College                            17.8%           21.8%


                      Community Facilities
                      Name of Facility                         Address                                            Name of Facility                       Address
                      Bensalem Municipal Building              3800 Hulmeville Road                               Cecelia Snyder Middle School           3333 Hulmeville Road
                      Bensalem Township Police                 3800 Hulmevilte Road                               Comwells Elementary School             2400 Bristol Pike
                      Pennsylvania State Police                3970 Now Street                                    Samuel K Faust Elam School             2901 Bellview Drive
                      Comwells Fire Company No. 16             2049 Bristol Pike                                  Robert K. Schaefer Middle School       3333 Hulmeville Road
                      Eddington Fire Company No. 28            1444 Brown Avenue                                  Russell C. Struble Elem School         4300 Bensalem Boulevard
                      Newport Fire Company No. "               5961 Bensalem Boulevard                            Valley Elementary School               3100 Don Allen Drive
                      Newport Fire Company No. 88              2900 Pasqualone Boulevard                          St Charles Borromeo School             1704 Bristol Pike
                      Nottingham Fire Company No. 65           3420 Street Road                                   De LaSalle Vocational School           Street Road and Bristol Pike
                      Trevose Fire Company No. 4               4900 Street Road                                   Holy Ghost Preparatory School          2429 Bristol Pike
                      Comwells Union Fire Company No. 37 2067 State Road                                          Our Lady of Fatima School              Mechanicsville Road and Murray Ave.
                      Bensalem Rescue Squad No. 185            3800 Hulmoville Road                               Saint Ephrem School                    5340 Hulmeville Road
                      Bensalem Rescue Squad No. 186            Street Road and Richleu Road                       Comwells Christian Day School          2284 Bristol Pike
                      Eastern State Hospital and School        3740 Lincoln Highway                               Trevose Day School                     4951 Central Avenue
                      Neil A. Armstrong Middle School          2201 Street Road                                   Phila College of Textile & Science     2655 Interplex Drive
                      Belmont Hills Elementry School           Neshaminy Boulevard & Grandview Avenue             Bensalem Free Library                  3700 Hulmeville Road
                      Benjamin Rush Elementary School          3400 Hulmoville Road                               Delaware River Access Area             Station Avenue
                      Bensalem High School                     4319 Hulmeville Road                               Neshaminy State Park                   State Road and Dunksferry Road





                                                                                                                                                                                B-11






            Lower Southampton Township
            Bensalem Planning Area




            Municipal Profile
                                         Date of Incorporation:                            1928
                                         Type of Government:                               Board of Supervisors
                                         School District:                                  Neshaminy
                                         Land Area/Water Area:                        Land: 6.67 sq. mi.              Water: 0.0 sq. mi.
                                         Utilities:
                                                                   Water         Public: 77.2%                          Well: 22.8%
                                                                  Sewer          Public: 97.6%                        On-Site: 2.4%



            Land Use CharacteristicsIDevelopment Trends

                        1990 Land Use Characteristics (in acres)                                                1990 Land Use Percentage

                                    Land Use                                   Acres
            @Single-Family Residential                                                2,056,
            Multi-Family Residential                                                   98
            Rural Residential                                                         270
            :Agricultural                                                             110
            Wining and Manufacturing                                                  186                     Other*
            Commercial                                                                257          Vacant        14%
            -Transportation and Utilities                                             571            5%                                                       Single-
            'Government and Institution
                                                                                      302                                                                     Family
            Park and Recreation                                                       209         7%                                                            49%
            Vacant                                                                    210     Govt &
                                                                                               Instit.
            Total                                                                     4,2691


                            1970-1990 Land Use Comparison                                           13%
                                         (by Percentage)                                          Transp. &       6%
                                                                                                  Utilities                   6% Rural Residential
                                                                                                            Commercial
                    General
                   Land Use                  1970             1980             1990
            Residential                            56%1             52%               53%
            Agricultural/Vacant                    26%1;            18%               11%
            Non-Residential                        16%!             26%,              31%         *Other includes Muiti-Farnity (2%). Agriculuture (3%), Mining &
                                   n                                                                    Manufacturing (4%) and Park & Recreation (5%)
            Park and Recreatio                                        5%1
                                                     2%1



            Demographics

                           1980-1990 Population and Housing Comparlsion                                                       Population Trend

                                                                            Amount           Percent
                                                                                                              25,000
                Characteristics              1980             1990          Change           Change
                                                                                                              20,000
            Population                          18,305i          19,860               1,555       8.49%
            Population Density           2,8031sq.mL'i 2,964/sq.mi.           161/sq.mi.          5.740/6     15,000
            Housing Units                         6,185;           7,263              1,078       17.43%      10,000 f
            Total Households                     6,059 i           7,061              1,002       16.54%       5,000 i
            'Avg. Household Size
                                                   3.00!            2.80              -0.2        -6.67%              0:
            Owner Vacancy Rate                    0.4%'            0.9%               0.5%                            1980     1990      2000       2010        2020
                                                                                                                                         Middle    Middle      Middle
            Renter Vacancy Rate                   4.8%:            5.9%,              1.1%




                                                                                                                                                                B- 12




                                         (Cont.)                                                                               Lower Southampton Township
                   Demographics                                                                                                       Bensalem Planning Area

                                                          Population, Housing, Labor Force, Employment Projections

                                           1990                        2000                                     2010                               2020
                     Characteristics Census               Low          Middle          High          Low       Middle       High        Low        Middle  -   High
                   I Population              19,860       20,750          21,420          21,780     21,340     22,380      23,510      20,780     23,000 26,100
                   Housing                    7,263         7,910           8,100           8,190     8,320       8,640      8,930       8,410       9,110      9.510
                                             11,122       11,620          11,990          12,200     11,950     12,540      13,170      11,630      12,800     14,610,
                                                                                                                                                                  ,140




                   Socio-Economics

                                      1980 - 1990 Household Comparison                                         1990 Resident Employment by Type

                                  Characteristics                      1980            1990
                   Median Household Income                               $21,994-        $42,984'
                   Median Home Value                                     $58,600;      $139,600

                                                                                                                                                      Mining,
                   @Medi'an ross Rent                                       $2711:          $561
                                                                                                                                                  Manufacturing,
                                      Home Sales and Median Home Prices                                               Other*                      Construction &
                                              (2nd Ouarter)    1987-1992                                                15%                           Agriculture
                                                          Home 1       Median                                                                           29%
im                                         Year           Sales        Price
                                           1987           103          $114,8751
                                           1988     i_82               $129,0001!
                                           1989           65           $135,000!
                                           1990           50           $136,100                             31%
                                           1991           44           $130,000'                        Services
                                                                       $131,0001                                                                 25%
                                           1992           49

                                                                                                                                        Wholesale/Retail Trade


                                      1980 - 1990 Educational Attainment

                                                                                       1990
                                  Characteristics                      1980
                   Percent High School Graduates                       73.1%           81.8%                      *Other includes F.I.R.E. (6%). Gov't (3%) and
                                                                                                                            Transp. & Utilities (6%)
                   Percent 4 or more years of College                  14.1%       1   20.5%      :1



                   Community Facilities
                   Name of Facility                                                Address
                   Lower Southampton Township Municipal Building                   1500 North Desire Avenue
                   Lower Southampton Township Police                               1500 North Desire Avenue
                   Feasterville Fire Company No. 1                                 20 Irving Place
                   Lower Southampton Fire Company No. 6                            466 Elmwood Avenue
                   Tri-Hampton, Feasterville Rescue Squad No. 114                  11440 Bridgetown Pike
                   Ridge Crest Convalescent Home                                   1730 Nor", Buck Road
                   Poquessing Junior High School                                   Heights Lane and Bridgetown Pike
                   Poquessing Elementary School                                    Hieghts Lane and Poquessing Way
                   Tawanka Elementary School                                       2055 Brownsville Road
                   Lower Southampton Elementary School                             7 School Lane
                   Assumption BVM School                                           55 Bristol Road
                   @h@aracterlsflcs

























                   Lower Southampton Township Library                              1500 North Desire Avenue






                                                                                                                                                    B-13





      Middletown Planning Area
      Lower Sucks Region                                                         Community Facilities



                                                                 0


                                                                 4131




                                                            0 +








                                                                M I D       E     0 W N



                                                             rn






                                                            0

                                                                          213




                                                                 13 db  0
                                                                             A


       LEGEND:                               H      -ille

        a    MUNICIPAL BUILDING
        0    POLICE STATION                               '41
             FIRE STATION
             AMBULANCE / RESCUE SQUAD
        +    HOSPITAL
             LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY
        0    PUBLIC SCHOOL                                              MUNICIPALITIES:
        0    PRIVATE SCHOOL
        low  COLLEGE                                                    Hulmeville Borough
             LIBRARY                                                    Langhorne Borough
             AIRPORT                                                   'Langhorne Manor Borough
                                                                        Middletown Township
             COUNTY, STATE PARKS AND GAMELANDS                          Penndel Borough

        NOTE: This map is inteMed to illustrate only the "a and general
        tion of primary community facilities throughout the planning area.






                                                                                             B-14





                                                                                                                                                                               Middletown Planning Area
                             Planning Area Profile                                                                                                                                     Lower Sucks Region

                             The Middletown planning area is urban to suburban in character, containing Middletown Township and four contiguous boroughs (Langhorne.
                             Langhorne Manor, Penndel, and Hulmeville). The total land area for the planning area is 21 square miles or about 19 percent of the region and
                             three percent of the county. The natural resources in the area are limited to Neshaminy Creek, other various streams and wetlands, and small
                             woodlands. However, one sixth of the area consists of park and recreational lands. The majority of the county's 1,185 acre Core Creek Park
                             (including Lake Luxembourg) in addition to Playwicki Park lies within Middletown Township. Transportation to the area is very good including U.S.
                             Route 1 and state mutes 413 and 213. In the eastern portion of Middletown Township, a cloverleaf ramp provides access to Interstate 95.
                             Commuter rail (SEPTA'S Trenton and West Trenton lines) and bus service are available. The Buehl airport is also located in Middletown
                             Township. Public water and se            wer service exists throughout much of the area. In addition, the area is serviced by the Neshaminy School District.








                             Land Use CharacteristicsIDevelopment Trends

                                                                                      1990 Land Use Characteristics (in acres)

                                                                  Single-       Multi-    Rural         Ag.      Mining & Comrner- Trans. &                Gov't &        Park        Vacant       Total
                                       Municipality                family      family       Res.                    Manu.           clal        -Util.       Instit.     & Rec.
                             Hulmeville Borough                        104            0           16             0-        14            -18,         22              8@            1        60         243
                             Langhorne Borough                         153            8           6              0-           0          -14'         37@           481          21:         26         313
                             Langhorne Manor Borough:,                 151            13          0              0-           0          -1         104i            3g!             0        70         378
                             Middletown Township                      3,419        268         318          961            205        1,238!        8911        1,0511       2,167        1,732      12,250
                             Penndel Borough                           118            8           0              0         16            291          63;1          12!             6!       23.        275
                             Planning Area Total                   -3,945          297         340         961             235       1,300;        11,1117!    I'l 58:1      2,195-     1,911 113,459@





                                                 1990 Land Use Percentages                                                                          'Development Trends
                                                                                                                 Like other planning areas In the lower Bucks region, the Middletown planning
                                                           Other*                                                area received a majority of its growth during the county's industrial and housing
                                                             60/6                                                boom starting In the 1950s. A large portion of the Levittown housing
                                     Vacant                                               Single-Family          development is contained at the southern end of the Middletown Township. The
                                        14%                                                    30%               four boroughs are mainly residential In character with some concentrations of
                                                                                                                 non-residential land uses. Consequently, one third of the planning area is
                                                                                                                 currently single-family housing. A high concentration of commercial and
                                                                                                                 business enterprises are situated within Middletown Township. Nevertheless,
                                Park &  .                                                                        approximately one quarter of the area is still agricultural, rural residential, or
                                                                                                                 vacant land. Growth pressures in the Middletown planning area are likely to
                                 Rec.
                                                                                                                 continue for the next 10 years and possibly beyond due to good transportation
                                  16%                                                                            access, adequate infrastructure, and land still available for development besides
                                                                                                                 the fact the area is a major employment area in the county.
                                        Go    & 9%                                                    re
                                         Inst .                                    Commercial
                                                           TransR,& Utilities
                                           Mkides MLAfti-Famiry (25). at Fin. (3%) WW NrAV & Ma-0. (2%)


                                                                                          1970-1990 Land Use Comparison Percentage

                                                                            Residential                    AgriculturelVacant                    -    Non-ResIdential                     Park & Recreation
                                       Municipality                1970         1980        1990        1970         1980           1990        1970 @       1980         1990          1970        1980        1990
                             Hulmeville Borough                       45%          45%         4           36%             31%        290/6 1       13%          21%1        251/61          5%:        3%:         0%
                             Langhorne Borough                        55%          50%         53%         15%             8%            9%i     -25%]           33-/.!      321/61          6%         9%':        7%
                             Langhorne Manor Borough!                 470/6        37%         43%         19%             20%        190/6 i       340%il       381/61      3 8 0JJ         O%T        5%;         0%
                                                                                                                                                    115%@        2                         23%,         13%         18%
                             Middletown Township                      31%          26%         321/6      3 (r/.           36%        230/6 @             1        5%        28%1
                             Penndel Borough                          620/61       51%,        46%,         8%,            90%,          8%1        26% i        37%         44%1            4%         2%          2%
                                Planning Area Total                   33%1         28%1        33%1        29-/.L          34%1       22%i          116%1@i      2617%@      28%,'         21%i         12%         16%





                                                                                                                                                                                             B-15







                  Middletown Planning Area
                  Lower Bucks Region                                                                                                                       -MINE     Demographics       III

                                  1980-1990 Population and Housing Comparison                                                              Population Trend

                                                                                       Amoun          Percent
                                                                                               11  i
                      Characteristics                  1980             1990           Change         Change
                                                                                                                    i  70,000 -
                  -@opuiation                            40,763             48,8501         8,0871       19.84%@,   1
                  Population Density                1,914/sq.mi.     2,293/sq.mi.i    379/sq. mi.        19.80%!       60.000 -
                  Housing Units                          13,915             17,1121         3,1971       22.98%@
                  Total Households                       13,034             16,5731         3,5391       27.15%1       50,000
                  Average Household Size                     3.05             2.85 i           -0.21     -6.56%1
                  Owner Vacancy Rate                                                                                   40,000
                  Renter Vacancy Rate                       1.4%             0.8%1          -0.6%1
                                                         12.6%.              6.0%1          -6.6%1                     30,000

                                  Origin of New Residents (1985-1990)
                                                                                                                       20,000 -

                       Total
                                                       Origin of New Residents
                  New Residents         Within         Phila-       Other A                                            10,000 -
                                                                             reas       Other
                      1985-1990         Bucks        delphia           wfin PA          States
                      16,212           10,321          1,417            1,503           4.474                                 0
                                                                                                                              1980        1990        2000        2010          2020
                                                                                                                                                     Middle       Middle       Middle



                                      1990 Population Pyramid (by age group)                                                            Dwelling Units Trend


                                       Male                                                 Female                     25,000 -
                      86+                                       or-=                                              I
                      80-84                                     mi=
                      75-79                                   on@=                                                     20.000   -
                      70-74                                NEMEC::=
                      65-69
                      60-64
                                                                                                                       15.000
                      55-59
                      50-54
                      45-49                                                      71
                      40-44
                                                                                                                       10,000
                      35-39
                      30-34
                      25-29
                      20-24                                      Mr                                                    5,000
                      15-19
                      10-14
                      5-9
                      0-4                                                                                                     0
                                                                                                                              1980       1990        2000         2010         2020
                         3000          2000         1000           0         1000           2000         3000                                       Middle        Middle       Middle



                                      2020 Population Pyramid (by age group)                                                    Labor Force/Employment Trends


                                     Male                                                   Female                     35,000

                      85+
                      0-84                                                                                             30,000
                      @5-79
                      70-74                                                                                            25.000
                      65-69
                      60-64
                      55-59                                                                                            20,000
                      50-54
                      45-49                                                                                            15,000
                      40-44
                      35-39
                      30-34       SEEM!                                                                                10,000
                      25-29
                      20-24
                      15-19                                                                                            5,000
                      10-14           MI                           f
                      5-9                                                                                                     0
                      0-4                                                                                                     1980       1990        2000         2010         2020
                         3000          2000         1000           0         1000           2000         3000                                       Middle        Middle       Middle


                                                                                                                                                                                     1111110


                                                                                                                                                                                     B-16






                                                                                                                                 Middletown Planning Area
14                  Socio-Economics --                                                                                                 Lower Bucks Region
                                                        Population, Housing, Labor Force, Employment Projections
                                           1990                    2000                  1               2010                                2020
                     Characteristics     Census         Low       Middle         High    1   Low         Middle      High        Low         Middle      High
                    Population             48,850       51,040      52,6@                    55,320 @    58,010      60,930      56,320      62,350      70,740
                    Housing                17,112       19,0401       19,510!     19,7201    21,2501     22,060      22,790      22,460      24,330.  -.25.390
                    Labor Force            26,375       27,530       28,4201     28,900 j    29,830 j    31,280      32,850      30,360      33,610      38,130
114                 Employment             25,405       26,500!      27,3501      27,8101    28,7001     30,100      31,610      29,200      32,320      36,68-0-
                                    Home Sales and Median Home Prices
                                           (2nd Quarter) 1987-1992                                              Median Home Sale Price

                                                      Home        Median
                                           Year       Sales        Price                        $160,000     -
                                           1987         303       $104,500                      $140,000     -
                                           1988         192       $137,900
                                           1989         180       $142,000                      $120,000     -
                                           1990         186       $147,200                      .$100,000    -
                                           1991         195       $146,000                       $80,000     -
                                           1992
                                                                                                 $60,000     -
                                  1980 - 1990 Educational Attainment                             $40,000     -
                                  Characteristics                  1980          1990            $20,000     -
                    Persons 25 Years Old and Over                 23,237       31,522                    $0
                    Percent High School Graduates                  79%           85%
                                                                                                             1987    1988     1989    1990     1991    1992
                    Percent 4 or more years of. College             19%          25%

                                    1980 Resident Employment by Type                                     1990 Resident Employment by Type





                                                                          Mining,                                                             Mining,
                                                                       Manufacturing,                                                     Manufacturing,
                                     Other*                          Construction &                          Other*                       Construction &
                                                                                                                                             Agriculture
                                       15%                              Agriculture                          17%
                                                                            31%                                                                 25%



                          29%
                         Services                                ---                                                                             24%
                                                                                                     Services
                                                                  25%                                                                Wholesale/Retail Trade
                                                      Wholesale/Retail Trade





                           *Other includes F.I.R.E. (6%), GoVt (3%) and Transp. &                    *Other includes F.I.R.E. (7%), GoVt (40/6) and Transp. &
                                                 Utilities (7%)                                                           Utilities (70/6)





                                                                                                                                              B-17






              Hulmeville Borough
              Middletown Planning Area




              Municipal Profile
                                        Date of Incorporation:                      1872
                                        Type of Government:                         Borough Council
                                        School District:                            Neshaminy
                                        Land Area/Water Area:                 Land: 0.38 sq. mi.             Water: 0.0 sq. mi.
                                        Utilities:
                                                               Water        Public: 21.9%                      Well: 78.1%
                                                              Sewer         Public: 91.0%                  On-Site: 9.0%



              Land Use CharacteristicsIDevelopment Trends

                        1990 Land Use Characteristics (in acres)                                     1990 Land Use Percentage

                                   Land Use                               Acres
              Single-Family Residential                                             104
              Multi-Family Residential                                              0
              ;:Rural Residential                                                   16
              Agricultural                                                          0
                                                                                                         Other*
              .Mining and Manufacturing                                             14                       9%
              Commercial                                                            18                                                         Single-
                                                                                    22                                                          Family
              Government and Institution                                            8  Vacant
              :Transportation and Utilities                                                25%                                                  43%
              Park and Recreation                                                   1
              Vacant                                                                60
              :Total                                                                2A12


                            1970-1990 Land Use Comparison
                                        (by Percentage)                                  Transp. & 9%
                                                                                           Utilities             7%           7%
                                        I                                                                    Commercial      Rural Residential
                     General
                    Land Use                1970            1980           1990
              Residential                         45%1           45%                45%
                                                                                    29%
              .AgriculturaWacant                  36%1           31%
              Non-Residential                     13%1           21%,               26%    -Otner incAudes Mining & Manuf. (60%). Gov't & Instit. (3%) and Park
                                                                                                               & Recreation (0.40/6)
              Park and Recreation                 5%j            3%                 0%1



              Demographics

                           1980-1990 P   opulation and Housing Comparlsion                                          Population Trend

                                                                         Amount        Percent
                                                                                                       1,020M
                                                                         Change        Change          1,000.
                 Characteristics             1980           1990
                                            . 1,0141             916                -98    -9.66%        980
              Population                                                                                 9601
              Population Density        2,740/sq.mi.i 2,290/sq.mi.      -450/sq.mi.      -16.42%         940:_\
              Housing Units                       3481           333                -15    -4.31%        920
                                                                                                         900
              ,Total Households                   3371           319                -18    -5.34%        8801
                                                                                                         860
              Avg. Household Size                 3.011          2.87               -0.14  -4.650
              !Owner Vacancy Rate       i         0.7%1          0.0%         -0.7%                        1980     1990      2000      2010      2020
                                                                                                                             Middle    Middle    Middle
              Renter Vacancy Rate               -4.2%::          4.6%               0.4%




                                                                                                                                                        B-18






                                                                                                                                    Hulmeville Borough
                    Demographics (Cont.)                                                                                     Middletown Planning Area


                                                       Population, Housing, Labor Force, Employment Projections

                                                                                                          2010                             2020
                      Characteristics Census           Low          Middle          High        Low      Middle      High       Low       Middle     High
                    Population                  916        930             960           970       910        950      1,000        860        960     1,090
                    i'l-lousing                 333        330             340           340       320        330       340         310        330       350
                    rabor -Force518                        520'            540           550       510        540       570         490 -54-0-           610
                    Employment                  498        Soo             520           530       490        520       540         470        520       590



                    Socio-Economics


                                    1980 - 1990 Household Comparison                                     1990 Resident Employment by Type

                                  Characteristics                   1980            1990
                    Median Household Income                          $20,257'        $37,381
                    Median Home Value                                $49,400       $121,300!
                    Median Gross Rent                                    $178           $478:
                                                                                                                                                Mining,
                                     Home Sales and Median Home Prices                                        Other*                          Manufacturing,
                                             (2nd Ouarter) 1987-1992                                           17%                           Construction &
                                                                                                                                               Agriculture

                                                                                                                                                  38%
                                                                    Price
                                           Year       Sales
                                                      Home          Median


                                           1987            7    1    $80,0001
                                           1988            4        $153,750  1
                                           1989            1         $93,500:
                                           1990            3         $93,0W
                                           1991            4        $102,950:                         27%
                                                      -    -                                     :  Services
                                           1992            1        $107,000::
                                                                                                                                 18%

                                                                                                                        Wholesale/Retail Trade

                                    1980 - 1990 Educational Attainment
                                  Characteristics                   1980           -iM
                    Percent High School Graduates               i   65.3%          82.6%                    *Other includes F.I.R.E. (5%), GovI (6%) and
                    Percent 4 or more years of College          i   9.0%           16.6%                             Transp. & Utilities (6%)



                    Community Facilities
                    Name of Facility                            Address
                    Hulmeville Borough Municipal Building       114 Trenton Avenue
                    Hulmeville Borough Police                   1009 Pennsylvania Avenue
                    William Penn Fire Company No. 7             Main Street and Trenton Avenue




















