ML19347F576
| ML19347F576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1980 |
| From: | DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105200149 | |
| Download: ML19347F576 (200) | |
Text
S Occ of f No S.
fp 15"'Z-fo' %*3 4
SfSO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT For The NESHAMINY WATER SUPPLY SYSTD1 I '#
qs ,s Project Sponsored By The d pF t j
N Ji .,; h Neshaminy Water Resources AuthorD,y f 7,gyy3 ,
! And The 'A "'" W,'"ma !
. 9 Philadelphia Electric Ccmpany h N
l Prepared By The DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION
.a
. August 1980 th
!8105200/N! b ,
- , , ~ . - -
t CONTENTS PART I. PERSFECTIVE PART II. SU21ARY AND CONCLUSIONS PART III. ENVIRON 5 ENTAL ASSESS 5ENT OF FEBRUARY 15, 1980 A. North Branch Water Treatnent Plant B. Related Components PART IV.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED IN LETTERS RECEIVED CONCERNING THE ENVIRON > ENTAL ASSESSFENT OF FEBRUARY 15, 1980 A. Introduction B. Nature of Comments Received C. Scope of the Environmental Assessment D. Updating of Analysis in 1975 EIS E. Responses to Environmental Issues Raised in Letters Received by DRBC PART V. AFPENDIXES ,
A. Summary of Public Comments l B. Refere _es for Revised Environmental Assessment I
C. Consumptive Use Data for Electric Generating Stations in the Delaware River Basin l -
D. Pertinent Data for Neshaminy Water Supply l System Components, 1979 l
- . _ E. Water Quality Factors Associated with the Point Picasant Diversion F. Agencies Consulted ,
G. Public Objectors H. Preparers I. Letter from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 3 O
ew a
. ...L -
-.ew- . . ,
, p - w _,.--a
0 5
PART I.
s PERSPEC"IVE
. ~
e
~
b m
,* e ~
e A
a l
r b-r
- a i
I e
W t
S
' . M h
PART !. PERSPECTIVE
~
The North Branch Water Treatment Plant (NBWTP) is a component e.! the planned Neshaminy Water Supply Systam (NWSS), sponsored by the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority (NWRA), which is to provide supple-mental water supply for Central Bucks and Montgomery Counties in Penn-sylvania. The Point Pleassat pumping facilities would withdraw water from
' ~
the Delaware River to supply the NWSS and, in ' addition, supply water for cooling the already approved and under construction Limerick electric t
generating station as sponsored by the Philadelphia Electric Company. ,
This document represents an environmental appraisal of. the North Branch Water Treatment Plant and a reappraisal of the related com-ponents of the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan.
4 Final Environmental Impact Statements were previously prepared on:
, . 1. " Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, Bucks and Montgomery Ccunties" by the Delaware River Basin Commission (DR3C) in February 1973;
- 2. " Limerick G uerating Station, Units 1 and 2" by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in
- Noved er 1973; and
- 3. "Meshaminy Creek Watershed" by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
]
Service, in April 1976.
The 3.8 applicant for the Point Pl.tasant Pumping Station, the
. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority, prepared an updated environmental 6
l report on the Neshaminy Water Supply System in February 1979. (A "3.8 ,
a 9~ _
I-1 l
application" refers to Section 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compact which is the rchtral and review process utilized by the DRBC in approving projects which have a substantial effect :m the water resources of the basin.)
The L'RA held a public hearing on that environmental report on May 30,1979. The L'RA further prepared " Responses to Significant Concerns At and Atter Public Hearing of Environmental Report" on August 28, 1979.
In February of 1980, the DRBC prepared an environmental assessment of the Point Pleasant project and its related co=ponents , and the Enecutive Director published his " Notice of Intent" to declare a negative declaratien on the p;oject, based upon that updated environmental appraisal. That appraisal included a review of many document:, twenty-four (24) of which were written subsequent to the last of the three Final Environmental Impact State =ents (1976) .
The public notice on the Executive Director's intent t.o =ake a negative declaration on the environmental appraisal requested objections to the issuance of such negative declaration by March 12, 1980. Approx-imately 400 letters raising objections to the project were received, with l -
many of them submitted as signed form letters. Proponents of the project i
l or its elements were not heard from because the notice of intent to issue r .
a negative declaration did not call for their remarks. As a matter of c.
fact, all persons interested in the project -- whether for or against -
- will have an opportunity to be heard at an official DRBC public hearing under our Rules of Practice and Procedure which relate to project approval under Section 3.8 of the Compact. 5
- . I-2
The following document represents a thorough response to issues raised by the public since the notice of intent to issue ~a negative declaration was made on February 15, 1980. The central question is '
have significant adverse environmental impcets been discovered since preparation of the previous three environmental impact statements which would constitute grounds for preparing another environmental impact statement?
, In tb t alternative,- is the comprehensive appraisal of this project.
conducted thre agh the previous three environmental i= pact statements, and as supplemented by subsequent reports and assessments, coupled with DR3C's own 3.8 hearing, sufficient to comply with NEPA?
-m 9%
=
Ne I ?
6..
t'*
+.6 6
de m
e
.- I-3 e =-,- P r y-- -y*--ey ---w -
w-*r - - -e -
pe d'
PART II.
1 9
g
- e .
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS e
t, j
E W s .
- S g D g
,r ,
.~-.- .
,a -t'*,',, ..v-
? ~~~.,,.- ;
r ..- - ..
a
- 3. . . .
g ~ +- e y
4 #
6, . * ,
P'W g
- O av Q
, t .
L . .
he 4 l
~
T
- r h4 f
-T ~
~ .
==
. t
[ .
1 4
I b I d t L. *
~
l l
e-e- . -e. ,._ .
~~
PART II.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS
. A. HISTORY AND STATUS OF THE POINT PLEASANT PROJECT AND REIATED ELEMENTS
- 1. Elements of the Overall Point Pleasant Proiecr.
~
The overall Point Pleasant project censists of the following major facilities: (See Figure II-1)
(1) Point Pleasant Pumping Station and Delaware River
. Intake Facilities (Joint)
(2) Combined transmission line from Point Pleasant to Bradshaw (Joint)
~
(3) Bradshaw Reservoir (Joint)
~
(4) Bradshav to North Branch Neshaminy Transmission Line and
, Release Facilities (NWRA)
. . . (5) Lake Galena Reservoir (Pa. 617) (%'RA)
(6) North Branch Water Treatment Plant, North Branch and Pine Run (%'RA)
(7) Western and Southern Transmission Mains for Treated Water (%'RA)
(8) Bradshaw to Perkiomen Transmission Main and Release Facilities (PECO)
Those facilities designated as "(Joint)" in che above list would serve both the proposed Bucks -Montgomery County public water supply system and the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station water supply system. Those referenced as
~
"(PECO)" would serve the Limerick plant, while "(%'RA)" facilities relate solely l to elements associated with public water supply operations.
In addition to these elements of the Point Pleasant project, other
- facilities peripherally relate to the project and have been considered to the
~
extent necessary to make a proper decision on the Point Pleasant project. Among
~
those peripherally related facilities are: (a) the existing Pine Run Reservoir (Pa. 616), a flood control facility operated by E'RA; (b) the existing Core Creek Reservoir (Pa. 620), a multipurpose project operated by E'RA; (c) the 5
- previously proposed Yardley Pumping Station for diversion from the Delaware to .
V we l ._- II-1
' i ,
I. . J i! I i l i I : [
. i 1 i . . . . , ,
Figure No. 11-1 NESHAMINY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM i
\ % 'N E W JERSEY f
N, I
\ PERKIOMEN BRADSHAW POINT PLEASANT NN TRANSMISSION mar 4 RESERVOIR AND PUJP STATION PUMP STATIOtt N Otg \
Og DQQgggg
- P F g 6* COM0fflED o s NORTil DRANChi 7p TRANSMISSIOtt MAIN $
\ TRANSMISSION mar 4 d-N /
'\ A LAKE GALENA gt. 9- 4,,
g 6 N A e- 9 a PENNSYLV ANI A H \ +- '
b NORTil BRANCll --
Doylestown
, WATER TREATMENT PLANT i s Q -..
s
- 0 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CO. M %* b#
TRAf4SMISSIOtt MAIN WESTERN \
p [ TRANSMISSICN Malt 4 OccoOW N C sOurittRN TRAt4SMISSIOil MAIN C,
p ELECTRIO CO. $ \
LIMERICK NUCLSAR PUMPir4G STATIOt1
{*
g N
! GEllEHATitlG STATIOta s \ s 4,, Q %
s
~
g g, 4 a 2 i o scale in miles 4
s amt x
, . . . e.
~
Core Creek; (.d) intake facilities on the Perkiomen near Graterford for Limerick; (e) the Schuylkill R$ver diversion facilities for Limerick operated by P:'C0; and (f) the proposed Merrill Creek Reservoir, to be operated by a gro>e of electric utilities, which would serve a total of 19 electric plants in the Delaware River Basin.
To place the current environmental assessment process in context, the next several sections will review the history of prior actions and approvals taken on the public water supply and Limerick water supply aspects, as well as joint elements, of the Point Pleasant project.
- 2. Historv of Action on the Neshaminy Water Sunoly Project and Neshaminv Work Plan. _
The basic Point Pleasant-Neshaminy Water Supply Project resulted from the 1966 Water Resources Studv - Neshaminv Creek Basin, Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Water Resources Bulletin No. 2), a joint report prepared by the Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters (now Department of Environmental Resources),
the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Bucks and Montgomery Counties. The report (Exhibit No. 1)* proposed the construction of eight single-purpose flood. control reservoirs and two multipurpose reservoirs ,
together with pumping facilitics at Point Pleasant and Yardley on the Delaware River. hse facilities were projected to provide required supplementary surface water supplies for portions of Central Bucks and Montgomery County areas
" (Exhibit No. 2f. The supplementary surface water supplies for the Neshaminy Basin area were to be impo%d via the North Branch of Neshaminy Creek and Lake Galena and from below Lake Galena on the Neshaminy to a "taking point" Giorth
- 9 Branch Water Treatment Plant) to be located in or near the Borough of Chalfont,
-- Bucks County, for treatment and distribution.
The fundamental watershed project for Neshaminy Creek was approved by
~
the Delaware River Basin Comistion and added to the Delaware Ri.er Basin
~
~
- Found in 3ulictin No.2 ;
II-3
_m
__r U Comprehensive Plan on October 26, 1966, in Docket No. D-65-76 CP, Neshaminy Creek Watershed Proiece, Bucks and Nontgomery Counties, Penna. This decision was supplemented by DRSC Docket No. D-65-76 CP(2), Bucks and Mentco: erv County 4
Commissioners, Neshaminv Creek Watershed Proiect, Bucks and Montgomerv Counties, Penna., approved Januar/ 25, 1967. The supplemental docket added the entire multipurpose project as described in the 1966 Water Resources Study, to the DRBC Comprehensive Plan.
In 1970, Bucks County prepared and submitted the Feasibility Study of Delaware River Pumning Facilities at Pofnt Pleasant, Pennsylvania, which assessed the proposed design of the Point Pleasant diversion facilities to provide public water supply in Bucks and Montgomery Counties, together with water quality aug-mentation for the Neshaminy Creek.
The Pennsylvania Water and Power Resources Board, on December 8, 1970, issued to Bucks County Water A11ocstion Permit No. WA-649, authorizing the withdrawal of Delaware River water for public water supply in the following amounts:
To TO To 1980 1990 1995 Average withdrawal, MGD 5 15 35 Maxi =um withdrawal, MGD 35 60 75 l The permit recognized that the county had plans to pump additional quantities of l
water from the Delaware River at Point Pleasant for water quality augmentation
. in the Neshaniny Creek watershed and for industrial water supply in Montgomery County via Perkiomen Creek.
~
On March 17, 1971, DREC approved Docket No. D-65-76 CP(3), Comissic: ers of Bucks County, Point Pleasant Punninn Station, Bucks County, Pennsvivania.
This docket added the proposed project to DRSC's Comprehensive Plan but deferred a
._ approval pursuant to Section 3.8 of the Compact until submission of final plans. ;
5 1
11-4
The facilities included were a pumping station at Point Pleasant with the capacity and layout to handle all the required pumpage of the Delaware River water ,
to the Neshaminy Basin, plus the proposed pumpage into the Perkiomen Creek Basin.
A 66-inch transmission main, consisting of 14,000 feet of concrete pressure pipe and 5,300 feet of concrete culvert pipe, would convey the total pumpage from the Point Pleasant Station to the terminus of this main, near Bradshaw Road, where the pumpage would be divided. The Neshaminy pumpage would flow by gravity through a 60-inch concrete culvert into the North Branch end on to Reservoir PA 617.
The Perkiomen pumpage would flow into a 35 mg open-storage reservoir, from where it would be pumped by metus of a 46 mgd capacity station thro.sgh 30,300 feet of 42-inch concrete pressure pipe to the start of dae'Perkiomen satershed, from which point the pumpage would flow by gravity in 6,300 feet of 36-inch concrete culvert pipe to the East Branch of Perkiomen Creek.
As part of the 1971 docket review, DRBC prepared and processed an
, environmental statement for the project in accordance with the National Environ-I mental Policy Act, entitled " Final Statement - Environmental Impact of the Procosed Pt. Pleasant Diversion Plan, Bucks and Montcomerv Counties, Pennsv1vania."
In February 1973, DRBC prepared and' submitted to the Council on Envir-onmental Quality (CEQ) an expanded Final Environmental Impact Statement en the i
- Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, Bucks and Montgomerv Counties, Pennsvivania.
" The Final EIS concluded that the proposed project would be beneficial to the Neshaminy and Perkiomen watersheds and not detrimental to the Delaware River l
provided that specific, listed mitigating measures were observed.
4, q, Meanwhile, due to the dynamic changes in growth patterns in Montgomery and Buck Counties during the late sixties and continuing into the seventies, w
there was continued adjustment of the projected population to be served by the l
'P proposed public water supply facilities. The population projections and pre- 6 dicted supplementary surface water requirements of the Central Bucks County ,,
i II-5
Service Area were updated in 1972, by a report entitled liaster Plan for Water Supply - Bucks County, Pennsylvania - 1970. In 1975, further population pro-jection adjustments were made resulting in amendments to the 1970 Master Plan for Water Supply. The adjustments were not of such magnitude to require change in t'.e design capacities of the proposed plant. The final design of the plant started in 1975.
In early 1976, it was deemed necessary to review once again the pro-jected population and resulting water needs. As a result, the -inal design of the treatment plant was halted to permit the completion of this review. During the period throughout 1976 and inte early 1977, three additional studies of the Service Area ware completed: The Central Bucks County Water Sucoly Study; the
,, Water Supply -Study for Montgomerv County; and tbs Interim Projections Report for ,
Bucks, Chester. Delaware, Montgomerv, Philadelchia Counties, Pennsylvania. Based on these studies, the design capacity of the treatment plant was selected to remain at 20 mgd for the initial installation; however, the ultimate capacity was reduced from 80 to 40 mgd to meet the supplemental water needs of the
,_ service area.
In September of 1978, the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority filed
~
with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources a water allocation permit application for the down-sized public water supply project. After an extensien evaluation, summarized in the 2eport on the Application of the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority for Water Allocation from Pine Run, North i . - -
Branch Neshaminy Creek, and Delaware River, on November 1,1978, PaDER announced its approval of Water Allocation Permit No. 0978601, which supercedes and replaces the permit No. WA-649 previously issued on December 8,1970, by the Pennsylvania Water and Power Resources Board.
o II-6 -
-n~- - - _ . . _ _ _ ._-- - - _ - - - - - ----x
None of the actions previously taken by DRSC regarding the water supply aspects of this project has been appea'.ed. To date, no appeals have been filed to the decisions of any other state or federal agency involved vith this project !
challenging the adequacy of environmental assessments of the water supply project,
~
although numerous opportunities for such appeals and challenges were provided over the 14 years this project has been under consideration.
- 3. History of Actions Related to the Limerick Nucicar Generating Station _
k'ater Suopiv Elements.
In addition to providing treated water supply to Central Bucks and Mcntgomery Counties, the proposed Point Pleasant project will withdraw Delaware River water for transfer via Perkiomen Creek to be used by the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) for cooling purpcses at its Limerick Electric Generating Station located along the Schuylkill River near Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
DRBC Docket No. D-65-76 CP(3), dated March 17,1971 (referenced above),
added the Perkiomen transfer element for L1=erick to the overall Foint Pleasant-Neshaminy project. As noted above, a Final Environmental Imoact Statement on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, covering botn the public water supply and Limerick transfers, was prepared by CR3C and filed with the Council on Environ-mental Quality in February 1973. The Final EIS of 1973, af ter censidering varicus alternatives, concluded that a withdrawal from the Calaware River,
~
subject to certain conditions, was necessary and proper to meet cooling watar needs for the Limerick Station, and that such a withdrawal, if operated within the stated limitations, would not have a significant adverse effect on the environ =ent.
The DRBC approved Docket No. D-69-210 CP, Philadelphia Electric
~
Cccoanv, Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, Limuryck Tcunship. Mcntgomerv Countv, Fannsvivania, on March 29, 1973. This docket decision conditionally e approved the unter supply features of the project, subject to a specific list i
~~
II-7
- + - - e- - ,
,--,,,--y
,- p-- w -
of conditions, particularly conditions relating s linics on diversions from the Schuylkill, Perkiomen and Delaware during low flow periods. One of the conditions for such withdrawal was that the DRBC, at its sole discretion, would determine the adequacy of storage capacity in the basin necessary to provide sufficient water to meet PECO's consumptive water use at Limerick and to - tain a 3,000 cfs flow in the Delaware River at the Trenton gauge.
Approval of the water supply elements was based, at least in part, upon the previously app oved Final EIS on the Point Pleasant project. However, DREC deferred a final decision on the Limerick Station per se, until completion of a Final EIS by the .'.tomic Energy Cet: mission (AEC) on the nuclear power plant and related facilities.
Subsequently, in November 1973, the U.S. Atomic Energy Co= mission's Directorate of Licensing completed the Final Environmental Statement related to the Pronosed Licerick Ganerating Station, Units 1 and 2, Philadelchia Electric Cruipany.
d Based on this EIS, the previous EIS prepared by DRBC, and the recced compiled at hearings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the Appeal Board of the Nuclear Regulatory Cotzmission (NRC) issued to Philadelphia
- Electric Ccmpany construction permits for the Limerick plant in March 1975, an extensive (96 pages) decision was rendered by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. In the Matter of Philadelchia Electric Cemenny (Limerick Cenerating Station, Gaits ! & 2) _D_ocket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 (March 19,1975) , that decision addressed specifically numerous contentions made by intervenors in the AEC/NRC proceedings concerning the adequacy of l the Final EIS prepared in 1973 by the Atomic Energy Commission.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's decision, and NRC's issuance of construction permits for Limerick, were appealed to the Third 9"*,
Circuit Federal Court of Appeals by t'.te project's opponents. The appellants
, a
,-g **
l ~
II-8
~~
, challenged the adequacy of the environmental impact statements relied on by the NRC, both the EIS prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission and that pre-pared by DRBC in February 1973. In particular, appellants charged that the previous environmental impact statements had not properly assessed the impacts
~
of water supply elements of the Limerick project, including the Poni t Pleasant
, diversion.
Rased on the AEC's Final EIS and DRBC's own EIS of 1973, DRBC issued notice of intention to act upon Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Supplement No.1) in July 1974. Proceedings to amend the Commi.2sion's earlier decisi n en the Limerick Station, however, were deferred whf te objections filed by the Environ-mental Coalition for Nuclear Power were heard by a hearing officer appointed by 4
DRBC. Following an adversary hearing before Judge Sidney Goldmann, the hearing officer submitted his report and conclusions on July 21, 1975. Oral argument by counsel for the applicant, for the objecto .s and applicant was heard by the full Commission in August 1975.
In November 1975, DRBC proceeded with final action on the docket con-cernh g construction of Limerick and related water supply facilities. Docket No. D-69-210 CP (final) , Philadelnhia Electric Cormany, Limerick Nuclear Cenerating Station, Limerick "ownshio, Montacmerv County , Pennsvivania, issued _
November 5,1975, included the Limerich project in the DRBC Comprehensive Plan.
~
The docket further gave 3.8 approval to construction of the Limerick Station, together with the Schuylkill River and Perkiomen Creek intake and diversion structures. The final docket imposed a series of conditions limiting tha diversions and requiring specific measures to mitigate potential environmental impacts. Condition (c.) required:
i ,
s 1
t II-9 ~
d
-, -- +- e~-- , e- s-- - , - , ,&- ,e e- ,
e ------.e.------, - , ----m. -v a -,r r + r - - - - - - - , , , 4 --- - -, ----
I "If...the storage will not be adequate for all protected needs of the Basin, the applicant will build er cause to be built, at its own expense, at a location approved by the Commission, a reservoir of sufficient storage capacity to assure the water supply needed for consumptive use by the Limerick plant, during periods when such use would reduce the flow in the Delaware River at the Trenton gage below 3,000 cfs. Storage and release of water in such facility will be under the Commission's regulation, at the expense of the applicant."
This DRBC docket decision was filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals prior to its decision on the then pending appeals of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's action.
The Third Circuit's decision en the NRC appeals was rendered in Environmen;tl Coalition of Nuclear Power, Limerick Ecology Action, and Delaware Valley Ccemittee for Protection of the Environment v,. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Philadelehia Electric Comoany, No. 75-1421
- ~
(November 12, 1975). The Court of Appeals rejected the challenges to
, the envircamental impact statement-3 and, in essence, found the previous I
environmental assessments prepared by DR3C and the NRC adequate to satisfy the purposes of NEPA. The Third Circuit's decision and order were not appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
A year later, on September 30, 1976, DRBC adopted Resolurion No. 76-13, concerning provision of supplementary water supply storage for certain power
~
projects, including both the Limerick and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations.
, The Commission exercised its authority under conditions set forth in earlier DRBC approval of Docket Nos. D-69-210 CP (Limerick) and D-73-193 CP (Hope Creek),
and ordered the invcived utility companies "to proceed to develop, or cause to be develcped, an application under Section 3.8 of the Compact, supported by an
, environmental report in compliance with the Commission's rules and regolations, I for the construction of the required supplement storage." The resolution l
-. further required that the application and accompanying environmental report be .
! ,' II-10
._ .- . =: . -
i submitted by October 1,1977.
The actions of the DRBC, the Atomic Energy Comission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Third Circuit Court of Appeals , cited above, established the right of PECO to draw water from the Delaware for consumptive use at Limerick. As a result, unless there has been a significant change in the plan for the water supply elements of the Limerick project or their i= pacts, the DRBC has no basis to conduct a d_e, novo review of these elements.
- 4. Historv gf_ Actions on the Comblyf d Project.
lhe Delaware River Basin Commission received an application from the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority on July 5,1979, requesting Section 3.8 review and approval for construction of the Point Pleasant Pumping St: tion, the co=bined trant. mission line to Bradshaw Reservoir, the Ncrth Branch Neshaminy transmission main, the North Eranch water treatment plant (Chalfont),
the western transmission main, and the southern transmission main. As stat.ed previously, the plan to provide needed supplemental water to Bucks and Mont-gomery Counties had already been approved by the DRBC and placed in its i
l Comprehensive Plan.
