[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 � 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. � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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. � 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) � Wetland has significant, healthy understory Other vegetation consists of beech and cherry. � 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 � PNDI indicates there are protected species within this site. � The area is posted as "No Hunting" and as a preservation and study area by the County of Bucks. � Large industrial zoned parcels for sale abutting the site. Some trucking operations were evident on the day of observation. � Looks very healthy. Vegetation is full, and there seems to be a great deal of species diversity in the interior of the wetland. � 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 � 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 � 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 � 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. � 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. � 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 � Detention and retention basins on site. � Northbrook Drive/Old Lincoln ffighway abutting Neshaminy Mall property. � 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 � Basin in industrial park � Question arose as to vegetation planted in basin, although well maintained. � Composed of dogwoods & oaks, relatively young (5 yrs.?) and healthy. � Question whether they should be planted on actual basin side slopes. 78. Pearl Buck & Bartram Rd., Bensalem Township.: Detention Basin � Basin located on comer of streets. � 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: � 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. � 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. � 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 � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 � 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. � 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- � This technique uses a porous asphalt system in conjunction with underground infiltration beds. � 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. � Observation well into the underground recharge beds allows evaluation of drainage during maintenance inspections. � 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. � 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. � Predator fish species can be used to control mosquitoes. Artificial Wetlands- � 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. � 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- � 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. � 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 � 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. � 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.. � 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 � Require minimal land area o Only feasible for areas that are � 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: � 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 � Reduce post development loading of TSS so that the average annual TSS loading are no greater than pre development loading. I � 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 � 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 � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 � Watershed protection is a technique to provide long-term water quality benefits. � 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. � Produces long-term water quality benefits and lacks the high operation and maintenance costs associated with structural controls. � 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 � 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. � 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: � Improper storage, use and disposal of household hazardous chemicals, including; auto fluids, pesticides, paints, solvents etc. � Lawn and garden activities, including the application and disposal of lawn care products, and leaves and yard trimmings. � Turf management on golf courses, parks and recreational areas. � Improper operation and maintenance of on-site disposal systems. � Discharge of pollutants into storm drains. � Commercial activities including parking lots, gas stations, and others not required to use the NPDES permitting system. � 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 � Many states are currently using a combination of methods to change the behavior of the community with resulting reductions in nonpoint source pollutants. � 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 � 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. � 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. � 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 � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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: � Protect areas that provide important water quality benefits or are particularly susceptible to erosion. � Limit land disturbance such as clearing and grading, and cut and fill to reduce erosion and sedimentation. � 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 � Coordination Between Agencies Coordinate with FHWA, USCG, COE and other appropriate state and federal agencies. � Review Appropriate Acts and Legislation Review the National Environment;a policy Act requirements to ensure that environmental concerns are met � Site Structures Wisely Avoid highway locations requiring numerous water crossings, or sensitive environmental systems. � 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. � 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 � 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. � Pesticides, Herbicides and Nutrients Management Establish programs delineating appropriate management of pesticides and herbicides and nutrients. � 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. � Road Debris Periodic collection and removal of road debris will reduce the opportunity for pollutants to enter the waterway. � 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. � Snow Removal Every effort should be made to prevent or discourage dumping accumulated snow into surface waters during removal or plowing operations. � 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. � 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. � 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 � Studies have shown that adequate flushing greatly reduces or eliminates potential for stagnation of water in the marina. � Helps maintain biological productivity and aesthetics. c Recommended Actions and Practices � 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. � 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. � 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. � 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 � Reduced contamination of waters by bacteria, viruses and heavy metals. � 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