                                                                                                                                          B-19






             Langhorne Borough
             Middletown Planning Area




             Municipal Profile
                                            Date of Incorporation:                                1876
                                            Type of Government:                                   Borough Council
                                            School District:                                      Neshaminy
                                            Land Area/Water Area:                        Land:    0.49 sq.mi.                  Water: 0.0 sq. mi.
                                            Utilities:                 Water            Public:   98.5%                          Well: 1.5%
                                                                       Sewer           Public: 99.6%                         On-Site: 0.4%



             Land Use Characteristicso0evelopment Trends

                         1990 Land Use Characteristics (in acres)                                                    1990 Land Use Percentage

                                        Land Use                                     Acres
             Single-Family Residential                                                       153
             Multi-Family Residential                                                         8
             Rural Residential                                                                6
             Agricultural                                                                     0
             Mining and Manufacturing                                                         0                                    Other*
                                                                                                                  Vacant
             Commercial                                                                      14                        8%           4%
             Transportation and Utilities                                                    37     Park & 7%                                                             Single-
             -Government and Institution                                                     48      R eec.                                                               Family
             Park and Recreation                                                             21
                                                                                                                                                                          50%
             Vacant                                                                          26
             Total                                                                           313
                                                                                                        15%
                                                                                                      Govt
                              1970-1990 Land Use Comparison                                             Instit&
                                          (by Percentage)                                                            12%
                                                                                                                                       4%
                     General                                                                                Transp. & Utilities             Commercial
                    Land Use                    1970              1980               1990
             Residential                               55%1              50%             53%
             Agricultural/Vacant                       f5%1               8%                 9%
             Non-Residential                          25%i               33%             32%             'Other includes Mulfi-Farnity (31/6) and Rural Residential (2%).
             Park and Recreation                        6%,
                                                                          9-6                7%



             Demographics

                            1980-1990 Population and Housing Comparision                                                               Population Trend

                                                                                   Amount           Percent
                 Characteristics                1980              1990             Change          Change
                                                                                                                       :400
             Population                              1,697.            1,361             -336         -19.80%
                                                                                                                      1,200
             Population Density           :3,327/sq.mi.: 2,722/sq.mi.             -605/sq.mi.         -18.18%         1.000 i:
             Housing Units                             5591               645,               -14        -2.50%          800 !
                                                                                                                         600,
             ,Total Households                          542.              528                -14        -2.58%          400
                                                                                                                         200.
             .Avg. Household Size                      2.681             2.55            -0.13          -4.85%              0.
             'Owner Vacancy Rate                      0.0%i             0.3%             0.3%                              1980        1990       2000        2010        2020     '1
             Renter Vacancy Rate                      1.0%              5.0%             4.0%,                                                    Middle     Middle       miame



                                                                                                                                                                          B-20






                                                                                                                                            Langhorne Borough
                    Demographics (Cont.)                                                                                             Middletown Planning Area


                                                         Population, Housing, Labor Force, Employment Projections

                                                                                                                2010                               2020
                      Characteristics Census             Low            Middle           High        Low       Middle _High             Low       Middle         High
                    @Fo-pulation               1,361         1,150           1,190          1,210      1,080       1,130      1,190         990      1,100       -I'--2-50
                    lHousing                      545:         490             500.           510        470        490         510         480        520       540
                    Labor Force                   755          640             660,           670        600        630         660         550       610        690
                                                                                              660        580        610         640         540       600        680




                    Soclo-Economics


                                     1980 - 1990 Household Comparison                                          1990 Resident Employment by Type

                                   Characteristics                      1980            1990
                    Median Household Income                              $20,443'       $36,000 i
                    Median Home Value                                    $55,1001       $139,900i
                    Median Gross Rent                                        $2141           $463                                                     Mining,
                                                                                                                                                  Manufacturing,
                                                                                                                                                  Construction   6
                                       Home Sales and Median Home Prices                                            Other*
                                                                                                                                                     Agricluture
                                              (2nd Quarter) 1987-1992                                                 16%
                                                                                                                                                        280/co
                                                        Home            Median
                                            Year         Sales          Price
                                            1987             7          $143,5W
                                            1988             4    i     $164,5001
                                            1989             4    1     $104,9501
                                            1990             4          $134,5001                             35%@"@
                                            1991             4    1                                                           -                  -
                                                                        $116,500
                                            1992             5    1     $145,275@                          Services                                  21%
                                                                                                                                               Wholesale/Retail
                                                                                                                                                   Trade
                                      1980 - 1990 Educational Attainment
                                                                        198()      T    -jqWi
                                   Characteristics
                    Percent High School Graduates                       74.1%           83.6%                       'Other includes F.I.R.E. (61/6), Gov1 (4%) and
                                                                                                                              Transp. 8, Utilities (6%)
                    Percent 4 or more years of College                -21.9%       i    24.4%



                    Community Facilities
                    Hame of Facility                                               Address
                    Langhorne Borough Municipal Building         -                 114 East Maple Avenue
                    Langhorne Borough Police                                       114 East Maple Avenue
                    Langhome-Middletown Fire Company No. 21                        114 East Maple Avenue
                    Pennwood Library                                               Pine and Flowers avenues



















                                                                                                                                                           B-21






              Langhorne Manor Borough
              Middletown Planning Area




              Municipal Profile

                                         Date of Incorporation:                          1890
                                         Type of Government:                             Borough Council
                                         School District:                                Neshaminy
                                         Land Area/Water Area:                   Land:   0.59 sq.mi.              Water: 0.0 sq. mi.
                                         Utilities:
                                                                 Water         Public: 97.3%                       Well: 2.7%
                                                                 Sewer         Public: 17.3%                    On-Site: 82.7%



              Land Use CharacteristicsADevelopment Trends

                        1990 Land Use Characteristics (in acres)                                         1990 Land Use Percentage

                                    Land Use                                 Acres
              Single-Family Residential                                             151
              Multi-Family Residential                                              13
              Rural Residential                                                          0
              .Agricultural                                                              0
              .Mining and Manufacturing                                                  0,                         Other*
              Commercial                                                                 1       Vacant                4%
              -Transportation and Utilities                                         104              19%
                                                                                                                                                 Single-Family
              Government and Institution                                            39
                                                                                                                                                      39%
              Park and Recreation                                                        0
              Vacant                                                                70
              Total                                                                 378]
                                                                                              10%
                                                                                              Gov't &
                             1970-1990 Land Use Comparison                                    lnstitufio@n__
                                        (by Percentage)
                                                                                                                    28%

                     General
                    Land Use                  1970          1980             1990                          Transportation & Utilities
              Residential                         47%             37%             43%
              'Agricultural/Vacant                19% 1           20%             19%
              Non-Residential                     34%'%           38%1            38%j           *Other includes Multi-Family (3*/o) and Commercial (0.3%)
              Park and Recreation                 _0%               5%1             0%1  1


              Demographics

                           198G-1 990 Population and Housing Comparlsion                                                Population Trend
                                                                           Amount         Percent          1,200.
                 Characteristics             1980           1990          Change I        Change
              Population                          1,1031           807            -2961       -26.84%      1,000
                                                                                                            800,
              Population Density         1,697/sq.mi.! 1,345/sq.mi.,      -352/sq.            -20.74%
                                                                                                            600'
              Housing Units                       360!!            304              -56       -15.56%       4W:
              Total Households                    351              297              -56       -15.86%       2N
              Avg. Household Size                 2-90@           2.72           -0.18        -6.21%          0
              Owner Vacancy Rate                  0.3%           0.0%           -0.3%                         1980      1990       2000      2010      2020
              Renter Vacancy Rate                 4.0%;           3.8%          -0.2%1                                            Middle    Middle     Middle



                                                                                                                                                       B-22




  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  11
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
                                                                APPENDIX C
  I                                           Bucks County Wetlands Plant List
  I
  I
  I







                                   Bucks County Wetlands Plant List


                       SCIENTIFIC NAME					COMMON NAME
			1. Acer negundo L.					Box Elder
			2. Acer saccharinum L.					Silver Maple
			3. Acorus calamus L.					Sweetflag
			4. Agrostis alba L.					Redtop
			5. Alisma subcordatum Raf.				Subcordate Waterplantain
			6. Alnus serrulata (Ait.) Willd.			Hazel Alder
			7. Amaranthus Cannabinus (L.) Sauer			Tidemarsh Waterhemp
			8. Amorpha fruitcosa L.					Dull-Leaf Indigo
			9. Andropogon gerardii Vitman				Big Bluestem
			10. Andropogon glomeratus (Walt.) B.S.P.		Bushybeard Bluestem
			11. Andropogon virginicus L.				Broomsedge Bluestem
			12. Arisaema triphyllum (L.) Schott			Indian Jack-in-the-Pulpit
			13. Aronia arbutifolia (L.) Ell.			Red Chokecherry
			14. Aronia melanocarpa (Michx.) Ell.		Black Chokecherry
			15. Asciepias incarnata L.				Swamp Milkweed
			16. Aster umbellatus Mill.				Flattop Aster
			17. Betula nigra L.					River Birch
			18. Bidens (all species)				Beggarticks
			19. Boehmeria cylindrica (L.) SW.			Smallspike False-Nettle
			20. Calamagrostis canadensis (Michx.) Beauv.	Bluejoint Reedgrass\
			21. Calamagrostis cinnoides (Muhl.) Barton	Hairyseed Reedgrass
			22. Caltha palustris L.					Marsh Marigold
			23. Cardamine bulbosa (Schreb.) B.S.P.		Bulb Bittercress
			24. Caradmine pensylvanica Muhl, ex Willd.	Pennsylvania Bittercress
			25. Carex (all species)					Sedge
			26. Cephalanthus occidentalis L.			Common Buttonbush
			27. Chelone glabra L.					White Turtlehead
			28. Chrysospienium americanum Schweinitz		Golden Saxifrage
			29. Cicuta bulbifera L.					Poison Waterhemlock
			30. Cicuta maculata L.					Common Waterhemlock
			31. Cinna arundinacea L.				Stout Woodreed
			32. Clethra alnifolia L.				Summersweet Clethra
			33. Conium maculatum L.					Poison Hemlock
			34. Cornus amomum Mill.					Silky Dogwood
			35. Cyperus (all species)				Flatsedge
			36. Decodon verticillatus (L.) Ell.			Water Willow
			37. Dulichium arundinaceum (L.) Britt.		Three-Way-Sedge
			38. Echinochioa walteri (Pursh) A. Heller		Walter Millet
			39. Eleocharis (all species)				Spikerush
			40. Epilobium coloratum Biehler			Purpleleaf Willowweed
			41. Equisetum fluviatile L.				Water Horsetail
			42. Equisetum hyemale L.				Scouringrush Horsetail
			43. Eragrostis hypnoides (Lam.) B.S.P.		Teal Lovegrass
			44. Eragrostis pectinacea (Michx.) Nees		Carolina Lovegrass
			45. Eupatoriadelphus dubius (all species)		Joe-Pye Weed
			46. Eupatorium perfoliatum L.				Boneset
			47. Eupatorium pilosum Walter				Hairy Thoroughwort
			48. Euthamia graminifolia (L.) Nutt.		Grass-Leaved Goldenrod
			49. Fraxinus nigra Marshall				Black Ash




															C-1






 50.	Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall			Green Ash
 51.	Galium obtusum Bigel.					Bluntleaf Bedstraw
 52.	Galium parisiense L.					Wall Bedstraw
 53.	Galium tinctorium L.					Dye Bedstraw
 54.	Glyceria (all species)					Mannagrass
 55.	Helenium autumnale L.					Common Sneezeweed
 56.	Heteranthera reniformis R & P				Roundleaf Mudplantain
 57.	Hibicus mosocheutos L.					Rose Mallow
 58.	Hydrophyllum virginianum L.				Virginia Waterleaf
 59.	Hypericum mutilum L.					Dwarf St. Johnswort
 60.	Ilex verticillata (L.) A. Gray			Winterberry
 61.	Impatiens capensis Meerb.				Spotted Touch-Me-Not
 62.	Impatiens pallida Nutt.					Pale Touch-Me-Not
 63.	Iris pseudacorus L.					Yellow Iris
 64.	Iris versicolor L.					Blueflag Iris
 65.	Juncus (all species)					Rush
 66.	Laportea canadensis (L.) Wedd.			Canada Woodnettle
 67.	Leersia oryzoides (L.) Swartz				Rice Cutgrass
 68.	Leersia virginica Willd.				Whitegrass
 69.	Leucothoe racemosa (L.) Gray				Swamp Leucothoe
 70.	Lindera benzoin (L.) Blume				Spicebush
 71.	Liquidambar styraciflua L.				Sweetgum
 72.	Ludwigia (all species)					Seed-Box
 73.	Lycopus (all species)					Bugleweed
 74.	Lyonia ligustrina (L.) DC.				Male-Berry
 75.	Lysimachia (all species)				Loosestrife
 76.	Lythrum salicaria L.					Purple Loosestrife
 77.	Magnolia virginiana L.					Sweetbay
 78.	Mentha X piperita L.					Peppermint
 79.	Mertensia virginica (L.) Pers.			Virginia Bluebells
 80.	Mimulus ringens L.					Monkey-Flower
 81.	Myosotis scorpioides L.					True Forget-Me-Not
 82.	Nasturtium officinale R. Br.				Watercress
 83.	Nuphar luteum (L.) Sibith. & J.E. Smith		European Cowlily
 84.	Onoclea sensibilis L.					Sensitive Fern
 85.	Osmunda (all species)					Fern
 86.	Panicum longifolium Torr.				Long-Leaved Panic-Grass
 87.	Panicum rigidulum Bosc. ex Nees.			Redtop Panicum
 88.	Peltandra virginica (L.) Kunth.			Arrow-Arum
 89.	Phalaris arundinacea L.					Reed Canarygrass
 90.	Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.	Giant Cane
 91.	Polygonum amphibium L.					Water Knotweed
 92.	Polygonum arifolium L.					Halberdleaf Tearthumb
 93.	Polygonum Hydropiper L.					Marshpepper Knotweed
 94.	Polygonum Hydropiperoides Michx.			Swamp Knotweed
 95.	Polygonum Pensylvanicum L.				Pennsylvania Smartweed
 96.	Polygonum punctatum Ell.				Dotted Smartweed
 97.	Polygonum sagittatum L.					Arrow-Leaved Tearthumb
 98.	Polygonum scandens L.					Hedge Cornbind
 99.	Pontederia cordata L.					Pickerelweed
100.	Quercus bicolor Willd.					Swamp White Oak
101.	Quercus palustris Muench.				Pin Oak
102.	Querucs Phellos L.					Willow Oak						





103. Ranunculus sceleratus L.					Celeryleaf Buttercup
104. Ranunculus Septentrionalis Poir.			Swamp Buttercup
105. Rhododendron viscosum (L.) Torr.			Swamp Azalea
106. Rhynchospora capitellata (Michx.) Vahl		False Bog Rush
107. Rorippa palustris (L.) Besser				Marsh Yellowgrass
108. Rorippa sylvestris (L.) Besser				Creeping Yellowgrass
109. Rosa palustris Marshall					Swamp Rose
110. Sagittaria (all species)					Arrowhead
111. Salix (all species)					Willow
112. Saururus cernuus L.					Lizard's Tail
113. Scirpus (all species)					Bulrush
114. Scutellaria integrifolia L.				Rough Skullcap
115. Scutellaria lateriflora L.				Blue Skullcap
116. Sium suave Walt.						Common Waterparsnip
117. Smilax hispida Muhl.					Bristly Greenbriar
118. Sparganium (all species)					Burreed
119. Spiraea latifolia (Ait.) Borkh.			Broadleaf Meadowsweet Spiraea
120. Spiraea tomentosa L. 					Hardhack
121. Symplocarpus loetidus (L.) Nutt.			Common Skunkcabbage
122. Thelypteris thelpteroides (Michx.) J. Holub	Marsh Fern
123. Triadenum virginicum (L.) Raf.				Marsh St. Johnswort
124. Typha angustifolia L.					Narrow-Leaved Cattail
125. Typha latifolia L.						Common Cattail
126. Ulmus americana L.						American Elm
127. Ulmus rubra Muhl.						Slippery Elm
128. Vaccinium corymbosum L.					Highbush Blueberry
129. Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.				Large Cranberry
130. Verbena hastata L.						Blue Verbena
131. Viburnum dentatum L.					Arrow-Wood
132. Viburnum recognitum Fernald				Arrow-Wood
133. Woodwardia areolata (L.) T. Moore			Netted Chainfern
134. Zizania aquatica L.					Annual Wildrice
 



 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 11
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 1                               1,
                                     APPENDIX D
 I                           Field Observations and Notes
 I
 I
 I










                 APPENDIX D

                 Field Observations And Notes
                 Czm Nonpo;nt Pollution And Wetlands Study
                 July 1994

                 During the months from April to July 1994, the Bucks County Planning Commission staff visited
                 most of the wetlands identified on the U. S. G. S. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps in the
                 CZM study area. The purpose of this was to observe the condition of the wetlands in the CZM
                 study area. By observing the state of the wetlands, staff could determine where wetlands may be
                 in distress or where pollutants like trash were affecting them. By doing this, local municipal
                 officials will know where wetlands are located in the municipality. It may also help them establish
                 zones or areas of concern within the municipality protecting all remaining wetlands.

                 Several of the wetlands delineated on the NWI maps could not be located. Others could not be
                 observed due to lack of access roads or other entry to the area. The physical condition of these
                 wetlands is uncertain. At this time, any protection policies or recommendations for wetland
                 protection found in chapter six of volume I of the report can be applied to unobserved wetlands.
                 Future studies may be able to access these areas, so that protection policies or actions can be more
                 firmly established.

                 The following observations are intended as descriptive measures only. No field sampling was
                 performed for specific pollutants, although obvious distress characteristics such as a lack of
                 vegetation, widespread presence of debris or trash, off color water or surface residues (oil, greases
                 or other) were noted. Where possible, existing species were identified and recorded.

                 The numerical sequence of the following information is intended to be used with the study area
                 map, Figure 7 of the report, to locate the wetlands described. The numbers correspond to the
                 numbers shown on Figure 7 and are not intended as a priority listing.

                   I    Neshaminy State Park, Bensalem Township.: Wetlands Area (PF01C on
                        NWI maps)
                            Obvious standing water
                            Wetland associated vegetation observed (Fragmities).
                            An 8' to 10' high earthen berm separating the wetland area from the main stem of the
                            Neshaminy Creek.
                            Severe impact on creek bank from industrial and residential debris. 55 gallon oil
                            drums, plastic garbage bags, tires and residential refuse observed on the creek.
                            A black, thick residue material was observed on the creek bank and floating the water's
                            edge in the same area.
                            Residential houses observed on the opposing bank of the creek.

                 At the time of the site visit on April 11, 1994, an interview was held with Richard Eberle, Park
                 Manager.

                            Mr. Eberle suggested that problems have existed with the Park's marina. Evidence has
                            been found suggesting boat operators are dumping sewage holding tanks into the
                            marina. The park did have a functioning sewage pumping area and holding tanks at
                            one time, but the system is in extreme disrepair and no longer functioning.
                            Mr. Eberle reported that recently DER inspected the integrity of the system. The
                            pumping lines and holding tank are no longer stable and are disintegrating, rendering
                            them unusable.





                                                                                            D - I








                          ï¿½  Mr. Eberle acknowledged that there were occasional accidents where fuel or oil was
                             spilled into the marina, but it did not constitute a major problem.
                          ï¿½  He suggested that much greater problems were being created by Jack's Marine (Bristol
                             Township). The owner is pursuing an arrangement with the state whereby he can
                             dredge existing wetlands to create more dock space within his existing marina
                             operation. He also pointed out that there was a restaurant, engine repair and overhaul
                             and boat rental operations happening on the site. To date, DER has denied Jack's
                             requests to dredge the wetland area.

                   2. State Rd., Bensalem Township. (Industrial Park) : Wetland Area
                          ï¿½  Various types of industrial, semi-commercial and freight uses are present in the area of
                             the wetland. Development abutting the wetland site.
                             -Rollins Truck Rentals
                             -B F Goodrich
                             -Integrity Textiles
                             -American Furniture Rentals and Sales
                             -Bombardier Transportation Group
                             -Railroad Siding
                          ï¿½  Heavy vehicular traffic, comprised mainly of tractor trailers. Constant stream of
                             receiving and shipping trucks. Hydrocarbon residues from vehicles may enter wetland.

                   3. Expressway @ 1-95 area, Bensalem Township. (Industrial Park): Wetland
                          Area
                             Large area of impervious surface.
                             Heavy vehicular traffic, comprised mainly of tractor trailers. Constant stream of
                             receiving and shipping trucks. Hydrocarbon residues from vehicles may enter wetland.
                             Due to activities in the industrial park such as trucking, there is the potential for
                             pollution by'oils, greases, hydrocarbons, chemicals spills from industrial
                             manufacturing processes, manufacturing or assembly/production byproducts such as
                             paint or degreasers, CFC's (Styrofoam), refuse/trash.

                   4. Industrial Park, Bensalem Township. (Railroad tracks): Wetland Area
                             Opportunity for various types of pollutants associated with railroad operations, such as
                             chemical spills, oils and refuse to enter the wetland in the event of an accident or
                             mishandling by personnel.

                   5. Expressway @ 1-95, Bensalem Township.: Wetland Area
                             Large area of impervious surface.
                             Heavy vehicular traffic, comprised mainly of tractor trailers. Constant stream of
                             receiving and shipping trucks. Hydrocarbon residues from vehicles may enter wetland.
                             Due to activities in the industrial park such as trucking, there is the potential for
                             pollution by oils, greases, hydrocarbons, chemicals spills from industrial
                             manufacturing processes, manufacturing or assembly/production byproducts, such as
                             paint or degreasers, CFC's (Styrofoam), refuse/trash.
                             Opportunity for various types of pollutants associated with railroad operations, such as
                             chemical spills, oils and refuse to enter the wetland in the event of an accident or
                             mishandling by personnel.

                   6. Route 13, Bensalem Township.: Wetland areas (PSSI/EM and PFOI on
                          NWI map)
                             Heavy commercial area
                                -Gas Stations
                                -Business Offices
                                -Food Establishments



                                                                                           D - 2









                               -Convenience Stores
                        0  Heavy vehicular traffic because it is a commercial area. Constant stream of vehicles.
                           Hydrocarbon residues from vehicles may enter wetland.
                        0  Sewage pump station present at wetland area.

                  7.    Route 13, Bensalem Township.: Wetland Areas (PSSI/EM and PFOI on
                NWI     map)
                        0 Heavy commercial area
                               -Gas Stations
                               -Business Offices
                               -Food Establishments
                               -Convenience Stores
                        * Heavy vehicular traffic because it is a commercial area. Constant stream of vehicles.
                           Hydrocarbon residues from vehicles may enter wetland.

                  8.    Route 13, Bensalem Township.: Seven Eleven Store
                        0  Dredge/spoils area behind the store in commercial district. Berm at least 13' above
                           existing ground level, center is depressed/settled (bowl shaped).
                        0  Five foot wire mesh fence at top of berm preventing access. Outlet structure placed
                           inside basin (12" CMP) discharging directly into a swale 30'from the main stem of the
                           Neshaminy Creek.
                        0  Extremely poor condition surrounding the swale structure. Bare earth, trash, tires,
                           abandoned boats, plastic containers, residential refuse located at bank near the outlet.
                        0  Low tide conditions revealed that the bed of the creek along the banks was a dark
                           grayish color.
                        0  Richard Eberle, Park Manager of Neshaminy State Park informed staff that the dredge
                           material came from the Neshaminy Creek and the Delaware River. The use of this
                           material as a storage basin for storinwater management purposes is questionable.
                        0  Potential use as study area for future grant purposes. Remediation may include
                           removal of outlet structure from dredge pile or installation of water quality outlet,
                           rehabilitation of the creek banks at the swale outlet point, removal of large abandoned
                           marina and boat materials, etc.