The Philadelphia Electric Company applied to DRBC, under Section 3.8 l of the Compact, on August 2,1979, to construct the remaining portions of its previously approved plan to utilize Delaware River water for the Limerick plant when necessary and allowable. The remaining parts of the Li=erick water supply l . element are the Bradshaw Reservoir and the transmission facilities to the East Branch. of the Perkiomen Creek.
Hoth applicants included updated environmental reports on the con-struction aspects of these water supply elements of the overall Point Pleasant i
project. The DRBC environmental review staff reviewed these documents plus I -
, additional documents ger=ane to the project since the DRBC Final Environmental eq
~
' 11-11
-e. a sa-.
>% a *hW -.Wew q 4 e.+ mee7' --w. +--i-
~
Impact Statement on Point Pleasant prepared in 1973. The additional or nev information documents number over twenty (20) . The DRBC prepared an environ-mental assessment of the construction aspects of the Point Pleasant project and an updated environmental appraisal of the overall Point Pleasant project in February 1980$ with the Executi'- Director's public notice of intent to issue a " negative declaration" under the NEPA requirements.
Public and agency comments received subsequent to the notice of intent for " negative declaration" are considered in this document.
- 5. Current Status of the Point Pleasant Project Elements.
The Neshaminy Water Resources Authority, based upon the DRBC Compre-hensive Plan approval of Delaware River water supply for Bucks and Montgomery Counties, sold a bond issue of about $10,000,000 in MLrch 1973, for the purpose
.f constructing the necessarr water supply facilities for their portion of the Point Pleasant project.
l' The Philadelphia Electric Company has proceeded to construct the l
~
Limerick Generating Station and appurtenances based upon the DRBC Comprehensive l
l i
Plan approval to take water from the Schuylkill River, Perkiomen Creek and the l i I .
Delaware River, when necessary; DRBC 3.8 approval to construct intakes in the
! Schuylkill River and Perkiomen Creek; State of Pennsylvania approsals; and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's construction licensing apprcval which was l
validated by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Philadc1phia Electric Company
. is well isto the construction phase of the project and has committed about
$1.5 billion.
- 6. Status of Other Pericherally Related Projects.
L.
The existing Pine Run Reservoir (Pa. 616), owned and operated by the N71A, nas been constructed and serves as a flood control reservoir as well
\ --
as a natural water supply source to serve the proposed Chalfont water treat-
-- ment plant. .
D *Part III of this revised EA.
II-12
The existing Core Creek Reservoir (Lake Luxembourg) (Pa. 620) is 3 yet another NWRA reservoir which was constructed for the purpose of flood control, water supply storage and recreation (Core Creek Park) . Water supply aspects have been abandoned since interconnection with the Philadelphia system for Lower Bucks County. Future plans of the NWRA are to consider pumping a maximum of 5 mgd from the Delaware at the proposed Yardley Pumping Station to provide adequat: flow through the Core Creek facility in Lower Bucks County I
to enhance recreational use of Luxembourg Lake and the surrounding park. In the two years the lake has been utilized and stocked by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, make-up flows from the Delaware have not been deemed necessary.
Except for minor evaporative losse , if the 5 mgd was ever diverted from the Delaware to Core Creek for fish. wildlife and recreation enhancement it would still flow into the Neshaminy and hecce to the Delaware for salinity control.
The PECO intake facility on the Schuylkill River to provide cooling
. ireter for the Limerick facilities is under construction based upon earlier Pennsylvania, Federal and DRBC approvals. The intake facility on the Pc kiomen
! ~~
near Graterford to serve Limerick has already received DRBC, State and Federal approval.
Status of the proposed Morrill Creek project is covered in item (C.)
a' t W Part II.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC AND INTERESTED AGENCIES Fourteen environmental impact issues were stressed by the public and l .
interest 5d agencies in their .omments to the DRBC as a result of the Executive
- Director's notice of intent to issue a negative declaration, based upon the DRBC's environmental assessment of February 15, 1980. Six procedural issues were raised.
i l The environmental issues related to:
- l. Low water in the Delaware Ri*:er.
- 2. Need for additional reservoirs, -
.n_. .e -m--es- - NY 1O - u = * ~ *-~w * * - - * - - ~ ~ - **^ *
- 3. Impacts on aquatic biota.
. 4. Water quality.
- 5. Flood, erosion and sediiaentation impacts.
- 6. Growth inducement.
- 7. Aesthetic. isyacts.
- 8. Archeological and historical concerns.
- 9. Rock blasting impacts.
- 10. Emergency services.
-~
- 11. Conservation.
- 12. Alternatives.
- 13. Financial.
- 14. Water for Limerick Generating Station.
The environmental issues raised by the public were generally covered in DRBC's Fcbruary 15th assessment, but have been elaborated upon in.Section IV of this document. .
_. C. PROCEDURAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE PUBLIC The six procedural issues stressed by the public subsequent to the Executive Director's notice of intent to issue a negative declaration on February 15, 1930, were:
l
- 1. Public needs additional information on the Point l
Pleasant project and its related components.
- 2. DRBC's action on the Point Pleasant project should await completion of other studies being conducted
by DRBC.
, 3. DRBC has a conflict of interest because it receives
_ money for water old.
- r. 4. A new EIS should be prepared on the Point Pleasant project and its related components. -
II-14
-+-w -
- p' g--=--e ve--* -m s- - * -we e!er9w g--+=--ww==e--===-w'-uu!tmgw-- me va Og+v--g-- .g.pr=ge' --y -ww-w*wwe'w'--n-e-t t-w-w-- ---+--- y w -' ve e--4 g- w w e -- " ' "+ e-
~ -_ - .- .. _ __
- 5. - The eew EIS should be prepared by another agency.
. 6. A new EIS should have an enlarged scope to include the Limerick Kuclear Cenerating Station and the Merrill Creek project.
As to the public nee. ding additional information on the Point Pleasant project and its related components, the DRSC mailed to each individual who offered comments by March 12, 1980, a copy of the environmental assessment of February 15, 1980. The DREC has maintained a policy of allowing interested persons to review reference documents at its offices or providing, at basic cost to reproduce, copies of materials referenced in the environmental assessment of February 15, 1980. Further, DR3C, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Soil Conservr. tion Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, followed required-public notice /public hearing provisions in the praparation and completion of
- their environmental impact statements completed in 1973,1973 and 1976, respec-tively. Also, the DRBC followed public notice /public hearing regulations on i .
its docket decisions which placed the Point Pleasant Pumping Station and its related components into the DRBC Comprehensive Plan. The public has had coa-tinuous access to information concerning this project through DR3C's offices.
Further, the applicant, Neshaminy Water Resources Authority, prepared an updated l environmental report on the project, held public hearings and printed its recponse to the public hearings in the summer of 1979.
This document, entitled Final Environmental Assessment of-the Point L Pleasant Project and its Related Components, is a ecmprehensive appraisal of I r the Neshaminy Water Resources Treatment Plant and appurtenances and a compre-b hensive reappraisal of the Point Pleasant project v.d its other related components. And, fi. tally, the public will have an opportunity to ecscent on all aspects -of the project, whether they are for or against it, during the DR3C a
- l. public hearing to be held under Section 3.8 of the Compact.
D
, II-15
--.w-- 9 +W-- 9 -- -%& a eg- 12--==tw 7 ty = =g-- %w yg g_-g-w,- rwe -ye. ge-N-4 W e # r---= ww++ --w f-v Dgme *mem B"*" *- -
"T"'""
Should DRBC's action on the Point Pleasant project await completion
. of other studies being conducted by DRBC? Other studies and planning pro-cedures presently under way by DR3C, such as the " good faith negotiations on the Supreme Court decree of 1954, the Level B Study Report, and the en-vironmental impact statement presently under way for the Merrill Creek project, have been cited as 1 a portant elements for the Point Pleasant project consideration.
As to the Herrill Creek project, it is peripherally related to the Point Pleasant project only if the Merrill Creek project is approved by the Commission and releases from that proposed reservoir would be made to augment Delaware River flows to meet diversion requirements to serve Limerick as well as many other power plants in the basin. However, utilization of Delaware River water by the Limerick Generating Station has not been preconditioned with con-struction of the ne apparently defunct Tocks Island project nor construction of the Merrill Creek project or any other project in the basin. The Philade'.phia
~
i Electric Company has agreed that they will not take water from the Delaware fiver
=,
should it cause the flow at Trenton to fall below 3,000 cubic feet per second ,
!, unless releases are made from a non-mainstem reservoir to be constructed in the m future at Merrill Creek or some other possible project site by a concertium of electric utilities in the basin.
Water resource management policy assumptions presently contained in DRSC's Comprehensive Plan and validated as the preferred plan in the Draft i
Pinal Level 3 Study Report, are consistent with the water withdrawals as con-
_, templated at the Point Pleasant Punping Station for use by the Limerich
Generating Station and water supply needs of Bucks and Montgomery Counties.
~
The " good faith" negotiations process to the 1954 Supreme Court decree, an m
effort to redefine the rights and responsibilities of the five parties bcsed upon current hydrologic information, is utilizing the same growth and water
_. usa assumptions utilized in the Level 3 Study process. .
a
~
11-15
+*---4----m -+ -y -w-- -- 4 - g-mp , - -y v r+
Does DR3C have a conflict of interest because it receives money for water sold?
The DRSC is not the sponsor of the Point Pleasant project. It is reacting to water supply needs as highlighted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resourcet, NWRA, tha two county governments, plus the Philadelphia Electric Company. It is true that any new surface water user i must pay to DR3C a nominal fee for the utilisation of surface water.
However, DR3C does not profit on such sale of water nor does it utilize such revenues to increase its staff over the one man-year necessary to operate its surface water sales program. Revenues o'otained by DR$C from the sale of surface water to new users are placed in a fund from which monic.s are taken to repay the Federal Government for the construction of water supply ccm-ponents of the Belt:ville and Blue Marsh reservoirs. Revenues are also appropriated by New Jersey and Pennsylvania to mintain DR3C's payback fund j to the Fed. tral Govern =ent.
Items 4, 5 and 6 mentioned above, concerning a new environmental impact statement, shall be considered together:
First, opponents to the project claim that any new envircnmental i
impact statement should have an enlarged secpe to include Li=erick and i
Merrill Creek projects. It should be pointed out that an environmental impact l
statement has already been prepared on the Limerick project and has weathered
, the federal appellate court level test as to its adequacy. It should be l
i I
further pointed out that a complete environmental impact statement is in the i
process of being completed for the Merrill Creek project - which addresses alternatives to that project.
I l -
II-17
As to whether or not a new environmental impact statement should be prepared for this project by DRBC, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is, of course, the central procedural question of this overall document. It is believed that EPA is not a candidate to be the lead agency for the purpose of implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, i . e., preparing yet another environmental i= pact statement on the Point Pleasant project - since they will not give another federal permit for this project or its related couponents.
Seccud, if a federal executive agency were required to prepare another environmental impact statement on the Point Pleasant project and its I
related ccuponents, it would probably be the Corps of Engineers, since it would issue permits under Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. However, the Corps of Engineers has written DRBC and stated that an updated environmental assessment of the Point Pleasant project and its related components, since preparation of the three previous environmental impact state-i ments, should suffice and a new environmental impact statement would not be necessa y. (See Appendix I for Corps letter.)
- D. CCNCLUSION Based upon
- 1. The Council on Environmental Quality's policy of determining l
vhether or not an environmental assessment and negative declaration are sufficient to meet the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act;
- 2. Review of the DRBC's environmental assessment of February 15, 1980;
- 3. Consideration of the public and agency comments made subsequent
,_ to the Executive Director's "Not. ice of Intent" of February 11, 19 80, and as analy:cd in Part IV of this document; e
~
II-13
' * * ~~
. , ,mp, wwwe- w m "~ +M*
n4m-j w- w. +-, -- -a m - - > w
+
- 4. Consideration of the present and future water supply needs of Bucks and Montgomery Counties as well as the planned .eds for the 73marick Generating Station;
- 5. Observing that the Point Pleasant project for which construction approval has been requested by the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority is a scaled-down water supply version from what has already been approved and 1
pizced in the DRBC's Comprehensive Plan; then 1
- 6. It is concluded that this final environmental assessment and a negative declaration is deemed to be the proper cocrse of action.
A proposed docket decision under the DR3C Section 3.8 review and approval process will be initiated for public notice /public hearing and Comission action in the near future.
I M
l l
l 1 -
t
~
! II-19
~
( . _ _ _ _ . ._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
c PART III.
r -
~
A r -
A
...~. ,. . ., .,,_..,_ . 1 - .. ,
s
. c .. .
.-; . . . i. >--.,. . .,. .;
1
~ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF FEBRUARY 15, 1980 9..g .
r -
- ~o . ...ss..s,~,~,=. - . . - ,- ~.
c
.. # s .
Mt.I],j 8A[*] ; ' ' .;'l *
[.-
. .f: . .~a.a . . .. .,,- ~%, . . - e.,','.,. n ' '/ *-
. .v
. .^e
.. .i , 2,.
,-.. 0,*
n + e. ;,f..
- %
- L ?
- f'?6s.,W.f**.s p - ',.' ;... .i. ,
',sqY' Q ~ -
h,.2:+*
, .. .v ~.
(
.; ~ ; .? ?b t*,'*,is.? * *g}$ i E)~ .
' ' i ./' > ~
s -s.."a....-
e +,..',;.4 . j.-. .*, ,-ts .ws ,3, -. , .s-
- 5l.T. * * ' '
- i+ -
'l.
- e' i /* 4, . ,.g v'.
- . . ' '; aI ,
-*t.'*'
- e. .
, . 4 ( k-- . .
s .
.,.,2,
. . .t . . .../ s -- 1 '; J. + . ." m
.*$, g t ,
'* * * ". e ,. , e* *
- s - -,. -r .
F O
- t. ,
L. -
er.
P g , I W.
g_. '1 F
e
..L, D-k.
, a
- , g 4 a 8
~
e . e s 3 s q.
.& **
- sy, 4 N ,4'.,. . 1*,
gy e
. *- - =5 . . . .-
- O f
' O
- .'4.,a,.9 p,
g
. *- ' q
..p g* , f* k
.s..,,..'.',m, 9
f- Ff g e e %
r
- -*M 4.N ' e
~s t -' % .a
'r 4
p,* . *- ,
t' ay
, a ame #
." . 't , * #J .- 1., . w'
'y'
- p Y,. *'_ y..,* i ,. , .* '.s- - g.' .
y
- .. *3.,of**
, 8g e.
'-* . r .
,, ,'. .>. ,-a..
'- ,. *q
.t - ,
r
- .-..Ty V. . .'e. .. ra_4
.v . ~* . . .>., a _ , o a g 2 g 9 ,' .d
- 4,.e.
'-9 gj e
, **. 5, 4,,
1_ & '
- g g , r
- Q p -e*- D
,'pA. 9...
4" O g
. . . ,9 -
- e .s'9e ,*. ..*g
- g, e, g
- ,e' ' ' ' . * .'t.*-.-,..,N j
s .
'- ' ' ,* 8., p ; ., . . -
.'.y ' % * ;, - -
4 &'
s i'% , .
\ " .
6
- , , . , n'._ ,
e p
= a e
y b
= t
]
4 e b . ,,*
- S.
.h . ,
ph' m
.g
_- .=
O O%
- . t
/
w $4
, , . , _ . e===ar* = - - *
~
PART III
- e ENVIRCN'4 ENTAL ASSESSMENT For The PROPOSED NORTH BRANCH WATER TREXINENT PLANT l
Sponsored By The NESHAMINY WATER RESOURCES' AUniORITY And A Review Of RELATED COMPONENTS Sponsored By The Neshaminy Water Resources Authority
~
And The Philadelphia Electric Company
~ '
Prepared By The DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COSNISSION (Lead Agency)
= 4G l
Abstiset.--This assessment supports these conclusions:
l
- 1. A preliminary decision not to prepare an Environmental Impact State-
~
ment is appropriate because the North Branch Water Treatment Plant would l
not have significant adverse impacts on the human environment.
~
- 2. A applementary EIS it not necessary to update the Final EIS on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, issued by DREC in February 1973, because l
subsequent documents support the cone'.usion of the FEIS that beneficial l
impacts would outweigh adverse impacts and the project would be a fea-sible and beneficial use of water resources of the Delaware Basin.
i
' ?3[ February 15, 1980 l i
! 6 i' .
l
~
w
- _ , _. _ , , , _ . . . . . w.*. - - ~ ~ ~ < = - ~ ~ - * ~~ ' ~
CONTENTS Section .
Pm Perspective 1 Conclusions And Recommendations 3 1.0 NORDI BRANCH WATER TREADfENT PIANT 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Project Description 1-3 1.2.1 Water Treatment Plant 1-3 1.2.2 North Branch Intake Dam 1-3 1.2.3 Pine Run Intake Dan 1-3 1.2.4 Rechanneli:ation 1-3 1.2.S Sludge Lagoons 1-S 1.2.6 Service Area Transmiss'en Mains 1-S
~~
1.3 Alter'nativ'es 1-9 t
l 1.4 Probable Environmental Impacts 1-9
,_ 1.4.1. North Branch Treatment Plant 1-9 1.4.2 Intake Dams 1-10 1.4.3 Rechannelization 1-11 l ~
1.4.4 Sludge Lagoons 1-11 1.4.S Service Area Transmission Mains 1-11 1.5 Conclusions 1-13 1
2.0 RELATED CCMPONENTS 2-1 2.1 Background 2-1 l 2.1.1 General 2-1 2.1.2 Neshaminy Water Supply System 2-1 2.1.2.1 Purpose. 2-1 2.1.2.2 Need 2-1
'2.1.2.3 Feasibility Studies 2-2 2.1.2.4 Applications and DR3C Dockets 2-4 2.1.3 Cooling Water For Electric Generating Station 2-6
- 2.1.3.1 Purpose 2-6 2.1.3.2 Need 2-6 2.1.3.3 Feasibility Studies 2-6 2.1.3.4 Application and DRBC Dockets 2-6 2.2 Project Description 2-7 2.2.1 General 2-7 2.2.2 Neshaminy Water Supply System 2-8 ,
2.2.2.1 Source of water supply 2-8 >
~
2.2.2.2 Service are: 2-8 -
- - - i -
-+ ,-- , - , . - - ,,, , . , - ---.,n .- _ , . _ ,,a-
CONTINTS
. (continued)
Section M 2.2.2.3 Components of the system 2-9
, 2.2.2.3.1 Point Pleasant Pumping Station 2-9 2.2.2.3.2 Combined Trans-mission Main 2-13
~
2.2.2.3.3 North Branch Transmission Main 2-15 2.2.2.3.4 North Branch Water Treatment Plant 2-15 2.2.2.3.F Western Trans-mission Main 2-15 2.2.2.3.6 Southern Trans-mission Main 2-15 2.2.2.4 Costs . 2-15 2.2.3 Cooling Water For Electric Generating Station 2-15 2.2.3.1 Source of water supply 2-15 2.2.3.2 Service area 2-18
-- 2.2.3.3 Components of the system 2-18 2.2.3.3.1 Bradshaw Reservoir 2-20 2.2.3.3.2 Perkiomen Trans-mission Main 2-21 l
2.2.3.3.3 East Branch '
. Perkiomen Creek 2-25 2.2.3.3.4 Perkiomen Creek 2-25 2.2.3.4 Costs 2-25 2.2.3.4,1 General 2-25 2.3 Alternatives 2-26 2.3.1 Neshaminy Water Supply Systeg 2-26 .
2.3.1.1 General 2-26 2.3.1.2 No action alternative 2-26 2.3.1.3 Further development of i
-. ground water 2-27 2.3.1.4 Lake Nockamixon 2-28
~~
2.3.1.5 Withdrawals from the
~~
Schuylkill River 2-29 2.3.2 Cooling Water For Electric Generating
. . Station 2-29 2.3.2.1 Nature of alternatives 2-29 2.3.2.2 Significant differences 2-30 2.3.2.3 Most desirable alternative 2-30 M
e b
mm -
f
- ii -
re CONTENTS
, (continued)
Section -
g 2.4 Probable Impacts 2-31 2.4.1 General 2 31 2.4.2 Neshaminy Water Supply System 2-32 2.4.2.1 General 2-32 2.4.2.2 Point Pleasant Pumping Station 2-33 2.4.2.3 Delaware River 2-35 2.4.2.3.1 Flow 2-35 2.4.2.3.2 Quality 2-36 2.4.2.3.3 Aquatic ecology 2-37 2.4.2.4 Combined Transmission Main 2-38 2.4.2.$ North Branch Transmission Main 2-38 2.4.2.6 North Branch Neshaminy Creek 2-39 2.4.2.6.1 Flow 2-39 2.4.2.6.2 Qual.ty 2-40 2.4.2.6.3 Aquatic ecology
, 2-41
-, 2.4.2.7 Lake Galena 2-42 2.4.2.7.1 Yield 2-42 2.4.2.7.2 Quality 2-42
~
2.4.2.7.3 Aquatic ecology 2-43 2.4.2.7.4 Recreation 2-43
, 2.4.2.8 Pine Run 2-44 2.4.2.8.1 Flow 2-44 2.4.2.8.2 Quality 2-44 2.4.2.8.3 Aquatic ecology 2-45 2.4.2.8.3 Alignment 2-45
. _ 2.4.2.9 Groundwater 2-45 2.4.2.10 Social conditions 2-47 .
. - 2.4.3 Cooling Water For Electric Generating Station 2-49 2.4.3.1 General 2-49 2.4.3.2 Bradshaw Reservoir
~
2-50 2.4.3.3 Perkiomen Transmission Main 2-51 2.4.3.4 East Branch Perkiomen Creek 2-51 2.4.3.4.1 Flow 2-51 2.4.3.4.2 Quality 2-52
, . . 2.4.3.4.3 Aquatic ecology 2 ~i a 2.4.3.5 PerkicNen Creek 1-53 2.4.4 Conclusions And Recommendations ?*S3 2.5 Measures to Enhance the Environment and
_. Mitigate Impacts 2-54 2.6 Probable Adverse Impacts which Cannet Be Avoided 2-54
~~
, - 111 -
- , . . . - , --. , _ . - ,_ . . , , , _ _ , , m ., .
._. . ,,,,_..__._y, ., -e~ .-- -
CONTdNTS (continued)
Section Py 2.7 Irreversible and Irretrievable
- Committ:nents of Rer~.acss 2-55 i
2.8 Short-Ter:a Use and Long-Ter:n l Productivity 2-55
3.0 REFERENCES
3-1 4.0 AGENCIES CONSULTED 4-1 5.0 PUBLIC OBJECTIONS 5-1
. 6.0 PREPARERS 6-1 7.0 APPENDIXES 7-1 0
e i
m 6
MS
- ' 9 T
e w
- iv -
FIGURES
- Figure No. Title P,aage 1-1 North Branch Water Treatment Plant and Related Components 2
~
1-2 North Branch Water Treatment Plant - Location 1-2 1-3 North Branch Water Treatment Plant - Plan View 1-4 1-4 Western Transmission Main 1-7 1-5 Southern Transmission Main 1-8 2-1 Point Pleasant Pumping Facilities and Associated Transmission Mains 2-5 2-2 Neshaminy Creek Basin and Vicinity 2-10 2-3 Point Pleasant Emping Station and Intake, General Plan and Profile 2-11 2-4 Point Pleasant Pumping Station Site, Geologic Section 2-12 2-5 Combined Transmission Main and Related Structures 2-14 i- Cooling Water Supply Facilities 2-6 2-19 2-7 B.adsi.aw Reservoir and hmp Station 2-22 2-8 Perkiomen Transmission Main 2-23 2-9 Energy Dissipator, Perkiomen Transmissier. Main 2-24 I .-
l .
l_
- Figures 1-1 thru l-5 and 2-2 thru 2-7 are based on figures from the NWRA Environmental Report, February 1979. Figure 2-1 is based on a figure in the " Point Picasant, Pennsylvania, Pumping Facilities Feasibility Study", March 1970, DRBC. Figures 2-8 and 2-9 are based on figures in the PECO Environmental Report, July 1979.
.-e M
- V-
- + - * " "'
, , ,. ,, m .
%-.m... w we. ,
- -, y ,-,p .. , _ _ , , _ . - . , _ , . - . _ , ., g
TABLES
- Table No. Title g
. 2-1 Forecast Supplemental Water Needs Nesheminy Water Supply System and -
Philadelphia Electric Company 2-3 2-2 Neshaminy Water Supply System, Estimated Installation Costs 2-16 2-3 Neshaminy Water Supply System, Comparison of Alternative Systems 2-17 I
~
4 p.
u.
Tables '.-1, 2-2, and 2-3 are based on tables in the Environmental Report and other doca:nent! prepared by NWRA.
a m*
- *1 m
~
/
LJ -
vi -
9y - +r---w --
g ---=m, as- y-es m. .-- * +_.. .w .e.---- --w- -, .. y.--. ,, - . - --- --g---- - -- 9,__ --- - . _ , , . - wa_ --- *
, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .
For The Proposed NORD{ BRANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT Including A Review Of Related Components Perspective The North Branch Water Treatment Plant (NBWTP) is a component of the planned Neshaminy Water Supply System (NWSS), sponsored by the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority (NWRA), which is to provide supplemental water supply for Central Bucks and Montgomery Counties in Pennsylvania. The Point Pleasant Pumping Facilities would wf *.hdraw water from the Delaware River to supply the NWSS and, in addition, supply water for cooling the Limerick electric generating station as sponsored by the Philadelphia Electric Company. (See Figure 1-1)
A Final Environmental Impact Statement, entitled " Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, Bucks and Montgomery Counties", sas issued by the Delaware
,. River Basin Commission in February 1973. That FEIS and others issued by the l
( -
United State: Department Of Agriculture - Soil Conservation Service (USDA, SCS, April 1976), and the United States Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC November 1973),
evaluated all the components related to the Neshaminy Water Supply System and to the facilities for supplying cooling water for the Philadelphia Electric Company, except the North Branch Water Treatment Plant.
l l
The purpose of this Environmental Assessment, in accordance with the l National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and with the Delaware River Basin
. Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Article IV, is to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared for the NBWTP and to review
~~
the impacts of its related components described in DRBC's FEIS of 1975 to see if l
that document needs to be updated. An Assessment is, of necessity, briefer -
,p l _ .
w &
O i - . ., *' j t u ,,,
.? - e*b l cw
^
- 1 M'Mg c J- ( \- '. fi eW 3ig.'Q--;g u e
.' q)3
!
- o 2.
r % . Ac( .L ),s g 2 ,o .
u
. ,a g ,t .. .s, ,
. ..... 3,.u/: 2* m ' A = -
c.
1 uo -
- ': A lE -N e:
ia t.1 33\. ..o. <jt T U.
C i
(/ m#/ Epi 3
8 g .e ;;
E*
t v'h }.~-.% .,)
/ " -
22 ic=
g/r# k M M,T9
- am f[4'P! !Ei ((t ], N $i 5 A + :- . t )A. .= u fN.sN '[
Q6 f -'! cN ,3([e;j . l 5.$
D.1li: ""
l I bl,. $. '
3 /\.6 -
id..,,
1 P Fi y ,h u!I "f ,/ej b 5,
.)w a$ ,{,
'N f.- o. i-f.
t
.' g
-/ %,
2- .:.
ff** , ,,x, _ +{ ,, l; C)..f;Nzbx 1
2 9 w-*n A U .'~ <
- 'b5l.. ?h f\$
- j
.(-
y
- n. gi r 1-4f f .
opsbemO U .\,
r u v'"
, f
/
' r 4 4 g, i:wnssaD k' 't> f I - - -
s.
i k- A e-$e sf)\ ch re[w/ad.
m.
_ i
'. xtw -
o % a.. ./s s. g%
,\5 4 s, 4 T e zh t '~. {'f R'*4 .%'f,t , ,v"u p .
s ~>. .: $ $ .M. u 13 :.v/ X. /.
t
+ m. .c
.y v s. -
.%a, ,3 i :=p'y a -
- (w
? #7r+.(
m .
1 t.
/m . , }o-d.g I_ f. ' , ' g ii D -)8. # V! d NQ,;'- ..t s
+/,- 3.
(* - H.i s ., e -
? - 4 s
A.u s,. ,,, . -
O, e.
4 'l B ,,3/ ,, 3 q.so N p- 2 (-
i i .s
'=gg
. dt-t : a.
.d. i'- ] _ s + ". --
- f
/ f N= i==*""*" h,g\ \
a 3 5-
%\ er op j f. / h$'
$t h y i ,, .h hi '
f; Ij ~~ jhk,' \ 5 ')-k,=
. ep);.
av i,_ ,..
~~ - -0 f s -g ----
-x .
a imii' *m
! l,' ' ' nw.
m
?. q a$.. v \c ,.,
s W.,,
a ,a/- -j p ,,
i
, /, 55, r- s-r , "--
. a. .
.a . f..-t[ -a u .-
~m.
/ g \;, n/. 'e j .
N -
Q ,,, p t., , ~ .#. h j_
. . \ < 1"* g 1
)' [
' % [~ f Q jp i [/ %
i
! 6/(: /
L
%. V, .
%g %v i q g
-+y g.ip j :.s<-
@y@,s l' Hs
, . A 3 i ,.
'S w n/W.;Y, $ %w g cyM l ~~ ,7 %__)[= ;1
", gM z., Aw
( ,t ' .
i.
i L\ 5 -
W@i
!j
.r.;
-, %{ 'hh-j
)y \ v>
e
.f &y T-Y ! N.\ f 1_ [, '
\, .: _s - . i . r _ h li h .O\ ' '
than an Environmental Impact Statement but contains sufficient facts and i analysis of scope and magnitude of probable impacts, associated with the proposed project, to determine whether an EIS needs to be prepared. This Assessment is in two parts: part one pertains to the NBWTP and part two i_. pertains to its related components. Some components,.such as the Point i
l Pleasant Pumping Plant, the Combined Transmission Main, and Bradshaw Reser-l voir, are common to the facilities discussed in both parts of this assess-(
ment so there !<, necessarily, some overlap.
The significant changes in the phyrical facilities of the Nesha-miny Water Supply Syst.m as prescated in DRBC's Environmental Impact Statement l_ of February 1973 and the present plan are as follows: a maximum diversion of 9S MGD is now planned versus ISO MGD cited in the EIS; the Bradshaw Reservoir would hold 70 MGD (present design) versus 46 MGD; and a minimum pumpage of 27 cfs for the East Branch Perkiomen would not be year round as originally pro-posed but from mid-April thru mid-November, under average stream flow condi-l tions. The physical features addressed are: the diversion works on the t, Delaware, the Combined Transmission Main, the Bradshaw Reservoir, the Ferkio-men Transmission Main, the East Branch Perkiomen Transmission Main, and the service area Transmission Mains.
l __ The Limerick Nuclear Generating Station analysis is not 'ncluded in this Assessment because the Limerick Project was Oubjected to a thorough envi-
~
ronmental assessment by the Atomic Energy Commission (now Nuclear Regulatory Commission - NRC). The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Limerick
__ Project was appealed through the NRC administrative procedure, and then through l I_ - the U.S. Court of Appenis for the Thi i Circut. This Commission included the
- 5 e i s.-
~
- . - , . - ,- , m-r, y , , ~ . . . . , , ,y%_...,,,,w . _ . . ,..,....~m.--- . , , . . . _ . -
Limerick Project in its Comprehensive Plan and granted final Section 3.8
_ approval on November S, 197S. The approval (Docket D-69-210 CP(Final) covers water intake and discharge structure" on the Schuylkill River at the station, a water intake structure on Ferkiomen Creek, and the facilities required to di-vert and convey Perkiomen Creek water to the station. The approval is heavily
- conditioned to protect the water resources of the Basin and its population. -
Conclusions And Recommendations PART 1. North Branch Water Treatment Plant This assessment concludes that the NBWTP would impose few signifi-cant adverse impacts on the environment and these few adverse impacts could be largely eliminated.by making changes in the project. Consequently, this
_ assessment recommends issuance of a notice of a " Finding of No Significant Impact" (Negative Decleration) and a preliminary decision not to prepare an EIS.
PART 2. Related Comconents Independent analysis of changes that have occurred since 1973 in the
, design of cortonents related to the North Branch Water Treatment Plant has led DRBC staff to the following conclusion:
Subsequent documents support the conclusions of the Final Environmental
-. Impact Statement on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, required by the NatLonal Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and issued by DRBC in February 1973, that the proposed project would be a feasible and beneficial use of water resources in the Neshaminy and Perkiomen Watersheds and not detrimental to the Delaware River, l
L provided that mitigating measures are implemented as listed in DRBC's FEIS under
" Conclusion", page 3, (and as stated in this asseasment). (See: NWRA February L 1979; PECO July 1979; and other references listed in Section S.O.) Consequently, this assessment recommends that no supplementary EIS be prepared. ,
s .
a ~
li -
. - - - . ~ ~ . , * -- . - - - . . . _ . - - - . - - - . - - .
v- -- - - - w- c -- , - - ,, ,,y_ _ _ _ _ _ . , , - . , . _ _ _ ,.
1.0 NORTH BRANCH WATER TREATMENT Pl.AVP
. 1.1 Background b
- On December 14, 1970, the Bucks County Planning Commission, on behalf of the Bucks County Commissioners, submitted an application for review of a pro-
! posed water treatment facility to the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) for inclusion in DRBC's Basinwide Comprehensive Plan. The project application specific to the treatment plant was evaluated and adopted by DRSC on January
.- 29, 1971 under DRBC Docket Decision D-70-242 CP. The North Branch Water Treat-ment Plant had been an integral part of the Neshaminy Creek Watershed Plan (NCWP)
~
included in the Comprehensive Plan by Docket No. D-65-76 CP in 15t66. Supplemental surface water supply, recreation, and streamflow augmentation were added to the NCWP by DRBC Docket No. D-6S-76 CP(2) dated January 2S, 1967.
m In March of 1970, E.H. Bourquard Associates, Inc. submitted a Feasibi-lity Study of Delaware River Pumoing Facilities at Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania
__. to the Delaware River Basin Commission (Bourquard March 1970). Included in that study was the North Branch Water Treatment Plant, then referred tio as
~
the "taking point" for water treatment and distribution to Central Bucks and i
Montgomery Counties. The proposed treatment plant would be located on 29 acres at the confluence of North Branch of the Neshaminy Creek and Pine Run in Chalfont Borough, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. It would use existing natural q flows to be supplemented by Delaware River water via the Point Pleasant Pumping
~~
Station during periods of low flow in Pine Run and the North Branch. (See Figure I-2) m b
o 3 1-1 _
.b
= . - . _ -. _ .. - .
~
1.2 Project Description 1.2.1 Neter Treatment Plant The applicant's revised design capacity selected for the treatment plant, based upon a consensus of up-to-date population forecasts and resultant supplemental water needs, would be 20 mgd initially, with a maximum capacity of 40 mgd by the year 2010. (See Figure 1-3 for layout of facilities) .
1.2.2 North Branch Intake Dam The North Branch Intake Dam would be approximately seven feet high and would consist of four steel roller gates that would be closed under most condi-tions. The dam would form a pool and divert water to the raw water intake line for flow by gravity to be used at the treatment plant. The roller gates are de-signed so that they may be raised out of the channel during high flows.
L 1.2.3 Pine Run Intake Dam L, The Pine Run Dam design and operation is identical to the North Branch Intake Dam, except that it consists of two roller gates forming a dam approximately
' four feet high.
- The combined amount of withdrawal at both intakes would vary de '
pending upon the amount of treated water required for service area demands, not to exceed the established minimum flow reggirements downstream of the treatment plant.
1.2.4 Rechanneli:ation
, About 1,500 feet of Pine Run, from its confluence with the North Branch of Neshaminy Creek, would be re-channeled. This operation essentially r- a i .
.2 k
1-3 r, -
r, , - - . , ,, - . - . - , , . , , . , . . - - , . - , - , - ,
m,. *
'~
N j,
^%.. ll
-..\ . C/2-Qd ' " '. , g
_)-Q M,. .Ii 3
l }G, k
~
/
,4
<x/ p J . i, , i!!?'.7'J, ye
%.s.. -. '
J
)
- .. 5 !
-ma g g r.z.1 8
':,,f,j~ . - - ~ gn=
c 4q % ,. 1:
.-i
(
\ ..!
.;. i
'. 6 -
':- / %%7R h . . SL .. %
/ T ' [ d, o :.;.\l ..
%4;l' AN. k - s [;'y1 Tlw t
i 6r y~; x -
i
' :. m,%s,. \ :'__
@:.J'-
y' wz M \
yz'!ilid!
/ w.
I! M
' .n -
i -
. 7 % ],s. - - L,,...
- b '\q-N/. . Ns % o x i
w" t (, p' fh\.m;.3, fee i p
/ k:,, $s\ d. 3 M
'.' - %'b'Yp/.
cm / i h ?) ' kh[q('N g [p$ j ',
g;h K_,qw, v
% x y e.mm. .
u kbi N.$/
n., M :
'S' .'Mk.,.' n. C'k' Y5hi,, <
- w\'
x.
f l'xq pj
}N ~, ..
~
n '
. ~ ,,
gfgm{jji[fi
. l
~::.';/ '/f h:n:N;. h.k 'j p4,
?')
=~
p? '-ey. _ - n
%r:N 4gh1;
- s. f -d.n e
/
_sc p!
.,T \q\ 4' . %g%p+ R@
/
N('\
s, g;,' c..m+
ga.
s, s D,s f % ~/ /fo' '
< \s ' e '.' l;- 9 , W f [.. f"[ ,. R -
(N :, h.,
'h.
. p. ,
'$shb5th \Y,.!y: .Yhr '
l J
1-4
would move a segment of Pine Run approximately 150 feet east of its present loca-tion to improve the siting characteristics of the stre am and treatment plant.
Re-channeli:ation would allow diverted water to flow by gravity into the plant by creating greater channel depth in the vicinity of the intake site.
The banks of Pine Run in the affected area would be re-contoured and lined with rip-rap to prevent erosion. Similarily, the banks of the North Branch Neshaminy in the vicinity of the intake would undergo stabilization.
1.2.5 Sludge Lagoons Three sludge lagoons would be used to store sludge generated at the plant. Each lagoon would be lined with an impervious soil blanket and have a net capacity of approximately 1,250,000 gallons at a depth of five feet and occupy a gross rectangular area of 140 x 220 feet. The expceted amounts of sludge pro-duced by the plant would be approximately 9,000 gpd when the plant is supplying i
l 10 mgd of treated water and 18,000 gpd of sludge at 20 mgd capacity. Solids l
l content of the sludge is estimated at five percent, accumulating at a rate of i
850,000 ft3/yr at a 20 mgd water supply capacity.
Final design of the treatment plant would include a ' sludge de-watering ,
facility based upon the actual volume and characteristics of sludge produced
. during its initial operation. Construction.of the facility is envisioned during i 1983, and would eliminate the need for sludge lagoons, except for emergency pur-l poses. The de-watered sludge produced by the treatment plant would ther be hauled to an approved landfill.
1.2.6 Service Area Transmission Mains
~
, The finished water delivery system, consisting of four transmission c
1 l mains varying in si:e and length from IS to 36 inches and frem 13,850 to 30,300 1 . .
1
_; 1-5 l
feet respectively, would radiate to the north, south, east and west from the treatment plant. The mtinicipalities that would have access to the finished water at specified "take off" points are listed in Appendix A.
The four transmission mains *, appurtenant to the North Branch Treatment Plant, would be constructed within the boundar.ies of the Ne.shaminy Creek Watershed with the exception of the future extension of the Northern Main into Montgomery County. The extension would start at a location just north of Reservoir PA-625 near the Bucks-Montgomery border.
The transmission mains would be' constructed through the 149,000-acre Neshaminy watershed that is 60 percent tenant operated with 43,780 acres of existing farmland, 20,880 acres of grassland,14,020 acres of woodland and 70,320 acres of other land.
Specifications on transmission main si::e, length, and municipalitin eventually receiving service are shown in Appendix A.
.ea i
l l
- Initial construction would include only the western and southern mains.
Final design plans for the eastern and northern mains would be prepared when local water purveyors in those service areas ra:;uest supplemental water.
(See Figures 1-4 and 1-5).
- i
]
O 1-6
,we en. - m -e-- * - -.-- m. -
7 - e - ,- ,, , , , -
, , ,-_7 , ,- --- --- .--y- --- -, ,-+----w --,- w
e.
I U h
z
,I 53,w o z
e wm y a - **
.T 5 7 4 W: -
$Eb 0? Y e
w Gm m s
'\ 2 CO ksm
- t: O l2:
- T &Mv Cf.
y
,=., ,!,.
p a
p*
- Z M 3 J W <
/ g wE n ./ / m ,
3I 7{/ 5 E
!) . .g. !
J m.
Qpd:'
w / s}.j5 .
l.
[
/ iC 1 4} 4!m' dWPTr
,,./,i 2 m.
m..
Y s;
w.,
2 3
iL
. 'ALTt. / fj' t,
$Z15ls \j %,EI" D I i*7 5
O 8/ [
j!f, %
'., e o'=~
I 2'
4 I. .- l -
i ..p, gg : { ^ ^'= e s zw s ;
e e n , il /
) k. \ - :
1 j
,'l 5
, m .
E i g
M o i
/ .e/ 3 o= s
- li
.... 7, ,
=
@??E . .*:2 i
I *'j! 4
- hi
'.: ; 's, I'
A; m,, ,- -
arce ...ra \ li 3;[
- =
! ; f/ ,
q .
1 r* .. *j gl l 3,.%,.,ocas' i ;-
\. % ii
/-
J g -.
- Y d
^ ,{
f,
.' f. i u.
l! ! mi
- _ an
~~
!l
!n/ %
> y %./ ,f,f / .$
' I, ,- ,
d1r 5
.A 3 I } ,
1, ~
g ,,'
- %,, w. e3 , , m_
! s / _ . go r . . . ,,, ,,,,,,,
oom\ .#%y ..-l 2-f%
c;
<=
h A m
- I y s-
-- k.
s
~~ "
t .
.t- ',l
(
> ~ ~
F00i! ORIGilihl
. ~
G
)
g . s'- - *.4 **'s j 'N ,.
.. h%g.p ,h. , ..-c.A;-sy~.ic;- . ,.t.o;.;::,' (,a m \
sx y-
?') .
dp;%92, .x,.,-('%-:-- . /E b G , , :g.i.
- 1. Y.' .;i,,_' ;pe!.N D..8,' .
m7.'3. .*"h '%. \ f. .[,. Y(4. f m m z z e 9 -: v e. . g ..,. .; . ,
.... r 5 --; <., , g. .
.e s.:
,, m i
m i . .a
~
I ' Sh q, p:l h', I"'.,.1 hy
[' k kd. h
[
t,..m a
/-['f.:b J.f.b.hM.hM'.y
- ; t.c. N :
3 3g r,
N g T'y1,, ( ,,.b,.!
qe~-
, _. i u m z m r-M,.f+ f i ^d W. q ?4.6'i'\ 4* [nl I~
e) d f;5 h [._ Nij3 g g y
~
.A.f .pKr[ ..d' .-,..,, f! % E
. . L<. ~ .'&$
Y jih $hri f, ;- - --;.g- . --- A '
. ,k kh$*'
N., '{v o.E ' - il- A!:ji
-- - L .Y4) '
g .
n =
- nm = = ; ~..%/,U. 1.. / .
' 1:.- : -:
- ts tt q; i.
' . - 4/ , '
- ? I .. gy\y
.r.., *(, i,; .-:-
=y N g :,, s.;.;g.y
. t is .,
%.g g__ M. _ . . y.g9h ,4.s .g.'
~ -
a . .. , y9
- s. -
,W., ,, 3 y_:.
p
- h. .
.o
%. - %. !53 l O M.AEth ; L ^ ln - ?-
~-+.u. . Yn . :7n.t d y.
,gK,*Ot ? -
~ .
% j'A 2 a .n ~2 . Q %f. ,, E -
<c %. ~'.; .h ,;.:. . , . I-
't
>v .; .y.
t_ ~
/ ' ,.
,,,fy~=, c.'.i --'cl:';h ?!. ,,n?
. .me
. Jh: .l:~> +f -
k, b%- , 2:,,.j.,4% fip'M'. .
s
'(-}-f..'.~,
. p-
~\./'~ }
.Q < ..' i.......c.:*';*
r'-':.it F *** *\
.slr-,\.f.. .
b[
- J U ,. "d,1 [l
_k .I I f.' .J' .V,'
4.. hd'4'.', .,: .;; e ,- .
. =. s n,
~.. . M..'
. f-l
-~ c f ~1 w f..' g,
/ --- ~ - e,.~~g 1 s. .-
J .4. .
- n. : g . . . .p . g.- -
A,..Q. ..,i. , ~l.r .
$ E
%.g. 4%yy.'G R~. t V 'g'..<- '
p:
. i .
[ . e,
! , i.s R
)'N .r # #"#'
% <- / .hm
' a .., f
- s. --i.1...*.b
- T-$.%.
h,N'(Wb/L~d%.
i .c % . .
t 0 ) .] w. % -# - T , e* s v A S, ! %l + .
h.K . ~r.i' .s '\ $,A>.'
CM,k
'.j' ,4' d - -A, n u.
'AW.k .
7;;. x ,
..Q.h&
.-L .
3 R.- +, .t
& s ..,8 w-
~
t t
.(
.. M.['
- . . , s .i s
h.. h~ :-v.q.9 m k
- f.f:- .\q t.. -hfhYh q 'v ,. h, ,4 N af.i
-% .A ' &r- Wg A.h 4 "
r +i'~ I.. n 5""bnYs== %.A i
l x $.M~. . % '. W'm, . .
i-
') * . ~-?':M
- n. T&l'*l N .k a =. w^.ff ,):f. w'if.,;g,.x? .,,. h .sp$fhh.
-~ , -k .s . . ,
Q n=. =,3p.2,=. ju),.;+ys - w &s Q;h n & %\ 4 l5=.
_n . ,. .. . . _
x .: a
-_ .j i. . - ....-..~a.+._~~,4,, o e_h __ _.r. .d.. - ,, -
W- . s. .
3 I *-
% m.w
- %y-n u'"aD..Pv y , n'*;r u 9.>. & ~ r.. y>-- r
@mu @ = i' .