                  9.    Spencer St., Bristol Township.: Wetland Area (PF01 on NWI map)
                           Obvious residential impacts: trash and debris scattered throughout.
                           Dump site for construction debris; chunks of concrete and asphalt roadway present.
                           Low lying, marshy, wooded; very little species diversity.

                10.     Garrield St., Bristol Township.: Wetland area (PFOI on NWI map)
                           Relatively trash and refuse free.
                           Very little species diversity.
                           Light residential area surrounding the entire site.

                11.     Newport Rd. and Park Ave., Bristol Township.: Wetland area (PFOI on
                        NWI map)
                           Relatively free of trash and refuse.
                           Very little species diversity.
                           Medium residential area surrounding the entire site.
                12.     Newport Rd. and Route 13, Bristol Township.: Wetland Area
                        9 Adjacent to new commercial development, with fresh earth disturbance, relatively
                           poor E&S controls because silt running off into roadway.
                        0  Possible loss of wetland area?





                                                                                         D - 3







                 13.     State Rd. and Totem Rd., Bensalem Township. Wetland Area (PEMIR on
                         NWI map (2 identified))
                             Very poor condition; residential refuse, trash, vermin present.
                             Occurs along major truck transport route: State Rd.
                             Mostly commercial land uses, some scattered residential dwellings among buildings.
                             Has active marina in area.

                 14.     Jack's Marine, Bensalem Township.: Wetland Area (RIUBVx on NWI
                         maps)
                             Potential on this site for serious impacts to the waterway and wetland areas in the event
                             of improper management of marina, repair business or restaurant.
                             Fuel pumps observed in closed proximity to the Neshaminy Creek
                             Dredging equipment visible, possible dredge site observed at back entrance to marina.

                 15.     Neshaminy State Park Marina, Bristol Township.:                      Confluence of the
                         Neshaminy Creek and the Delaware River
                             Fairly well kept, but may be causing sewage pollution problem through holding tank
                             dumping in the marina.

                 16.     Brownsville Rd., Lower Southampton Township.: Wetland Area (PUBZh
                         on NWI maps)
                             Situated in a trailer park; extreme residential impact potential.
                             Low quality wetlands.
                             Relatively clear of debris at this time.

                 17.     King David Cemetery and Rosedale Cemetery, Neshaminy Ave. and Bristol
                         Rd., Bensalem Township.: Wetland Area.
                             Could not identify wetland area on site.

                 18.     Timber Lane & Bensalem Blvd.: Wetland Area (PF01 on NWI map)
                             Large area, large single family residential development, unfinished (bankrupt).
                             Obvious wetland conditions. Stands of Red Maple, cattails. Extreme disturbance to
                             the perimeter of the wetland by unfinished development. Some foundations set and
                             overgrown. Large piles of residential debris scattered, and lawn clippings, many in
                             plastic bags.

                 19      Beverly/Forest and Forest/Lavender, Bensalem Township.: Wetland area
                         (PF01 on NWI map)
                             Wetlands surrounded by 1/4 medium acre residential built in the 1950's or 60's.
                             Wetland has healthy established vegetation, but little diversity.
                             Woodland consists of Maple, Oak, Beach, Dutchman's breeches.
                             Little trash/debris, high organic layer. Residential lawns have surface water present
                             (has not rained for 3 days)

                 20. Bridgewater Road, Bensalem Township.: Wetland (PF,01 on NWI map)
                             Area is medium residential. Dead ends 200' from 1-95 expressway.
                             Vegetation seems to be primarily Red Maples and Ash, jewel weed.
                             Driveway on 1-95 edge of site lead to some type of industrial site. Driveway is posted
                             & blocked. Some trees have been removed for access purposes (trucks).
                             Looks generally good,,no obvious residential debris or trash.
                             Observed a large mulch pile & some scrap metal behind fence on driveway.

                 2 1. N.     Gillam Avenue, Langhorne Borough : Wetland Area



                                                                                           D - 4








                       ï¿½    White Ash, Red Maple, White Oak, poison ivy, sugar maple (no debris), sweet gum,
                            sumac, jewel weed (indicator), Beech, chestnut, apparent old stand growth, May
                            Apple, black cherry (wet species), ferns, wild rose.
                       ï¿½    Stream running through center, homes around west side of site, north perimeter (light
                            residential), West Richardson Ave side (light residential).
                       0    Robinwood Dr. (north of the wetland) has new residential houses.

                22.    S.   of Gillam, Langhorne Borough: Wetland Area
                       *    Roadside dumping (some), skunk cabbage, dense understory growth, yellow birch,
                            seems wetter. House on northwest comer.
                       0    This area abuts Route 281 which has new development called the Woods of Lincoln Il
                            at Hulmeville and Henry. Has a stormwater detention basin in fair condition.

                23.    South of Route 1, Middletown Township.: Wetland area (R3UBH on NWI
                       map)
                            Appears to be wet area, however not labeled a wetland.
                            College Ave. probably built on fill through wetland area, light density residential.

                24.    Poplar Street and Walsh Avenue, Langhorne Manor Borough: Wetland
                       area (R3UBH on NWI map)
                       0 Low density residential/ large homes.
                       0 White ash, red maple, beech on site.

                25.    Virginia Street (PUBZH on NWI map))
                            Tributary continues through the wedand.
                            Low species diversity, not very dense, sweet gum, Northern Jack in the Pulpit.
                            Clean area, homes abut wetland.
                            Some residential trash dumping along tracks on Cornley Avenue South.
                            Stream runs through cast in place concrete pipe under railroad tracks.

                26.    Park Ave., Langhorne Manor Borough (Industrial Site): Wetland area
                       (PSSIA on NWI map)
                            Auto body truck terminals. Wetland following stream down site.
                            Detention Basin present on site.
                            Located in the area of U.S. Route 1.

                27.    No Information Available

                28.    Parker Ave. along U.S. Route 1, Penndel Borough: Wetland (R3UBH on
                       NWI map)
                            Medium density residential along Parker Ave.
                            Junk yard (Autos) in the areas of Parker Ave and Spring Street.
                            Penndel Body Works on U. S. Route 1.

                29.    N.   River Drive, Middletown Township.: Wetland 'Area (PFOIA on NWI
                       map)
                            Extensive area, right on banks of the creek.
                            Cherry, beech, catalpa, red maple, white ash.
                            Evidence of wildlife habitat (mallards present).








                                                                                       D - 5







                 30. Highland Ave. and Route 281, Middletown Township:(PUBZx on NWI
                         map))
                             Dense area, species seen include white ash, red maple.
                             Surrounded by paved road, cross streets,
                             Building supply business located in area (sand, gravel supply)
                             North section of site is location of residential sewage pump station near Old Lincoln
                             Highway

                 31.     Middletown Township, Idlewood on the Neshaminy: Wetland area
                             Looks like construction will begin soon (construction trailer on site).
                             Close to creek, impacts to hydrology.

                 32      Old Lincoln Highway, Middletown Township: (BUBHx on NWI map))
                             Couldn't get on site because road ends and is adjacent to private property.
                             Large single family lots
                             Abandoned quarry, woodlands and High school surrounding the area.
                             In close proximity to railroad tracks

                 33. Middletown Township: (BUBHx on NWI map)
                             Appears to be storage tanks in the immediate area, although could not observe clearly.
                             If tanks are present, may cause threat from accidental spills depending on contents of
                             tanks.

                 34      Old Lincoln Highway, Bensalem Township: (R2UBH on NWI map))
                             Significant (large) wetland system, upstream from industrial park
                             Bisected by Old Lincoln Highway
                             Ash, white oak, white ash, poplar, wild lily, cherry present on site.
                             Very clean, little debris, residential area.
                             Trailer park located in the area.
                             Auto parts store, other commercial businesses in area.

                 35. Industrial Center, Bensalem Township: (PEMSC, PFOIC, PFOIA on NWI
                         map)
                             Dumping, trash on site. Impacts from *surrounding land uses.
                             Sweet gum , white oak, white ash, Poplar, Cherry, wild rose, willow (bushes), jewel
                             weed, Virginia creeper, witch hazel, Rose of Sharon, horse chestnut present on site.
                             Residential house abutting site.
                             Erosion evident in wetland vegetation behind site, also evidence of All Terrain Vehicles
                             using the area for recreational purposes which could be causing the soil disturbances.
                             These vehicles have damaged the natural flora of the site.
                             Small basin on site. -

                 36.     Jefferson Avenue, Bristol Township: Wetland area (PFOIC on NWI map)
                             Small, but very wet at Jefferson and Madison.
                             mallards, maple, ash, Virginia creeper, white oak.
                             Light residential area, a little debris from surrounding land uses.
                 37.     Washington St., Bristol Township: Wetland area (PFOIC on NWI map)
                         ï¿½ Wetland has significant, healthy understory      Other vegetation consists of beech and
                             cherry.
                         ï¿½   Residential development is low density. Space between homes.





                                                                                          D - 6








                38     Longview Avenue/Lime Avenue, Bristol Township: Wetland area
                           Wild rose, maple, ash, Virginia creeper, white oak
                           Residential development is low density. Space between homes.
                39.    Longview/Cyprus/Fernwood, Penndel Borough and Bristol Township:
                       (PUBZx on NWI map)
                           Swale runs through the area, looks almost riverine.
                           Wild rose, maple, ash, Virginia creeper, white oak.

                40.    Bristol road, Bensalem Township.: Wetland area
                           Trailer park impacts directly on the remaining wetland.
                           Looks good, but potential runoff impacts from amount of impervious surfaces due to
                           high residential density.
                           White ash and swamp or red maple are primary species, and wetland fringe indicators.

                41.    Bristol road, Bensalem Township.: Wetland area
                       0 A small trailer park area on the other side of site # 40 above. Evidence of earth
                           moving.
                       0   Black Cherry, sumac, red maple present in wet areas.

                42.    Bensalem Township: Wetland area
                           Jewel weed, honeysuckle, maple. Small area, private prop (poster). Gravel access
                           road. Looks to be in good condition. Willow, sumac, cherry, white ash.

                43.    Wetiand-Industrial Park. Bensalem
                           Very well maintained. Wetlands seem to be fenced off from parking areas.
                           Vegetation includes maples, cherry, honeysuckle, may apples, tilia and witch hazel.
                           Large open space at end of the park leaves potential for new or more development.
                           Several basins present-very well maintained, grassed, vegetated.

                44.    Bartram Road, Bristol Township, Industrial Park (Keystone); Wetland
                       area
                           Well maintained area, although some refuse lying in parking lot, and also spilling
                           over into the wetland fringe.

                45.    Route 413, Bristol Township: Wetland area
                           Wetland-abuts shopping center on 413.
                           Good shape, fairly well protected from parking lot.
                           Potential road impact from 413.
                           Vegetation includes willow (bush), arrowwood (bush), sumac, maple, white oak,
                           white ash, fragmities.

                46.    Industrial Commercial area, Bristol Township: Wetland area
                           Light industrial/commercial section of township.
                           Very rundown, trash and debris as well as scrap and junk visible.

                47.    Bristol Township: Wetland area
                           Some residential type trash (litter and papers, household items).
                           Exposed junk cars lying directly in the wetland fringe vegetation, and scattered along
                           the wedand perimeter.
                           Vegetation includes arrowwood (bush), sweet gum, maple, oak, white ash.






                                                                                        D - 7








                  48.      Bristol Township.: Wetland area
                           ï¿½  PNDI indicates there are protected species within this site.
                           ï¿½  The area is posted as "No Hunting" and as a preservation and study area by the County
                              of Bucks.
                           ï¿½  Large industrial zoned parcels for sale abutting the site. Some trucking operations were
                              evident on the day of observation.
                           ï¿½  Looks very healthy. Vegetation is full, and there seems to be a great deal of species
                              diversity in the interior of the wetland.
                           ï¿½  A Waste Automation facility (private residential trash disposal company) is located
                              directly across the road from the posted wetland area. Normal operations by trash
                              trucks were occurring on the observation day. The potential for impacts from this
                              facility.

                  49.      Bristol Township.: Wetland area
                           ï¿½  Small strip of wetland vegetation observed abutting 1-95. As this is a buffer for 1-95, it
                              is doubtful that it is of high quality or will be further impacted in the future. Possibly
                              already degraded through vehicular pollutants.

                     50       Bristol Township.: Wetland area
                           ï¿½  Light/medium residential development. Apparently maintained wetland vegetation,
                              because site is wooded and some trees are intact. Age of trees approximated to be
                              between 30 and 40 years.
                              Mature vegetation seems unusual due to normal clear cutting operations that occur prior
                              to construction. Lots of natural vegetation; species include: maple, oak, hickory, sweet
                              gum, cottonwood.

                 5 1. Bristol Township.: Wetland area
                              Medium (1/2 acre lot) residential.
                              Heavily wooded, mature trees. Yellow poplar, red maple, striped maple, sassafras,
                              jewel weed. Wetland vegetation present but not sure of species. Oaks, white ash.
                              No trash or other debris. Looks good. Definitely wet.
                              Evidence of hiking trails, so human impact is evident. May suffer future pollution
                              through the possibility of trash dumping or littering.

                 52. Newportville Rd., Bristol Township.: Wetland area
                              Abuts Newportville Rd. right before reaching the Hulmeville Borough limits.
                              Privately owned area.
                              Looks good, vegetation appears healthy although not much diversity. Light residential
                              surrounding.

                      53.     Bristol Township.: Wetland area
                           0  Small areas of wetland along 1-95 creating a buffer for the expressway.
                           0  Looks okay, but can't get close enough to really observe.

                      54.     Middletown Township./Hulmeville Borough: Wetland area
                              Middletown Trace townhouses. See #69 for stormwater management questions.
                              Well maintained lawn areas, fairly new development(10 to 20 yrs?).
                              Wetland vegetation abuts edges of the site. The parking areas for the development are
                              graded towards wetland w/curb cut at low spot that channels stormwater runoff into the
                              wetland. At end of channel there is a lot of debris & rubble.
                              Steep slope by channel shows signs of severe erosion from lawn area of site.
                              Next to Hoover School on Trenton Road.
                              Vegetation: Raspberry, blackberry, jewel weed, cherry, ash, maple, sumac, chestnut.



                                                                                             D - 8








                55.      Fernwood & Bensalem Blvd., Bristol Township. : Wetland area
                            Looks good; lot of vegetation. Honeysuckle, yellow locust, cherry, maple mature
                            trees, sumac.
                            Surrounded by residential development (medium density),

                56.      Leonard Ave., Bristol Township.: Wetland area
                         0 Looks good, fairly healthy. Vegetation includes: multiflora rose, maple, cherry,
                            sassafras, jewel weed.
                         0  Some residential development next to the wetland; junk cars other debris abut the
                            wetland area at the bottom of Leonard Avenue.

                57.      Bristol Township.: Wetland area
                            Fairly new residential area. Wetland weaves through subdivision.
                            Large area impacted by roadways abutting and cutting through subdivision.
                            Vegetation includes yellow locust, oak, elm.
                            Trails in wetland and other evidence of human impact (paper litter).

                58.      Bensalem Township.: Wetland area
                            Looks good, vegetation appears healthy although not much diversity. Light residential
                            surrounding.

                59.      Glenn Avenue, Bensalem Township.: Wetland area
                            Located on Glenn Avenue off Hulmeville (Route 513).
                            Large wetlands split into two areas by Hulmeville Rd..
                         0 Back part is large lot residential with very large expanses of lawn.
                         0  Opposite side is very heavy residential (guessing 1/4 acre lots or less).

                60.      Hulmeville Rd.,'Bensalem Township.: Wetland area
                         0  Off Hulmeville Rd. at the Korean Methodist Church. Wedand area among intermittent
                            development behind church buildings and parking lot.
                         0  A local resident was interviewed as to the impacts to the wetland by surrounding
                            neighbors. Informed staff that the wetland area is owned by Bensalem Township.
                            Reported that there have been numerous complaints from neighbors and church
                            caretaker regarding trash fires and other disturbances in the wetland. Also reported that
                            there have been several instances of local residents using the wetland as a dumping spot
                            for furniture, large appliances, tires and other various refuse items. Have been
                            complaints from surrounding neighbors. All this suggests that pollutants are entering
                            this wetland regularly, some dangerous such as gasoline used to set fires.
                            On the day of observation, there was residential trash and litter present in the area.

                61.      Byberry Rd., Bensalem Township.: Wetland area
                         0 Small commercial area abutting small wetland.
                         0 Fairly good, low quality wetland probable. Not much species diversity.

                62.      Richelieu Road, Bensalem Township., Country Common Apts.: Wetland
                         area
                            Wetland completely wooded.
                            Adjacent to parking lot for apartment units.
                            Construction and apartment maintenance operations being performed at time of visit.
                            Parking areas had heavy evidence of gasoline/grease spins. Fairly fresh.
                            Observed employee spraying herbicide on weeds along entire outer boundary of
                            complex, areas that abutted wetland from parking lot.
                            Heavy residential area abutting wetland.



                                                                                           D - 9








                  63. -Richelieu Rd., Bensalem Township., Philadelphia Park Racetrack
                          ï¿½   Area directly in front and to the left the of main entrance to park, maintained as grassy
                              field. Indicated on NWI maps that wetlands were once in this area. Adjacent to this
                              field are several acres of parking lot.
                          ï¿½   Grassy field has evidence of low spot drainage area adjacent to the parking area. Edge
                              of lot had been secured with several large hay bales directly beside a mature growth of
                              cattails. Ground looked marshy and wet even thought it was a dry day.
                          ï¿½   Opportunity for prolonged contact between marshy spot on field area and runoff from
                              the parking area. Due to the size of the lot, potential for great amount of vehicle
                              pollutants to degrade area.

                  64.     Richelieu Rd, Bensalem Township, Philadelphia Park Racetrack (main
                          entrance)
                              Wooded area adjacent to main entranceway from Street Road into Philadelphia Park.
                              No debris or other impacts observed.
                              Vegetation looks fairly healthy.

                  65.     Mechanicsville Road, Bensalem Township.: Wetland (PF01 on NWI map)
                              Small wetland area abutting Mechanicsville Road across the street from Philadelphia
                              park.
                              Seems to be in good condition, no debris or trash.
                              Medium/low residential area.
                              Mechanicsville Rd. heavy vehicular traffic area.

                  66. Grace Ave., Bensalem Township.: Wetland
                              Very secluded area off of Grace Ave., which is a dead-end street.
                              Very healthy, flora and fauna abundant.
                              Low density residential area (2 - 3 acre lots?)

                  Stormwater Detention Basin Field Location Notes

                  One of the objectives for the study of nonpoint pollutants and wetlands in the coastal zone area
                  project was to note the condition of stormwater. management detention basins in the study area.
                  Many times stormwater management detention basins are improperly maintained. This means that
                  they collect trash, litter, sediments or debris like broken tree limbs in their outlet pipes. They may
                  also be improperly designed, and cause pollution through erosion of soil on their sides or bottom.
                  By noting the location of stormwater detention basins, especially if they need repair, future studies
                  can determine the feasibility of fixing them.

                  69. Trenton Rd., Middletown Township., Middletown Trace Apts.
                              Fairly new (20 yrs?) townhouse complex.
                              Lawn areas well maintained, probably herbicide used in operationstcare.
                              Drainage graded towards large wetland area abutting property.
                              Entire complex is situated on high spot. Grading is a gradual downslope towards
                              wetlands. Wetlands appear fairly healthy with dense vegetation (trees and shrubs).
                              Observed a parking area for set of townhouses (maybe 20 residences?) that had a curb
                              cut a the low point to outlet stormwater runoff. Entire parking area was graded down
                              to the curb cut. On opposite side of cut was lawn area with a concrete flow channel
                              leading directly downslope into the wetland. No filtering or flow reduction method.
                              Observation of wetland where stormwater flow was directed from parking lot showed
                              areas of extreme erosion, debris and potential pollutants. Construction rubble and
                              landscaping debris visible. Within 50 feet of each side of the inlet the banks of the
                              wetland slope (steep 15%-20%?) severe erosion was observed. Tree roots were



                                                                                            D-1 0








                             completely exposed and no vegetation was remaining on these spots. Assumption of
                             detrimental flows every time it rains. Recommend remediation of this area specifically.

                 70.     Trevose Rd., Bensalem Township., Neshaminy Square Shopping Center
                         Detention Basin
                         0   Originally observed on April 11.
                         0   Detention basin located in cemetery behind center, draining large commercial area and
                             associated parking.
                         0   Poor maintenance conditions at the time of initial observation: overgrown grass, bare
                             soil, wet spots.
                         0   Wetland vegetation was present; cattails, fragmities. Visible marshy conditions.
                         *   Very good potential for future remediation practices (water quality outlets or other
                             upgrades).

                 71.     Route 1, Middletown Township., The Commons at Middletown: Detention
                         Basin
                             Newer residential townhouse/Apt complex.
                             Well maintained lawn and parking areas. Area around dumpsters was cleaner than
                             most.
                             Stormwater basin was well maintained and clean. Potential for use as future study
                             upgrade for water quality purposes. Basin has two sides with relatively steep slopes.
                             Outlet from basin drains into a culvert under parking area to a small tributary protected
                             by a vegetated berm. The tributary was only roughly one-half mile from the main stem
                             of the Little Neshaminy.
                             Grassy, well landscaped and maintained.
                             Apple, oak, weeping cherry, pines surrounding basin.

                 72.     Highland Ave., Middletown Township.: Detention Basin
                             Very poor condition
                             Neighbors report that during times of rainfall, basin discharges high amounts of
                             sediment
                             Also some problems with volume and direction of runoff
                             Deep , not fully grassed yet.
                         0   Hulmeville Road north of railroad tracks on Highland Avenue


                 73.     Timber Lane & Bensalem Blvd.: Stormwater Detention Basin
                             Basin is very marshy, wet area. Spongy underfoot, but fairly dry on outer edges.
                             Very subtle slope (ratio is 4 or 5 to 1).
                             Three inlets coming under street from residential side.
                             Concrete wing wall w/2 elliptical openings roughly 32" wide by 18" high: separation
                             distance 28", T=3'. Adjacent to this are 2 separate concrete projection pipe inlets
                             coming in from under the street. Same size as each other; approx. 16" x 12" .
                             Low flow concrete pad to outlet, 0 degrees from pipe to outlet.
                             Surface water on right of outlet with cattails.
                             Tributary on the other side of the berm from outlet.

                 74.     S.  of Gillam, Langhorne Borough: Detention Basin
                             New development called the Woods of Lincoln II at Hulmeville and Henry
                             Lot number 6043, subdivided into 8 lots (West) Hulmeville/Henry is next to a basin'
                             Basin has rip/rap and is heavily silted.






                                                                                           D - 1 1








                 75.      Old Lincoln Highway, Bensalem Township, Northbrook Office Park.:
                          Detention Basin
                          ï¿½  Detention and retention basins on site.
                          ï¿½ Northbrook Drive/Old Lincoln ffighway abutting Neshaminy Mall property.
                          ï¿½ Area looks fairly well maintained.

                 76.      Old Lincoln Highway near Reading Railroad, Bensalem Township.:
                          Detention     Basin
                          * Very small Basin in an Industrial Park. Does not look too bad. No future use.

                 77.      Bensalem Township.: Detention Basin
                          ï¿½ Basin in industrial park
                          ï¿½  Question arose as to vegetation planted in basin, although well maintained.
                          ï¿½  Composed of dogwoods & oaks, relatively young (5 yrs.?) and healthy.
                          ï¿½  Question whether they should be planted on actual basin side slopes.

                 78.      Pearl Buck & Bartram Rd., Bensalem Township.: Detention Basin
                          ï¿½  Basin located on comer of streets.
                          ï¿½ Basin is in very poor condition probably because of steep sides (can't mow well), not
                             mowed in quite some time on the day observed.

                 79.      Bridgetown Pike, Lower Southampton Township., Sweetwater Farms:
                          Detention Basin
                             Specific location in development: Norfolk Lane, off of Fox Hollow Rd.
                             Retention pond draining residential development (very large homes, 1/2 to full acre
                             lots).
                             Located at the bottom of a deep slope base.
                             Residential drainage apt to contain serious amounts of lawn care products (herbicides,
                             pesticides, fertilizer).
                             Construction activity still under way on Norfolk Lane.

                 80.      Haunted Lane, Bensalem Township.: Detention Basin
                             Snyders Manufacturing Company
                             Front of building right on street (20'. separation).
                             Irregular shape, on steep slope
                             Basin planted with ornamentals (red twig dogwoods)
                             Slopes covered in wood chips
                             Outlet crosses under driveway to adjoining site. Runoff appears to flow to a "wet"
                             pond (wetland) on the adjoining site. Also combines w/road drainage. Standing water
                             in basin (2"). Heavy rip-rap from inlet. Also, appears to be breaching berm. along
                             street because of rip rap channel there.

                 81.      Haunted Lane; Bensalem Township:              Retention Basin @ Water's Edge
                          Office Park
                             Retention pond - Turtles, minnows, frogs!
                             Fenced (6'barb wire)
                             Municipality reports complaints by local residents regarding odors
                             Side slopes on basin are roughly 2:1 with 4'vertical.
                             Water is green, with thin scum on top; bare banks.
                             Some bare soil spots on basin slopes.
                             Concrete overflow pad at left comer of basin cuts out approximately 70 degree angle to
                             Haunted Lane.
                             Wet area, possible wetland vegetation apparent at roadside. May drain into storm
                             sewer system. Follows same path as site #78 down into wetland area.


                                                                                        D - 1 2








                 Wettand Classifications

                 Wetlands are classified as on the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps by characteristic
                 wetness, soils, plants or other physical traits. This classification appears as a series of letters, both
                 upper and lower case, and occasionally including a number. Each wetland on the maps is
                 designated according to this classification system by the U. S. Geological Survey department of
                 the federal government.

                 NWI maps used in the study to locate and identify wetlands shown on Figure 7 in the report,
                 contained these classifications. No attempts were made to field verify or confirm these
                 classifications by staff. The classifications listed below represent the types of wetlands found
                 within the study area . For further explanation or detail on specific classification information,
                 please refer to the NWI maps for a full description and definition.

                 The specific NWI maps used to define the study area were: the Bristol quadrant, the Beverly
                 quadrant, the Trenton West quadrant and the Langhorne quadrant.


                 BUBHx
                 Saturated-Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Excavated

                 PEM
                 Palustrine- Emergent

                 PEMIR
                 Palustrine- Emergent, Persistent, Seasonal-Tidal

                 PEM5A
                 Palustrine- Emergent, Mesohaline, Temporarily Flooded

                 PEMSC
                 Palustrine- Emergent, Temporary Tidal, Seasonally Flooded

                 PFOI
                 Palustrine- Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous

                 PFOIA
                 Palustrine- Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded

                 PFOIAd
                 Palusrtine- Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Temporarily Flooded, Partially Drained/Ditched

                 PFOIC
                 Palustrine- Forested, Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded

                 PSSI
                 Palustrine- Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous

                 PSSIA
                 Palustrine- Scrub-Shrub, Broad-leaved Deciduous,Temporarily Flooded

                 PUBHx
                 Palustrine- Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Excavated



                                                                                        D - 1 3










               PUBHKx
               Palustrine- Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Artificially Flooded, Excavated

               PUBZh
               Palustrine- Unconsolidated Bottom, Intermittently Exposed/Permanent, Diked/Impounded

               PUBZH
               Palustrine- Unconsolidated Bottom, Intermittently Exposed/Permanent, Permanently Flooded

               PUBZx
               Palustrine- Unconsolidated Bottom, Intermittently Exposed/Permanent, Excavated

               RlUBVx
               Riverine-Tidal, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanent Tidal, Excavated

               R2UBH
               Riverine -Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded

               R3UBH
               Riverine-Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded






































                                                                                D - 1 4




  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
                                                                APPENDIX E
  I                        Role and Management of Stormwater in NPS Transport
  I
  I
  I









                APPENDIX E


                INTRODUCTION

                Stormwater management must be addressed in the control and reduction of nonpoint source
                pollutants. Uncontrolled stormwater runoff causes extreme damage to the land. This damage can
                be seen as eroded stream banks, gullies in farm fields and hillsides with bare, exposed patches of
                soil. All of these situations create nonpoint source pollutants. Runoff picks up tiny pieces of the
                soil and carries them into stormwater control basins and into the streams themselves the stream.
                Runoff carries everything in its path towards the water.

                In order to control runoff and capture many of the pollutants it carries, the use of Best Management
                Practices (BMPs) is essential. BMPs are stormwater management facilities which work to remove
                or reduce the negative effects of stormwater runoff. This may be by slowing down fast moving
                runoff, or removing some of the soil particles it carries.

                The following discussions address how stormwater runoff moves pollutants, and some of the
                recommended practices which may reduce the impacts of runoff.
                Role and Management of Stormwater in NPS Transport

                Overland flow

                Stormwater management plays a critical part in the transport of many non-point source pollutants.
                If no water is available to transport many pollutants they accumulate at the source of origin.
                Rainwater that falls from the atmosphere and reaches the earth normally moves along the surface of
                the ground. As the water moves, it collects substances in its path and carries them along. Surface
                runoff from storms moves pollutants and carries them through the landscape. Water always seeks
                the least resistant or lowest path to travel due to gravity; this could be down a hillside, across a
                lawn, through a pipe or simply from one end of a parking lot to another. The lowest point in any
                drainage system is normally a waterbody: stream, lake river or ocean.

                As rain falls, it strikes the ground with some force. This force is often great enough to dislodge
                exposed soil particles. The runoff then carries the particles as it travels. These soil particles
                eventually end up in the stream (streams that look very muddy or brown after a rainfall have a large
                amount of soil or "sediment" within them), on the shoulder of the road, or in the bottom of a
                stormwater detention basin. Sediments will move along in the water until they meet an obstacle to
                settle out against, or the flow of the water slows down enough so that the soil particles can sink
                down to the bottom. Construction areas are particularly vulnerable to this type of runoff
                movement. Sites that have been stripped of all vegetation and trees no longer have any protective
                covering from the force of the rain. Runoff travels across the surface of the bare soil, picking up
                loose particles and eroding weak or vulnerable areas. Ibis type of erosion and sediment movement
                can cause disastrous results to stream biology, and creates serious drainage problems on the
                remaining land.                                                        `1

                Stormwater runoff moving randomly downgrade over the surface of the land is considered
                "overland" or sheet flow. Other types of flow associated with the movement of stormwater runoff
                include channel flow (whereby contained in some type of structure'or natural channel) or rill and
                gully flow (where the water starts as overland flow and through erosive action creates small rills
                and gullies). Flow is usually measured in some type of velocity, or volumetric measurement per
                time, (i.e., cubic feet per second). The faster the flow, the more potential damage the runoff may
                cause by virtue of the force of the moving water. Soil particles or other objects on the surface of
                the land that may ordinarily resist movement can be dislodged by fast moving water.


                                                                                                              E-1








                   Infiltration

                   Considerations for using this practice:

                           Soils
                           0 Use soil survey to determine soils on site. Determine soil hydrologic groups (A, B, C
                               or D) from the survey. Group D soils we very limited by slow drainage and are not
                               acceptable for infiltration, also, Group C soils may need modifications.
                           Lookfor:
                           ï¿½   Limiting zones- These are found as a soil with a seasonal high water table or shallow
                               depth to bedrock. Soil body must contain at least 24" between bottom of the facility
                               and a limiting zone for adequate pollutant removal.
                           ï¿½   Texture of soil is important for Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) evaluation. The
                               higher the clay fraction of a particular soil, the better CEC it is likely to have.
                           ï¿½   Minimum infiltration rate of the soil for use with an infiltration facility is 0.20 in/hr.
                               Soils with a lesser rate drain too slowly and should not be used with this type of
                               facility.

                           Site Evaluation
                               Designer should place the infiltration facility in natural drainageway if possible.
                               Soil testing- A soil infiltration, percolation and deep pit test can be done on site. These
                               types of tests indicate whether or not the soil can accommodate an infiltration facility. It
                               is always a good idea to double check the soil characteristics regardless of the
                               information given in the soil survey.
                           0   Gradients- no facility should be used in areas where slopes are steep Cut and fill
                               operations destroy the integrity of the slope and can result in slope slippage or general
                               failure.

                           Design
                           ï¿½   Ponding time within an infiltration facility is 72 hours. maximum. This maintains
                               aerobic conditions in facility, and allows it to drain before the next storm.
                           ï¿½   Inlets- Properly designed inlets are very important to avoid sedimentation of facility and
                               shorten its life span. Water quality, oil/grit traps or sediment forebays are critical in
                               maintaining the useful lie of the facility. Sediment forebays at the inlet to reduce
                               sediments flowing into the facility can prevent clogging.
                               Vegetation- Vegetation is a key element very to protect infiltration facilities. Grass filter
                               or buffer areas around the facility can collect sediments prior to entering it.     Must be
                               dense healthy turf that is maintained.
                           ï¿½   Partial vs. full infiltration- infiltration can be used as a partial method on site in a small
                               area to assist in the overall drainage of the site. It can be used in conjunction with any
                               other method.
                           ï¿½   It is also critical to schedule construction of the site around construction of the facility.
                               No heavy machinery can be.used on the soils designated for the facility. Heavy
                               machinery can crush delicate soil pores and ruin the infiltration property of the area.

                  Devicesfor In
                                .flltration:
                           Infiltration Basins
                           0   Larger, aboveground facility, which makes inspection relatively easy as opposed to
                               underground systems. Appropriate for drainage areas of roughly 5 through 50 acres.
                           0   Infiltration should occur through the bottom and sides of the facility, which makes it
                               somewhat more tolerant to sediment and easier to maintain.
                           0   Bottom is flat or gently sloping and should have dense turf covering as should the
                               sides.



                                                                                                                     E-2








                         ï¿½   Can be used for sediment control during construction, but no heavy machinery can be
                             used in the facility. Must be cleaned out and floor tilled prior to establishing vegetation
                             if used for this purpose.
                         ï¿½   Maintenance- Checked twice a year or more for erosion, and to make sure the facility is
                             draining properly. Must be mowed several times a year to maintain the vegetation on
                             the filter strip, basin bottom and sides.

                         Infiltration Trenches
                             Smaller, underground facilities, appropriate for drainage areas of up to 5 acres.
                             A trench is a linear device, which allows different site configurations for flexibility in
                             placement. Several can be used in sequence or at different locations on one site.
                             Must be protected from sediment during construction from runoff containing
                             sediments. Sediments must be diverted. Should not use until grass filter is established
                             to protect it.
                             To check for drainage during maintenance operations, an observation well should be
                             put in the facility. Should be checked twice a year or more, 3 to 4 days following a
                             storm.
                             Grassed filter strip needs mowed to keep turf short. Inlet must be checked regularly for
                             sediments and debris build up.

                         Vegetated Swales-
                             Vegetated swales are shallow surface depressions along a site. They are mainly a
                             conveyance facility, best used with trenches or basins. The recommended design calls
                             for check dams at periodic points in the swale to slow water velocities, and allow
                             infiltration to occur        at ponding spots.
                             Must have dense turf covering. Helps control erosion.
                             Best if follows natural drainageway, very gentle slope- no more than 5%.
                             Must be mowed frequently to maintain short, dense turf. Occasional sediment removal
                             at check dam points will be necessary to remove build ups..

                         Porous Paving-
                         ï¿½   This technique uses a porous asphalt system in conjunction with underground
                             infiltration beds.
                         ï¿½   It is best used in parking areas, or cul-de-sac's. Because of the porous nature of the
                             asphalt, it does not have the shear stress capabilities of normal paving materials.
                         0   Cannot accommodate pervious surface runoff due to sediments or grit clogging the
                             pores. Should be protected by a stone and turf buffer area surrounding perimeter of
                             pavement.
                         ï¿½   Observation well into the underground recharge beds allows evaluation of drainage
                             during maintenance inspections.
                         ï¿½   Sweeping or vacuuming twice per year and pressure washing should keep pores clear.
                             Maintenance must be done regularly to prevent clogging.

                 Retention, Artificial Wetlands, Detention

                         Retention (Wet) Ponds
                         0   Retention facilities operate on the same detaining principal as detention facilities. The
                             difference lies in the permanent pool or wet area. These types of facilities should have
                             persistent water source.
                         0   The larger the facility is, the better pollutant removal capacity it will have. All facilities
                             should incorporate a sediment forebay to catch sediments.
                             The permanent pool of water encourages settling of particulates and sediments. Plants
                             and algae remove soluble nutrients from the runoff. Vegetation must be healthy.


                                                                                                                      E-3








                             Seventy five percent of facility is in deep water (over 5 feet). A 10 foot shallow aquatic
                             bench designed around the perimeter of the pool will allow emergent plant growth and
                             adds a strong measure of safety against persons falling into the facility. This shallow
                             area should be no more than six inches deep and slope gradually upland from the pool.
                         ï¿½   A grassy meadow area surrounding the pond will protect against surface flow runoff
                             and provide habitat. This area will need to be mowed occasionally. Periodic sediment
                             removal is essential.
                         ï¿½   Predator fish species can be used to control mosquitoes.

                         Artificial Wetlands-
                         ï¿½   These facilities are not the same as a retention pond; only 25 percent of the wetland
                             facility is in deep water (over three feet deep). Mostly composed of marshy, emergent
                             wetland vegetation.
                         ï¿½   The site needs to be fairly level for placement, these facilities are best managed as
                             shallow marshes.
                             Wetlands also need a sediment forebay to catch particulates and reduce smothering
                             vegetation due to high sediment loading..
                             The vegetation used in the facility is important as it does most pollutant removal.
                             Healthy stock should only be used.
                             Vegetation also encourages insects which will eat mosquito larvae.
                             Dead vegetation and organic matter from the bottom of the facility may need to be
                             removed occasionally to remove from system.

                         Dual Purpose Detention-
                         ï¿½   Dual purpose detention combines a standard detention basin designed with a second
                             lower section intended to hold the 1 year/24 hour storm. The lower floor of the facility
                             holds the runoff for a period of 24 hours to encourage settling of pollutants.
                         ï¿½   This second bottom creates a two stage design, lower stage for first flush storm, the
                             upper stage for detaining and releasing the larger runoff volumes.
                             A multiple stage outlet releases both the smaller and the larger storms.
                             Vegetation in the basin must kept mowed, and occasional sediment removal must be
                             performed to maintain volumetric: storage areas.

                Non-Structural BMPs

                         Minimum Disturbance/Minimum Maintenance Practices
                         ï¿½   This is a non-structural management practice. It is best used at the site development
                             stage. Developed sites can be revegetated with native vegetation, but grading and fill
                             operations cannot be undone.
                         ï¿½   Careful planning at the site planning stage should include leaving natural vegetation in
                             place, and thereby reduce lawns or other impervious or semi-pervious areas..
                         ï¿½   Must be implemented with zoning and subdivision regulations.












                                                                                                                 E-4



                                                                                                           M = M = = M M @





                                                                                                              Table E-1
                                                                           Table E - 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Management Practices


                                                                                                                                                                                     Comparative
                           Management                                                                                                                                         Cost (Schueler, Kumble.
                           Practice                                                    Advantages                                      Disadvantages                              and Heraty, 1992)

                           Infiltration Basin                        0    Provides ground-water recharge                  9 Possible risk of contaminating              Construction cost moderate but
                                                                     0    Can serve large developments                      ground water                                rehabilitation cost high
                                                                     &    High removal capability for particulate         - Only feasible where soil is
                                                                          pollutants and moderate removal for               permeable and there is sufficient
                                                                          soluble pollutants                                depth to rock and water table
                                                                     0    When basin works, it can replicate              * Fairly high failure rate
                                                                          predevelopment hydrology more closely           * If not adequately maintained, can
                                                                          than other BMP options                            be an eyesore. bread mosquitoes.
                                                                     0    Basins provide more habitat value than            and create undesirable odors
                                                                          other infiltration systems                      * Regular maintenance activities
                                                                                                                            cannot prevent rapid clogging of
                                                                                                                            infiltration basins

                           Infiltration Trench                       0    Provides ground-water recharge                  * Possible risk of contaminating              Cost-effective on smaller sites.
                                                                     0    Can serve small drainage areas                    ground water                                Rehabilitation costs can be
                                                                     0    Can fit into medians, perimeters, and           - Only feasible where soil is                 considerable.
                                                                          other unused areas of a development               permeable and there is sufficient
                                                                          site                                              depth to rock and water table
                                                                     0    Helps replicate predevelopment                  * Since not as visible as other BMPs,
                                                                          hydrology, increases dry weather                  less likely to be maintained by
                                                                          baseflow. and reduces bankfull flooding           residents
                                                                          frequency                                       * Requires significant maintenance


                           Vegetated Filter Strip (VFS)              0    Low maintenance requirements                    * Often concentrates water, which             Low
                                                                     0    Can be used as part of the runoff                 significantly reduces effectiveness
                                                                          conveyance system to provide                    * Ability to remove soluble pollutants
                                                                          pretreatment                                      highly variable
                                                                     0    Can effectively reduce particulate              * Limited feasibility in highly
                                                                          pollutant levels in areas where runoff            urbanized areas where runoff
                                                                          velocity is low to moderate                       velocities are high and flow is
                                                                     0    Provides excellent urban wildlife habitat         concentrated
                                                                                                                          0 Requires periodic repair, regrading,
                                                                     0    Economical                                        and sediment removal to prevent
                                                                                                                            channelization

                               Source: US EPA, Section                    6217 Guidance Document, EPA-840-B-92-002










                                                                                            Table E-J(Contlnued)


                                                                                                                                                                    Comparative
                     Management                                                                                                                               Cost (Schueler, Kumble,
                     Practice                                                Advantages                                  Disadvantages                           and Heraty, 1992)
                     Grassed Swale                            - Requires minimal land area                    0 Low pollutant removal rates             Low compared to curb and gutter
                                                              o Can be used as part of the runoff             o Leaching from culverts and
                                                                conveyance system to provide                    fertilized lawns may actually
                                                                pretreatment                                    Increase the presence of trace
                                                              0 Can provide sufficient runoff control to        metals and nutrients
                                                                replace curb and gutter in single-family
                                                                residential subdivisions and on highway
                                                                medians
                                                              0 Economical

                     Porous Pavement                          * Provides ground-water recharge                - Requires regular maintenance            Cost-effective compared to
                                                              0 Provides water quality control without        e Possible risk of contaminating          conventional asphalt when working
                                                                additional consumption of land                  ground water                            properly
                                                              0 Can provide peak flow control                 o Only feasible where soil is
                                                              o High removal rates for sediment,                permeable, there is sufficient depth
                                                                nutrients, organic matter, and trace            to rock and water table. and there
                                                                metals                                          are gentle slopes
                                                              9 When operating properly can replicate         o Not suitable for areas with high
                                                                predevelopment hydrology                        traffic volume
                                                              o Eliminates the need for stormwater            o Need extensive feasibility tests,
                                                                drainage. conveyance, and treatment             inspections. and very high level of
                                                                systems off-site                                construction workmanship
                                                                                                                (Schueler. 1987)
                                                                                                              * High failure rate due to clogging
                                                                                                              o Not suitable to serve large off-site
                                                                                                                pervious areas
                     Concrete Grid Pavement                   o Can provide peak flow control                 0 Requires regular maintenance            Information not available
                                                              o Provides ground-water recharge                0 Not suitable for area with high
                                                              - Provides water quality control without          traffic volume
                                                                additional consumption of land                0 Possible risk of contaminating
                                                                                                                ground water
                                                                                                              a Only feasible where soil is
                                                                                                                permeable, there is sufficient depth
                                                                                                                to rock and water table, and there
                                                                                                                are gentle slopes











                                                                                                        Table E-1 (Continued)

                          Management                                                                                                                                                   Comparative
                                                                                                                                                                               Cost (Schueler. Kurnble,
                          Practice                                                     Advantages                                      Disadvantages                              and Heraty. 1992)
                          Filtration Basin                           -   Ability to accommodate medium-size                  Requires pretreatment of storm             Information not available
                                                                         development (3-80 acres)                            water through sedimentation to
                                                                     *   Flexibility to provide or not provide               prevent filter media from
                                                                         ground-water recharge                               prematurely clogging
                                                                     o   Can provide peak volume control
                          Water Quality Inlets                       0   Provide high degree of removal                      Not feasible for drainage area             Information not available
                          Catch Basins                                   efficiencies for larger particles and               greater than 1 acre
                                                                         debris as pretreatment                          %   Marginal removal of small particles,
                                                                     0   Require minimal land area                           heavy metals. and organic
                                                                     *   Flexibility to retrofit existing small              pollutants
                                                                         drainage areas and applicable to most           0   Not effective as water quality
                                                                         urban areas                                         control for intense storms
                                                                                                                         o   Minimal nutrient removal
                          Water Quality Inlet                        .   Provide high removal efficiencies of            e   Not feasible for drainage area             Information not available
                          Catch Basins with Sand Filter                  particulates                                        greater than 5 acres
                                                                     ï¿½   Require minimal land area                       o   Only feasible for areas that are
                                                                     ï¿½   Flexibility to retrofit existing small              stabilized and highly impervious
                                                                         drainage areas                                  0   Not effective as water quality
                                                                         Higher removal of nutrient as compared              control for intense storms
                                                                         to catch basins and oillgrid separator
                          Water Quality Inlet                            Captures coarse-grained sediments and           *   Not feasible for drainage area             High, compared to trenches and
                          Oil/Grit Separator                             some hydrocarbons                                   greater than I acre                        sand filters
                                                                         Requires minimal land area                      -   Minimal nutrient and organic matter
                                                                         Flexibility to retrofit existing small              removal
                                                                         drainage areas and applicable to most           *   Not effective as water quality
                                                                         urban areas                                         control for intense storms
                                                                         Shows some capacity to trap trash,              *   Concern exists over the pollutant
                                                                         debris, and other floatables                        toxicity of trapped residuals
                                                                         Can be adapted to all regions of the            o   Require high maintenance
                                                                         country













                                                                                               TableE-1 (Continued)


                                                                                                                                                                       Comparative
                        Management                                                                                                                               Cost (Schualer. Kumble,
                        Practice                                                Advantages                                  Disadvantages                           and Heraty, 1992)

                        Extended Detention                       9 Can provide peak flow control                 * Removal rates for soluble pollutants Lowest cost alternative in size
                        Dry Vond                                 * Possible to provide good particulate            are quite low                           range
                                                                   removal                                       * Not economical for drainage area
                                                                 * Can serve large development                     less than 10 acres
                                                                '0 Requires less capital cost and land area      & If not adequately maintained, can
                                                                   when compared to wet pond                       be an eyesore. broad mosquitoes,
                                                                 * Does not generally release warm or              and create undesirable odors
                                                                   anoxic water downstream
                                                                 o Provides excellent protection for
                                                                   downstream channel erosion
                                                                 * Can create valuable wetland and
                                                                   meadow habitat when property
                                                                   landscaped