1 qAl/ g' %,5Jkw..r2%9 9 f '
~
~
_& ')
.- .m ,
i l
l
- j i
1.3 Alternatives Alternatives for the North Eranch Water Treatment Plant, m g ,
re; ate to different designs and different locations for the plant (see NWRA, February 1979, pp VI-6/VI-8) . Alternativss for related components of the
! Neshaminy Water Sup,1y System, with which the NBWTP would be associated, are discussed in Part 2 of this assessment, under the heading " Alternatives",
j page 2-26.
i 1.4 Probable Environmental Impacts l 1.4.1 North Branch Treatment Plant Construction of the treatment plant would affect approximately twenty nine acres of woodland. The existing forest cover, dominated by large white oaks and thin understory, would be, cleared and covered by approximately four feet of l
fill necessary to raise the entire site above the 100-year flood. Protection of the treatment plant from flood'would be partially afforded by appropriate opera-tion of Lake Galena. Some wildlife would relocate successfully but most would be eliminated. This loss of wildlife would be an unavoidable adverse impact.
Existing terrestrial habitat would be replaced by a landscaped industrial complex.
Short-term construction impacts, including increased traffic, noise, erosion, and
- _ sedimentation in the adjacent streams, would have a temporarily adverse effect on j '
i 1
l h
i 1-9 l . _ _
, . - - - - . ~m._ .. .- ,-- -,. _ ..- =
the local environment. The aesthetics of the site would be changed from those
~
of a small wooded area to those of an indu:.. rial complex. Large reservoir storage tanks would affect visual quality in the vicinity of Chalfont, Penn-sylvania. Potentially hazardous chemicals would be stored above the flood plain and handled in accordance with a spill prevention program, including adequate containment.
1.4.2 Intake Dams Construction of water intakes and intake dams would affect local resident aquatic life. Settling of suspended s:nids immediately upstream of the intake dams is likely to produce a change in habitat favoring the sediment-preferring forms of i -- aquatic life. Fish populations in the area would likely change to favor bottom-feeding species. Construction impacts would be short term and are not considered significant. Impingement and entrainment effects during operation is considered in Section 2.4.2.6.3, p. 2-43, of this assessment. The intake dams would inhibit upstream movement of fish; however, no threatened or endangered species would ,
~.
be affected.
e Emir G e
eg 1 -
I e
1-10 -
1.4.3 Rechanneli:ation
~
Proposed stream channel alteration and bank stabili:ation in the North Branch of Neshaminy Creek and relocation of Pine Run would change the natural l ,
characteristics of streams in affected areas. Relocation of Pine Run would not
.- be significantly adverse since natural characteristics of the stream have been altered by earlier use of the site as an amusement park. Conduits and weirs constructed as part of the amusement park would be removed during construction.
1.4.4 Sludge Lagoons Treatment plant production of sanitary sludge would require use of sludge lagoons constructed to handle waste for the first two years of opera-tion. The sludge would be unsightly and could, in the event of a failure of the impervious soils blanket, possibly contaminate groundwater. These poten-tial impacts would eventually be mitigated by implementation of a sludge de-watering facility and be off-site disposal of the disinfected sludge. The Water Treatment Plant would not have a wastewater discharge to surface streams.
The sludge lagoons would be designed to prevent earth slides in the dikes, following flood stage, and thus preve'nt escape of sludge into water bodies.
6M 1.4.S Service Area Transmission Mains In general, the environmental impacts expected from construction of transmission mains are of short duration and would include traffic congesticn on roadways adjacent to proposed pipeline routes, generation of dust and noise,
{'
~~
and increased sediment levels in streams near the construction area. Streams e-affected by pipeline crossing would experience a short-term increase in siltation,
~-
=.
. 1
~~
1-11 w -
and aquatic life in the vicinity of the crossing site would be tecporarily dis-rupted. Control of water quality effects of the stream-crossing operations would be in compliance with erosion and redimentation standards established by the i Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Removal of trees and disruption of terrestrial environment and wild-
_. life along the transmission main right-of-way would have an effect on the local environment. An average maximum working width of about 25 feet along the pipe-line route would be directly affected by construction activities. Upon completion of the pipeline, existing ecological communities would be reestablished as a small short-grass ecosystem. Ecological. productivity could be enhanced, at least tempo-l rarily, in places where eco-tones or transitional environments are created.
Alignment of the western transmission main, in large part adjacent to an existing railroad bed, its relatively short length and lack of major stream i
crossings indicate that construction of the main would not have a significant
(
adverse effect on the locaJ environment. Construction of the South Transmission Main would have a temporarily adverse effect on aquatic life by increasing stream sediment levels downstream of the Neshaminy and Mill Creek crossings. Construc-tion activities would disrupt suburban and agricultural lands in northern Warring-l ton Township and would affect traffic patterns on Bristol Road along the last 6000 feet of the pipeline, c- ,
~
l Right-of-way areas would remain as open space since development would l
be restricted or prohibited in those areas. No unique habitat or endangered
, . species would be affected by this element of the project.
9 l ==
1-12
,,--+-,r -- --,-w- "
1.5 Conclusions As indicated throughout this part of this assessment, adverse impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed North Branch Water Treatment Plant are relatively insignificant, compared with benefits to be de-rived from increased and steady water supply. Also, those adverse impacts-that could arise can mstly. be sitigated th:thqh appropriate construction and opera-tion procedures. Consequently, a finding of no significant impact is appropriate and this assessment recommends issuance of a notice of a preliminary decision not to prepare an environmental i= pact statement, i.e., a " negative declaration".
p.e d
m ea e "
, m f'
[
h 1-13
- , , , , . . ,- - -n. ,. - -
- - > -n- - - ----- -- -- -
2.0 REU.TD COMPONENTS 2.1 Brckground 2.1.1 General The purpose of this review of the components related to the North Branch Water Treatment Plant (NSWTP) is to determine if significant changes have occured in them since the Final Impact Statements (DRBC 1973) were issued to require a supplementary EIS.
The components related to the NBNTP are in two categories:
- 1) those associated with the Neshaminy Water Supply System and 2) those asso-ciated with water supply for cooling electric generating stations as sponsored by the Philadelphia Electric Company.
2.1.2 Neshaminy Water Supply System 2.1.2.1 Purpose.--The purpose of the Neshaminy Water Supply System is to meet existing and predicted supplemental water supply requirements of Central Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania. The Neshaminy Water Resources Authority (NWRA), by authority of Bucks County Commissioners, is the project sponsor and would be responsible for financing, designing, and constructing the proposed water supply system.
- " 2.1.2.2 Need.--The need for the proposed project has been evidenced by inter-mittent groundwater quantity and quality problems in communities within the project service area. Recent population and land use studies have projected an increase in population for the area that would, in
- ne absence of the pro-
, __ posed project, continue to use an av . subscribed groundwater resource. The 5
2-1 -.
- - . , -w- - -e -
-w h Nr * * * * * * " -
--- +- --, ,e w .
.-~
need to augment groundwater. supplies in Central Bucks and Montgomery Counties
~~ ~
has been recommended by the Water Supply Study for Montgomery County, Pennsyl-vania 1977 by Bet: Environmental Engineers (Bet: 1977) and by the work performed by Justin and Courtney, Inc., included in the Bucks County Master Plan for Water
._ Supply 1975 (Justin S Courtney 1975). Further analysis performed by t'he Level B staff of the Delaware River Basin Commission at the request of Pennsylvania has
~
supported these conclusions in the Draft Final Report on the Delaware River Basin Commission Comprehensive Study, (DRBC, Level B, October 1979). These studier indicate that a worsening of th'e adverse effects of over pumping
,. groundwa;;;, possibly to the extent of endangering public health, and creating economic hardship, can be expected from the projected increase in the service area's population, especially during droug'ht years.
The forecast supplemental water needs for the Neshaminy Water Supply System and for cooling water for electric generating stations is as shown in Table 2-1.
2.1.2.3 Feasibility studies.--As noted under the background discussion in
~
Part I of this assessment (NBWTP), Bourquard Associates released a Feasibility Study of Delaware River Pumping Facilities at Point Pleasant,' Pennsylvania in March 1970 (Bourquard 1970). In 1979, Bourquard and other consultants (Dresnack
- 1979; Richman 1979) assisted the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority with pre-paration of an Environmental Report (NWRA 1979) which was submitted to DRBC in March 1979. That ER is based on conclusions and recommendations of numerous prior reports.
~
Bourquard's 1970 study describes a proposed design for the Point Pleasant Pumping Facilities that would provide sufficient pumping capacity M
2-2 -
,,.,w - -e m w
- -- - - - - .,---i-a y , , - m - --- -y-
i l I i l 1 6 ., i I ) t ; r I ; , ,
Table 2-1 t
Predicted Supplemental Water Needs Neshaminy Water Supply System and Philadelphia Electric Company 4
Service Area or Average Daily, MGD Mascimum Daily, MGD ,
Agency 1981 1990 2000 2010 1981 1990 2000 2010 Central Bucks Cty. 2. 7 4. 9 S. 9 7. 3 2. 7 7. 3 E. 9-10'.9 i .
Centra 1 Mont. Cty. 10.5 1s. 7 - 18.8 7. 3 1s. 8 23.5 28.2
?. 7. ,3 -
v i Adm. Flow Re leases
- 3. 5 3. 5 3. 5 3. 5 5. 3 5. 3 5. 3 ' 5. 3 .
Water Supply Needs 13.5 18.9 25.1 29.6 15.3 28.4 37.7 44.4 Water Supply -
Withdrawal ** 14.9 20.8 27.6 32.6 16.8 31.2 41.5 48.8 P]dia. Ele c. Co. ** 22.I 22.I 22.I 22.1 46.2 46.2 46.2 46.2 Total Water j Requireshents ,
- 37. 0 42.9 49.7 54.7 63.0 , 77.4 87.7 95.0 i
- Minimum release of 5.3 MGD shall be maintained from 3/1 to 6/15 and -
2.73 MGD shall be maintained durinC the remainder of the year (lleshaminy Crech). *
- Average daily relcase for the yea: is 3. 5 MGD.
l ** Includes 1084 for water losses in transit.
j
. . ~
from the Delaware River to meet forecasts for supplemental water needs for Central Bucks and Mentgomery Counties and for Philadelphia Electric Company's Limerick Nuclear Generating Station located on the.Schuylkill River'near Potts-town, Pennsylvania. Preliminary alignments for pipeline rights-of-way to deli-
. ver supplemental water to the East Branch of Perkiomen Creek for *ntual downstream use by the Limerick Generating Station and to the North Branch of Neshaminy Creek for municipal use at the Chalfont site are shown in
~
l Figure 2-1, 2.1.2.4 Applications and DRBC Dockets.--In 1971, the Delaware River Basin Commission amended its Comprehensive Plan to-include the Point Pleasant Pumping Facility described in the Feasibility Study (Bourquard, 1970) as an element of the Neshaminy Creek Water Resources Plan. The March 17, 1971 decision (DRBC-D-65-76 CP(3)), consistent in part with Bucks County Water Allocation Permit No. WA-649, granted by the Pennsylvania Water and Power Resources Board, in-cluded a pumping facility design capable of withdrawing enough water to provide additional quantities from the Delaware River at Point Pleasant for low-flow augmentation of industrial and municipal water supplies in Montgomery County via Perkiomen Creek up to a maximum of 150 mgd by 1995.
Other early applications and dockets are discussed in Part I under
. background for the NBWTP. In July 1979, the Neshaminy Water Resources Author-
~~
ity, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, submitted a 3.8 application to DRBC for six components of the Neshaminy Water Supply System (NWRA February 1979). These components are: 1) Point Pleasant Pumping Station, 2) Combined Transmission l
Main, 3) North Branch Transmission Main, 4) North Branch Water Treatment Plant,
_. 5) Western Transmission Main _ cnd 6) Southern Transmission Main.
s 2 ;
e
, , ,m-. -ea
. - on = 1e . -; . . os ..s 4\' * ..
.pt ,,a v
[
l
- 1. ') *
- u t /, , . , ,. ! u, ..
'. ,*. I h
,(8
,9 .e ,, -. t e i w f 8 ,s ,..
,s
/ - . D- C.
s aC m
a l' . -j( . hyji
,j, .
- i. I'k _
k?if,g'I}[.g.,
y "a
- m. 4 y- j. .wy . kD~gfR s
-a s
l p,.j["I(7[ ~!.'4[.q. 2 $g#
.s l N ,j.;s,$', g g '4', E j"-Q'hh y B =h 4
p . Q) k . +: n 1y.. v;a @ #&m: W . A p 1
1 t w,.. s , . y, W
~
A. "
&.pn\d' s *' M.. - ri
%q \
, a; 3
i.
' s=
q'O e ( (.
. L p
. 5 ;; ;
w#eg y
s.
m c y . , ,J;
%e. ,
l
,\a so O-g ==.s 4 A;m,. rrt .... .3<s k, , y) f. s',.. y _.
!r.
i' s3s,A h, Q < z,..-r:n"\/-;?. ;;k., i;ln t .. .
(, ,\ s ., ;!,, :, ;
rc.6,o .J.vM_"2 %.d-le N- -
l l't.V.. c)b i a h > N. ;:>=
- 5. '
.c
- i !s I
,pT,}
~
bt
.?$PO-(@md(?,'t@.) f ,7 V. . .>
.9p.5 ,%a g ., !!!! !.
ji '.
._ W<hi a..gd H,n ,og
, c -Q. y * --,. g;i
, aa c ' s6 . Q, ., g g
.F ' wAO.Y[ $ N M , V,;
n 4'Syri i910< . .i3l rh es u bjh ~h!?$k'$.; u v.\ A..m,' % , 4."k \y.(~gP'
- 1 n ymn..n, &.&fl 4 ,.g gag;gg
.'p'!,p 04h- v4 k p h'
~'
,g ?
- v. y , g , g>a.unyn n:
y ;m_,, %yA Ns4,1
)
l 1,}g:. ;
6A.gr$
c y4 M,a N h, fa( b.h( $ e h $ 3 Mk[ }g M y,N JEW -
5'/ $5ip*wadog d m$( i
>~.sevp py w. ctg qlwg. .
y6m,5 .
ay .,x en W- p. h.mhu p f ib
,3
. b $ h ib 5 N NIN. M p khd h+ m
- IV 3
vo!= s Ms w,e, _ e < 1 .,9m M~ @ %~ N %y28&M . .
,q s
,e\y/, g7 pg Q~ edw.+.^.
y w w r. ..m s/. . .w QpX .o
.sy x p._) 4w76 7,. y -q m g-g.,.ts p,i.Mi& 3. ;. m. g,m&',y.c +g u -
.. . 9m n1
. ~
y ta =~e. a1
,~h
.r
~
. n's.,
b {5
)1:: - 3 h h /~; ,nL ,-M: 4)+3g f Q,[ g w'\[1/.L.]Di t s - .
l
'j.
} 7. eg
! ' fT, ,. SN._.@; k !
N'
'\(pod (gb @ J [ ,-(y:+.x, N ,.q . r., . .. ., b, 01/ ( .!.Y
$,nf.,. g-
,( L 7
. .. u$ ' d c
.s
.-,-.;e v,i.. . . yk..r.e .. . J.,
a,
.. r a.. .. ..
' ' f '
.d A hVP ln fh f] N,yT f !n','
,[ '
h.i Q, i L.;jf 's W ' ll'f Qm:.,, l $ ) ~Q} r' ll 4 &'S\ 'Q
~
.0QQm1' a
%t ,. )) l&.{c O Q. Ij d l . g[ . h Q y;9 ;
Ilt. &s fn1 Q .gv M Q ,G$,. 4( , Q6 .9.. ,R 2-1 MMid tM....h,c..n. O N > ?M '
.a m.
l - . -
2.1.3 Cooling Water for Electric Generating Station
- 2.1.3.1 Purpose.--The purpose of the water to be diverted to the East Branch Perkiomen Creek is to provide cooling water for industrial use to Philadelphia Electric Company's Limerick Nuclear Generating Station.
2.1.3.2 Need.--Table Ne. 2-1, page 2-3, gives the predicted supplemental . water needs of the Neshaminy Water Supply System and Philadelphia Electric Compsny. 2.1.3.3 Feasibility Studies.--Several feasibility studies dealing with ecology,
. water quality, water quantity, physical structures, and other subjects are docu-mented in the twelve appendixes to a final environmental impact statement on the
~~
" Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania",
released by DRBC in February 1973 In July 1979, the Philadelphia Electric Ccapany completed an environ-mental report relating to Bradshaw Reservoir, The Perkiocen Transmission Main, East Branch Perkiomen, and Perkiomen Creeks (PECO July 1979). The environmen-tal report supplements the analyses contained in the relevant feasibility studies contained in DRBC's FEIS of 1973. l 2.1.3.4 Applications and DRBC dockets.--Philadelphia Electric Company has been authori:ed by the Delaware River Basin Commission to withdraw surface water,
~
under certain conditions, from the Schuylkill River, Perkiomen Creek and the
~
Delaware River for cooling, under DRBC Docket Decision D-69-210 CP dated March 29, 1973. Conditional to that decision was the availability of adequate water supply storage in the Delaware River Basin, as determined by
.d i
_ 2-6 a w.-- e,-- .--e.~ ..mw. Nw ..m m m- -_. .v. --
DRBC, to support all water needs, both consumptive ind non-consumptive, and to
~ '
maintain c flow of 3000 cfs at Trenton. The " river follower'i concept, as applied to the Limerick Station and other electric generation facilities, includes flaw constraints that prevent the applicant from operating the station at full load, or only a percentage of full load, depending upon the available water supply in both the Schuylkill and Delaware River Basins. In a drought situation, the Delaware River would have a larger available supply, including upstream storage, than the Schuylkill River. The Delaware River, then, could provide a more re-liable supply. Under extreme conditions, the Generating Station could conceivably be forced to suspend its operation until an adequate flow becomes available. On July 27, 1979, PECO submitted an application to DRBC for Compact Section 3.8 approval of Bradshaw Reservoir, Bradshaw Pumping Station, and the Perkiome9 Transmission Main. l
- 2. 2. Project Description 2.2.1 General Design capacities of the Point Pleasant Pumping Facility and of the
~
North Branch Treatment Plant have been revised numerous times in response to continuing change in population trends and predicted water requirements. The l l , larger withdrawals included in earlier DRBC Comprehensive Plan decisions, in-
. cluded additional quantities of water to be taken from the Delaware for water quality augmentation in the Neshaminy Watershed and for municipal and industrial j purposes in Montgomery County via Perkiomen Creek. Further investigation of need for edditicnal flows has found that cc: unities and agencies responsible for wastewater treatment facilities within the service area lacked definite plans
__ and financial commitments. The provision of additional supplies for
- - these purposas was consequently dropped from the project. ,
l-- 2-7 e--
.. ,,_ _ . . Jam . n.-- ~~ ~~
2.2.2 Neshaminy Water Supply System 2.2.2.1 Source of water sunply.--Predicted water supply has been based upon useage of up to 15.0 million gallons per day of natural flows of the North Branch Neshaminy Creek and up to 10.0 mgd from Pine Run, and from water taken from the Delaware River at Point Pleasant, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. A proposed pumping station on the Delaware River and a pipeline would deliver water to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek, and convey these supplies to Lake Galena, a multipurpose reservoir located approximately five miles down-stream. Water would be discharged to the Creek from Lake Galena, maintaining a constant minimum flow of sufficient quantities to supplement natural f!w s withdrawn from Pine Run and the North Branch Neshaminy Creek at the North Branch Treatment Plant. l L Construction of a system of eight flood control and two multipurpose i reservoirs in the Neshaminy Watershed is under way. Construction of multipurpose reservoirs include recreational facilities as part of their development. Eight reservoirs have been constructed and two are to be built. Lake Galena (PA-617), the la'rger of the two existing multipurpose reservoirs, would store water for eventual use by the North Branch Treatment Plant. 9 2.2.2.2 Service Arer..--The system would distribute the treated water via l proposed transmission mains into the western, southern, eastern, and northern sub-service areas in Bucks and Montgomery Counties. At this time, only the
~
alignments for the western and southern transmission mains have been selected. Final design plans would be prepared for the eastern and northern transmission ! mains when local water purveyors in those areas request supplemental water. t 2-8 _ a n r - -- - *,.-s. is.- - - e-,m----i,.m - -. , m.gue , - _ -- -. ,,---w- m , , , - -- - - - - - - - - - - --
2.2.2.3 Components of the system.--Structural components of the Nesha-miny Water Supply System, as listed in the application from NWRA to DRBC are as follows:
- 1. Point Pleasant Pumping Stetion
- 2. Combined Transmission Main
- 3. North Branch Transmission Main
- 4. North Branch Water Treatment Plant S. Western Transmission Main
- 6. Southern Transmission Main In addition to the structural components, Lake Galena and two receiving streams, Pine Run and North Branch Neshaminy Creek form part of the total water supply system. Individu1 components are described briefly in the following para-graphs. Detailed descriptions may be found in the applicants' environmental reports. (NWRA February 1979) (PECO July 1979). Components of the system and l _
other . features of the Neshaminy Basin are shown in Figure 2-2. 2.2.2.3.1 Point Pleasant Pumcing Station l Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania is located on the Delaware River l (River Mile 157.2) near the mouth of Tohickan Creek. Slow moving water charac-i terizes the river at this point, and the pumping station intake would be located in the river bank approximately 800 feet downstream from the confluence of Tohickan Creek. The proposed intake would require an entrance channel to be dredged approximately 150 feet out into the river from the intake structure.
. . , River depths at the project site during low flow periods average approximately ~\
seven feet. The intake itself would be a low profile structure set into the river bank at or below the normal water surface elevation. (See Figurer, 2-3 and 2-4.) The water withdrawn would be delivered 400 feet west, crossing under I
~
l' 2-9
. -. .-.. . .~.m
,-g--e-
- - .-m-.
----7 e- w w q y ,.g,a
smas"=
"" - T Ataussession ata= 1
*a . sir j [ f
~
'4-s'S l .
,+
{ - N , k (Existimon :tzisymon g- .
,,, q
.;k
. f, . s ..
.. ],
\' .
( /% %
/a,,u,,,0
', / C
$ ~
\ // ';,1 ,/ /} ,,,,,a v.c(
osnaw [ a= . _ w . . . gi aw" PUWP= G rio = 87WT 8LE&semf
,,;w : ,.cc7,g 3
** ~' )
'%<, 07 es.siol-
*\ _ ~
( - I gonru seancx [- . - Z =
]
wattm intAfutwr etAxT l'w= I
,y;.!p - "ps' '
..s - ss m l 7% ..,
6 u. P \ s fPy[Q8y]glp0
._ g, =
.t is ..)
"'" ~!
~ %"s). 2...
r.
~.h ll q\a %W:/
\
^
.l _'. set 1 ?)a. ~~
~
j',
- 7_' 4.- m y.. -
. ((
.~ -y 'f, lr l
%~3 f '
_ [" , - ~
) ., s s " -- &
f __ \ )\
~~
~ a. t, x s -
!. W' s?.%t,isri..i
'. \
.no! q:.
, ... r-~%,jet
,,, y r A *%
4- -%,.ii 1 D l A
~
J[Dd / N %. u.,
. ,,7 - . . - 2
' m c.stiter m wawNv" AN
,-. COMPCNENTS CF RECOMMENCED At.AN , . . ,
7,-
'-~
uut?iPuepest atsteveta ~ (FL3co CominoL.watte supfLT. ettagAfiowl
} % ,teco co r.ot .gst.v: . NESHAMINY CREEK BASIN AND VICINITY watta supaty erstevoie p g pg 2.}
'-' ( EXIStiNS SP9tuGFIELD L4Nc 3 NESHA.MINY CREEK
-c--- otta. ant nivt mems raciurits ,
a
-- --- runsmission ums BASIN AND VICINITY ~
2-10
. - - ~ - - -
, , , . _ , . - - - - , - ~,
- ,..,---_,,,n, - - . - , . . , , , . , - . - . e - - w-
A 9 I. ~
\- it ,
z 2
*s z -
11 d m
=2 ^"
fI g c-w~ m *e j s
" gan=
. = i-. w
N N . N :s I,' E 2 N x ., i s E ij N s 4 '
~. j .