                        Wet Pond                                 - Can provide peak flow control                 o Not economical for drainage area        Moderate to high compared to
                                                                 * Can serve large developments; most              less than 10 acres                      conventional storm water detention
                                                                   cost-effective for larger. more               , Potential safety hazards if not
                                                                   Intensively developed sites                     property maintained
                                                                 o Enhances aesthetics and provides              o It not adequately maintained. can
                                                                   recreational benefits                           be an eyesore, bread mosquitoes.
                                                                 a Uttle ground-water discharge                    and create undesirable odors
                                                                 o Permanent pool in wet ponds helps to          * Requires considerable space.
                                                                   prevent scour and resuspenslon of               which limits use in densely
                                                                   sediments                                       urbanized areas with expensive
                                                                 e Provides moderate to high removal of            land and property values
                                                                   both particulate and soluble urban            * Not suitable for hydrologic soil
                                                                   stormwater pollutants                           groups *A4 and 'B* (SCS
                                                                                                                   classification)
                                                                                                                   With possible thermal discharge
                                                                                                                   and oxygen depletion. may
                                                                                                                   severely Impact downstream
                                                                                                                   aquatic life











                                                                                               TabIeE-1 (Continued)


                                                                                                                                                                      Comparative
                        Management                                                                                                                              Cost (Schueler, Kumble.
                        Practice                                                Advantages                                  Disadvantages                          and Heraty, 1992)

                        Extended Detention                     9   Can provide peak flow control               o  Not economical for drainage area
                        Wet Pond                               o   Can serve large developments; most             less than 10 acres
                                                                   cost-effective for larger, more             o  Potential safety hazards if not
                                                                   intensively developed sites                    property maintained
                                                               0   Enhances aesthetic and provide              o  It not adequately maintained, can
                                                                   recreational benefits                          be an eyesore, breed mosquitoes.
                                                               o   Permanent pool in wet ponds helps to           and create undesirable odors
                                                                   prevent scour and resuspension of           e  Requires considerable space.
                                                                   sediments                                      which limits use In densely
                                                               *   Provides better nutrient removal when          urbanized areas with expensive
                                                                   compared to wet pond                           land and property values
                                                                                                               0  Not suitable for hydrologic soil
                                                                                                                  groups 'A" and "B"(SCS
                                                                                                                  classification)
                                                                                                               9  With possible thermal discharge
                                                                                                                  and oxygen depletion. may
                                                                                                                  severely impact downstream
                                                                                                                  aquatic life













                                                                                              Table E-1 (Continued)


                                                                                                                                                                      Comparative
                       Management                                                                                                                               Cost (Schueler. Kumble,
                       Practice                                                 Advantages                                 Disadvantages                           and Heraty, 1992)

                       Constructed Stormwater Welland             Can serve large developments; most           9  Not economical for drainage area        Marginally higher than wet ponds
                                                                  cost-effective for larger. more                 less than 10 acres
                                                                  intensively developed sites                  *  Potential safety hazards if not
                                                                  Provides peak flow control                      property maintained
                                                                  Enhances aesthetics and provides             *  If not adequately maintained can be
                                                                  recreational benefits                           an eyesore, breed mosquitoes, and
                                                                  The marsh fringe also protects shoreline        create undesirable odors
                                                                  from erosion                                 *  Requires considerable space,
                                                                  Permanent pool in wet ponds helps to            which limits use in densely
                                                                  prevent scour and resuspension of               urbanized areas with expensive
                                                                  sediments                                       land and property values
                                                                  Has high pollutant removal capability        *  With possible thermal discharge
                                                                                                                  and oxygen depletion, may
                                                                                                                  severely impact downstream
                                                                                                                  aquatic life
                                                                                                                  May contribute to nutrient loadings
                                                                                                                  during die-down periods of
                                                                                                                  vegetation

















                0













                                                                                                                 Table E-2
                                                            TableE-2 Cost of Management Practices for Control of Runoff from Newly Developed Areas



                                                 Land
                                                 require-      Construction                             Useful      Annual
                         Practice                ment          cost                                     life        O&M                                       Total annual cost          References

                         Infiltration Basin      High          Average: $0.51 te storage                25a         Average: 7% of capital cost               $0.03    $0.05/ ft3        Wiegand, el al, 1986;
                                                               Probable Cost: $0.4 _ $0.7/ft3                       Reported Range: 3% - 13% of                                          SWRPC' 1991
                                                               Reported Range: $0.2 - $1.2/ ft3                     capital cost
                         Infiltration Trench     Low           Average: $4.01    ft3  storage 51ft3     108         Average: 9% of capital cost               $0.3 - $0.9/ft'            Wiegand, et al, 1986;
                                                               Probable Cost: $2.5 - $7.                            Reported Range: 5% - 15% of                                          Macal, et al. 1987;
                                                               Reported Range: $0.9 - $9.21 W                       capital cost                                                         SWRPQ 1991; Kuo, et
                                                                                                                                                                                         al, 1988

                         Vegetative Filter       Varies        Established from existing                50b         Natural succession allowed to             Natural succession         Schueler, 1987;
                         Strip                                 vegetation-                                          occur-                                    allowed to occur-          SWRPC' 1991
                                                               Average: $0                                          Average: $100/ acre
                                                               Reported Range: $0                                   Reported Range: $50 - $200/               Established from-
                                                                                                                    acre                                      Natural vegetation:
                                                               Established from seed-                                                                         $1001 acre
                                                               Average: $400/ acre                                  Natural succession not allowed            Seed: $125/ acre
                                                               Reported Range: $200 - $1,0001                       to occur-                                 Seed & mulch:
                                                               acre                                                 Average: $800/ acre                       $2001 acre
                                                                                                                    Reported Range: $700 - $900/              Sod: $700/ acre
                                                               Established from seed and                            acre
                                                               mulch-                                                                                         Natural succession
                                                               Average: $1,500/ acre                                                                          not allowed to occur-
                                                               Reported Range: $800 - $3,50(Y
                                                               acre                                                                                           Established from:
                                                                                                                                                              natural vegetation:
                                                               Established from sod-                                                                          $800/acre
                                                               Average: $11,300/ acre                                                                         Seed: $825/acre
                                                               Reported Range: $4,500 -                                                                       Seed & mulch:
                                                               $48,000/ acre                                                                                  $900/acre
                                                                                                                                                              Sod: $1,400/acre

                             Source: US EPA, Section 6217                        Guidance Document, EPA-840-B-92-002


      



					TABLE E-2(continuted)

			Land	
			require-	Construction		Useful	Annual
Practice		ment		cost				life		O&M						Total annual cost		References
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Grass Swales	Low		Established from seed	50b		Established from seed or sod-		Established from		Schueler, 1987;
					Average: $6.5/ lin ft			Average: $0.75/lin ft			seed: $1/lin ft		SWRPC, 1991
					Reported Range: $4.5 -			Reported Range: $0.5 - $1.0/lin
					$8.5/lin ft					ft

																	Established from
																	sod: $2/lin ft
					Established from sod:
					Average:$20/lin ft
					Reported Range: $8-$50/
					lin ft.
Porous Pavement	None		Average: $1.5/ft		10d		Average: $0.01/ft 			0.15/ft			SWRPC, 1991;								 			                                                                    
					Reported Range: $1-                 Reported Range: $0.01/ft                          		Schueler, 1987
                              $2/ft 

Concrete Grid	None		Average: $1/ft		20		Average:(-0.04)/ft			0.05/ft			Smith, 1981
Pavement				Reported Range:				Reported range:
					$1-$2/ft					(-$0.04)/ft


Sand Filter/      High        Average: $5/ ft         25d         Average: Not Available              $0.1-$0.8/ft            Tull, 1990
Filtration Basin              Probable Cost: $2-$9/ft             Probable Cost: 7% of
                              Reported Range: $1-$11/ft           construction cost
                                                                  Reported Range: Not Available

Water Quality     None        Average: $2000/each     50          Average: $30/each'                  $150/each               SWRPC, 1991
Inlet                         Reported Range: $1,100-             Reported Range: $20-40/each'
                              $3000/each

Water Quality     None        Average: $10,000/drainage 50        Average: Not Available              $700/drainage acre      Shaver, 1991
Inlet with Sand               acre                                Probable Cost: $100/drainage
                              Reported Range: $10,000/            acre
                              drainage acre                       Reported Range: Not Available

Oil/Grit          None        Average: $18,000/drainage 50        Average: $20/drainage acre'         $1,000/drainage          Schueler, 1987
Separator                     acre                                Reported Range: $5-$40/             acre
                              Reported Range: $15,000-            drainage acre'
                              $20,000/drainage acre

                                          TableE-2(continued)
              
              Land                                      
              require-  Construction                      Useful  Annual                         
Practice      ment      cost                              life    O&M                            Total annual cost  References

Extended      High      Average $0.5/ft storage           50      Average: 4% of capital cost    $0.007-$0.3/ft     APWA Res.
Detention Dry           Probable Cost: $0.09-$5/ft                Reported Range: 3%-5% of                          Foundation
Pond                    Reported Range: $0.05-$3.2/
                        it

Wet Pond and  High      Storage Volume<1,000,000 ft:      50      Average: 3% of capital cost    $0.008-$0.07/ft    APWA Res.
Extended                Average: $0.5/ft storage                  Probable Cost:                                    Foundation; Wiegand,
Detention Wet           Probable Cost: $0.5-$1/ft                   <100,000 ft = 5% of capital                     et al, 1986; Schueler,
Pond                    Reported Range: $0.05-$1.0/               cost                                              1987, SWRPC, 1991
                        ft                                        >100,000 & <1,000,000 ft =
                                                                  3%     of capital cost

                        Storage Volume>1,000,000 ft:              >1,000,000 ft = 1% of capital
                        Average: $0.25/ft storage                 cost
                        Probable Cost: $0.1-$0.5/ft               Reported Range: 0.1%-5% of
                        Reported Range: $0.05-$0.5/ft             capital       cost


Stormwater    High      Average: Not available           50b      Average: Not Available        Not available
Wetlands                Reported Range: Not available             Reported Range: Not Available

a References indicate the useful life for infiltration basins and infiltration trenches at 25-50 and 10-15 years, respectively.  Because of the high failure rate, infiltration basins are
  assumed to have useful life span of 25 years and infiltration trenches are assumed to have useful life span of 10 years.
b Useful life taken as life of project, assumed to be 50 years.
c Incremental cost, l.e., cost beyond that required for conventional asphalt pavement.
d Since no information was available for useful life of porous pavement, it was assumed to be similar to that of infiltration trenches.
e Since no information was available for useful life of filtration basins it was assumed to be similar to that of infiltration basins.
f Frequency of cleaning assumed 2 times per year.













                                                                                                            Table E-3
                                                       Table E-3 Effectiveness of Management Practices for Control of Runoff From Newly Developed Areas


                                                                                                             Removal Efficiency (%)

                           Management Practice                                        TSS          TP           TN            COD      Pb         zn                   Factors             References

                           INFILTRATION BASIN              Average:                   75           65           60            65       65         65            Soil percolation           NVPDC 1979, EPA,
                                                                                                                                                                rates                      1977; Schueler, 1987;
                                                           Reported Range:            45-100       45-100       45-100        45-100   45-100     45-100        Basin surface area         Griffin, et al, 1980, EPA,
                                                                                                                                                                Storage volume             1983; Woodward-Clyde,
                                                           Probable Range:                                                                                                                 1986     

                                                             SCS Soil Group A          60-100       60-100       60-100        60-100   60-100     60-100
                                                             SCS Soil Group B          50-80        50-80        50-80         50-80    50-80      50-90

                                                           No. Values Considered:      7            7            7             4        4          4


                           INFILTRATION TRENCH             Average:                   75           60           55            65       65         65           Soil percolation       	NVPDC, 1979; EPA,
                                                                                                                                                               rates                      1977; Schueler, 1987;
                                                           Reported Range:            45-100       40-100       (-10)-100     45-100   45-100     45-100       Trench surface             Griffin, et al, 1980; EPA,
                                                                                                                                                               area                       1983; Woodward-Clyde,
                                                           Probable Range:                                                                                     Storage volume             1986; Kuo et al, 1988;
                                                                                                                                                                                          Lugbill, 1990                
                                                             SCS Soil Group A         60-100       60-100       60-100        60-100   60-100     60-100
                                                             SCS Soil Group B         50-90        50-90        50-90         50-90    50-90      50-90

                                                           No. Values Considered:     9            9            9             4        4          4


                           VEGETATED FILTER STRIP          Average:                   65           40           40            40       45         60           Runoff volume         IEP, 1991; Casman,
                                                                                                                                                               Slope                 1990; Glick et al, 1991;
                                                           Reported Range:            20-80        0-95         0-70          0-80     20-90H     30-90        Soil infiltration     VADC, 1987; Minnesota
                                                                                                                                                               rates                 PCA, 1989; Schueler, 	
                                                           Probable Range:            40-90        30-80        20-60         -        30-80      20-50        Vegetative cover      1987; Hartigan et al.,
                                                                                                                                                               Buffer length         1989
                                                           No. Values Considered:     7            4            3             2        3          3

                           GRASS SWALE                     Average:                   60           20           10            25       70         60           Runoff volume         Yousef el al, 1985;
                                                                                                                                       3-100H                  Slope                 Dupuis, 1985;
                                                           Reported Range:            0-100        0-100        0-40          25                  50-60H       Soil infiltration     Washington State, 1988;
                                                                                                                                       10-20                   rates                 Schueler, 1987; British
                                                           Probable Range:`           20-40        20-40        10-30         --                  10-20        Vegetative cover      Columbia Res. Corp.,
                                                                                                                                       10                      Swale length          1991; EPA, 1983;
                                                           No. Values Considered:     10           8            4             1                   7            Swale geometry        Whalen, et al, 1988; Pitt
                                                                                                                                                                                     1986; Casman, 1990        

                                Source: US EPA, Section 6217 Guidance Document, EPA-840-B-92-002



      
 











                                                                                                        Table E-3 (Continued)




                                                                                                             Removal Efficiency (%)
                          Management Practice                                          TSS          TP           TN           COD        Pb         Zn                Factors                  References
                          POROUS PAVEMENT                  Average:                    90           65           as           80         100        100        * Percolation rates      Schueler. 1987
                                                           Reported Range:             80-95        65           80-85        80         100        100        0 Storage volume
                                                           Probable Range:             60-90        60-90        60-90        60-90      60-90      60-90

                                                           No. Values Considered:      2            2            2            2          2          2


                          CONCRETE GRID                    Average:                    90           90           90           90         90         90            Percolation rates     Day. 1981; Smith. et at,
                          PAVEMENT                         Reported Range:             65-100       65-100       65-100       65-100     65-100     65-100                              1981; Schueler. 1987
                                                           Probable Range:             60-90        60-90        60-90        60-90      60-90      60-90

                                                           No. Values Considered:      2            2            2            2          2          2
                          SAND FILTER/FILTRATION           Average:                    80           so           35           55         60         65            Treatment volume City of Austin. 1988;
                          BASIN                                                                                                                                   Filtration media      Environmental and
                                                           Reported Range:             60-95        0-90         2040         45-70      30-90      50-80                               Conservation Service
                                                           Probable Range:             60-90        0-80         20-40        40-70      40-80      40-80                               Department, 1990

                                                           No. Values Considered:      10           6            7            3          5          5


                          WATER QUALITY INI-Er             Average:                    35           5            20           5          15         5             Maintenance           Pill, 1896; Field. 1985;
                                                                                                                                                                  Sedimentation         Schueler, 1987
                                                           Reported Range:             0-95         5-10         5-55         5-10       10-25      5-10          storage volume

                                                           Probable Range:             10-25        5-10         5-10         5-10       10-25      5-10

                                                           No. Values Considered:      3            1            2            1          2          1




                  Un









                                                                                                      Table E-3 (Continued)




                                                                                                           Removal Efficiency

                          Management Practice                                        TSS          TP           TN           COD       Pb         zn                 Fadors                 References

                          WATER QUALITY INLET             Average:                   so           NA           35           55        so         65          - Sedimentation         Shaver. 1991
                          WITH SAND FILTER9                                                                                                                    storage VOIUMG
                                                          Reported Range:            75-85        NA           30-45        45-70     70-90      50-60
                                                                                                                                                             - Depth of filter
                                                          Probable Range:            70-90                     30-40        40-70     70-90      so-so         media

                                                          No. Values Considered:     1            0            1            1         1          1

                          OIIJGRIT SEPARATOR9             Average:                   15           6            5            5         15         5           - Sedimentation         Pitt. 1985; Schueler,
                                                                                                                                                               storage volume        1987
                                                          Reported Range:            0-25         5-10         5-10         5-10      10-25      5-10
                                                                                                                                                             - Outlet
                                                          Probable Range:            10-25        5-10         6-10         5-10      10-25      5-10          configurations

                                                          Number of References       2            1            1            1         1          1

                          EXTENDED DETENTION              Average:                   45           25           30           20        50         20          - storage volume        MWCOG. 1983; City of
                          DRY POND                                                                                                                           - Detention time        Austin. 1990; Schueler
                                                          Reported Range:            5-90         10-55        20-60        0-40      26-65      (-40)-65    9 Pond shape            and Helfrich, 1988; Pope
                                                                                                                                                                                     and Hes3,1989; OWML,
                                                          Probable Range:*           70-90        10-60        20-60        30-40     20-60      40-60                               1987; Wolinski and
                                                                                                                                                                                     Stack. 1990
                                                          No. Values Considered:     6            6            4            5         4          5



                          WET POND                        Average:                   60           45           35           40        75         60          - Pool volume           Wotzka and Oberta,
                                                                                                                                                             - Pond shape            1988; Yousel at al.,
                                                          Reported Range.            (-30)-911    10-85        5-85         5-90      10-95      10-95                               1986; Cullum, 1985;
                                                                                                                                                                                     Driscoll, 1983; Driscoll,
                                                          Probable Range:            50-90        20-90        10-90        10-90     10-95      20-95                               1986; MWCOG. 19S3;
                                                                                                                                                                                     OWML. 1983; Yu and
                                                          No. Values Considered:     IS           IS           9            7         13         13                                  Benemouffok. 1988;
                                                                                                                                                                                     Holler, 1989; Martin,
                                                                                                                                                                                     1988, Dorman at al.,
                                                                                                                                                                                     1989; OWML, 1982; City
                                                                                                                                                                                     of Austin. 1990











                                                                                                                  TableE-3 (Continued)




                                                                                                                       Removal Efficiency

                              Management Practice                                            TSS            TP             TN          COD         Pb           Zn                  Factors                   References

                              EXTENDED DETENTION                Average:                     80             65             55          NA          40           20          - Pool volume             Ontario Ministry of the
                              WET POND
                                                                                                                                                                            * Pond shape              Environment, 1991, cited
                                                                Reported Range:              50-100         50-80          55          NA          40           20          * Detention time          in Schuelar at al.. 1992

                                                                Probable Range:.             50-95          50-90          10-90       10-90       10-95        20-95

                                                                No. Values Considered:       3              3              1           0           1            1


                              CONSTRUCTED                       Average:                     65             25             20          50          65           35          0 Storage volume          Harper at al., 1986;
                              STORMWATER WETLANDS                                                                                                                           * Detention time          Brown. 1985; Wotzka
                                                                Reported Range:              (-20)-100      (-120)-100     (-15)-40    20-80       30-95        (-30)-80       Poolshape              and Obart, 1988; Hickock
                                                                                                                                                                            *  Welland's biola        at al., 1977; Darien.
                                                                Probable Range':             50-90          (-5)-80        0-40        ---         30-95        ---         *  Seasonal variation     1987; Melorin. 1986;

                                                                                             23             24             8           2           10           8                                     Sherberger and Davis,
                                                                No. Values Considered:                                                                                                                Morris at al., 1981;
                                                                                                                                                                                                      1982; ABAG. 1979;
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Oberts of al., 1989;
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Rushton and Dye. 1990;
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Hey and Barrett. 1991;
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Martin and Smoot. 1986,
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Reinelt al al.. 1990. cited
                                                                                                                                                                                                      in Woodward-Clyde,
                                                                                                                                                                                                      1991


                              NA - Not available.
                              ' Design criteria: Storage volume equals 90% avg runoff volume, which completely drains in 72 hours; maximum depth                   8 it; minimum depth      2 it.
                              bDesign criteria:  storage volume equals 90% avg runoff volume. which completely drains in 72 hours; maximum depth                 8 ft; minimum depth      3 ft; storage volume     40% excavated
                              trench volume.
                              Design criteria:   flow depth < 0.3 it, travel time > 5 min.
                              Design criteria:   low slope and adequate length.
                              Design criteria:   min. ED time 12 hours.
                              Design criteria:   minimum area of welland equal 1% of drainage area.
                              No Information was available on the effectiveness of removing grease or oil.
                              Also reported as 90% TSS removed.
                              Also reported as 50% TSS removed.




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
                                      APPENDIX F
 I                       Species Location Information-PNDI
 I
 I
 I









                 APPENDIX F


                 INTRODUCTION

                 Appendix F has been compiled from site specific data collected by the Pennsylvania Natural
                 Diversity Inventory (PNDI). PNDI is a department within the Pennsylvania State Bureau of
                 Forestry, which delineates, observes, records and tracks the location and condition of the natural
                 resources such as endangered species in Pennsylvania.

                 In October of 1993, planning commission staff contacted the PNDI offices in Harrisburg
                 requesting information available through their database record files. These files contain the
                 location of endangered species and habitats. The information requested was in regards specifically
                 to the CZM study area in Bucks County. A GIS map of the study area was sent to PNDI with a
                 letter requesting any data they could provide.

                 The data received from PNDI appears on the following three pages of this appendix. The code
                 number preceding each entry refers to a location on the CZM study area map, Figure 7 in the
                 report, and appears on tFigure 7 within a square symbol. These locations are approximate; the
                 study area shows the general location of past PNDI observations of the species in its habitat. The
                 species identified may occur in several areas outside of the PNDI location. Staff did not confirm or
                 verify the presence of any of these species during the study process.

                 The PNDI data is significant information for local officials and agencies. The species on the PNDI
                 list are all protected under federal and state endangered species laws. This means that their habitats
                 are also protected. It is the responsibility of local government, both county and municipal, to enact
                 ordinances and other management measures which will preserve and protect the environment of
                 these species. The map also assists local authorities in determining where in their jurisdiction
                 theses areas are located.































                                                                                                              1










                 Appendix F - Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory

                 Map                                                                                                                                                     Penn.
                  Code         Species Name              CommonName               Location         Environmental Observations                                            Status

                   101       Echinochloa Wafted         Walter's Barnyard      Neshaminy State     Several 100 mature specimens observed along creek                  Endangered
                                                              Grass            Park, Bensalem      banks (7/25/86). Well distributed in observation area.
                           Sagittaria calycina var.         Long-lobed         Neshaminy State     First recorded 1982. Observed again in 1993. 25
                   102           spongiosa                  arrowhead          Park, Bensalem      individuals seen, no flowering or fruiting plants,                 Endangered
                                                                                                   observation uncertain. Reported to be okay.
                                                                                                   First recorded inlg9l. Has not been recorded since. 50 -
                   103           Eupatorium               A. Eupatorium        Neshaminy State     100 genets in flower with normal vigor. Dry habitat.              Undetermined
                                Rotundifolium                                  Park, Bensalem      Threats to she include human impacts and exotic species
                                                                                                   invasion.
                                                                               Del Haas Woods,     One highly localized population observed (7/24/86).
                   104     Chasmanthium Laxum           Slender Sea-Oats         Bristol Twp.      Artificially maintained habitat created by overhead                Endangered
                                                                                                   powerlines.
                                                                               Delhaas Woods,      Several 100 specimens observed in non-contiguous
                   105       Juncus Dichotomus             Forked Rush           Bristol Twp.      distribution (7/24/86). Under threat of bio-succession             Endangered
                                                                                                   vegetation.
                   106         Rhexia Mariana           Maryland Meadow Delhaas Woods,             Thousands observed over several acre area (7/24/92).               Endangered
                                                              Beauty             Bristol Twp.      Thriving attributed to powerline clearing.
                                                                               Delhaas Woods,      Several 100 plants observed (8/24/93). Powerline creates
                   107 Andropogon Glomeratus             Bushy Bluestern         Bristol Twp.      good habitat area. Some disturbances due to ATVs in the           Undetermined.
                                                                                                   area.
                   108          Carex Bullata               Bull Sedge         Delhaas Woods,      Approximately 20 mature plants over several square                 Endangered
                                                                                 Bristol Twp.      meters observed in 1982. None observed in 1993.
                   109           Eupatorium               A Eupatorium         Delhaas Woods,      Several 100 mature plants observed (9/21/89). Good                Undetermined
                                Rotundifolium                                    Bristol Twp.      quality site.
                   110      Paspalum Setaceum           Slender Paspalum       Delhaas Woods,      Several 100 plants estimated, potentially over many acres         Undetermined
                                                           (Beadgrass)           Bristol Twp.      (8/19/87). Very vigorous along powerline cut.
                              COASTAL PLAIN             COASTAL PLAIN          Delhaas Woods,      Disturbed area, but largest remaining type (4/2/92). Has
                                   FOREST                    FOREST              Bristol Twp.      greatest diversity of forest type in area.
                   Code number corresponds with locations on the study area map Included.
                                                                                                                                                                         Penn.





                                                                                                                                                                                               F - 2












                  Map
                   Code*                                                                                                                                                           Penn.
                                 Species Name               Common Name                Location          Environmental Observations                                                Status
                    113         Viburnum Nudum                Possum Haw            Delhaas Woods,       Last observed on 8/19/90. Mature with normal Vigor.
                                                                 Viburnum             Bristol Twp.       Obvious competition for habitat, poor survival prediction.             Endangered
                    114      Leucothoe Racemosa               Swamp Dog-            Delhaas Woods,       First observed in 1987. Last observation on 4/2/92.
                                                                  Hobble              Bristol Twp.       Appeared very vigorous in 1987.                                      Undertermined
                    115      Polygonum Robustius                  Robust            Delhaas Woods,       Observation date 8/19187. 50 - 100 plants sighted.                     Threatened
                                                                Smartweed             Bristol Twp.
                    116       Magnolia Virginlana               Sweet Bay           Delhaas Woods,       Several 100 individuals sighted, from seedlings to mature              Threatened
                                                                 Magnolia             Bristol Twp.       trees (4/2/92). May not be native to area.
                    117          Gratiola Aurea              Golden Hedge-          Delhaas Woods,       Thousands of plants observed (7/24/92). Normal vigor,                Undertermined
                                                                  Hyssop              Bristol Twp.       good viability.
                    118         Magnolia Triplala          Umbrella Magnolia        Bristol Township     Sighting is as yet unconfirmed by PNDI, although they                  Threatened
                                                                                                         have entered the location into their database of species.
                    119 AmaranthusCannablnus                    Waterhemp           Croyden Marsh        Last observation in 1993. 1000's of plants observed at                     Rare
                                                                 Ragweed                                 that time. No.threats noted at that time.
                    120        Bidens Bidentoides            Swamp Beggar           Croyden Marsh        Originally observed on 8/11/83. Plants could not be                    Threatened
                                                                   Ticks                                 located in 1993 field survey.
                    121      Eleocharis Obtusa var.          Wright's Spike         Neshaminy Creek      One clump found above high tide line in 1984, poor                     Endangered
                                      Peasei                       Rush               (macrosite)        quality, good viability. No recent observations.
                                                                 Little-spike       Neshaminy Creek      First observed in 1984. Habitat in alluvial sand at upper
                    122        Eleocharis parvula                Spikerush            (macrosite)        limit of intertidal zone. Last observation in 1986 recorded            Endangered
                                                                                                         that the colony was increasing.
                    123         Scirpus Fluviatilis           River Bullrush        Neshaminy Creek      Several 100 plants seen in quarter acre area. Mature with                  Rare
                                                                                      (macrosite)        normal vigor, but no reproduction activity observed.

                                                                                    Croyden Acres        First and last observed 9/19/84. 10 individuals were seen
                    124         Zizania Aquatica             Indian Wild Rice       Mudflat, Bristol     bearing fruit. Individuals appeared healthy, but habitat is                Rare
                                                                                          Twp.           very small. Encroaching human activities, boat docks.
                                                              Swamp Dog-            Croyden Height's     First observed 1991. Woods surrounding habitat have
                    125      Leucothoe Racemosa                   Hobble                Woods            been impacted by human activities. Quality of population              Undetermined
                                                                                                         not assessed at that time.
                    Code number corresponds with locations on the study area map Included.





                                                                                                                                                                                                           F - 3














            Map                                                                                                                                  Penn.
            Code        Species Name           Common Name           Location       Environmental Observations                                   Status
              126       Quercus Phellos          Willow Oak       Croyden Height's  First and last observations in 1991. Growing vigorously on Endangered
                                                                      Woods         flat, dry habitat.
                                                 Waterhemp       State Road Marsh,  First observed in 1912. Last observation 8/9/93. 20+
              127 Amaranthus Cannabinus           Ragweed         Bensalem Twp.     flowering individuals scattered over marsh. Excellent         Rare
                                                                                    habitat, good viability.
              128       Magnolia Triplala     Umbrella Magnolia Bristol Township    Sighting is as yet unconfirmed by PNDI, although they      Threatened
                                                                                    have entered the location into their database of species.



              Code number corresponds with locations on the study area map Included.







































                                                                                                                                                                     F - 4




  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I                                                  APPENDIX G
                          Species Location Information-Morris Arboretum
  I
  I
  I









                 APPENDIX G


                 INTRODUCTION

                 Appendix G has been compiled from site specific data collected by the Morris Arboretum. The
                 Morris Arboretum is a branch within the University of Pennsylvania, which delineates, observes,
                 records and tracks the location and condition of the natural resources such as endangered species in
                 Pennsylvania.

                 In October of 1993, planning commission staff contacted the Dr. Ann Rhodes office in
                 Philadelphia requesting information available through the Arboretum's species record files. The
                 information requested was in regards specifically to the CZM study area in Bucks County. A
                 general map of the study area was sent to Dr. Rhodes with a letter requesting any data they could
                 provide.

                 The data received from the Morris Arboretum appears on the following three pages of this
                 appendix. The code number preceding each entry refers to a location on the CZM study area map,
                 and appears on the map with a triangular symbol. These locations are approximate; the study area
                 shows the general location of past observations of the species in its habitat. The species identified
                 may occur in several areas outside of the indicated location. Staff did not confirm or verify the
                 presence of any of these species during the study process.

                 The Morris Arboretum data is significant information for local officials and agencies. The species
                 on the following list are all protected under federal and state endangered species laws. This means
                 that their habitats are also protected. It is the responsibility of local government, both county and
                 municipal, to enact ordinances and other management measures which will preserve and protect the
                 environment of these species. The map also assists local authorities in determining where in their
                 jurisdiction theses areas are located.























                                                                                                        G    1










                  Appendix G - Morris Arboretum Inventory

                  Map                                                                                                                     Penn.
                  Code             Species Name                         Common Name                         Location                      Status


                  201        Amaranthus* Cannabinus                 Waterhemp Ragweed              Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                              Bristol
                  202        Amaranthus Cannabinus                  Waterhemp Ragweed              Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                            Bensalem
                  203            Echinochloa, Waited              Walter's Barnyard Grass          Neshaminy Creek banks,              Endangered
                                                                                                            Bensalem
                                                                                                   Neshaminy Creek banks,
                  204        Amaranthus Cannabinus                 Waterhemp Ragweed                          Bristol                     Rare
                  205            Echinochloa Walteri              Walter's Barnyard Grass          Neshaminy Creek banks,              Endangered
                                                                                                              Bristol
                  206            Zizania Aquatica                       Indian Wild Rice           Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                              Bristol
                  207        Amaranthus Cannabinus                 Waterhemp Ragweed               Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                            Bensalem
                  208            Echinochloa Waited               Walter's Barnyard Grass          Neshaminy Creek banks,              Endangered
                                                                                                            Bensalem
                  209            Zinzania Aquatica                      Indian Wild Rice           Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                              Bristol
                  210            Sagittaria Sublata                 Subulate Arrowhead             Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                            Bensalem
                  211            Zinzania Aquatica.                     Indian Wild Rice           Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                              Bristol
                  212        Amaranthus Cannabinus                 Waterhemp Ragweed               Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                              Bristol
                  213            Bidens Bidentoides                Swamp Beggar-Ticks              Neshaminy Creek banks,             Threatened
                                                                                                              Bristol
                  214            Scirpus Fluviatilis                    River Bullrush             Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                              Bristol
                  215            Zlzania Aquatica.                      Indian Wild Rice           Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                              Bristol
                  216            Zizania Aquatica                       Indian Wild Rice           Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                            Bensalem
                                                                                                   Neshaminy Creek banks
                  217        Eupatorium Rotundifolium                   A. Eupatonum                   (upland), Bristol            Undetermined
                  218         Polygonella Articulata                 Eastern Jointweed             Neshaminy Creek banks            Undetermined
                                                                                                       (upland Y, Bristol
                  219        Amaranthus Cannabinus                 Waterhemp Ragweed               Neshaminy Creek banks                  Rare
                                                                                                     (tidal marsh), Bristol



                   Code number corresponds with locations on the study area map Included.







                                                                                                                                                   G - 2










                Map                                                                                                                       Penn.
                Code             Species Name                          Common Name                          Location                      Status
                220              Bidens Bidentoides                 Swamp Beggar-Ticks             Neshaminy Creek banks              Threatened
                                                                                                     (tidal marsh), Bristol
                221              Sagittaria Sublata                 Subulate Arrowhead             Neshaminy Creek banks                  Rare
                                                                                                     (tidal marsh), Bristol
                222          Sagittaria calycina var.               Long-lobed arrowhead           Neshaminy Creek banks              Endangered
                                    spongiosa                                                        (tidal marsh), Bristol
                223         Amaranthus Cannabinus                   Waterhemp Ragweed              Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                             Bristol
                224              Echinochloa Waited              Walter's Barnyard Grass           Neshaminy Creek banks,             Endangered
                                                                                                             Bristol
                225      Eleocharis Obtusa var. peasii               Wright's Spikerush            Neshaminy Creek banks,             Endangered
                                                                                                             Bristol
                226              Eleocharis Parvula                 Littie-spike Spikerush         Neshaminy Creek banks,             Endangered
                                                                                                             Bristol
                227              Sagittaria. Sublata                Subulate Arrowhead             Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                             Bristol
                228              Scirpus Fluviatilis                    River Bulfrush             Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                             Bristol
                229              Scirpus Smithii                       Smith's Bullrush            Neshaminy Creek banks,             Endangered
                                                                                                             Bristol
                230              Zizania Aquatica                      Ind ian Wild Rice           Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                             Bristol
                231              Eleocharis Parvula                 Little-spike Spikerush         Neshaminy Creek banks,             Endangered
                                                                                                             Bristol
                232              Sagittaria Sublata                 Subulate Arrowhead             Neshaminy Creek banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                             Bristol
                233              Digitaria Cognaturn                   Fall Witch Grass            Neshaminy Creek banks,             Threatened
                                                                                                             Bristol
                234              Quercus phellos                         Willow oak                Neshaminy Creek banks,             Endangered
                                                                                                             Bristol
                235              Triplasis purpurea                    Purple sandgrass            Neshaminy Creek banks,             Endangered
                                                                                                             Bristol
                236         Amaranthus Cannabinus                   Waterhemp Ragweed               Delaware River banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                            Bensalem
                237          Heteranthera multiflora            Multiflowered mudplantain           Delaware River banks,             Endangered
                                                                                                            Bensalem
                238              Sagittaria Sublata                 Subulate Arrowhead              Delaware River banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                            Bensalem
                239              Zinzania Aquatica                     Indian Wild Rice             Delaware River banks,                 Rare
                                                                                                            Bensalem
                240         Amaranthus Cannabinus                   Waterhemp Ragweed            Delaware River banks (tidal              Rare
                                                                                                      marsh), Bensalem
                241          Sagittaria calycina var.               Long-lobed arrowhead         Delaware River banks (tidal          Endangered
                                    spongiosa.                                                        marsh), Bensalem


                  Code number corresponds with locations on the study area map included.







                                                                                                                                                    G - 3










                Map                                                                                                       Penn.
                Code          Species Name                    Common Name                      Location                  Status

                242          Sagittaria Sublata             Subulate Arrowhead        Delaware River banks (tidal         Rare
                                                                                           marsh), Bensalem
                243           Scirpus Smithii                  Smith's Bullrush       Delaware River banks (tidal      Endangered
                                                                                           marsh), Bensalem
                244           Zizania Aquatica                 Indian Wild Rice       Delaware River banks (tidal          Rare
                                                                                           marsh), Bensalem
                245           Quercus phellos;                    Will.ow oak            Delaware River banks          Endangered
                                                                                          (upland), Bensalem
                246     Eupatorium Rotundifoliurn              A. Eupatorium             Delaware River banks        Undetermined
                                                                                          (upland), Bensalem

                247              Ilex opaca                    American Holly                   Bristol                Threatened

                248         Magnolia virginiana              Sweetbay Magnolia                   Bristol               Threatened


                Code number corresponds with locations on the study area map Included.











































                                                                                                                                  G.4




I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                                              APPENDIX H
I                        Information from EPA Section 6217 Guidance Document
I
I
I









                          APPENDIX H

                          Table of Contents

                                                                                                                                                                           Page






                          INTRODUCTION.....,.................                                                                                                                H-2

                          Management Measures                 ................................................................................................................ H-3
                                            Removal and Reduction of Sediments                      ......................................................................... H-2

                                            Watershed Protection              ................................................................................................ H-5
                                            Site Development             ...................................................................................................... H-8

                                            Pollution Prevention            .................................................................................................. H-1 0
                                            Planning, Siting and Developing Road and Highways                              .................................................. H-12
                                            Bridges     ...................................................................................................................... H-1 3
                                            Operation and Maintenance of Roads, Highways and Bridges                                     ..................................... H-1 4
                                            Road, Highway and Bridge Runoff Systems                          ................................................................ H-15
                                            Marina Flushing          ......................................................................................................... H-1 6
                                            Shoreline Stabilization            ................................................................................................. H-1 6

                                            Stormwater Management                  ............................................................................................ H-1 7
                                            Sewage Facilities          ......................................................................................................... H-18
                                            Solid Waste Management                ...............  ........................................................................... H-1 8

























                                                                                                                                                                  H-1








                  APPENDIX H

                  Introduction

                  The following information highlights and delineates federal guidelines for the management of
                  nonpoint source pollutants. This information was produced through the U.S. Environmental
                  Protection Agency (USEPA) as a document entitled, Guidelines Specifying Management Measures
                  for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (1993). Production of document was
                  completed under the authority of Section 6217 (g) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
                  Amendments (CZARA) of 1990.

                  All states are required to enforce the guidelines through coastal management programs. Any
                  protection planning for local coastal areas financed with state funds must recommend and support
                  management measures found in the Section 6217 guidelines.

                  Management Measures

                  The management measures are required and may be accomplished in many ways. The practices
                  highlighted are offered as management options and techniques for those entities required to, or
                  voluntarily choose to, reduce nonpoint source pollutants in surface waters. For further discussion
                  on the topic of management practices, refer to Appendix E. For the complete discussions of each
                  required management measure, please refer to the EPA document.

                  The management measures are mandatory for states to incorporate into coastal zone management
                  programs and regulations. Applicable measures to the study area of the Neshaminy Creek
                  watershed have been summarized from the CZARA Section 6217 guidelines. A brief discussion of
                  measures has been included. The full discussion of each measure can be found in detail in the
                  guideline document.

                  The management measures in this section are applied to specific areas of concern within the
                  Nesharniny creek coastal zone management study; namely issues dealing with urbanization (i.e.,
                  development, roads and access areas, pollution prevention), and marinas and recreational boating.
                  Management Measures for the Control of Urban Runoff
                  1. Management Measure - Removal and Reduction of sediments

                  This measure is intended to reduce and encourage the removal of sediment pollutants that are
                  generated by the site preparation process associated with new development.

                         Standard by design or performance:

                         ï¿½   After construction has been completed and the site is permanently stabilized, reduce the
                             average annual total suspended solids (TSS) loading by 80 percent. For the purposes
                             of this measure, an 80 percent TSS reduction is determined on an average annual
                             basis*; or
                         ï¿½   Reduce post development loading of TSS so that the average annual TSS loading are no
                             greater than pre development loading.                   I
                         ï¿½   To the extent practicable, maintain post development peak runoff rate and average
                             volume at levels that are similar to pre development levels in combination with either of
                             the above standards.






                                                                                                          H-2









                        .a.  Benefits
                          0  Decrease the erosive potential of increased runoff volumes and velocities associated
                             with development induced changes in hydrology
                          0  Remove suspended solids and associated pollutants entrained in runoff that result from
                             activities occurring during and after development
                          0  Retain hydrologic conditions which closely resemble those of the pre disturbance
                             condition
                          0  Preserve natural systems including in-stream habitat.

                          b  Basis of Selection
                          ï¿½  Removal of 80 percent of total suspended solids (TSS) is assumed to control heavy
                             metals, phosphorous, and other pollutants as well as sediment.
                          0  A number of other coastal States, including Delaware and Florida, have implemented a
                             TSS
                          ï¿½  Analysis has shown that properly constructed wetlands, wet ponds, and infiltration
                             facilities can remove 80 percent of TSS, provided they are designed and maintained
                             properly.
                          ï¿½  Control of the post development volume and peak runoff rates can reduce or prevent
                             streambank erosion and stream scouring and maintain pre-development hydrological
                             conditions. At minimum the 2-year/24 hour storm should be controlled, although in
                             Bucks County, the standard has been established which will control the I year/24 hour
                             storm for water quality purposes.

                          c  Recommended Actions and Practices
                          0  Training Programs
                             Develop training and education programs and materials for public officials, contractors,
                             and others involved with the design, installation, operation, inspection and maintenance
                             of urban runoff facilities.

                    Based   on the average annual TSS loading from all storms less than or equal to
                 the 2-year/24 hour storm. TSS loading from storms greater than the 2 year/24
                 hour storm are not expected to be included in the calculation of the average annual
                 TSS loading.
                          ï¿½  Require Regular Operation and Maintenance Practices
                             Ensure that all urban runoff facilities are operated and maintained properly.
                             Maintenance is necessary to for the facility to function properly and not pose a health or
                             safety threat. Maintenance should occur at regular intervals by trained individuals, and
                             be performed in accordance with the adopted standards of the State or local
                             government. It is more effective and efficient to perform preventative maintenance on a
                             regular basis than provide remedial or corrective action.
                          ï¿½  Infiltration basins
                             Infiltration basins are impoundments in which incoming urban runoff is temporarily
                             stored until it gradually infiltrates into the soil surrounding the basin. These basins in
                             pollutant removal, and to ensure that the basin is ready to receive the next storm. The
                             runoff entering the basin is pretreated to remove coarse sediment that may clog the
                             surface soil on the basin floor. Concentrated runoff should flow through a sediment
                             trap, or a vegetated filter strip may be used for sheet flow.
                          ï¿½  Infiltration trenches
                             Infiltration trenches are shallow excavated ditches that have been backfilled with stone
                             to form an underground reservoir. Urban runoff diverted into the trench gradually
                             infiltrates from the bottom of the trench into the subsoil and eventually into the ground
                             water. Depending on the quality of the runoff, pretreatment will generally be necessary
                             to lower the failure rate of the trench. Design requirements necessitate a minimum of
                             24 inches of soil body without restriction for use of this practice.


                                                                                                            H-3








                                Vegetated filter strips
                                Vegetated filter strips are areas of land with vegetative cover that are designed to accept
                                runoff as over land sheet flow from upstream development. Dense vegetative cover
                                facilitates sediment attenuation and pollutant removal. They do not effectively treat
                                high-velocity flows and are therefore recommended for use in agriculture and low-
                                density development. Vegetated filter strips are often used as pretreatment for other
                                structural practices such as infiltration basins and infiltration basins.Filter strips are less
                                effective on slopes over 15 percent. Periodic inspection, repair and regrading are
                                required to prevent channelization.
                                Grassed swales
                                A grassed swale is an infiltration/filtration method that is usually used to provide
                                pretreatment before runoff is discharged to treatment systems. Grassed swales are
                                shallow, vegetated, man-made ditches designed so that the bottom of the elevation is
                                above the water table to allow runoff to infiltrate into ground water. The vegetation or
                                turf prevents erosion, filters sediment, and provides some nutrient uptake.
                                Porous pavement and permeable surfaces
                                Porous pavement reduces much of the need for urban and runoff drainage conveyance
                                and treatment off-site. Runoff is diverted through a porous asphalt layer into an
                                underground stone reservoir. The stored runoff gradually exfiltrates out of the stone
                                reservoir into the subsoil. It tends to clog with fine sediment. A vacuum-type street
                                sweeper should be used to maintain porous pavement.
                                Permeable paving surfaces such as modular pavers, grassed parking areas and
                                permeable pavements may also be used to reduce runoff volumes. Proper operation
                                and maintenance must be guaranteed due to high failure rates without proper upkeep.
                           ï¿½    Concrete grid pavement
                                This pavement consists of concrete blocks with regularly interspersed void areas that
                                are filled with pervious materials, such as gravel, sand or grass. The blocks are placed
                                on a sand or gravel base and designed to provide a load-bearing surface that is adequate
                                to support vehicles, while allowing infiltration of surface water into the underlying soil.
                           ï¿½    Water quality inlets
                                Water quality inlets are underground retention systems designed to remove settleable
                                solids. In their simplest form, catch basins are single-chambered urban runoff inlets in
                                which the bottom has been lowered to provide 2 to 4 feet of additional space between
                                the outlet pipe and the structure bottom for collection of sediment. Maintenance and
                                disposal of trapped residuals and hydrocarbons must occur regularly for these devices
                                to work. No acceptable clean-out and disposal techniques currently exist.
                           ï¿½    Extended detention basins
                                Extended detention basins, or "first flush" detention basins temporarily detain a portion
                                of urban runoff for up to 24 hours after a storm. The extended detention basins are
                                normally "dry" between storm events. These basins are typically composed of two
                                stages: an upper stage, which remains dry except for larger storms, and a lower stage,
                                which is designed for smaller, more frequent storms.
                                Wet ponds
                                Wet ponds, also known as retention basins, are basins designed to maintain a
                                permanent pool of water and temporarily store urban runoff until it is released at a
                                controlled rate. Enhanced designs include a forebay to trap incoming sediment where it
                                can easily be removed. A fringe wetland can also be established around the perimeter
                                of the pond.
                                Constructed wetlands
                                Constructed wetlands are engineered systems designed to simulate the water quality
                                improvement functions of natural wetlands to treat and contain surface water runoff
                                pollutants and decrease loading to surface waters.
                                Filtration basins and sand filters




                                                                                                                  H-4








                             Filtration basins are impoundments lined with filter media, such as sand or gravel.
                             Urban runoff drains through the filter media into perforated pipes in the subsoil.
                             Detention time is typically 4 to 6 hours. Sediment-trapping structures are used to
                             prevent premature clogging of the filter media.
                             Sand filters are a self-contained bed of sand to which the first flush of runoff water is
                             diverted. The runoff percolates through the sand, where colloidal and particulate
                             materials are strained out by the media. Water leaving the filter is collected in
                             underground pipes and returned to the stream or channel. A layer of peat, limestone,
                             and/or topsoil may be added to improve removal efficiency.
                             Public Education
                             Educate the public about the importance of runoff management facilities.