=
i n .- 3 7
-% N ,/!
Q '\ x i k; . I' N
&m s .
.g# fl
+i
~
. %~ -
m
?
. 'l
'- N
#, \ l =
~
f/ u- - Ow rg s3 D 2 r-. j , _ N \.
', - N I i l&, jl l E W,W N
,s a ,
' '1
.' )nU j;,
ll l d: . w Y- u// N}
~. 1) ; \ $ ~.
i
- e s~
~ [:>$
t
-s _
L f-
- j k
' T-
/s PE.NNSyr,yg g
- fl( -
'I RK&~
' i
// <
T
-t \
y , y 1 I l -s -----% ; my..a gy , , z
,g w i f
\a
' j kl 11 l l-i y - - ..1I -
;'. t,
' n '
.;/ '; ,
i i (+MT,9 -
,g ., j iLLc g. -;
t [ t ' s w-ra g .s I
- L.q[ hm.:y-r-1
.a
< .z -
N - 1 I- . *
- 2-11 2.
== . .'".
- 6_ -.-. %y_
! ! . __ ,* l t I. l .
*u 31 O
vo eo
'u 31 O CO in l Cn *M N [81 gj d *u O 14 0 > H (n C3 t:3 H .'4 tri (n t -e (31 O tJ t-4 g
33 O in in ** l'1 Y & 8 t-4 bj
.s
. C >H E *o
.. td Il O O $
12 0 3MD - w -O*d td
'/, ' ~ :. '+'. to 'n Q g
M * % ys
's * . H 2o . .
EL .- APPROXIM ATE LIMITS OF 1955 FLOOD STAGE
- D '
10 6.0 g __ a f PUMPlNG STATION SUMP EL.1OS1 4' *
~
"+W 100 0
g o
/ AND FOUNDATION H 32 i
' rJ
*
- c O
h TALUS r] SILTY S AND WITH g -
,[ -
EXISTING
- o ., -
GROUND LINE til n ROCK FR AGMErlTS Q * ' o tgg .f e., .m .
*. s o. - o .
i; 2, y
~
T/ ' f' ~ *
,, , o K .
NORMAL [] SILT Y S AND AND GRAVEL # ,' . d, % -
'o . .. WATER SurtFACE 9 SOME ':OULDERS -
o
' ~
o o - .
. ( EL. 701 T- g -. Q. , e -
.o a
~
= ' = ~ ~
4 '
,N trl ALLUVI AL DEPOSIT M
.Ci
- b. O"' emsOsagha '()*ese dE,.i. a4o t]
/ 60 l_ _. _ .+a mas ein ama i en nMTM,mdh :3rr, y
tu . O APPROXIM ATE HOT 10M ELEV. -
< - I 0 }. .' .O 'O _O '
'O' OF INTAKE CONDulT BEDHOCK Surif ACE I IN ni 00llLDERS WITil S AND A.ID GR AVEL j '
l
.' 4 0 in t~ Figure 2-4 sc At.E st a r. :" > 2 0' GEOLOGICAI SECTION 880H2.1" a 100
- 20 POINT PLEASANT PUMPING STATION SITE
- o. ...
e~ the Delaware Canal to the pumping station located between the Canal and Route 32. To meet existing and future supplemental water requirements of Central Bucks and Montgomery Counties and ta provide make-up water at a maximum of 42 mgd for water lost by evaporation from cooling facilities at the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, the Point Pleasant Pumping Facility would have an ultimate withdrawal capacity of 95 mgd. The capacity of the Point Pleasant Pumping faci-lity combines Philadelphia Electric Company's withdrawal of 46*mgd, and the fore-cast demands of Central Bucks and Montgomery Counties of 49**mgd, and are bcsed on the figures shown in Table 2-1,, page 2-3. 2.2.2.3.2 Combined Transmission Main A 66" diameter Combined Transmission Main, designed to convey the total withdrawal from the Delaware River would start from the Point Pleasant Pumping Station, cross undei Pennsylvania Route 32, and traverse a relatively steep ridge along the approximately 2.5 mile right-of-way to the 70-million t . gallon Bradshaw storage reservoir. (See Figure 2 -5. ) The Pipeline would be placed below ground and construction would require blasting of rocky overburden followed by a cut and fill operation. The combined main would be capable of routing municipal supplies directly to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek via j the North Branch Gravity Flow Main or to Bradshaw Reservoir simultaneously to pro-vide a constant source of water supply should the Bradshaw Reservoir be emptied for maintenance. ( 5 ..
- Includes 10's for water lost in transit.
r' ** Includes 104 for water lost in transit and a maximum of 5.3 m;d to maintain j [ established minimum flows. 1 h L- .
~~
I i" 2-13 l L-y y y-e p *ww = y- s , .-
/ /*
A Af fy@A 8
,,%.ntp N~ *
,A.4.g~..w.g ' //fIQ
.a a m.
2 m hh5
~
~~' "J -W: rg".
. / p.e. .
Ch, hr.- , s '. .
's
~
~~
. ..j.
Y'f
.,ca c::
a B
'-E
~
=, ?. V5,R c^i-; m-. -G .=. .s..'; =. g s i k 8
u
@=~~.;q&_E~
=D
=id[~-O~~
"' -;;=mcll '- -;' ~' ',/
~ ~ - - - . . . . .
C. - -
=q%c .
'...T
./
/
~-
, e'y% ' - ( __
3^ st l -scw
, ,- a~ ---
- =^ W s ,c. . f s~s
..~
o d u . _ ~ 'j" --
.y %
~
~ . ._...s*
g~ ~ ~ /.....
. ~ ~ ~ ~j~ ~ _v.: _% _ _ '> _ .-.-- , , ~--~ o,/ . . - -
/
x- }D',)/ ~/
~---
lf. /./ - - ~ ~
- = : .-
, .';c'.
~
. ;. ,&e ;/
~/J
- h. A -
/ /[.( ,~,,,,,,. "f - ~ ~ ~ ~ - . . - .
f~ Q:r -'. .~ ~s %
.fi '*.
J-
~~~
_z .#-~~.7;W
, -- - f*h x~'~ &.' f a
\
s . ./ d
%dy ; /, ' , ' e'~i~ ~k,-- . 't y& 5 5 j'l' ~${h! W'
~ I5 I Y y l.l g, '> e# 0 ,
\D'
"/y /
f, '" /,g~'- l [ .3 l; Ag . -
..,4 ai
- a'a s
' Mhf> ?]N.*'hs
,,, ,,s-f ,- ,g.h f, Q. t.
3 J **
//'A.c . # A ..
.. e
~'-'g / ,~p s , t'"N
- I .:"' . ,
4? . 58 Oh - ll
- W---~-,.~~"'- 7 4-- s '.'
. '~
- e. - % ,- '~
pt s n
$- .,$a a p5S- 5wf &'~'~~~
2N,. h '5 u . a$ y ; x (' ,- /E ., 1 * .A # .
- ~
-.T'~0~b' 'r-}' khj:.
t l $/$$
'- k~~~ :i- ::
WEfs,, h ! QC-r / ~ t **
,.,$.V(h,,,'
., D + .- ' p* ..h. . < . .-
-(: ~
- a.M.
/ 1 s.\ <$
s
@, (Qc \n%-:"s .' r.C./ '.
} g 3 ' , ',s,f']E,,,. ,
*--.~ql;*'
\j;, .Y'~#.' ; ~ ;
~~,.; i/.f jt
,b{
~ y . ~~),.i, c-\'I,1.j;$pr ,. ',tf.p. :
jh~.SI,
- . V'. W , q
-- .~ * *
- h&g
.-{- 1 .
*j. .-
>* 1 - w.),
. <. l3..
g o/ f l"
? .- [ :.. Y f. _. f* .~. :--.:~ .!y . i, .. f.*". !.l.I
'^ \
*~
, ~' - ae
?.
$)f"5'4 :y
. . . /, ' 'f .
v .,) , y { .;
, . i" ; &Wl/
M,. t Q
.,.i. Ay%
} ~5,,..-,"~: W... ...: i o.* ,,s '
C*,;l'. :2 ,,, y I er ,,,,,,,, .', ' ' ' ' f' .
~~~%.J f't -l,
\ ) .' : G-Q's iYO25$. ;G$~
' K.*Ma
A $)f.NN'%. :f.a.
zg%h@"?&e(lh?'/m'Mf@m # pi c *y 'm'-hikg.(4.glt+.>% V 4- J m u v.3 , s. P00R ORIGIN r
2.2.2.3.3 North Branch Transmission Main The North Branch Transmission Main, a 46" diameter pipeline 5,600 feet long, would extend from Bradshaw Reservoir to the eventual point of discharge to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek near the intersection of Pennsylvania Route 413 and Bradshaw Road. Design of the Main includes the use of an energy dissipator to reduce the erosive effects of the discharge. The pipeline would be constructed by the est and fill method adjacent to Bradshaw Road through relatively undevel-oped farmland. 2.2.2.3.4 North Branch Water Treatment Plant (See Part 1, page 1-4.) 2.2.2.3.S Western Transmission Ms.in (See Part 1, page 1-8.) 2.2.2.3.6 Southern Transmission Main (See Part 2, page 1-8.) 2.2.2.4 Costs The estimated cost of the Neshaminy Water Supply System is as shown in Table 2-2. A comparison of costs for the proposed system and ' alternative systems is shown in Table 2-3. 2.2.3 Cooling Water for denerating Stations 2.2.3.1 Source of water suppir.--A pumping station on the Delaware River . at Point Pleasant, Fennsylvania, would withdraw water from the Delaware River and pump it through a transmission main which would terminate in a 70-million gallon reservoir located near Bradshaw Road where the pumpage would be divided: part flowing by gravity into the North Branch Neshaminy f' Creek and on to Reservoir PA-617 (Lake Galena), and part pumped into the L. East Branch Perkiomen Creek to serve the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station.
~~
I Schuylkill River water at the Limerick plant site could be used for r- . l consumptive use when the flow as measured at the Pottstown gage is in excess L_ -
~~
2-IS ' l_ e -
Table 2-2 NESIIAMINY WATER SUI)PI,Y SYSTFM ESTIMATED INSTALI.ATION COSTS
- April 1979 Price I,evel In st allat in'n Pa st Future Nanic of Facility Costs Expe nditu re s Costs Point Pleasant Puniping Facilities Pt. Plessant Puniping Station 5 4,365,000 Conibined Tran3niidsion Main 3,015,000 Nrirth liranch Trans. Main _
795.000 Totat $,B,175,000 $ 370,000 $ 7; 805,000 IU u t voir l'A -617 2,100,000 2,100,000 0 Wate r Supply Co .t 19,010,000 1,230,000 17,780,000 North B ranch Water Trent. Pit .
'..* e .t e r n T r. n.sini .a ion M ain 1,235,000 70,000 1,165,000 2,825,000 20,000 2,805,000 Sout' i rn T randinis sion M ain C ,
i ? 13 .i i ' .t r:.t ion N O ve r1.end 620,000_ 420,000 200.000
$33,965,,000 $ 4,210,000 $ 2 '), 75 5, 000
'l OTA 1. A !.l. ITEM:i L.
E . POOR ORIGINAL :.
~
l l~ 2-16 i L. .
f7 R I~. 7 IJ F~l 1
! i f i [ 'I ! ~ ~l E I l. ;
- I '
.
- I i i 3
i . Table 2-3 NESliAMINY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM a COMPARISON OF ALTERNATE SYSTEMS April 1979 Price Level Installation Upit Cost (S/l,000 G) in Year Indicated for Production of: Water S. stem Cost of System 1982 1989 l'997
- 5 MGD 10 MGD 15 MGD 20 MGD l i t
' ~
10/20 MGD Inhial Capacity.
.cxpandable to'-ia MGD.
- , . Bucks & Montgomery Cc> unties and Philadelphia Electric $ 33,965,000 S 1.13 S 0.65 $ 0.58 $ 0.S0 w -
.L 10/20 MGD Initial Capacity. '
expandable to 40 MGD. - Bucks & Montgomery Counties $ 31,G30,000 S 1.42 $ 0. 79 $ 0.67 $ 0.57 4 ; i 5 MGD Initial Capacit), ' expandabic to 10 MCD.
, Bucks County Only $ 18,715,00 '- S 2.96 S 1.58 S 0.93 $ 0.75 i@
Q
,W i- .
C"s 3
- Note: Bucks County projected usage is 27% of production and Bucks Only system is based on such usage in the Z years indicated.
F""' May 22.199 l -
~ ~
of 530 cfs with one unit in operation and 560 cfs with two units in operation with certain conditions that are spelled out in DRBC's 1973 final EIS (DRBC 1973, pp 29-31). Perkiomen Creek water could be used when flows measured at the Grat.erford gage exceed 180 cfs with one unit in operation and 210 cfs with
,_ tso units in operation, exclusive of water pumped from the Delaware River.
t ,
- L.
2.2.3.2 Service area.--Water pumped into the East Branch Perkiomen Creek I~
;, would augment the flow of that creek and to some extent t' iivos of Perkio-7- men Creek and the Schuylkill River. Water not consumed at the generating
' b# station and released to the ,Schuylkill would also somewhat augment the river
- [~ downstream of the station. The geographic areas where the users of these 1 u.
flows are located would be the service area affected. f~
~
2.2.3.3 Components of the system.--In addition to the pumping station at l Point Pleasant and the combined main from the pumping station to Bradshaw i u. reservoir, as discussed under the heading "Neshaminy Water Supply System", I ' Lj page 2-8 et seg., of this assessment, the structural components of PECO's l r' system for prc/iding cooling water for generating stations are Bradshaw
~-
Revervoir and the Perkiomen Transmission main. In addition to the struc- , 1 tural components, East Branch Perkiomen and Perkiomen Creeks would form part o'f the total water supply system. Individual components are described , IlLj briefly in the following paragraphs. Detailed descriptions may be found in l ", the applicant's environmental report (PECO July 1979). The components of
~~
l PECO's portion of the total water supply sys+ m are shown in Figure 2-6
. as part of the ' general plan for the water supply system.
A 1 g 1 a l
~ .
l 2-18 a
..J .
1 -
- .. - z._ -_' ~~
T* . _.
, u.. .. .., .. . . . . , . . . . . ~
4
$%.k Q? s ] J .
'['t 2:'% #[**h f t
8~ j E ~; i
,e\. ,-
Ng-.,s s N ,c.. 'w'
,., my)-
s < . . .
=g g
~~ ,
., ~; ge g
% .y "b ::
.- . ~
,,.~~
,~g~ gw 1,. pm..
"b f c
- ~~ - .
.u:
1 g,j
"~
f
- f ,4
' .f - -
g Q - C"X . l.- ;n 1 ij % N[4SQ, '
!Tr 4 -~' # ( v a ih.
g% QMy",. 9 ' '.
!!l/ ;
.i .e l { l..- f l .( ,\ , ) ,k'{,
~
\ L-}Y a -gQ
-. } ~
h(e,/ - a a . hk d j L o ). -.,{. =..' 7 .
- \. .
.8 m
T D.. 4..
' 9 'i i . h.}nt.:
', i...
Ig
'~
if l, D '. A-h s . p.P' H 1 , i' e
. 'f / ll. '$
c " ,, S.s !!!40- $ 4 :{iil ,)L Q 2 f M r di ilt
'j
.a) r p,3 O
t [{l i et
- .-[( s ks T
=
\)4z,s@(fw4 e4 y-in a
- <\
t \' 4.9
%.4
)
. \ '
\_e.- t, 'r m
;q;,Qf.,,.{
.a k'l i.\ 1
'Ql( .
Q{
;..:!'%+%.}..)..,. w im.Q. ff.Y/iki)ll J i
2.2.3.3.1 Bradshaw Reservoir The purpose of Bradshaw reservoir is to accommodate differing dis-
._ charge flow rates, to provide one day emergency cooling water storage, and to allow for settling of silts and clays suspended in the water pumped from ~
the Delaware River. 1 The reservoir would be located in Plumstead Township in Bucks County at the intersection of Bradshaw and Myers Roads. The facility would cover approximately 28 acres of fallow field formed by four earthern imper-vious dikes, each 900 feet in length and varying in height from 5 to 20 feet depending upon existing ground contours. Impervious earthern material exca-
'vated from the reservoir site would be used to form the dikes. An impervious layer having a minimum thickness of three feet of existing material or two
~
feet of compacted material obtained from an external source would be used
'. .)
to form the bottom of the reservoir. I' . L. Facilities at the reservoir would include a pumping station capable f
- of pumping a maximum of 46 mgd approximately 6.7 miles to the East Branch of l
Perkiomen Creek. The pumping station would also contain a gated outlet L. structure feeding the gravity-flow North Branch Transmission .\ bin, eventual'ly discharging to the headwaters of North Branch Neshaminy Creek. Re=ovable
~
I trash racks would be installed at the entrance to the structure to prevent
<m ,
debris from fouling the pumps or passing to either Creek. a The 70-mg Bradshaw storage reservoir to be constructed and maintained by Philadelphia Electric Company would receive water diverted from the Delaware n River via the Combined Transmission Main. The facilities and related piping 2 2-20 '. e _J -
l l at the junction of the Main and the Reservoir would be capable of distri- 1 l
~~ ~
buting water directly to the North Branch Transmission Main,'(by-passing l 1 the reservoir) or to both facilities simultaneously. (See Figure 2-7.) The capacity breakdown for the reservoir is as follows: 18 mg for operating capacity 46 mg for emergency storage 6 mg for silt buildup 70 mg total capacity 1 1 As indicated earlier, Bradshaw Reservoir is designed to continue ! f operation of the Limerick Generating Station for one day without additional I water supply. The Reservoir is not required for safe shutdown of either re- l actor because a spr_ay pond o'f 25 million gallons at the Limerick site would be (; sufficient to shutdown the plant and would provide reserve storage for normal p- operation, j
'~
2.2.3.3.2 Perkiomen Transmission Main The Perkiomen Main, connecting Bradshaw Reservoir and the East Branch of Perkicmen Creek would convey water via a 48" diameter pipeline (; pumped approximately 6.7 miles along an existing gas pipeline right-of-way I - to the ridge line of the East Branch of the Pe 'tiomen Creek Watershed. The pipeline would cross U.S. Route 611 approximately 0.7 miles north of ( ,- Plumsteadville, Pennsylvania. No major streams would be affected by the r g r. project. (Figure II-8.) At the point of discharge to the East Branch, the _ applicant would construct an energy dissipatcr to reduce erosion of the creek c, bed and banks. A small connecting spur channel dug perpendicular to the I- stream channel is also included la the energy dissipator design. (Figure II-9.) I' The supplementary cooling water discharged to the Creek would travel 22.2 i ssream miles via open channel conveyance for eventual use at the Limerick j Nuclear Cencrating Plant in Pottstown, Pennsylvania. l j 2-21 ( J
- l *
~ ~~
p :,1
.V(f(* T '
f ***s*;L Id 3{] ;}*
~
l. Yj h'j .. statt {!! !!!!! i o
> Z
.- i 1 a r#' f N
- o g 's. 8.s
.] s. :l!Hiin
\.
w
.g 1,
- u. r 3 ~
m
~
g i ,r, 1
. .i. ..
i .gs ::. - l...... o ma< azs
.\ I.
- d. .
~ v .- ~
m ~ .CT ..- p - .
- \. - puua u o :n
<m
- v. .. ,,. - .
li 'i h- .~ .:_..4,..)Q .9 s = n -
.g#.w.eT= h. _%,+m,~~
jo.- ;
- u. Di a
c. I, ~ /d. 11 ,
--' _n f. l I! I. t} *
-9, ,n 5 ,i il .
. p '"
ilu@en..in .,!!.1 jui!. , .y i, h.W'M, \ r- g i. n.
.,. . . . . 3 p s ,.
jiill i
$l h. 3.. i j./N'. /'
(y)"9l!-<p'". i,. .
.;.. , $. ,.g.. yh,f i
H}s j
. I s} .
. .' \,.'/.,, '.,/< 4 e.\,, j l
}- 1 4; a
3.l k,i .1 p.
-: ' p !i [i ci N.j -
i 3 so ti . . .u. . 1 i f, g. r-p. r)y . ./ ,g .,/ s 3 y . .
.-,r V
.s .
lt. s;
.. I i ',,., / .
. ., . . \.
i ' 5 i! ., l \ . l. .I* u' r: / . (..:': .. [ ni * * ? ' ; } l '
').s \\ *
}s7'
- .l. i, E ji1;I. ,f@h'h,' .
4 u
\h.- m., .8,-23.l-k. .,.f -
, -].h.' )/'/
J,. . f%f ..
- s. m ..,...u u ./. -
...:,y..f. =,
.} .u. .
. ~. .
\ .e.
- \ . . i -.a
. .- 3 4 .
m==m :y . mw,7*.) 0 4 :, d. =a %._. .:,i7.ri.,a=dy
.' 'N.. \~ r .h G t.
$s sW [,/. / .
i-
- .5
- :8 . . i. .. r -
i .. . . a .,;h: a 15f f2r '.i, ' 2 . . i - : Ii ,o , .- Nr .
$, 0: .
. /; .h r
.i; c
.. //
, n 1 ,'
s y./, yy.
,p ..
c :
.' [ , i}.1.;i k I
- i / / , . i.
i 3 y ; l
. , f l l
9 .i; - 2 .r e s .
! .i l
Ti i 1 I,_.- a i!. .i T.i / " ;'-- l ai:i]!Il i: T I
~
E : u'-
. . , :. 0 -.
j ;r.la Jij u. i r ii W !.
- a
- r'-
1 I i
>. 11 1 i l sii , 4'.
- il3. o.
. l! -
?,
o j'i ', ll i!W I'i s ! i P .S 5; l , . h ;.c.n1 i .i, 1 i, s, .+'; -- . 2-[W
-/v c
. u.
2 s 11
!) !n . .
i i s j. t. - 1 n
- 1. k 3 i is s -V 1 . '1 i
i e a .: C
.. ; {
)e I i \ ,f i
- i. -
.I
- u. .
L n 2 y. q -l I r, l
;l. h.) .,1 1
l I, a
.. \
1l
.c 5 i '
~
- ' 'P00R ORIGINAL '
. ,. . , - . * - - - . -=.w-m-e -m
-=
. , r. . ,
~ e . 1 %,4,,.c. -
z
. .% .:.\. ,.:.,.\
u kv,2 '. *.y o
~,
a.. .... v
- s. q ' \ ! ... 'mn).
u, , b.'\-1.tw -% 2 ~ 6,.i\ ,
!$.,.-!.) ,
*l'
~
hh t:a e*c -
,;e,.f <,g \,
o W I z w H'
-->- cc . .
- s 6.* ~. rq::'M. . .- -,> .yg . .:.t,, ...., 1
,- , .i-a ea z w
, . .s w
- u. x z
<= x -O 3
- 3. .e l,#
o
~
- 5
.. c ' 9~1-g .
u
.. - .. ... \(O. , ,
gt M g h, ' 'q' * ' N,b N
- '$, jh-y
)
s .,
.y ./ . .. .
^- ..,
Nh.
).
- 1 \ m .d y.s .. A- A' h . '. N," .~ - ' .
-. jpp'. cs b, , s. "\' f.. 3 i, l ' . . *'; ;. %, $,. l/ 1I]l
. * '? . '-).I *Y
.- .,,,,,,,,,j ,c. .- 4 - 'j - -
~g -
k*f N ~ g h
. .y
,.i- q % j '-[ j .,
- c
.:.,e/,
~, ,- n 3.
>ghr 1 .:-
,i ,
.i9 t h- s . %s.
- . -Q k., .{ ,,, .' %i %, .. y '. - -: W~f
/[h,kh4 f si\I A .:
~
- r. > 1.-? n . A ..;;' u . n% a.#
% .A.}.L
; i %,
. I
~-
. .. a .
,v.:3\..
,r.:. .
' }-~'(/ gr
. ., ]. . ,
M.t g ' A a =. D ,[ h. ,, E :. ._lf
. ,'(;igF,-lw',,@...,..
n. c.
,. y- -
s,, - f % , ;. y
- .. ,t b f >_ -{ .'
. ...ti .
3 f'. #pr .
,'ff, ' ,,, y
~
,, ,6 .
}s a 6
\, g'
,; e -
. ~ , ~ -
1;j\ v t . ,' M , '
-J- g Ri,M.s
. '); 1. '-
?.-) . , .-
% . ., w,, tm. 2 st.t ;p,: 4 %,.
s
- - o,, , c
- t. -
i . lh g i ,, h %' ? . 1s.
.l hC\ 'g,. 0
)l '} ,* . 'f c
E '0'
.-)l_, ,,7 . . . f,
- "c .- (
l '-
.a ,1 . .
_w ,-
-s. - .
2 . . . .
,~
,,k ,% \ot3 ~.\' ~ ,.;.
as
- 1. <.m
-w r .h-
- 5
=
r- .
.63..
. 1
.* . . ~ . .. . s . . ..
} y - u- '- ~
p ;.- -7. : ,4.- . . l - s s
,~.. . . . . 1* - T( , ,.
.- p4
,J. c.~.'.s , . . . . ., :l . .,
t x , l
- t+w -
%)
s
,l',...
.,,[sh 'j - j'. , a,e[
, .?,.-
[ l t 8
'3 8 l
e s v J.
- I gC .=
,e 'N . ,'Tj . [ i h ',
< ! A. 4*
g k* 5 O *
, , ,\.
~
.? l' N2bc. - ; j:
m, n f.g%. ' .\< % ~2
. hs ,, '>,,r - o
- 1 y :
,( * . K, - . 'h. i. ; '
, ,: M *t . ! .}
- r. . ki i\ Ge /t .
j
- b, ( 's ' ' '
. s , g. .-
. .o 2.n .
.- -e, .. -- ., . . - ~ . . . - , _ .
.. s - -
3 .
- t. 1. l 'l, i.
4
- i i - - * ,
C ,
. ~~* '#
a%.*h.~.~
;=. . . , . ..-........
llg . % q.~ 4j .t 3
, .} _,
.l ,.'
,- - * % e n y-
, ,'~ ,
ll *--f :)/ **f,' ,/;, ' ///
't i \ .
l----
. .xu l ..
l/ "* ,
;. - l n ='
l? '. M 9)
- .j / l
,a
[-[ *~'- c <r,7-, J ./ '
/
. /(.V. . j ;
S*.'*.*. J # i , t ,. ;Y '..**#-;
//
/ * /
/"
.l (s)-
+
. . . ... j q. l .
. ./.,/ T SECTION A-A
- pv* \. e .
.*.e.=. n *
/. ,
.....-..m.
.t u . j I1 i i - , , - .
1 ~.'
, GENERA.L.
- - - PL-- AN .
g.- ..
- ,[ *****Q__"'--***** / - - - , , -
o -_g, . l'.' *
/ --
N
\ .. s
( 9 8 p: Q l !
- k
.;rA .M.g 1
, 3 P--.'O -
Q*g'/ .yr E! <* l I y N (>S T l l h. L
't U
h
- )......
i - ,: 1
.q y
e , (,cJ- - -- - - - g - --
-q) 4
- I ; s l; 4
. ..., .a f,f 7.
k:*MQ j
. - .M.T.mjlt ..
vh%.a i;. - .I y< < .. e, Clla"J i
- n i:
s - ~ ' 7_ %; , ( summmmmme
'I :l 3 ~
. .I E [ "* **
$ 7 ../s ,.
5M .i
~
l i r d._ r- _" 7 d>
*n ,,
I
^
'**' ^
l
= .
.- l i .-- a
__ -- '. l A m t,., - pg Ay l l n,g t-- --b. f
. . T. .
. +i ,
-,. ) .......
ce. . _ . _ . .
;;-hf-d
- 3 d'.,.- - - M - .f' W[.s . :
4 ,. jLN i
- = l
; -- . ..~...
. . .j **"*
/j ,y '
Figure 2-9
" '--"==*
". 'i i
i *s _.... .. ...
; stcsoN o-n .
, c
.*)
~
.j 7
.,..c.......c.,
pERKIOMEN TRANSMISSION MAIN
- . c_.
SECTION c-c
. ek - -
m _ ENERGY DISSIPATOR ji ;
~~,....
Pl.Al. AND SECTIONS E_
- 2. 2.3. 3. 3 East Branch Perkiomen Creek
~~
The East tranch Perkiomen Creek rises in Bedminste'r Township, west of the community of Bcdminster, and flows in a southwesterly direction through the"5oio' ughs of Perkasie and Sellersville, to its confluence with _. the main Perkiomen Creek just south of Schwenkr.ville, a distance of approxi-mately 25 miles. The East Branch flows through a wide valley underlain by the Brunswick Formation with interfingerings of the Lo.catong Formation. It has a drainage area of 61.0 square miles. Seven r.an-made d.sms are located on the East Branch. 2.2.3.3.4 Perkiomen Creek Perkiomen. Creek drains 362 square miles of Lehigh, Berks,
; Bucks, and Montgomery Counties in southeastern Pennsylvania. No natural ponds or lakes exist in the watershed, which consists of low hills and rolling land. Much of this area is forested with second- or third-growth hardwoods ~~
j typical of sou*heastern Pennsylvanf.a. The Perkiomen and its tributaries are low to moderate gradie.nt streams; flow rates in most are rapid and quite vari-able. The recorded maximum, minimum, and median flows in the creek, measured
- at the Graterford gage, are 39,900, 4.7, and 368 cfs, respectively.
! 2.2.3.4 Costs l I- 2.2.3.4.1 General.--The cost to the applicants, NWRA and PECO, would depend
-C' upon the arrangement made for sharing the joint-use facilities, such as the Point Picasant Pumping Station and the Combined Main, plus the separate cost l to cach applicant for facilities,used independently. PECO would pay its allo-r cated share of the installation and operating cost for the joint facilities
-- and the total cost of the Bradshaw Reservoir and the Perkiomen Transmission Main.
L
~~
b 2-25 ; l 1 : .
In terms of the 1979 price level, the cost of the Neshaminy Water Supply
- , System would be about $33,965,000 - as shown in Tabic II-2, page II-10 .
PECO's share of this cost, and of op'erating costs, is still to be deter-
~
mined. ~ The estimated installation cost of the Bradshaw Reservoir and the Perkiomen Transmission Main is about $8,700,000, all of which would be borne by PECO, as would the operation, maintenance, and repair costs for '
---- these- two- facilitie s .
2.3 Alternatives 2.3.1 Neshaminy Water Supply System 2.3.1.1 General.--Specific site location alternatives for the significant elements of the project and alternatives to the entire system are considered
,.. in this section. The purpose of the project is to supply Central Bucks and Montgomery Counties with an adequate and dependable supply of water. Analysis of the reasonable methods.of achieving this purpose and the reasons for reject- ~
ing the various alternatives-in favor of the proposed project are discussed. 2.3.1.2 No action alternative.--The "no action" alternative would be not to construct a supplementary water supply system in the Central Bucks and Montgomery County area. In this event, these communities would be forced t to rely on existing water supplies for present and future water needs. I 1. . The most feasible local source of supply would be c - Jm groundwater. [ 7 The existing surface water supplies could not meet demand since the surface l water streams in the area are intermittant and of very poor quality during i ,. . t~ periods of low precipitation. In addition, the utili:ation of any surface water supply would require the same type of system facilities (i.e. water treatment plant, transmission mains, etc.) similar to those of the Neshaminy System. a m
~
2-26 4
.me
+-- - e ~
water streams in the area are intermittent and of very poor quality during periods of low precipitati,n. In addition, the utili:stion of any surface water supply would require the same type of system facilities (i.e. ~ water treatment plant, transmission mains, etc.) similar to those of the Neshaminy
~~
; System. -
c; - Moreover, the development of reservoirs on the local streams neces-
~
]ff sary to provide a firm yield for water supply would be difficult and involve
,] severe _ environmental and sociological impacts. Use of existing reservoirs for this purpose has been determined as not having the capability to meet demand requirements. (NWRA February 1979).
~
;~ Reside,ntial development is expected to continue at established
~
- rates regardless of whether a regional supplementary water supply system is constructed,With groundwater as the only available source of supply, this
. would create an even greater dependence on an already stressed resource.
The impacts associated with the "no action" alt.ernative would have essentially the same adverse ..gact on the environment as with the further development of groundwater by continuing to over subscribe available supplies
~~
to the service area and is not considered a favorable alternative.
~
2.3.1.5 Further development of ground water.--This alternative would involve establishment of a system of wells in the rural and undeveloped portions of the service area where groundwater is presently available. A system of water lines
~
would be needed to convey these supplies to areas where withdrawals are in ex-cess of the levels of recharge within the watershed. The network of pipelines
-~
and the number of wells would be a likely impetus for scattered rural develop-wJ e
~~
2-27
- w. . - + . - - . ..w q + e-s- ,r - - , , -
ment with the likely effects of local well interference, continued ground-water mining and' further depletion of the resource. The impact of this alter-native in addition to those discussed later indicate that its rotential , detriments would outweigh the potential benefit. In the absence of such a regicial water supply system, the adverse environmental impact of developing
~
a widely dispursed well system would be cumulatively significant. Further development 'of groundwater therefore is considered the.least desireable water supply alternative for the area. 2.3.1.4 Lake Nockamixon.--The use of the Pennsylvania state-owned reservoir as a water supply alternative to the Neshaminy System would severely impair
._ the regional recreational benefits provided by the facility. Water supply
'i usage of the lake would result in large drawdowns that would reduce the use-L' fulness of existing recreational facilities. For this reason, the use of Lake-Nockamixon for water supply before the year 2000 is considered unfavorable
, i
- ~unless no other viable alternative is available.
( The most efficient use of the reservoir for public water supply l a l
- would involve augmenting available supplies in the Delaware River during periods l
l of low flow rather than drawing directly frem the reservoir. This alternative would make use of the Delaware River for most of the year and include a down-l
' stream diversion such as the Point Pleasant. Pumping Sta: ion. The result would I fa: -
be more water available for use at the reservoir during periods of peak demand. l l
'~
Finally, the use of Lake Nockamixon for water supply would restrict
~
the capacity of the reservoir to provide an emergency source
. * ,_?' . .1 e
m
- P
- ' 2-28 --
i
a N during periods of severe drought. The time during which the reservoir could serve as an emergency supply is limited, and regular use of the reservoir for water supply would reduce the available yield. 2.3.1.5 Withdrawals from the Schuylkill River.--The use of the Schuylkill River as an alternative source of water supply for Montgomery County is not considered adequate because of:
- 1. Lack of available supply due to heavy agricultural, power municipal, and industrial.use within the watershed.
- 2. Limited opportunities for developing further water storage reservoirs due to ge. ology, past mining activities in the upper
~
reaches of the watershed and the location of communities in 18 several technically usable reservoir sites.
'~
3, Increased use of the Schuylkill River would lead to further
- - quantity- conflicts and increased reuse contributors to a further l buildup of total disccived solids and deteriorated water quality.
l , For these reasons the use of the Schuylkill River is not considered i ( _ the most usable alternative solution to the problem of water supply in f , Central Bucks-bbntgomery County Region.
- 2.3. 2. Cooling Water For Electric Generating Stations
,. 2.3.2.1 Nature of alterngtives.--The Philadelphia Electric Company considered the following alternatives for water supply for cooling its timerich Generating i.' , Station: Four different pipelines originating at different points on the Dela-
~
ware River but, each delivering water to the East Branch of the Perkiomen Creek, two different pipelines origi,n "ing at the Delaware River and following differ-ent routes tc a booster pumping station on the Perkiomen Creek near Graterford, I b og __ 2-29 . 7p 9 ,- y g- g --, - - .*p 9 _ - - ---ee-
a pipeline from the Philadelphia Northeast Sewage Treatment Plant to a booster-pumping station on the Perkiomen Creek near Graterford, reservoirs in the Schuylkill River Basin and groundwater underlying the area near the generating station. While the Blue Marsh project in the Schuylkill Basin was considered as
~
an alternative to diverting water from the Delaware River, it was not a viable. ! alternative because DRBC would not commit the full yiet i of a project built at public expense to a single private use. Also, the extraordinary consumptive use of water by the generating station would not allow reuse of =$st of this water. 2.3.2.2 Significant differences.--PECO noted that several significant dif-ferences exist between alternatives as a' group and the proposed plan.
~
Under the proposed plan others would construct a new intake / pumping station capabic of delivering sufficient water to meet future public water supply re- ! _ quirements and to supply needs of the Limerick Generating Station. The
' alternatives assume PECO would act alone and construct facilities to supply 1
only its own needs. These facilities would not be readily expandable in the future to serve the public. There would be no Bradshaw Reservoir constructed as part of aay of the alternative plans. 2.3.2.3 Most desirable alternative.--After analysis of seven alternative pipelines from the Delaware River to the East Branch Perkiomen Creek, f l
,; reservoir alternatives, and groundwater alternatives (PECO July 1979, pp III-3,4),
l s PECO concluded that the joint facilities would result in annual cost savings of more than 20% for Bucks County and 10% for PECO as well as providing advantages
- in operating. flexibility and reliability. Since the joint project also would l l -
! require 2 fewer miles of total right-of-way than the combined individual faci-lities, the proposed project is superior to the most preferred alternate pipe-
. line route. Also, the joint facilities would result in only one intake / pumping 5
l station on the Delaware River to serve several users rather than a series of 1 r- _- i 2-30
stations, each having a single purpose. A new reservoir in the Schuylkill River Basin would have a greater environmental impact, larger land use, and higher cast than the proposed pipeline system. The use of groundwater or existing reservos.rs is ,
~
not feasibis since insufficient supp1ies of water to meet PECO needs are available. 2.4 Probable Impacts 2.4.1 General This section of this assessment (Part II) deals with differences that would most likely occur in the existing environment with and without the proposed water supply system as it has been changed since the analysis was made in the Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared in 1973. The analysis is to determine whether the impacts that would be associ-ated with changes in th'e project are significant enough to warrant up-dating portirns of the FEIS with formal supplements.
. The proposed project would affect, in varying degrees, such environ-mental elements as land, air, water, flora, fauna and the human habitat. With the exception of air, which would be relatively unaffected by the proposed
_ project, the applicants' environmental reports deal with each of the relevant 1 - components of these environmental elements. This assessment draws upon the applicants' reports for much factual data but maintains its independent analysis.
~
~_ The probable impacts of construction and operation of the proposed
~'
water supply system would relate to both structural components and natural
~
components of the system; i.e. water for the system would flow through
~7 natural streams as well as through man-made conduits. Also, impacts would
__ be associated with natural and man-mado resources that would be common to all physical features of the water-supply system; therefore, this analysis includ+a those categories where applicab1c. es ** 2-31 1 . -
- ~ - ' '
_ ,. _ , _ - . . . -- -+ -
- . , - -r,--
2.4.2 Neshaminy Water Supply System 2.4.2.1 General.--Short-term adverse environmental impacts would be associated with construction activities of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station, North Branch Treatment Plant, and related transmission mair., as well as with natural water-ways and man-made reservoirs. Such temporary impacts would include disruption of traffic and tourist usage, increased siltation of water bodies, and temporary disruption of the Delaware Canal. The potential for long-term adverse environmental i= pacts involves withdrawal of water from the Delaware River, capability of upstream
. water supply reservoirs to provide a "back-up" supply during periods of drought, ecological impact.on streams receiving additional water diverted from the
, Delaware River, ecological disruption related to construction and operation of s transmission mains, and probable residential and commercial development in the
-. servic.e areas.
s . Environmental benefits are expected to accrue from the proposed water supply system by providing a regional solution to further deterioration of groundwater supplies and by providing a single source of supply for the combined needs of the Neshaminy Water Resources Plan and those of the Limerick Nuclear 1 Generating Station. t . l Analysis of significant environmental effects that can be reasonably l , . _ _ . expected has found that the beneficial impacts would outweigh the adverse im-I l r3 pacts associated with the proposed project and that the project would be a J' . . . feasible and beneficial use of the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. 1 . l -- Chapter V of NWRA's Environ 2 ental Report (February 1979), examines
~
in detail adverse and beneficial probable impacts, including matrixes for easy ! 2-32 l
. - - - - ----~ - --- -
reading, that would be associated with the proposed project. This assessment discusses only some of*the more significant impacts that help provide the basis for conclusions reached in this analysis.
- 2. 4. 2. 2 Point Pleasant Pumping Station.--Analysis of impacts in and around the proposed pumping plant site at Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania, as indicated in revised plans, supports the conclusions of the Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Point Pleasant Diversion (DRBC February 1973,
- p. 3) which states that:
The proposed Point Pleasant Diversion will be beneficial to the Neshaminy and Perkiomen Watersheds and not detrimental to the Delaware River if the following precautions are observed:
- 1. Keep to a minimum the fluctuation of East Branch
_ Perkiomen Creek and North Branch Neshaminy Creek caused by pumping.
- 2. Bury the pipelines from Point Pleasant Pumping Station to Bradshaw Road Pumping Station and from there to Nesha-miny and Perkiomen Creeks.using proper sedimentation controls
. and ground cover replacement to minimize the effect on the environment.
- 3. Design the above-ground facilities (control houses, transformers, sheds, etc.) to complement the structures found in the area.
- 4. Arrange schedules so as not to begin any construction during the wildlife reproductive season, roughly spring through mid-summer.
- 5. Develop operating schedules for change of pumpages to eliminate any rapid fluctuations.
~
~~6. Design intake structures (for velocities, fish screens,
, etc.) to prevent impingement and entrainment.
1 1 Operation of the pumping facility could adversely affect fish and I invertebrates in the vicinity of the intake by impingement and entrainment
~
and by periodic dredging of the intake channel. The severity of these 1 "" effects would be mitigated to some extent by using protective traveling 6 2-33 1 2.. .- __ -- - . - - - . ~ . . -
scr; ens cnd icw intake velccities, and by cvoiding sptwning psriods by schtd-uling dredging operations at other times of the year. Adverse asthetic effects .of the intake structure are not considered significant since the structure would have a low profile when set into the river bank. Asthetics at the pumping station site would not be adversely affected since the architectual design of the proposed structure is compatible with the charac- . ter of the community. Investigation of potential adverse impacts on cultural resources in the vicinity of the Pumping Station and remaining elements of the Neshaminy System has found no important historic or archaeologic sites that would be adversely affected (Pennsylvania Historic Commission October 1979) except for the Delaware Canal. A short-term impact involves the pipeline of the intake structure crossing the Delaware (Pennsylvania) Canal near the Point Pleasant Pumping Station. The Canal is listed in the National Register of Historic Landmarks l~ and has great value as a cultural and recreational resource. The flow of the canal would be by-passed during construction so there would be some interruption of tourists. Procedures for construction in and adjacent to the canal would be reviewed b'y the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. An archaeologist would be retained to observe construction at the Canal. Conse-l quently, there should be no long-term adverse impacts to the canal, due to the "2 proposed project.
*p.
2.4.2.3 Delaware River.--The principal impacts of withdrawal of water from the Delaware River to supply the proposed project would relate to flow, quality of water, and aquatic ecology in the river. I i 2-34 --
- nw - w w,+ ~
+m -w-w- .s- - ,- - - m. s
2.4.2.3.1 Flow , The impact of withdrawing a maximum of 95 mgd from the Delaware River is judged to have less, impact than withdrawing the approximate 150 mgd anticipated in the Point Pleasant Environmental Impact Statement in 1973. In basic terms, the maximum withdrawal of 95 mgd is approximately 5 percent of the minimum flow of the Delaware River at Trenton maintained at 1940 mgd (3000 cfs). The water withdrawn for municipal water supply would be essentially a non-consumptive use, with almost total return to the Delaware River via the Neshaminy, Perkiomen, Pennypack and Wissahickon Creeks (NWRA November 1978). Evaporative losses of approximately 10 percent would occur during conveyance from the Delaware River to the North Branch Treatment Plant via g .- the North Branch of Neshaminy Creek and in Perkicmen Creek.
,._ .The present proposal represents a 37 percent reduction in the maxi =um amount of water that would be withdrawn from the Delaware River. Also, there would be a reduction in the amount of water required from upstream storage to support the 95 mgd withdrawal at Point Pleasant and still maintain established flow criteria in the Delaware River.
_ The capability of the Delaware River is not adequate to meet the , minimum flow requirement of 3000 cfs at Trenton during extreme drought condi-tions, with or without the Point Pleasant Diversion (DRBC, Level B, October'1979) . T During periods of low flow, water would be allocated among users according to the l priorities listed in DRBC Resolution No. 76-18, November, 1976. As explained in
'Section 2.1.3.4, pp. 2-6,7, provision of cooling water for the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station is conditioned upon the availability of water. Utilities must develop their own water supply storage facilities to provide for their con-l i sumptive use requirements during low flow periods or they must curtail production i a of ciectricity. ',
3 2-35 --
.7, , -
2.4.2.3.2 Quality . . The water quality of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania,.is generally good. Data show it to have equal or better quality than either East Branch Perkiomen Creek or North Branch Neshaminy Creek. Importation of Delaware River water to these watersheds would improve water quality, particularly in degraded downstream areas. With-drawal of water from the Delaware River should produce insignificant changes in water quality in the River (DRBC Appendix A, September 1979) . However, there would be slightly increased s!1tation from excavation of riverbank areas during construction. Water quality effects,' that is, reduction of the total amount of flow in the Delaware available to dilute wastes as a result of withdrawal, would be negligible since the 46 mgd for consumptive use by the Philadelphia Electric Company would not be withdrawn if the flow of the Delaware River were to fa11 below 1940 mgd (3000 cfs), as required by DRBC Docket Decision l l
-- D-69-210 CP (DRBC October 1979) . Municipal withdrawals at Point Pleasant with-l out the 46 mgd for Philadelphia Electric Company would account for approximately l
a two and one-half percent nonconsumptive use of total river flow, assuming a low flow in the Delaware of 1940 mgd, eventually being returned to the Delaware
~
at the mouth of Neshaminy Creek and at its confluence with the Schuylkill River. R, eduction in the proposed maximum withdrawal based upon elimination of additional quantities for water quality augmentation in Neshaminy Creek
- and for additional supplies for industrial municipal purposes in Montgomery County via Perkiomen Creek would also tend to reduce the local impact of ,
withdrawal, specifically on the Delaware River. See Appendix B for more detailed discussion of water quality factors , associated with the Point Pleasant Diversion. .