                         d   Effectiveness and Cost Information
                             A median TSS removal efficiency above 80 percent was reported for three practices;
                             constructed wetlands, wet ponds and filtration basins. However, it has been reported
                             that the other practices are capable of achieving 80 percent TSS removal efficiency
                             when properly designed, sited, operated, and maintained.
                             A systems approach to best management practices (BMP) design and implementation
                             may be more effective. By applying multiple practices, enhanced runoff attenuation,
                             conveyance, pretreatment, and treatment may be attained. Also, regionalization of
                             systems may prove more efficient and cost effective due to the economies of scale of
                             operating one large system versus several smaller systems. Areas such as stream side
                             buffers and wetland may also have the added benefit of providing long-term pollutant
                             removal capabilities without the comparatively high costs usually associated with
                             structural controls. Conservation and preservation of these areas is important to water
                             quality protection.

                 2. Management Measure - Watershed Protection

                 This management measure is intended to be applied by states to new development or
                 redevelopment including construction of new and relocated roads that generate nonpoint source
                 pollutants.

                         Primary intent is to develop a watershed protection program which will:

                         0   Avoid conversion , to the extent practicable, of areas that are particularly susceptible to
                             erosion and sediment loss;
                         0   Preserve areas that provide important water quality benefits and/or are necessary to
                             maintain riparian and aquatic biota; and
                         0   Site development, including roads, highways, and bridges, to protect to the extent
                             practicable the natural integrity of waterbodies and natural drainage systems.

                         a . Benefits
                         0   Under the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments        'of 1990, States are subject to
                             a number of requirements as they develop coastal nonpoint source programs in
                             conformity with this management measure and will have flexibility in doing so.
                         0   General goals to use in developing comprehensive programs for guiding future
                             development and land use in a manner that will prevent and mitigate nonpoint source
                             pollution.                      I
                         0   Plan for the reduction in nonpoint source pollutants by locating stormwater structures
                             and or other land areas which may be responsible, for generating nonpoint source
                             pollutants in areas of the watershed which are not vulnerable.
                         9   Allow planning to protect all natural resources in the regional watershed area.



                                                                                                             H-5








                                Help preserve and protect the natural hydrology of the area.

                            b . Basis of Selection
                            ï¿½   Watershed protection is a technique to provide long-term water quality benefits.
                            ï¿½   Protection of environmentally sensitive areas and areas that provide water quality
                                benefits allows states flexibility in the pursuit of widely differing water quality priorities
                                and reduces potential conflicts that may arise due to existing State or local programs.
                            ï¿½   Produces long-term water quality benefits and lacks the high operation and maintenance
                                costs associated with structural controls.
                            ï¿½   Includes other natural resources such as individual stream quality designations,
                                wetlands, woodlands and significant natural areas in the planning process.

                            c   Recommended Actions and Practices
                            ï¿½   Comprehensive Planning
                                Develop a comprehensive program that incorporates protection of surface waters
                                programs and plans for guiding growth and development. Incorporate policies into
                                existing land planning, zoning and site plan review.

                            ï¿½   Resource Inventory and Information Analysis
                                Define the watershed boundaries, target areas, and pollutants of concern, and conduct
                                resource inventory and information analysis. Activities include: assessment of ground
                                and surface water hydrology; soil type and ground cover; identification of
                                environmentally sensitive areas, and unique geologic formations.                         Once
                                environmentally sensitive areas are identified, areas that are integral to the protection of
                                surface waters and the prevention of nonpoint source pollution can be protected.
                                Suggested from; Watershed Management: A Step by Step Guide, Livingston and
                                McCarron, 1992:
                                1 .Delineate and map watershed boundary and sub-basins within the watershed.
                                2. Inventory and map natural storm water conveyance and storage system.
                                3. Inventory and map man-made storm water conveyance and storage system.
                                4. Inventory and map land use by sub-basin.
                                5. Inventory and map detailed soils by sub-basin.
                                6. Establish a clear understanding of water resources in the watershed.
                                7. Inventory pollution sources in the watershed.
                                8. Identify and map future land use by sub-basin.
                                9. Identify planned infrastructure improvements; 5-year, 20-year.
                              10.  Analysis. Determine infrastructure and natural resources management needs within
                                   each watershed.
                              11.  Set resource management goals and objectives.
                              12.  Determine pollutant reduction (for existing and future land uses) needed to achieve
                                   water quality goals.
                              13.  Select appropriate management practices (point source, nonpoint source) that can be
                                   used to achieve the goal.
                              14.  Develop watershed management plan. All plans will include elements such as;
                                       -Existing and future land use plans
                                       -Master storm water management plan that addresses existing and future needs;
                                       -Wastewater management plan
                                       -Infrastructure and capital improvements plan.
                                Development of Watershed Management Plan
                                The resource inventory and information analysis component provides the basis for a
                                watershed management plan. A watershed management plan is a comprehensive
                                approach to addressing the needs of a watershed, including land use, urban runoff
                                control practices, pollutant reduction strategies, and pollution prevention techniques.



                                                                                                                 H-6








                             To be effective, the plan should have goals describing desired outcomes and methods
                             for achieving goals.

                         The following describes the steps for developing a watershed management plan.
                             Plan Implementation
                             Implementation tools that have been successful in controlling nonpoint source pollution:
                             -   Development of ordinances or regulations requiring NPS pollution controls for new
                                 development and redevelopment
                             -   Infrastructure planning which is the multi-year scheduling and implementation of
                                 public physical improvements.
                             -   Local ordinances- Zoning is a division of a municipality into districts for the
                                 purpose of regulating land use. Subdivision regulations give general site design
                                 standards. Farmland preservation ordinances are another measure that can be
                                 implemented to provide open space retention, habitat protection, and watershed
                                 protection.
                             -   Limits on impervious surfaces, encourages open space, and the promotion of
                                 cluster development.
                             -   Setback (buffer) standards- In coastal areas, setbacks or buffer zones adjacent to
                                 surface waterbodies, such as rivers, estuaries, or wetlands provide a transition
                                 between upland development waterbodies. Setbacks may prevent direct flow of
                                 urban runoff from impervious areas into adjoining surface waters and provide
                                 pollutant removal, sediment attenuation, and infiltration
                             -   Slope restrictions
                                 Site plan reviews and approval
                             -   Designation of an entity or individual who is responsible for maintaining the
                                 infrastructure, including the urban runoff management systems.
                             -   Official mapping.
                                 Official maps can be used to designate and/or protect environmentally sensitive
                                 areas, zoning districts, identified land uses, or other areas that provide water quality
                                 benefits.
                             .   Environmental impact assessment statements
                                 To evaluate the impacts of proposed development may have on the natural resources
                                 of an area.
                         0   Cost of Planning Programs
                             Depends on a variety of factors including the level of effort needed to complete and
                             implement a program.
                         0   Land or Development Acquisition Practices
                             An effective way to preserve land for protecting the environmental integrity of an area is
                             to acquire it outright or to limit development rights.
                                 Fee Simple Acquisition Easements
                                 Fee simple acquisition through either purchase or donation is the most direct way to
                                 protect land for preservation purposes and associated nonpoint source control
                                 functions.
                                 Conservation easements are restrictions put on property that legally restrict the
                                 present and future use of the land. The property owner gives up development
                                 rights within the easement while retaining fee ownership of the property.
                                 Transfer of Development Rights
                                 Transfer of development rights (TDR) is based on the concept that ownership of
                                 real property includes the bundle of rights that go with it. The system is useful for
                                 the preservation of those areas thought necessary for maintaining the quality of
                                 surface waters in that development rights associated with the environmentally
                                 sensitive areas can be transferred to less sensitive areas.
                                 Purchase of Development Rights



                                                                                                              H-7








                                  Rights of development are purchases while the remaining rights remain with the fee
                                  title holder. Restrictions on the deed make it clear that the land can not be
                                  developed based on the rights that have been purchased.
                              .   Land Trusts
                                  May be established as publicly or privately sponsored nonprofit organizations with
                                  the goal of holding lands or conservation easements for the protection of habitat,
                                  water quality, recreation or scenic value or for agricultural preservation.
                              .   Agricultural and Forest Districts
                                  Jurisdictions may allow landowners to apply for designation of land as an
                                  Agricultural or Forest district. Tax benefits are received in exchange for a
                                  commitment to maintain the land in agriculture, forest or open space.
                                  Cost and Effectiveness of Land Acquisition Programs
                                  The cost associated with land acquisition programs varies, depending on the desired
                                  outcome.

                  3. Management Measure - Site Development

                  Intended to provide states or local government with general guidance on nonpoint source pollution
                  objectives that can be integrated into the site planning process.

                         Plan, design, and develop sites to:

                              Protect areas that provide important water quality benefits and/or are particularly
                              susceptible to erosion and sediment loss;
                              Limit increases of impervious areas, except where necessary;
                              Limit land disturbance activities such as clearing and grading, and cut and fill to reduce
                              erosion and sediment loss;
                              Limit disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation.

                         a    Benefits
                              Reduce the generation of nonpoint pollution and to mitigate the impacts of urban runoff
                              and associated pollutants from all site development including roads.
                              Preserve the natural amenities of the site.
                              Reduce hydrologic impacts to the entire drainage area.

                         b    Basis of Selection
                              Site plan review and conditional approval are used to ensure environmentally sensitive
                              areas and areas necessary for maintaining surface water quality will not be lost;
                              Requirements for erosion and sediment control plan review protect waters.
                              Guidance on appropriate pollution prevention practices can be given.

                         c    Objectives to Incorporate into Site Development Reviews:
                              During site development, disturb the smallest area necessary to reduce erosion and off-
                              site transport of sediment
                              Avoid disturbance of unstable sods
                              Where appropriate, protect and retain indigenous vegetation to decrease concentrated
                              flows and to maintain site hydrology;
                              Minimize impervious surfaces
                              Properly manage all maintained landscapes to avoid water quality impacts
                              Avoid alteration, modification or destruction of natural drainage features on-site;
                              Design sites so that natural buffers adjacent to coastal waterbodies are preserved.








                          d  Practices for Control of Erosion During Site Development
                             The following practices are representative of the types of practices that can be applied to
                             achieve the measure described above.

                             Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Programs
                             A well-thought out plan for urban runoff management on construction sites can control
                             erosion, retain sediments on the sites, and reduce the environmental effects of runoff.
                             In addition to a plan for BMP use, contractors should develop schedules that minimize
                             the area of exposed soil at any given time, particularly during storms.
                             Phasing and Limiting Area of Disturbance
                             Reduces the potential for erosion and can be accomplished by clearing and grading
                             from all post-development buffer zones, configuring the site plan to retain high
                             amounts of open space, and using phased construction to limit the amount of disturbed
                             area at any given time.
                             Require Vegetative Stabilization
                             Grass or mulch cover can reduce suspended sediment levels to surface waters by up to
                             six fold.
                             Minimum Disturbance/Minimum Maintenance
                             An approach to site development in which clearing and site grading are allowed only
                             within carefully prescribed building areas, preserving and protecting the existing natural
                             vegetation.
                             Minimum disturbance/minimum maintenance strategies help minimize nonpoint source
                             impacts associated with the application of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides that
                             result from new land development.

                          e  Site Planning Practices
                          0  Clustering
                             Used to concentrate development and construction activity on a limited portion of the
                             site, leaving the remaining portion undisturbed. Preserves environmentally sensitive
                             areas, reduces road length and reduces impervious surfaces.
                          0  Performance Criteria
                             Contain built in safe-guards to protect natural features.
                          0  Site Fingerprinting
                             Places development away from environmentally sensitive areas, future open spaces,
                             etc.
                          0  Preserving Natural Drainage Features and Natural Depression Storage
                             Areas
                             Natural drainage features should be preserved as development occurs. Done at site and
                             watershed planning stage. Desirable because of the ability of the natural drainage
                             features to infiltrate and attenuate flows and filter pollutants.
                          0  Minimizing Imperviousness
                             Implemented at site planning level; reduced sidewalk widths
                             -   Use of permeable material for sidewalk construction
                             -   Mandatory open space requirements
                             -   Use of porous pavement where possible
                             -   Reduced building setbacks, which reduce the length of driveways and entry walks
                             -   Reduced street widths
                          0  Reducing the Hydraulic Connectivity of Impervious Surfaces
                             Pollutant loading from impervious surfaces may be reduced if the impervious area does
                             not connect directly to an impervious conveyance system. This can be done in at least
                             four ways;
                             -   Route runoff over lawn to increase infiltration
                             -   Discourage the direct connection of downspouts to storm sewers
                             -   Substitute pond and swale systems to increase infiltration


                                                                                                            H-9







                             -   Reduce the use of storm sewers to drain streets, parking lots, and back yards
                             Xeriscape Programs
                             Landscaping concept that maximizes the conservation of water by the use of site
                             appropriate plants and an efficient watering system. Involves the use of plants that
                             need minimal watering, fertilization and pesticide application.
                             Reduce water loss and soil erosion through planning, design, and implementation
                             Reduces mowing by limiting lawn areas
                             Reduces fertilization through soil preparation


                  Management Measures for the Prevention of Pollution

                  1. Management Measure - Pollution Prevention

                  This management measure is intended to prevent and reduce nonpoint source pollutant loadings
                  from activities normally occurring within an urban environment.
                          Implement pollution prevention and education programs to reduce nonpoint source
                          pollutants generated by the following activities:

                          ï¿½  Improper storage, use and disposal of household hazardous chemicals, including; auto
                             fluids, pesticides, paints, solvents etc.
                          ï¿½  Lawn and garden activities, including the application and disposal of lawn care
                             products, and leaves and yard trimmings.
                          ï¿½  Turf management on golf courses, parks and recreational areas.
                          ï¿½  Improper operation and maintenance of on-site disposal systems.
                          ï¿½  Discharge of pollutants into storm drains.
                          ï¿½  Commercial activities including parking lots, gas stations, and others not required to
                             use the NPDES permitting system.
                          ï¿½  Improper disposal of pet excrement.

                          a  Benefits
                             Decrease nonpoint source pollutants in surface waters.
                             Reduce potential contamination by e. coli and other pollutants associated with wastes
                             (human and animal) in streams and other waterways.
                             Increase the general quality of water within the region.

                          b  Basis of Selection
                          ï¿½  Many states are currently using a combination of methods to change the behavior of the
                             community with resulting reductions in nonpoint source pollutants.
                          ï¿½  Communities may select the best option or method for control applicable to their area or
                             specific problem.
                             The controls and or practices outlined are flexible.
                             Encourages community outreach and participation to achieve the desired effect. Can
                             also determine the effectiveness of specific approaches and practices based on
                             community response.

                          c  Recommended Actions and Practices
                             Promote Public Education
                             Public education is the key to promoting community problem solving. Information
                             regarding the negative effects of household chemicals and wastes can result in long
                             term behavior modifications which lead to reductions in contamination from these types
                             of pollutants.





                                                                                                        H-10








                        ï¿½    Establish Programs to Encourage Proper Disposal of Household
                             Hazardous Wastes
                             Many communities have instituted programs, such as Amnesty Days, which highlight
                             and recognize the impacts to the environment resulting from improper disposal of
                             household hazardous chemicals and wastes. Bucks County has one day per year
                             where, at three separate locations, residents can dispose of household hazardous
                             wastes.
                        ï¿½    Develop used oil, antifreeze and hazardous chemical recycling programs
                             and site collection centers in convenient locations
                             Establish specific days designated as drop off days and advertise through television,
                             newspapers, flyers and radio. Encourage local service stations to provide used oil and
                             antifreeze recycling locations for "do-it-yourselfers" to promote proper and easy
                             disposal of these items.
                        ï¿½    Encourage Proper Lawn Management and Landscaping
                             Prepare and conduct educational programs on a regular basis with the assistance of the
                             available media to educate homeowners regarding the proper care and landscaping
                             techniques necessary to reduce nonpoint source pollutants, These techniques include:
                             -  Proper pesticide and herbicide use
                                Reduced fertilizer applications and proper timing of such applications
                             -  Limited lawn watering
                             -  Minimum maintenance and disturbance practices
                             -  xeriscaping (decreased water, energy and chemical inputs)
                             -  Reduced runoff techniques, such as reusing rooftop runoff
                             -  Training, certification and licensing programs for lawn care professionals
                        ï¿½    Encourage Proper On-Site Recycling of Yard Trimmings
                             Promoting of home composting programs can potentially result in municipal cost
                             savings through reduced curb-side pick up and reduce landfill costs. Composting also
                             promotes natural recycling of nutrients which reduces the need for synthetic chemical
                             applications. Compost added to the soil can increase infiltration which reduces runoff,
                             and decrease the need for watering.
                        ï¿½    Encourage the Use of Biodegradable Household Cleaners
                             The use of nonbiodegradable household cleaners and chemicals can potentially
                             contaminate surface and ground waters. Public education can reduce this threat.
                        ï¿½    Management Pet Excrement to Minimize Runoff Into Surface Waters
                             Various studies have shown that animal excrement is a potentially hazardous pollutant
                             in surface waters. The Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board reported in 1978 that
                             urban runoff containing pet excrement was responsible for numerous shellfish bed
                             closures in New York State.
                             Efforts must be made to promote the idea that pet owners should pick up pet droppings
                             rather than leave them in yards or streets where they can combine with runoff and enter
                             the surface waters. The removal of droppings includes not only those from dogs and
                             cats, but also from larger animals such as horses and, or exotic animals.
                        0    Storm Drain Stenciling
                             Many municipalities have adopted programs that encourages civic groups to stencil a
                             symbol or other specific mark on storm drains. These types of programs serve as a
                             visible constant reminder to the public that storm drains discharge to surface water,
                             which may be carrying several harmful components from nonpoint pollutants.
                        ï¿½    Encourage Alternative Design and Maintenance for Impervious Parking
                             Lots
                             Parking lot runoff, particularly in commercial or industrial areas, normally accounts for
                             a large percentage of nonpoint source pollutants. Alternatives range from dry
                             sweeping, wet sweeping, grassed swales and vegetated buffer strips to polish runoff
                             prior to leaving the area. Parking lots may also be good candidates for porous




                                                                                                        H-11








                               pavement or other underground recharge beds, due to the lighter vehicular loads and
                               decreased speeds.
                               Control Commercial Sources Of NPS Pollutants by Promoting
                               Prevention Assessments and Developing NPS Reduction Strategies in
                               the Workplace
                               Work with the local community businesses and establishments to develop programs
                               and training procedures to reduce or eliminated nonpoint source pollutants. Each
                               organization or workplace needs to determine what materials or byproducts are in a
                               particular site that may generate nonpoint source pollutants. Sharing or information or
                               procedures could be accomplished by a municipal clearinghouse or citizens action
                               organization.

                           ï¿½   Promote Water Conservation
                               Encourage wise use of water in cleaning and maintenance operations. Encourage local
                               citizens to reduce water usage through lawn care, car care and household fixtures.
                               Promote aggressively through advertising and community organizations.
                           ï¿½   Encourage Litter Control
                               -  Encourage local businesses to keep the areas in front of their establishments clear of
                                  debris.
                               -  Develop local ordinances restricting or prohibiting food establishments from using
                                  disposable food packaging, especially plastics, Styrofoam and other floatables.
                               -  Implement "bottle bills" and mandatory recycling laws.
                                  Distribute public education materials on recycling.
                               -  Develop "user-friendly" ways of recycling such as curb side pick up, voluntary
                                  container buy backs and drop off recycling centers.
                               Promote Proper Operation and Maintenance of On-Lot Disposal Systems
                               (OLDS)
                               Create laws which require homeowners or property owners to perform regular annual
                               inspection and maintenance procedures if an on-lot septic system is present.

                  Management Measures for Roads, Highways and Bridges
                  1. Management Measure - Planning, Siting and Developing Roads and Highways

                  This management measure is intended for site development and, or land disturbance due to new,
                  relocated or reconstructed roads and highways.

                           Plan, site and develop roads and highways to:

                           ï¿½   Protect areas that provide important water quality benefits or are particularly susceptible
                               to erosion.
                           ï¿½   Limit land disturbance such as clearing and grading, and cut and fill to reduce erosion
                               and sedimentation.
                           ï¿½   Limit the disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation.

                           a . Benefits
                               Reduced erosion associated with roadways.
                               Preserve natural drainageways.
                               Reduce sedimentation associated with improper siting of roadways or highways.

                           b . Basis of Selection







                                                                                                           H-12








                           Approach recommended by the American Association of State Highway and
                           Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
                           guidance and other states (Virginia, Maryland, Washington, etc.)
                           Minimize erosion and sediment damage to the highway and adjacent properties.
                           Abate pollution of surface water and groundwater resources.

                       c   Recommended Actions and Practices
                       0   Site Planning
                           Consider the type and location of permanent erosion and sediment controls during the
                           planning phase of projects.
                       0   Wetlands
                           All wetlands in the corridor that cannot be avoided must be mitigated per the Federal
                           Clean Water Act and Pa DER regulations.
                       0   Setbacks
                           Assess and establish adequate setbacks near wetlands, waterbodies and riparian areas.
                           Setback distances should be determined on a site by site basis, based on topography,
                           soils, floodplains, cut and fill and geometry. General rule of thumb is to establish
                           setbacks 50 to 100 feet from the edge of the wetland or waterbody and the ultimate right
                           of way. Setbacks from major waters (i.e., oceans, rivers, lakes, estuaries) should be
                           in excess of 100 to 1000 feet.
                       0   Cut and Fill Operations
                           Avoid excessive cut and fill operations to create as little disturbance as possible.,
                       0   Soils Consideration
                           Plan and avoid areas subject to subsidence, sink holes, landslides, rock outcroppings
                           and highly erodible soils.
                       0   Planning for Runoff Controls
                           Size the right of way to include enough space for runoff pollution controls as
                           appropriate.
                       a   Use Computer Models in Design
                           Use available computer models torn determine urban runoff from streets and highways
                           when planning the area. Include design of any necessary stormwater or runoff control
                           measures.
                       0   Plan Residential Roads and Streets
                           Local roads and streets should have minimum right-of-way widths. In larger
                           subdivisions, grassed drainage swales can be used in lieu of curbs and gutters.
                       0   Mapping
                           Develop local official mapping to plan and reserve land where future public facilities
                           will be necessary such as roads, highways, bridges, and runoff facilities. Sensitive
                           areas of natural resources can be protected also.
               2. Management Measure - Bridges

                Intended for new, rehabilitated or relocated bridge structures to control erosion, streambed
                scouring and surface runoff.

                       Site design and maintain bridge structures so that:

                           Sensitive and valuable aquatic ecosystems are protecte&-
                           Areas providing water quality benefits are protected.
                           Stream integrity is maintained.

                       a.  Basis of Selection





                                                                                                      H-13








                             Documented effectiveness to protect against potential pollution impacts from siting
                             bridges over sensitive areas and tributaries in the coastal zone.

                          b .Recommended Actions and Practices
                          ï¿½  Coordination Between Agencies
                             Coordinate with FHWA, USCG, COE and other appropriate state and federal agencies.
                          ï¿½  Review Appropriate Acts and Legislation
                             Review the National Environment;a policy Act requirements to ensure that
                             environmental concerns are met
                          ï¿½  Site Structures Wisely
                             Avoid highway locations requiring numerous water crossings, or sensitive
                             environmental systems.
                          ï¿½  Pollution Loadings
                             Design bridge decks to release runoff at a low velocity and reduce pollutant loading by
                             directing it into adequate stormwater management areas. This nay be a detention basin,
                             wetland which can accommodate the runoff or filter, grassed buffer strips.
                             Conveyance must withstand peak velocities.
                          ï¿½  Restrict the Use of Scupper Drains
                             Scupper drains route runoff directly into the stream. Scupper drains should not be used
                             on bridges less than 400 feet in length or crossing very sensitive ecosystems. On
                             bridges where a scupper drain is used, reduce pollutant loading with treatment
                             elsewhere to compensate for runoff discharged from the bridge.
                 3. Management Measure - Operation and Maintenance of Roads, Highways and
                      Bridges

                 Incorporate pollution prevention procedures into the operation and maintenance of roads, highways
                 and bridges to reduce pollutant loadings to surface waters.

                          a .Benefits
                             Reduce the amount of eroded and other pollutant materials from operations and
                             maintenance procedures.
                             Ensure pollutant loadings from roads, highways and bridges are minimized by the
                             development and implementation of a program to control operation and maintenance
                             activities.
                             Protect sensitive areas.

                          b  Basis of Selection
                             Recommended by the FHWA as a cost-effective practice,(FHWA, 199 1).
                             Protects the human environment.
                             Effective for controlling erosion by revegetating bare slopes.
                             minimizes polluted runoff from paved surfaces.

                          c  Recommended Actions and Practices
                          ï¿½  Slope and Vegetated Areas Care
                             Seed and fertilize slopes and vegetated areas, or seed and mulch areas as necessary.
                             Sod may be a viable alternative to damaged areas.
                          ï¿½  Pesticides, Herbicides and Nutrients Management
                             Establish programs delineating appropriate management of pesticides and herbicides
                             and nutrients.
                          ï¿½  Chemical Application Restrictions






                                                                                                       H-14








                               Limit the use of chemicals such as soil stabilizers, dust palliatives, sterilants and growth
                               inhibitors to an educated estimation o f optimum application rates. Avoid over
                               application or application directly to surface waters.
                           ï¿½   Road Debris
                               Periodic collection and removal of road debris will reduce the opportunity for pollutants
                               to enter the waterway.

                           ï¿½   Care and use of Road Salts
                               Cover road salt supplies, as well as all deicing agents. Make sure stockpiles sit outside
                               of the 100 year floodplain. Precautions should be taken to train personnel using these
                               materials in proper application techniques and rates. This may include special trucks
                               designed specifically for salt applications. Alternative deicing materials (e.g., sand)
                               should be used in areas of sensitive ecology.
                           ï¿½   Snow Removal
                               Every effort should be made to prevent or discourage dumping accumulated snow into
                               surface waters during removal or plowing operations.
                           ï¿½   Inspection Programs for Runoff Facilities and General maintenance
                               -  Clean out sediment basins and traps.
                               -  Inspect silt fences and dispose of accumulated materials periodically.
                               -  Renew and replace riprap areas as necessary.
                               -  Repair or replace check dams and straw bales as necessary.
                                  Regrade and reshape berms and swales to properly channel runoff.
                               -  Reseed and mulch bare spots immediately.
                               -  Protect culverts and inlets from siltation.
                               -  Inspect all permanent erosion and sediment controls on a regularly scheduled basis.
                           0   Training and Education
                               Develop and provide educational materials and opportunities to promote sound planning
                               and programming.
                  4. Management Measure - Road, Highway and Bridge Runoff Systems

                 Develop and implement runoff management systems for existing roads, highways and bridges to
                 reduce runoff pollutants concentrations and volumes entering surface waters.

                           Plan to:
                           0   Identify priority and watershed pollutant reduction opportunities (e.g., existing
                               structures improvements).
                           0   Establish schedules for implementing appropriate runoff controls where necessary.

                           a . Benefits
                               Establishes a retrofit system for existing runoff control problem areas.
                               Mitigates severe problems with sensitive or fragile ecosystems.
                               Protects and enhances water quality.

                           b . Basis of Selection
                           0   Demonstrated effectiveness of retrofit systems for existing roads and highways
                               constructed without or inadequate runoff control, systems.
                           0   May reduce flooding in areas where runoff is not properly controlled.

                           c . Recommended Actions and Practices
                               Locate Potential Systems Placement
                               Inspect and locate those areas where runoff controls are most needed. Prioritize the
                               severity of the problem areas and schedule implementation programs. The location of



                                                                                                               H-15








                             runoff treatment facilities should occur within existing rights-of-way or in median or
                             interchange loops.
                          ï¿½  Land Areas
                             Develop multiple use treatment facilities on adjacent lands (e.g., parks and golf
                             courses) where possible. Acquire available additional; land areas for locating treatment
                             facilities as possible. Where no land area is available or possible for the treatment of
                             runoff, use underground storage or recharge facility options.
                          ï¿½  Buffer Strips
                             Use vegetated buffer or filter strips to maximize the travel time of sheet or overland
                             flow to increase infiltration and reduce sedimentation.

                 Management Measures for Marinas and Recreational Boatin

                 1. Management Measure - Marina Flushing

                 Site and design new or expanding marinas such that the tides and/or cur-rents assist in flushing and
                 renewing its water regularly.

                          a .Benefits
                             Reduces concentrations of pollutants building up in the marina.
                             Moves sediments and lessens the impacts they cause on benthic communities.

                          b .Basis of Selection
                          ï¿½  Studies have shown that adequate flushing greatly reduces or eliminates potential for
                             stagnation of water in the marina.
                          ï¿½  Helps maintain biological productivity and aesthetics.

                          c  Recommended Actions and Practices
                          ï¿½  Site design
                             Siting and designing new marinas so that the bottom does not exceed the depth of the
                             adjacent navigable waters will assist in supporting naturally occurring benthic
                             communities.
                          ï¿½  Promote Circulation
                             Design or configure marinas so thatthere are as few segments as possible in order to
                             assist and encourage circulation within the basin. Consider design alternatives which
                             address poorly circulating waterbodies, such as wave attenuators and open marina
                             basins.
                          ï¿½  Entrance Channels
                             ,Design and locate entrance channels to promote flushing by following the natural
                             channel alignment. Any bends should be gradual. If the tidal range is small, widen the
                             entrance as much as feasible.
                          ï¿½  Flow Through
                             Where possible, establish two openings at opposite ends of the marina to encourage
                             and assist flow through currents. If this is not possible, a buried pipeline may promote
                             flushing.

                 2. Management Measure - Shoreline Stabilization

                 Where shoreline erosion is a nonpoint source pollution problem, shorelines should be stabilized.
                 Vegetative measures are preferred over structural methods unless cost effectiveness is a factor.

                          a. Benefits
                             Reduces erosion of the shoreline in coastal areas.




                                                                                                        H-16








                             Vegetation stabilization reduces the potential for scouring.
                             Promotes a healthy aquatic ecology.
                             Protects fishing areas.

                             Basis of Selection
                             Documented effectiveness of vegetation and structural methods to mitigate shoreline
                             erosion and reduce turbidity and shoaling.

                             Reduced dredging of marina basins and channels by reducing erosion along the
                             shoreline.

                          c  Recommended Actions and Practices
                          0  Revegetating and Bulkheading
                             Where applicable, revegetate or install structural bulkheads to reduce erosion on the
                             shoreline.

                 3. Management Measure - Stormwater Management

                             Reduce sediment loading from stormwater runoff by:

                          0  Implement effective runoff control strategies which include the use of pollution
                             prevention activities and proper design of hull maintenance areas.
                          0  Reduce average annual loadings of TSS in runoff from hull maintenance areas by 80
                             percent. This reduction is determined on an average annual basis. Applies to hull
                             maintenance areas only.

                          a  Benefits
                          0  A reduction in pollutants associated with hull maintenance procedures. Hull
                             maintenance includes bottom scraping, sanding, and/or painting.
                             A reduction in organic (oils and greases).
                             A reduction in contamination of the marina area.
                          b  Basis of Selection
                          0  The 80 percent reduction of TSS can be achieved through BMPs operations
                             procedures.
                          0  By limiting control of TSS to hull maintenance areas, existing marina facilities can
                             implement and sustain this measure.

                          c  Recommended Actions and Practices
                             Minimize Runoff Contacts
                             Hull maintenance areas should be designed to minimize runoff. These include
                             maintenance areas with solid cement floors, coverings of a roof or tarp to block rainfall,
                             trash and debris control, collection and proper disposal of chemicals, solvents and other
                             materials used in hull maintenance processes.
                             Source Controls
                             Source control practices prevent runoff from coming into contact with pollutants. Items
                             such as sanders with vacuum attachments to collect dust particles, vacuuming
                             impervious areas periodically and tarp placed on the ground prior to placing the boat in
                             a cradle to catch paint, dust and drippings are sources controls.
                          0  Sand Filters
                             Sand filters with an underlying gravel bed for infiltration can be used to strain out
                             materials through a filter media. The water must be detained for a period of time to
                             allow the straining process to be complete.
                          o  Structural Management facilities




                                                                                                          H-17








                             These include wet ponds, infiltration basins, constructed wetlands, swales and
                             vegetated filter strips. As noted earlier, these types of practices, or BMPs, are highly
                             effective ways of treating runoff that may be contaminated.




                 4. Management Measure -Sewage Facilities

                 Install pumpout, dump station and restroom facilities where needed at new and expanding marinas
                 to reduce the release of sewage to surface waters. Design these facilities to allow ease of access of
                 access and post signage to promote use by the boating public.

                             Provide adequate and reasonably available pumpout facilities for all boaters.
                             Conduct a comprehensive boater education project.

                          a  Benefits
                          ï¿½  Reduced contamination of waters by bacteria, viruses and heavy metals.
                          ï¿½  Reduced environmental stress on benthic and other aquatic communities.

                          b  Basis of Selection
                             Need to reduce discharges of sanitary waste.
                             Most coastal states already require pumpout- facilities and restrooms; at marinas.
                             Preference for marina design which incorporates pollution prevention.
                             Water quality benefits.

                          c  Recommended Actions and Practices
                          0  Fixed Point Systems
                             These systems include one or more centrally located sewage pumpout stations. Can be
                             used to successfully meet the management measure, but states are not required to
                             implement these practices.
                          0  Portable Systems
                             Portable or mobile systems are much like fixed point systems and can be used in there
                             place. Portable units include a pump and a small storage unit. When the storage unit is
                             full, it is pumped out into a municipal sewage system or holding tank. Portable units
                             are strongly recommended for existing marinas which do.not have any other type of
                             facility, as they can be instituted immediately.
                          0  Dedicated Slipside Systems
                             These systems provide continuous slipside wastewater collection. Theses systems
                             should be provided to live-aboard vessels. The remained of the marina can implement
                             either of the other two systems.
                          0  Signage
                             Adequate and visible signage is strongly recommended prohibiting the discharge of
                             sanitary waste from vessels into waters of the state. It should also fully explain the
                             rules and procedures for sanitary waste disposal and the locations available for such
                             facilitates.

                 5. Management Measure - Solid Waste Management

                 Properly dispose of solid wastes produced by the operation, cleaning, maintenance and repair of
                 boats to limit entry of solid wastes into surface waters.

                          a. Benefits




                                                                                                         H-18








                            Reduction of pollutants and contaminants into surface waters.
                            Reduced impacts to aquatic and benthic communities.

                            Basis of Selection
                            Marinas have shown the ability to minimize entry of solid wastes into surface waters
                            through implementation of many of the practices shown below.
                            Inadequate disposal facilities and practices account for much of the contamination that
                            occurs through these activities.
                        c . Recommended Actions and Practices
                        0   Boat Maintenance
                            Perform boat maintenance and cleaning above the waterline in such a way that no
                            debris falls into the water.
                        a   Work Areas
                            Provide clearly marked work areas designated form boat repairs. No work can occur
                            outside these areas.
                        a   Hull Areas
                            Clean hull maintenance areas frequently to remove trash, sand, paint chips and other
                            contaminants.
                        a   Blasting
                            Provide spray booths for abrasive blasting or plastic tarp areas. Prevent residues from
                            entering the waterway. When using tarps, windy days should be restricted.
                        0   Recycling
                            Provide adequate and appropriate disposal areas for recycling materials. Scrap metal,
                            aluminum, glass, wood pallets, paper and cardboard should have designated and
                            clearly marked areas for disposal. Used lead batteries should be stored on impervious
                            surfaces under cover until picked up.

































                                                                                                      H-19




 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I                                     GLOSSARY
 I
 I
 I










                 GLOSSARY

                 Benthic: Related to the bottom of a stream, lake, ocean or other body of water.

                 Best Management Practice: A structural facility designed to control stormwater runoff and
                      thereby reduce the negative effects of runoff.

                 Bulkhead: A structure or partition to retain or prevent sliding of the land. A secondary purpose
                      is to protect the upland against damage from wave action.

                 Channel: (1) A natural or artificial waterway or perceptible extent that either periodically or
                      continuously contains moving water, or that forms a connecting link between two bodies of
                      water. (2) The part of a body of water deep enough to be used for navigation through an area
                      otherwise to shallow for navigation. (3) A large strait, as the English Channel. (4) The
                      deepest part of a stream, bay, or strait through which the main volume or current of water
                      flows.


                 Channelization and channel modifteation: River and stream channel engineering for the
                      purpose of flood control, navigation, drainage improvement, and reduction of channel
                      migration potential; activities include the straightening, widening, deepening, or relocation of
                      existing stream channels, clearing or snagging operations, the evacuation of borrow pits,
                      underwater mining, and other practices that change the depth, width, or location of waterways
                      or embayments in coastal areas.

                 Coast: A strip of land of indefinite width (may be several kilometers) that extends from the
                      shoreline inland to the first major change in terrain features.

                 Coastal area: The land and sea area bordering the shoreline.

                 Coastline: (1) Technically, the line that forms the boundary between the coast and the shore. (2)
                      Commonly, the line that forms the boundary between the land and the water.

                 Constructed urban runoff wetlands: Those wetlands that are intentionally created on sites
                      that are not wetlands for the primary purpose of wastewater or urban runoff treatment and are
                      managed as such. Constructed wetlands are normally considered as part of the urban runoff
                      collection and treatment system.

                 Erosion: The wearing away of land by the action of natural forces. On a beach, the carrying
                      away of beach material by wave action, tidal currents, littoral currents, or by deflation.

                 Estuary: (1) The part of the river that is affected by tides. (2) The region near a river mouth in
                      which the fresh water in the river mixes with the salt water of the sea. (3) A semi-enclosed
                      coastal body of water which has a free connection with the open sea and within which sea
                      water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage.



                                                                                                                    G-1









                  Forebay: An extra storage space provided near an inlet of a BMP to trap incoming sediments
                       before they accumulate in a pond BMP.

                  Freshwater marsh: Wetland areas lining the shores of the up        per portions of an estuary and the
                       tributary streams along an estuary, dominated by water draining from upland creeks and
                       rivers. Freshwater marshes may found in bowl-like depressions in the landscape and around
                       lake fringes. They are extremely valuable wildlife habitats and natural pollutant filters.

                  Gabion: A rectangular basket or mattress made of galvanized, and sometimes PVC-coated, steel
                       wire in a hexagonal mesh. Gabions are generally subdivided into equal-sized cells that are
                       wired together and filled with 4- to 8-inch-diameter stone, forming a large, heavy mass that
                       can be used as a shore-protection device.

                  Gradient (grade): See slope. With reference to winds or currents, the rate of increase or
                       decrease in speed, usually in a vertical; or the curve that represents this rate.

                  Ground Water. Subsurface water occupying the zone of saturation. In a strict sense, the term is
                       applied only to water below the water table.

                  Habitat. The place where an organism naturally lives or grows.

                  Heavy metals: Metallic elements with high atomic weights, e. g., mercury, chromium,
                       cadmium, arsenic, and lead. They can damage living things at low concentrations and tend to
                       accumulate in the food chain.


                  High tide, high water: The maximum elevation reached by each rising tide.

                  Hydrologic modification or Hydromodification: The alteration of the natural circulation
                       or distribution of water by the placement of structures or other activities.

                  Impervious sur
                                  .face: A hard surface area that either prevents or retards the entry of water into
                       the soil mantle as under natural conditions prior to development and/or a hard surface area that
                       causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities or at an increased rate of flow from the
                       flow present under natural conditions prior to developmenL

                  Load. The quantity of sediment transported by a current. It includes the suspended load of small
                       particles and the bedload of large particles that move along the bottom.

                  Low tide, low water: The minimum elevation reached by each falling tide. See tide.

                  Marsh: An area of soft, wet, or periodically inundated land,          generally treeless and usually
                       characterized by grasses and other low growth.

                  Marsh, salt: A marsh periodically flooded by salt water.



                                                                                                                      G-2









                 Marsh   vegetation: Plants that grow naturally in a marsh.

                 Nonpoint source: Any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of "point
                      source" in Section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act. In general, they are diffuse sources of
                      water pollution caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground. (See
                      point source.)

                 Nourishment: The process of replenishing a beach. It may be brought about naturally by long
                      shore transport or artificially by the deposition or dredged materials. .

                 Percolation: The process by which water flows through the interstices of a sediment.
                      Specifically, in wave phenomena, the process by which wave action forces water through the
                      interstices of the bottom sediment and which tends to reduce wave heights.

                 Point Source: Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to
                      any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
                      concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants
                      are or may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and
                      return flows from irrigated agriculture.

                 Preexisting: Existing before a specified time or event.

                 Riparian: Pertaining to the banks of a body of water.

                 Riparian area: Vegetated ecosystems along a waterbody through which energy, materials, and
                      water pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic
                      flooding and influence from the adjacent waterbody. These systems encompass wetlands,
                      uplands, or some combination of these two land forms; they will not in all cases have all of the
                      characteristics necessary for them to be classified as wetlands.

                 Rip rap: A protective layer or facing of quarry stone, usually well graded within wide size limit,
                      randomly placed to prevent erosion, scour, or sloughing of an embankment of bluss; also the
                      stone so used. The quarry stone is placed in a layer at least twice the thickness of the 50
                      percent size, or 1.25 times the thickness of the largest size stone in the gradation.

                 Salt marsh: A marsh periodically flooded by salt water.

                 Scour: Removal of underwater material by waves and currents, especially at the base or toe of a
                      shore structure.

                 Shoreline: The intersection of a specified plane of water with the shore or beach (e.g., the high
                      water shoreline would be the intersection of the plane of mean high water with shore or
                      beach). The line delineating.the shoreline on National Ocean Servvice nautical charts and
                      surveys approximates the mean high water line.



                                                                                                                     G-3









                   Sedimentation: The formation of earth, stones, and other matter deposited by water, wind, or
                        ice.


                   Slip: A berthing space for boats, between two piers.

                   Slope: The degree of inclination to the horizontal. Usually expressed as a ratio, such as 1:25 or 1
                        on 25, indicating I unit vertical rise in 25 units of horizontal distance, or in a decimal fraction
                        (0.04); degrees (2' 18'), or percent (4 percent).

                   Soil classification (size): An arbitrary division of a continuous scale of grain sizes such that
                        each scale unit or grade may serve as a convenient class interval for conducting the analysis or
                        for expressing the results of an analysis.

                   Species diversity: The variations between groups of related organisms that have certain
                        characteristics in common.

                   Stream: (1) A course of water flowing along a bed in the earth. (2) A current in the sea formed
                        by wind action, water density differences, etc.; e.g., the Gulf Stream. See also current,
                        stream.


                   Tidalperiod: The interval of time between two consecutive, like phases of the tide.

                   Tidal range: The difference in height between consecutive high and low (or higher high and
                        lower low) waters.

                   Tide: The periodic rising and falling of the water that results from gravitational attraction of the
                        Moon and Sun and other astronomical bodies acting upon the rotating Earth. Although the
                        accompanying horizontal movement of the water resulting from the same cause is also
                        sometimes called the tide, it is preferable to designate the latter as tidal current, reserving the
                        name tide for the vertical movement.

                   Topography: The configuration of a surface, including its relief and the positions of its streams,
                        roads, building, etc..

                   Upland. Ground elevated above the lowlands along rivers or between hills.

                   Vegetated buffer. Strips of vegetation separating a waterbody froma land use that could act as
                        a nonpoint pollution source. Vegetated buffers (or simply buffers) are variable in width and
                        can range in function from vegetated filter strips to wetlands or riparian areas.

                   Vegetated filter strip: Created areas of vegetation designed to remove sediment and other
                        pollutants from surface water runoff by filtration, deposition, infiltration, adsorption,
                        decomposition, and volatilization. A vegetated filter strip is an area that maintains soil aeration
                        as opposed to a wetland, which at times exhibits anaerobic soils conditions.



                                                                                                                        G-4









               Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a
                    frequency and duration to support, and the under normal circumstances do support, a
                    prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; wetlands
                    generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. (This definition is consistent
                    with the Federal definition at 40 CFR 230.3, promulgated December 24, 1980. As
                    amendments are made to the wetland definition, they will be considered applicable to this
                    guidance.)






               Note: Most of the definitions in this glossary were taken from the EPA document, Guidance Speciffing
                    Management Measures For Source of Nonpoint Pollution In Coastal Waters, published by the EPA Office of
                    Water, 1993.










































                                                                                                            G-5








  z
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
  I
                                                  BIBLIOGRAPHY
  I
  I
  I
  I










                BIBLIOGRAPHY


                Bryant, Tracey L., and Pennock, Jonathan R., eds. The Delaware Estuary: Rediscovering a
                    Forgotten Resource, Newark, Delaware, University of Delaware Sea Grant College Program,
                    1988.


                Bucks County Planning Commission, Planning Progress, Volume 121, Summer 1994.

                Bucks County Planning Commission, Bucks County Continuum.,. Doylestown, PA, County of
                    Bucks, 1994.

                Bucks County Planning Commission, Wetlands Regulation in Bucks County, Doylestown, PA,
                    County of Bucks, 1988.

                Center for Watershed Protection, Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. 1, No. 1, February 1994.

                Delaware Estuary Program, 1992 Delaware Estuary Program Annual Report, Philadelphia,
                    Pennsylvania Environmental Council and the Association of New Jersey Environmental
                    Commissions, 1993.

                Delaware Valley Regional Planning Conu-nission, Four Environmentally Significant Areas,
                    Philadelphia, 1976.

                Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, Federal Manual for Identifying and
                    Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, Washington, D.C., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil
                    Conservation Service (cooperative technical publication), 1989.

                Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc., Delaware Estuary Program Land Use Management Inventory and
                    Assessment (Draft Report), Philadelphia, Delaware Estuary Program, 1990.

                Hairston, Ann J., ed., Wetlands: An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland
                    Restoration and Creation, Washington, D.C., Island Press, 1992.

                Horsley and Witten, Inc., Coastal Protection Program: Workshops in Innovative Management
                    Techniques for Estuaries, Wetlands, and Near Coastal Waters, Washington, D.C., U.S.
                    Environmental Protection Agency, undated.

                Kuo, Chin Y., ed., Stormwater Runoff and Quality Management, University Park, PA, Penn
                    State University, 1994.

                Kusler, Jon A., and Kentula, Mary E., ed., Wetland Creation and Resoration: The Status of the
                    Science, Washington, D.C., Island Press, 1990.




                                                                                                           B-1









                Lauff, George H., ed., Estuaries, Washington D.C., American Association for the Advancement
                    of Science, 1968.

                National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Coastal Zone
                    Management Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Washington, D.C., U.S
                    Department of Commerce, 1980.

                Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management
                    Program, Harrisburg, PA, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1980.

                Rhoads, Ann F., and Klein, William McKinley, Jr., The Vascular Flora of Pennsylvania:
                    Annotated Checklist and Atlas, Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society, 1993.

                Shertzer, Richard H., ed., Special Protection Waters Implementation Handbook, Harrisburg, PA,
                    Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 1992.

                United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance Specifying Management Measures For
                    Source of Nonpoint Pollution In Coastal Waters, Washington, D.C., U.S. EPA Office of
                    Water, EPA-840-B-92-002, 1993.

































                                                                                                           B-2







                                                                                                                                   NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                                   3 6668 14112016 4