. w 2-36
( _ l . -.
2.4.2.3.3 Aquatic Ecology Recent studies, contrary to the EIS description (DRBC 1973), indi-cate the Delaware River at the site of the diversion is a fairly productive pool (N.J. DEP 1979). Smallmouth bass, walleye pike, channel and white catfish, ' ~ and possibly striped bass use the area as a nursery. Shad juveniles were con-centrated in the area during the 1979 fall emigration. The area is likely to receive greater use as a nursery and possibly a spawning area, as fish react to the general. improvement in water quality basin-wide. The 35 percent reduction in water to be withdrawn from the Delaware River under the revised plan would be associated with a smaller adverse impact on the fishery in the river. Also, the lack of significant impingement i and entrainment effects at two large up-river water users (Martins Creek rE - and Gilbert generating stations), indicate no significant adverse effects. ' .. The flow reduction, the committment to use the latest screening design, the 1 flush-to-the-bank alignment, and the 0.5 fps approach velocity, support the 1 conclusion that there would be no significant adverse effects.
.e State and federal fishery managers should be satisfied that the final design of the intake structures is appropriate prior to construction. Also, the following recommendations should be accepted by the applicants: A moni-toring study should be required to reduce further the possibility of unforeseen damage and to permit planning of mitigating steps if necessary. Construction and maintenance dredging should be performed between November and March (rather than September-April as stated in the EIS) to reduce the potential for impact on l_ d
{ migrating juvenile and adult shad. If the applicants agree to' implement these minor recommendations, the EIS conclusions would be unaffected. i l . 1 . 2-37 a
** weep e.eu a wer+=
. . --ww -sew,,
-9 .
, - y- ---,,r -
,--- . _ .- --m y .,
In balance, withdrawal of water from the Delaware River for the proposed project would have only a slightly adverse effect on environmental resources in the Delaware River Basin. As indicated in other sections of this assessment, these small adverse effects would be more than offset by bene-ficial effects in the Neshaminy and Perkiomen watersheds.
.q 2.4.2.4. Combined Transmission Main.--The Combined Transmission Main that would convey supplementary water supplies from the Point Pleasant Pumping Station for use by the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority and Philadelphia Electric Com-f would involve blasting operations which could adversely affect existing , wells _in the area. There would be increased noise levels during blasting and construction operations ^, high potential for erosion of exposed surfaces, dis-ruption of terrestrial and human environment in the construction area, and I~
disruption of traffic on. six local roads. It appears that no significant long-term adverse impacts would occur
~~
since adequate remedial, protective, and mitigative measures would be taken by the applicant. For example, the Authority would compensate homeowners for damages resulting from blasting operations. Also, no major stream crossings are anticipated, and there would be minimum disruption to future land use, including re urn of wildlife habitat,.
., .2.4.2.5 North Branch Transmission Main (Raw Water) .--There would be no sig-l nificantly adverse long-range impacts associated with construction of the
! .[? North Branch Transmission Main. Unlike the steep and rocky environment of the Combined Fbin construction area, the North Branch Main right-of-way traverses relatively flat and largely undeveloped farm acreage 1 [ l h 2-38 --
,. ~ _ .
adjacent to the Bradshaw Reservoir site to the point of discharge to North j Branch Neshaminy Creek near the Route 413 bridge. (See Figure 2-6). The . North Branch Main would have no major stream crossings and would use a smaller diameter pipeline, approximately half the length of the Combined Main. An energy-dissipating structure would be constructed at the point of discharge to the North Branch Neshaminy Creek to reduce erosion. A temporary increase ' ~ in erosion and sedimentation in the Creek would occur during construction u of the dissipator. To reduce adverse impacts, construction should be sche-m duled to avoid spawning periods of resident fishes.- No blasting is anti-cipated for the North Branch Main but one local road could be affected, in the short run, by construction. . . 2.4.2.6 North Branch Neshaminy Creek.--The impact of increased flow, espe-
"~
cially on the existing ecology, would be significant in this watershed. Bene-ficial impacts would greatly outweigh adverse impacts. 2.4.2~.6.1 Flow
~
Minimum flow requirements for Neshaminy Creek have been developed by consensus of State and Regional Water Resource Agencies to compensate the pro-i] posed decrease"in the amount of supplemental water diverted from the Delaware i River. Under the present proposal, natural flows in the North Branch of Nesha-
~
miny Creek and Pine Run, including natural storage at Lake Galena in addition
~'
to supplemental water obtained from the Delaware, would be used for water supply.
-d .
The minimum releases maintained below the treatment plant agreed
-"~
~
to by the agencies were 5.3 mgd from March 1 to June 15', and 2.73 mgd c-for the remainder of the year. Average daily release for the year w 2-39 y_ .e "" N"*"- **" * * " ~ "# ' " ' ~ * '
.-, -.y-,cseem *-*.,w-9---.W '.=rw -e.---p +a -~PM
+-----**y4 - r e. p 9- 9t e'-tig, +'*7---v-e*- "9 7---'
would be 3.5 mgd. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission, participating in those discussions, has suggested that with establishment of minimum flow releases in the Neshaminy Watershed the trout stocking program could be expanded to include additional sections of Neshaminy Creek below the treatment plant (NWRA November 1978). r-Some initial erosion of stream banks and areas of deposition within i the stream bed causing temporarily higher turbidity levels would occur until
~~
operation of the system started on a regular basis. The additional flows, intf5duced during periods of low flow,would be contained within the banks and would not represent a significant change in volume when compared to peak floy.
.- Because of relatively low stream gradient and the type of soils, stream veloci-ties:are expected to be less than 3 ft/sec and are not considered erosive.
2.4.2.6.2 Quality Minimum flow requirements established for Neshaminy Creek, although less than earlier proposals, would have a moderately beneficial effect on water 7 {, quality and on the existing ecology in this watershed. The additional water l . . . diverted to the Neshaminy Watershed is not intended to encourage a reduction l : - in the level of treatment for waste water discharged to the Creek. Water quality analysis for'the Delaware and North Branch Neshaminy, I shown.in Appendix B, indicates that imported Delaware River water would be
~~
compatible with, and in some cases, of bette quality than the water of Nor.th Branch.Neshaminy.. Creek (DRBC September 1979) . During periods of low flow in a North Branch Neshaminy, addition of Delaware Rit er water would provide further
._ water quality benefit by =aintaining a minimum flow with controlled releases from Lake Calena, s
m.
. 2-40
- - - - - w -
Wy -"" = -'
2.4.2.6.3 Aquatic Ecology
~~ ~
Biota in the. upper reaches of North Branch Neshaminy are typical of small warmwater streams and are adapted to intermittent flow, and eutrophi-cation. No rare types are present. In the vicinity of the intakes, the North Branch (and Pine Run) benthos is fairly diverse. Nineteen species of fish inhabit both streams in this area including panfish (bluegill, pumpkinseed, 1 redbreast sunfish) and a small number of bass. Recreational fishing, which is limited, takes place at pools and bridge crossings. i Diversion of Delaware River water to North Branch Neshaminy would provide for increased aquatic productivity during normally dry periods. The character of existing biota would be altered as there would be an enhancement of organisms which favor higher flows and a decrease in slower moving water
~'
populations. l . , , Structures would be placed in the stream bed to dissipate the force of pumped water and prevent erosion. Changes in the stream would be somewhat similar to those which naturally occur in a stream between headwaters and downstream reaches. Therefore, biotic productivity would be increased and the impact would be beneficial. l - 1 l Maintenance of minimum stream flows below the intake dam on 3 North Branch would benefit biota during periods of very low or no natural
. flow. . At other times biota would be adversely affected by lower than normal flows. A high percentage of suspended invertebrate population would be re- 'I. . . moved by both intakes. Entrainment and impingement of ' fish would be high l . since intakes would not have protective screening and the percentage of f
_s stream flow (meaa daily) to be removed would be about 62*. (North Branch) and 5 w. e e I
~
2-41
--w- % . -=w.-, --- -.m e .. - . -
about 95% (Pine Run) in an average flow year. The intake dams would also present barriers to upstream movement of fishes. Aquatic populations up-stream and downstream of the intakes would be . adversely. affected by these local effects. Losses however would be very slight when considered against total biotic resources in the streams and the enhancement created by higher flows in headwater areas. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission, PaDER, and DVRPC have no objection to the proposed minimum release schedule. Adverse effects created by turbidity during construction would be locali:ed and temporary since spring and early summer spawning seasons would be avoided. 2.4.2.7 Lake Galena.--The principal impacts on Lake Galena would relate to Li. its yield, water quality, aquatic ecology, and recreation potential. 3 . .- Yield
~
2.4.2.7.1 Lake Galena (Reservoir PA-617), completed in 1972, would provide stor-l age capacity of up to 1,629 million gallons for supplemental water supply and would' control releases to North Branch Neshaminy Creek. Natural drainage into
~ ~
Lake Ga1ena, the North Branch (above and below the reservoir), and the natural 1 l ~ flow of Pine Run would be used as the initial source of water for the treat-I .. ment plant. Releases from Lake Galena would be made during those times of the year when natural supplies are not available and would assure a minimum
~~
I; ' flow downstream of the treatment plant of 5.3 mgd from March 1 to June 15, and 4: 2.73 mgd during the remainder of the year.
. 2.4.2.7.2 Quality
~~~
!- Introduction of Delaware River water into Lake Galena could increase l ' ~~ loadings of phosphorus in that reservoir. However, there is also a potential a 9 f ==
~~
2-42 - I . . . . . _ _ . -__ . . _ _ - - -. - - - - - - - -
for eutrophication without the proposed project (Dresnack 1979). To reduce potential eutrophication would not necessarily' result in less algal concen-trations assuming the critical phosphorus criteria was still exceeded. Increased loadings may be wholly or partially offset by the small hydraulic retention times resulting from the proposed method of operation of the water supply. system, including operation of the reservoir.
-- Phosphorus uptake by plants or removal by settling would reduce the outflow of phosphorus that could accumulate in Lake Galena. With free-flowing j water downstream of the reservoir and with no increased phosphorus concentra-tions over existing conditions downstream, it appears that phosphorus concen-trations in the stream would not increace, due to releases of water from Lake
. . - Galena.
2.4.2.7.3 Aquatic Ecology
- In response to water supply demands, the water surface elevation of Lake Galena would drop during the fall resulting in.a loss of shallow area benthic organisms. Repopulation would be fairly rapid in the spring. Fish
- predation would also increase as cover for small fish is reduced. ,
l l Precautions should be taken to prevent a land-locked population of
- alewife to become established since that species could overpopulate the lake - " with forage fish. One way to control alewife, and other forage fish, would be l ,
to increase 'the predator population of sport fish. c r; . . n: - . 2.4.2.7.4 - Recreation 1 Lake' Galena srp a 4 ,, important recreational fishery due to the Pennsylvania Fish Comm13;-ton stav?ing a variety of sport fish 'over the last a 6e I e
~
2-43
- '~~ ~~
few years. To accommodate recreational activities and other demands, the
~
reservoir would be maintained at a constant level during the recreation season by water wirrdrawn from the Delaware River and discharged to North Branch Neshaminy Creek above the reservoir. 2.4.2.8 Pine Run.--The principal impacts on Pine Run would relate.to flow, quality, aquatic ecology and alignment. The impacts would be similar to
~
those associated with N rs Aanch Neshaniny C. eek, as discussed in Section 2.4.2.6. 2.4.2.8.1 Flow . Natural flow from Pine Run could provide up to 10 mgd to the Nesha-
.+
miny Water Supply System. Water from the Run would flew from the Pine Run Pool into the intake and then by gravity to the North Branch Pump Station. The Intake Dam would be operated so that regulated flow would be maintained i t downstream.- The intake dam is described in Section 1.2.3 of this assessment i and the probable impacts are discussed in Section 1.4.2. Reservoir PA-616, locs.tc.i on Pine Run approximately 1.S miles above the treatment plant, is an existing flood control reservoir which could not be used for water supply. 2.4.2.8.2 Quality l The water quality of Pine Run is similar to that of North Branch l .< Neshaminy upstream of Lake Galena. Nutrients are not excessive and toxic , compounds-are not persistent. Water quality data indicate that relevant values i C- were relatively constant frvm 197S to 1978 (NWRA February 1979, p. III-2S) . u m- - l 'l . . . .- w 1 l :* 2-44 - l y-gr-wi,y &y --ye * *-*Me-t3-tgvwee.--e--Ai,6p'
2.4.2.8.3 Aquatic Ecology l The text in Section 2.4.2.6.3, North Branch Neshaminy Creek, also
. covers most of the impacts that would be associated with biota in Pine Run , since the crecks are in such close proximity and since each creek would have ~. an bitake dam where water would be withdrawn to supply water for the treatment plant. In addition to effects described in Section 2.4.2.6.3, about 350 feet
- o of Pine Run would becomo intermittent from the intake to its confluence with the North Branch during low flow periods. This intermittent flow could have a serious effect on biota in the relatively short distance involved but the
._ impact on the entire Run would be slight.
2.4.2.8.4 Alignment Section 1.2.4 entitled "Rechannelization" describes the segment of Pine Run to be moved and Section 1.4.3 presents the probable impacts. 2.4.2.9 Grongdwater.--With'a continuation of established trends of development, j groundwater shortages in parts of the service area can be expected, especially 7 during drought years. In some areas over-pumping of groundwater is already in excess of dependable yield. Exceeding the water resource capability of an eMe area could lead to water supply deficiencies where private wells are dried up t by an increased number of deeper wells. Environmental quality under these l conditions could be adversely affected by changing groundwater recharge pat-terns, inducing migration of inferior quality groundwater, and reducing flow levels in surface streams by lowering base flow. Base- flow is derived from the groundwater table beneath streams and is the primary source of water available to
, _ support aquatic life and dilute potential pollutants in a stream during periods
-s of low precipitation. If groundwater tables are substantially reduced, base we 2-45
( . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _
flow could be reduced or disappear completely due to heavy groundwater with-drawals in the area. Some communities within the service area including Warminster, Warrington and Southampton Townships have experienced Trichloroeythlene (TCE) and Perchloroeythlene (PCE) contamination of their groundwater supplies. A
., number of wells in these areas have been shut down indefinitely until the source of contamination is located and brought within acceptable limir.s. Levels of contamination appear to be subsiding somewhat since the problem was first dis-covered (Hoag 1979) . However, should these chemicals represent a significant heal'th ha::ard, use of existing water supply interconnections with the City of Philadelphia, future connectiors with the Neshaminy Water Supply System, or use
~
I of areation treatment which can remove up to 80 percent of TCE and PCE from affected water supply appear to be the most likely alternatives to alleviate the adverse impact.
&s e I 9 4, g
.=
e a 9 heum 9 *
.et ,
o e . e W 6 *
- k I e
2-46 .
*6"=g * -*N^ '**
- M
,, _ _, ..qe. - , , p--,-- - , , , --y,- --,7 -w _y,-, -
2.4.2.10 Social Conditions.--Impacts of the Neshaminy Water Supply System would be related to population, the per-capita use of water, development growth trends, and the interrelationship between growth and groundwater resources. The forecast water demands to be met by the proposed project are based upon revised population projections. Although conservative, these esti-m mates are in general accordance with the._ forecasts developed by Bucks and Montgomery Counties, and by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission up to the year 2000. For the year 2000, the proposed maximum treatment plant capability reflect a conservative estimate of water use when compared to projections cited in the Pennsylvania State Water Plan. Based upon an average per capi-ta-use of 115 gallons per day, the proposed project would be supporting
, approximately 77,000 persons in Central Bucks County and approximately 204,000 persons in Central Montgomery County by the year 2000. This would
. represent approximately 68 percent of a projected total service area popula-tion of 410,000 persons (NWRA February 1979).
Further demand comparisons of service areas forecast total sewage l flow (both sewered and on-lot disposal) developed by recent CONAMP/208 studies
. . (DVRPC April 1978) are in genersi agreement with the demand capacity of the
,_ c -
proposed project (NWRA February 1979). The existing and future need for l , , - supplemental water supplies in the Central Bucks and Montgomery County region has been strongly supported by state, local and regiona'l agencies responsible for planning and management of public water supplies.
%a e
>d
, , , w.w- ,.%_,e ~...mmy.,w- .+-ww====------
~ v v- e wr--- y-y, i_q . y --- w. _
Growth trends in the service area that would be supplied by the North Branch Treatment Plant have, in some areas, over-extended the base-flow yield of available groundwater resources (DRBC, Level B, February 1979). For
,, the most part, growth within the service area has been characteri:ed by an increase in relatively low to medium density residential development. Such continued development that would place additional demands on groundwater re-sources through the use of individual and municipal wells could, without supplementary supply, further affect the quality and quantity of those re-sources and significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Com-munities such as Upper Dublin, Doylestown, and Worcester have already experi-enced an increase in residential development, accompanied by shortages in available groundwater supplies during periods of low groundwater recharge.
~
Bucks and Montgomery Counties will likely continue to experience growth and development with or without the Neshaminy Water Supply System. In
'~
the absence of water provided by the system, new residents would be forced to rely on groundwater as the only available source of supply, placing a greater demand on the limited water resources of the area. The disbursed will develop-ment that would result can be expected to encourage a checkerboard type of resi-dential growth and thereby create a greater need for more roads, longer utility lines, and other services, than with higher density development (PaDER Septem-ber 1979). The secondary impact of reducing rioundwater recharge bf creating l , t _ more impervious surface and increasing stormwater runoff would contribute to the cumulative effects of this type of development. _J l .t . . . The Neshaminy Water Supply System would, to some degree, curtail piecemeal development since further development would tend to concentrate at
'~
l a higher density within reasonable distance of established lines of supply. l .. ' l 5 2-48 --
Providing water in specific areas cannot by itself, however, insure the inte-grity of the municipalities' natural resources. Each municipality has by virtue of its zoning powers, an effective mechanism to control growth within 1 its boundaries. Proper administration and enforcement of these regulations would further protect environmental values of the community during periods of increased development.
~
. 2.4.3 Cooling Water For Electric Generating Station 7 2.4.3.1 General The purpose of this section of this assessment is to review the
. environmental effects of the proposed water delivery system to be constructed by PECO, as described by DRBC's 1973 Environmental Impact Statement for the
._ Point Pleasant Diversion Plan (DRBC February 1973) . Components to be construct,ed entirely by PECO include Bradshaw Reservoir and the Perkio-men Transmission Main. East Branch Perkiomen Creek would also be part '
of PECO's transmission system. These are the components for which PECO up-l dated its Environmental Report (PECO July 1979). Impacts that would be associated with components of the Neshaminy Water Supply System which would be used jointly with PEC0; i.e. the pumping station and the combined main between the Delaware River and Bradshaw Reser-voir, are discussed in Section 2.4.2 of this assessment under the heading 1 { "Neshaminy Water Supply System". The probable impacts of construction and operation of Bradshaw
~
Reservoir and Perkiomen Transmission Main are discussed below, as are the impacts that would be associated with the ecology of East Branch Perkiomen Creek and Perkiomen Creek.
~
2-49
.. .. . - - - ,w.,- --~ , - - .
.. ..w+- .%..- %...
b
2.4.3.2 Bradshaw Reservoir.--The most significant effect of constructing the reservoir would be the change in land use of twenty eight acres of land in Plumstead Township from a mostly open agricultural site to a high-bank storage reservoir. Construction activities would include removal of a small stand of mixed deciduous trees and a small, cultivated coniferous forest on the north-e. western and south;estern periphery of the reservoir resulting in loss of woodland habitat. Erosion and sedimentation would not be significant because of relatively level topography at the tite. The potential for creating a nutrient sink in the reservoir and the effect on the receiving streams is not considered significant (Dresnack 1979).
- Nutrient levels in water pumped to the reservoir from the Delaware River could create a water quality problem if stored water was allowed to remain in the reservoir for long periods of time.
As proposed, the detention time in the reservoir differs with the level of pumping into and out of the reservoir.
~
j l l RESERVOIR CAPACITY PUMPING RATE APPROXI)MJT l (max) DETENTION TIME
~
70 mg 17.5 mgd (min) 96 hrs. i 70 mg 22.3 mgd (ave) 72 hrs. 70 mg 46.0 mgd (max) 36 hrs. 1 -
~
The detention times anticipsted would provide for some settling of suspended solids and are not considered long enough to allow for any significant biological productivity that would adversely affcet either East Branch
'Perkiomen or North Branch Neshaminy Creeks. Also, the periods of maximum flow-through would' correspond to times of greatest biological activity, further reducing the potential for creating a. eutrophic condition in the reservoir.
a m.
- 2-50 __
t ..
,- - _ ~ .- . _ _ . ..
j
'Ihe asthetics of the site would be affected by construction of the proposed reservoir. Visual quality in the vicinity of the reservoir site would be reduced by the presence of high earthern banks.
The anticipated benefits of constructing the reservoir in lieu of a
. direct pipeline discharge to East Branch Perkiomen include allowance for settling of suspended solids and provision of a one-day emergency supply capability.
2.4.3.3 Perkiomen Transmission Main.--The impacts of constructing the Trans-mission Main have been re-evaluated and judged as not having a significant effect on environmental quality along the proposed right-of-way. The pipe-m. line would cross predominantly agricultural lands and would be placed below ground to minimum depth of three feet to allow for continued agricultural ' ~ 1and use. One minor stream crossing of the headwaters of Deep Run, a tri-
-butary of 'lohican Creek, would produce some temporary turbidity and sedimen-
- i. .tation effects downstream of the pipeline crossing. Aquatic and terrestrial biota would be disturbed by construction activities without long-term adverse effect. No unique habitat or endangered species would be affected by this element of the water supply system.
j 2.4.3.4 East Branch Perkiomen Creek.--The principal inpacts on East ~6*nch Perkiomen Creek would relate to flow, quality, and aquatic ecology c 2.4.3.4.1 Flow
, - There have been only minor changes in flows and channel alignments since release of the FEIS in 1973. Values of discharges, flow depths, and flow velocities undet various conditions are listed in appropriate tables in PECO July 1979, p. IV-1 et seg. The stream channel would be subject to much b
me s 2-51
. . _ , . . . . . , - .e.- - - - -. .w-- ~~
greater flow rates, depths, and velocities by natural" flood flows than by
~
the proposed pumpages from the Delaware River. Current evidence indicates thar effects on the stream channel and on aquatic biota should be less than indicated in the 1973 EIS. 9 2.4.3.4.2 Quality With the exception of ammonia concentrations, which appear to be. __ lower, and nitrate concentrations, ~.h.ich appear to be higher, the quality of water in East Branch Perkiomen Creek is similar to that of the Delaware Riw.; . In balance, addition of water from the Delaware River to East Branch Perkio-men would be beneficial by augmenting low or intermittent flows and by di-luting degraded water with good quality water (DRBC, Appendix B, September 1979) . 2.4.3.4.3 Aquatic Ecology The PECO Environmental Report (PECO July 1979) includes much more site specific data on the East Branch biota than'the 1973 DRBC EIS contained, which would allow more definitive projections of probable impact. For example, the relationship of sunfish hybridi:ation and the size of white suckers to low flows could be evaluated and the effects of the projected higher flows determined. There is little likelihood that the broad conclusions of the EIS would be altered however, following such detailed studies. There would defini-zr - - tely be changes in the aquatic biota which is now adapted to the prevailing flow i conditions. The expanded habitat and nutrient base which would be created during the naturally low flow periods would mean enhanced productivity of the forms tolerant of higher flows. This effect is the principal reason for con-sidering the' diversion to be beneficial to the biota overall.
~
2-52
. . - _ . ...e .m ,
.--% < - -w, am, -me,_.--, =
Recent studies cited in PECO's Environmental Report indicate that benthic macroinvertebrate populations near the inlet have improved (especially in diversity) since the DRBC's EIS was prepared. This reinforces the point made in the EIS that the biota downstream of Sellersville (where diversity is lowest) i would be improved most. The 3S percent reduction
- in water to be diverted to the East Branch would mean less fluctuation in stream flow and a comparable reduction 1 in both the adverse and beneficial effects of the diversion. Under the revised plans, natural stream flows would also prevail when Limerick was not using Delaware River water. Previously, a minimum flow of 27 cfs was to be maintained by PECO.
l This change is undesireable because it would increase the potential for channel fluctuation and stress on the biota, and serve to off-set some of the increased productivity. To protect aquatic biota, PECO should make year-::und releases. 2.4.3.5 Perkiomen Creek.--Since the impacts associated with the main stem of Perkiomen Creek would reflect those of its East Branch, no detailed analysis
- -- isi made he're for the main stem. Further, since the impacts on the East Branch are minimal as they relate to the proposed project, there would be even less impact on the short reach of the nain stem between the confluence of the East
__ Branch.ancLthe point of diversion downstream on the main stem. 2.4.4 Conclusions And Recommendation.( As indicated throughout this part of this assessment (Part 2), docu-
' ments prepared after DRBC's Final EIS .n the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan,
- issued in 1973, support the conclusion that the proposed project would be a
~
' feasible and ber.eficial use of water resources in the Neshaminy and Perkiomen
' Watersh' e ds and~ not detrimental to the Delaware River, provided that mitigating
_ measures'are implemented as listed in DRBC's FEIS under " Conclusion", page 3, The project as described in the 1973 EIS would have punped about 71.3 mgd compared to about 46.2 mgd (ultimate) in the present plan. ; r- -. F l ,, 2-53
(and as stated in this assessment). (See: NWRA February 1979; PECO July 1979; and other references listed in Section 5.0.) Consequently, this assessment
~
recommends that no supplementary EIS be prepared. 2.5 Measures To Enhance The Environment And Mitigate Impacts Chapter V of NWRA's Environmental Report (NWRA February 1979) discusses in text and lists in tables probable beneficial impacts, probable adverse impacts, and mitigating measures that would be associated with the Neshaminy Water Supply System. Some of these consequences are as noted in Sections 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, and
~'
2.8.
,_ Mitigating measures would include coordination and control of traffic,
_ sprinkling to control dust, sediment and erosion control, mulching organic matter,
. landscaping, flood control, monitoring wells, dewatering and disposal of sludge, noise control, control 2el releases of water to enhance aquatic ecology, consulta-tion with qualified cdvisors - such as archaeologists, control of intake velocity and provision of screens to minimi:e impingement, control and muffling of b.asting, compensation for damages, maintenance of water level in Lake Galena for recreation, design of structures to withstand accidents and natural catastrophes, standby
~'
power, interim raw water storage, and other necessary measures. 2.6 Probable Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided
~
During censtruction there would be increased construction vehicle l ! if
^
traffic with its inevitable dust, noise, and congestion. There would be dis-c- location and destruction of plant and wildlife in and near construction areas.
-. t ; ~~
1 l l 2.* t' - - - - - - ,
Some basic materials would be consumed and some ucilities would be relocated. Some potentially ha:ardous chemicals would be introduced and sludge would accu-mulate. There would be additional demand on local energy resources. Some impingement and entrainment of biota would occur. Blasting may affect some
.- wells. Natural catastrophes and accidents acting on project facilities could cause damages to property, risks to public health, economic losses, and inter-
~
ruption of cocaunity activities. rn 2.7 Irreversible And Irretrievable Committments Of Resources Some natural habitat would be changed to man-made development. Wild-life displaced from timber-type environment would be replaced by creatures that use a grass-type environment in right-of-way areas. Chemicals used in the water treatment process would be mostly consumed but some residuals would be mixed
~
with water in streams. Energy would be consumed 6.: residuals would be released into land, air and water. About 10 percent of water in open channels would be a evaporated. 2.8 Short-Term Use And Lcag-Term Productivity l l The tradeoff of the resources that would be :onsumed or displaced by o . _ . construction and operation of the propost ' project should be compared with the l b'enefits to be derived from the project. Sections 2.6 and 2.7 indicate adverse
~
impacts that would occur even with mitigating measures. Beneficial impacts are l noted throughout the assessment and, in summary, they amount to provision of water l . . __ l supply as a life-support resource comparable to food, clothing, and shelter. l L_ l Since there is consensus that population in the project service area j~ s
; will continue to increase, additional water supply is necessary to preserve and ',
a c enhance the welfare of present and future gencrrtions of peopic. -- l 2-SS
4 EXPLANATION Sections 3-7 in the original Environmental Assessment have been
~
. , renumbered as appendixes in the revised EA. Section seven in the origins 1
, EA, entitled " Appendixes" has been integrated into the revised numbering system. The renumbering of these sections is as follows:
9 Original EA Revised EA Secti6n 3 Appendix B 4 F
.. S G 6 H
-. . .: .; 2 : ..
Su tion 7-Appendix A D B E
.i; _ . . . -
% 4 6
$+
5) a . L .- . . . a w I
~.
f r . l l PART IV , ,
. , ~
.s . s.
g.
' :,n.. , ..
u , n. :g. ,: , '- . s ., 5.:- ,. t
> V_
. ~
%t3 .m. . . , am. I'.N. . , .d..' scus s. .. .- g.N': ., . . , " , s- " . , .
.....u. . .u. ,.: .
, . s.
... y:.;. .
.. . cs w..
A.. .
,.o 3,
... aa ,
m.rs.c, .u.aa..., _ i . . -=
- c. . :.'.;,m k '.. . .; . : , M ;;:,44,.
3 Y. . m,"(-
, _ .. -5,.,,w . :
.-x . - .
c,- - e
...m. . w. 3m.q -f ,. x3...,..9 . .
- m.lDRBCp. STAFF RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED IN '
>~.. ,.
[g '_
.., .., 6.,
- . . LETTERS RECEIVED CONCERNING THE ENVIRON- - 4
" -.I
,.~. o~.. _.e- .#,
. . a ." MENTAL ASSESS'5NT FOR NORTH BRANCH WATER
- TREATMENT PLANT AND RELATED COMPONENTS -
.t.*. _ - . .. ,
>.c.
u ,. .-
..t
~, 1 a .t su *
.a,. .-
-. >, r; . :- , . . , , , .
r- -g . wc. ,.,.- ......+1,c....~ .,.*..e- .
, ...w,c.~..~.
. . . . ; 4..r,,,, g ., . = . .. .~. ,w.,..,s,....
4.,. = .c,.
~ arv.g y: ..
,t 7
,,.- s . .a a; ..y., , . ...yQ',
,3
.. y s , .. - . . -.
n..'
- ti on and conti ol 'of ' tra. ff.i. C...M..:M.:.M. :,'."@y,. .;.shp.1?. .. . 7 M. . , .c. c -' .. . .' .2
'b. ;;^.. . " .
. m .r. 3 M.o.,.. 2.v. N,. .E,. . , ' ' c. + . ..- . .,:.' .T,. .a . '
. w. , ; .g .v;s.
. 7., . . , y
.....-:..A.
,4...n,.,_.w. m.5,. .
1.m. . ~p e . , x. . w.e. .a - .. ~,,.e., . . .
,- . .(.. . u. . nv.c .,a; o. . s . -a .. -. , - . -
nc% *::ulching organic %tterp.t.~:..m.,s.., G3 .. o2 .M. M, c.r.:. ,y.f?Q ;u;g ~ e:Q,4.i 4.., fMM.f. %.- .
*@M_.
- 4 W C. mwd.
c*'n g and aispcsal,: of::s.hidgi.v.? plyK.f*,@di. RWMjggil:2;g%, .. ..n..n U.#> W M,r3-' a.Q. 4w. r,~1Q::
. 1 y.Wi t.
m.b:W
;q ~.
, ,w. ,c
.. :. - f :.R,h.
,f. . Q,...,.M*g,.
c;
- .y. , . .\
~~. n .{ ,
x .e.W.i. g, . :Y.
... g ,.
. f.- -
a.c
,s,
. .. .".?....e ... a. .g,y as, . ;;. ..+.. .y. p- :.n . - ., . . . :7.u. ..
e.v. :..
- ,...,,2 .
> -e , y - ..
- g. .r. x v. . , .. .
t ~"
- ce ocuatic ecciogy,. consul.ta- S.. .g.v- G. ,. . , 'f- '. ' -
-% . ~.' ' .V. c F '.N. ..
.~. . , ,- ... 1
- - ~. .
.- f.. ...... .., , o.r t . .a., \,e ,. .-. , ;. ;...- - . .
. . ..~
- , ? :.
merol and cur.. ling or alasting, r. . . g n . ,- t . e.... O W.~')"- 1*.
- n Lake Galena for recrei.t en.,+.. x 2,
4 21 catastr phes > star.tibv. - . , ... < . . .....m., ,. ' . . . ,. ., . .. s.. c
.m. .. 6 2 . m.
r-e measures. .
- . q ;.c,g. n - - .; .. .
J.n .
". .. . p a , ..~ !. . _ . L . i. " 2 ~
p. A...s. .;;' ;i .... . . , . g.,-- . . , - w- ,.
- ...w ;w.~:Q.. n
. , .p . .. .
.f-v . _. . . .
- , ~. .
. . c..f . . .g / ~,, .y . i; r. ,f. .W. ,. . .,. ..' ,. .-. .y. , ,.c-t
..,.,f,. :. , - , .
. ' ' ' . . nn.o ;,.,,.p.. . ., .g-.R -d ; m.y .
.2 .* , .~ :y~ .
s%'.,**. 3- . ,, s . .._ r . ..,:'.,.-V' y.. % .# . w - A, . .,,. r : _ 1 . - . .
.f . .
- - 3,,4.. w... '..: ; ..it. , :7
. s.. L .n.-.m .
c
- onstruct1cn V 1cTc <- ?:~;,. . .. .m .* ' - W ..e 2...,' ~.- .
. s e.,
. ~ .w ..~ . .~ .
..- ?.'.. .
. u s ,. 9 .. : :f. m.. . :. w ,., % ,?
N y. . s.. _.
.; .m .
C - 'n .Ther<: would be. dis O.... . ,
.r'. I.,. 5. .*- [. . , .
.n? near construc: ion areas. .
.;- ~.
g h D 3
,-, , , )
.o..'
E
. *'tw
. aim. -t, . .
y', 4
CONTENTS
~ ~
Page A. Introduction IV-1
'- B. Nature of Comments Received IV-2 C. Scope of the Environmental Assessment (EA) IV-5 ~-
- 1. Purpose and Limits of an EA IV-5
- 2. R--lated Matters, Outside the Scope of this EA IV-5
- 3. Physical Components Covered by this EA IV o D. Updating of Analysis in 1973 EIS IV-11 E. Responses to- Environmental Issues Raised in Letters Received by DRBC .IV-14
- 1. Low Water in the Delaware River IV-14 l
i l t- 2. Need for Additional Reservoirs IV-19 l I' 3. Impact on Aquatic Biota IV-23
- 4. Water Quality IV-45
- 5. Flood, Erosion, and Sedimentation IV-54
.. 6. Growth Inducement IV-71
- 7. Aesthetic Impacts IV-76 IV-78
~
- 8. Archaeological and Historical EM
- 9. Rock Blasting Impacts IV-81 i , _ 10. , Emergency Services IV-84
,_ 11. Conservation IV-85 2r b .- .
1 2. Alternatives. IV 88
- 13. Financial IV-95
- 14. Water for Limerick Nuclear Generating Station IV 98 ees .**
4
. egs m-
TABLES Number Title Page r-IV-1 Comparison of Physical Design Features-- Existing Portland, Martins Creek and Gilbert r-Generating Stations and the Proposed Point Pleasant Pumping Station IV-2'S
- x. -
'~
IV-2 Schedule of Pumping from Point Pleasant into North Branch Neshaminy Creek for Three Levels
~
of Production IV-34 IV-3 East Branch Perkiomen Hydraulic Characteristics IV-39' ( . IV 4 East Branch Perkiomen Flood Stage Character-istics IV-39 , . 7-5.. IV-5 Simulation of Estimated Weekly Water With-drawals During Two-Unit, Full-Power
.- Generation, 1974-1977 IV-42 IV-6 Water Quality Parameter Values, Average Monthly Sampling, September 1971 through December 197S. IV-52 m.
IV -7 Water Quality Parameter Values, Results of
'- Single Sample, or Short-Term Sampling Analysis 1971-1978 IV -53
' " IV -8 Average Monthly Stream Flow Characteristics, North Branch Neshaminy at State Route 611 IV-SS L , r oe wo 1 m
,.,-w . . - . s wey -m-
, _ . _ , _m.
a w- -- - ,--rey-w e -- e - -,- - r= w- .--- ym- - - --- , y -+ --- y-m-
~
i 1 TABLES (CONTINUED) Number Title Pm IV-9 North Branch Neshaminy Creek Characteristics l During Natural Flood Flows and During Maximum Diversicn IV-56
- IV-10 Median Flow and Flood Characteristics, East Branch of Perkiomen Creek IV-S8 IV-11 Flood Flows and Hydraulic Characteristics, Cross Section, North Branch Neshaminy Creek IV-62
,- IV-12 ,
Neshaminy Water Supply System Estimated Installation Costs IV-96 I l . I
, ~
- b-4 L
F mes i emme
- m
. _, ~'
-
- FIGURES Number Title g IV-1 Flow at Trenton - Calendar Years 1964-1965 and Effect of Management a on Flow at Trenton - Calendar Years 1964-1965 IV-21
~'
IV-2 Location of Cross Sectional Areas of Flow and Flood Characteristics, f.ast Branch of Perkiomen Creek IV-59 l I 4
~
' ~
j - d l m_ 4 5M 6W
- a ~ I:
t < e
*M e
.-~, .-- -e- .==-r-. -
- .-%4 .-~,-
} ?
PART IV F DRBC STAFF RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED IN LETTERS RECEIVED CONCERNING THE ENVIRON-MESTAL ASSESSMENT FOR NOR~ni BRANCH WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND RELATED COMPONENTS ,
~
A. Introduction This Part responds to questions and comments received in response to a " Notice of Intent" to issue a Negative Declaration, releaseo February IS, 1980, by the DRBC's Executive Director, based uptn an Environmental Assessment, for the Proposed North Branch Water Treatment Plant, sponsored
. by the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority (NWRA), and a review of related components, sponsored by the NWRA and the Philadelphia Electric Company (PEiX)) .-
This Part summarizes significant issues raised in comments received, explains the scope of an environmental assessment, identifies information used in the environmental review since the 1973 EIS was prepared, and includes DRBC's
.. . staff's responses to substantive issues raised in the letters received by DRBC.
2 .; ~~.a - i . - toe
~
. -:ee ene
+ om i
Y~ IV-1
. B. Nature of Comments Received There were 409 communications (mo,ttly letters) and 644 signatures *
(written or accepted by telephone) received by the Executive Director of DRBC in rerponse to his " Notice of Intent" to issue a finding of no significant adverse impact (negative declaration) for the North Branch Water Treatment Plant'and Related Components., Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania.
~
These communications were received by 5:00 p.m. , March 12, 1980, the deadline
~
set in the " Notice of Intent". About 20 issues were mentioned frequently in the letters received. Of the 20 issues mentioned,14 issues related to environmental factors and six related to procedural matters. The significant issues raised in comments l received by DRBC are as follows: I Environmental Issues
- 1. Low Water in the Delaware River.--Would diversion of up to 95 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Delaware River cause low water and ecological damage .
to the river?
- 2. Need for additional reservoirs.--Would diversion of 95 mgd from the Delaware
- River for the proposed project require additional reservoirs and other stcrage
~~
facilities upstream and on tributaries to provide sufficient water during
~
periods of low flow? i l 3. Impacts on aquatic biota.--Would the proposed diversion at Point Pleasant be u. l detrimental to aquatic biota and to recreation, including fishing, in the
.. Delaware R,iver, East 3 ranch Perkiomen Creek, and North Branch Neshaminy Creek?
l
'For those interested in the statistical distribution of issues in the comments received by DRBC, please see Appendix A. For these purposes, however, the Executive Director recogni:es a responsibility to consider and address all
__ significant substantive issues, whether raised by one or many commenters. IV-2 r _ - - . , c_- . _. _
,,_.,-,_y . . - . , , , . , . , , . , , _ , _ , _ - . , . _ , . -,
~
- 4. Water qualitt.--Would the project have an ady:ree effect on water quality
_. - throughout the service area? Specifically, would temperature, salinity, chlorine, trihalomethanes, trichloroethylene, and lead levels in and below
~
Lake Galena be associated with adverse impacts? S. Flood, erosion, and sedimentation.--Would the project impose significant adverse impacts en property in the flood plain or upon environmental values _, in the service area as they relate to flood, erosion, or sedimentation?
- 6. Growth inducement.--Would the proposed project promote more land development or induce more growth in the project service area?
- 7. Aesthetic impacts.--Would the proposed project be associated with aesthetic damage to the Village of Point Pleasant, to farmland, and to the general eco-system throughout the service area?
- 8. Archaeological and historical.--Would archaeological artifacts or historical ~
1andmarks be disturbed by construction or operation of the proposed project? 9,. Rock blasting impacts.--Would blasting hard rock during construction cause wide-spread damage to wells, foundations, utilities, and other structures?
- 10. Emergency services.--Would there be interference with emergency services because of road blocks and electric wires which would interrupt radio fre-quencies?
- 11. Conservation.--Should DRBC emphasise conservation of water resources, especially as outlined in DRBC's Level B Study, rather than approve the
~
f
,_ proposed project?
- 12. Alternatives.--Should there be further study of alternative sources of water
~
supply and electricity? I
- 13. Financial.--Should DRBC complete a detailed financial plan to construct and operate the project, including social and economic costs?
- 14. Water for Limerick Statien.--Should water be diverted from the Delaware River 6
__ ror use by the Limerick Nuclear Generatir.g Station? i
- IV-3
Procedural Issues
- 1. Scope.--Should DRBC enlarge the scope of the study to include the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station or the Merrill Creek Reservoir or both? Also, should the scope include integration with DRBC's Comprehensive Plan and Level B Study?
- 2. Completion of related studies.--Should DRBC wait for completion of related 7 studies such as the " Good Faith Negotiations", DRBC's groundwater study, COE's salinity study, and the Merrill Creek EIS?
- 3. Additional information.--Should DiBC provide the public more information, more time to respond, more references, morc. maps, and consult mor 3 agencies?
- 4. DRBC conflict of interest.--Does DRBC have a conflict of interest because it receives utney for water sold and has promoted the project?
S. EIS by another agency.--Should an EIS be prepared by another agency, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Federal Environmental Protection Agency?
- 6. Prepare an EIS.--Should another EIS be prepared by any agency?
!= J n .
p**~ F*
~~
D'N M e IV-4 --
C. Scope of the Environmental Assessment Many of the letters received reveal that the nature of the Environ- __ mental Assessment- (EA) needs to be explained in three respects: 1) The pur-pose and limits of an EA in general; 2) Related matters, outside the scope of ' ~ this EA, and 3) Physical components covered in this EA.
- 1. Purpose and Limits of an EA_ ,
In regulations issued November 29., 1978, the federal government Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ, F.R. Nov. 29, 1978) spelled out specific Policy requirements for documents prepared in response to the National Environmental / Act
-. of 1969. Section 1508.9 states that an Environmental Assessment is a " concise"
_ : document which "briefly" provides " sufficient evidence and analysis for determin-ing whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a finding of no significant impact". An EA is to include "brief discussions" of: "the need for the proposal of alternatives"; "the environmental impacts of the proposed
- action and alternatives"; and "a listing of agencies and persons corisulted".
- 2. Related Matters, Outside the Scope of this EA y The frequent mention of the Limerick Generating Station and occasional mention.of the Merrill Creek Reservoir, DRBC's Level B Study, the Yardley Pumping
. gc, Station, and the Neshaminy Watershed Flood Control Reservoirs stated or implied l ,
that those elements should be included in this EA. D e following explains why
$~ ~
they are peripherally related and just generally covered within the scope of this EA.
$ er -+9-yW-t- g g s-- *g--*=-*e w t+-w-w- eeww-9--u-- p p._ g y9 %mm--- . * - i-ume- ,-gy.."e- ----- 1----~==* w *---*7 """re " W' "-d r reviewed by both the Atomic Energy Commission and the DRBC. The manner in which - . the environmental analysis of the total water supply plan (i.e. the sequential use of Perkiomen Creek, Schuylkill River and Delaware River water) was performed has been reviewed by a federal court and judged to be appropriate. PECO has been granted approval by the DRBC to draw a specified volume of water from the ~~ Delaware under certain conditions for use at Limerick. (One condition is that l~ PECO must compensate for its consumptive water use when the flow at Trenton l reaches 3,000 cfs, or shut down the Limerick Station.) Consequently, there is no basis for conducting further environmental analysis of the conceptual plan to use Delaware River water in this fashion. The environmental effects associated i with physical changes in PECO's proposed project (and the environment), have been j addressed in the orighal EA, and changes to that project have not occurred since the last EIS. The specific actions referred to above are discussed later in this ,r - part of this revised EA, starting on page IV-98 , ~. l i. _ .. . ..' b. Merrill Creek Reservoir Project.--A small percentage of the letters o contend that diversion of 95 mgd from the Delaware River would require additional l reservoirs and other storage facilities upstream and on tributaries to provide sufficient water during periods of low flow. Many of these letters contend that ~~ the Merrill Creek Project (the reservoir proposed by the Basin's Utilities to .; compensate for consumptive water use) should be included as part of this Envir-onmental Assessment. Sources of watar are discussed in this revised assessment ' ' under the heading " Low Water In The Delaware River", starting on page IV-14. U The following comments are to indicate why the Merrill Creek Project is not a includ'ed in this EA. but is mentioned peripherally. qic .-- a DRBC completed preparation of an EA for the Merrill Creek Project in 1... . ! 'n March 1978 and completed a preliminary draft Environmental Impact Statement for u I that project in October 1979. The preliminary EIS has been circulated among , I. , a ~ U IV-6 the cooperating agencies
- who are coordinating with DRBC as lead agency to complete a draft EIS for release to the public. Water from the Merrill Creek Reservoir would service more than just the Limerick Station. Most letter writers seemed unaware of this fact. (See the stations listed in Appendix C.)
Although Resolution 76-13 by its terms applied only to the Limerick and Hope Creek Generating Stations,.the Delaware River Basin Commission has . long advocated the concept of a Basin-wide comprehensive approach to planning for the use of the Basin's water resources. In its decision in Docket No. ~ D-69-210CP, the Commission stated "... effective use of the resources of the Basin demands that supplementary storage as needed for all other generating 3 stations should be coordinated and planned with reference to the Master Siting . Study...". Accordingly, in complying with the Commission's mandate in Reso- , lution 76-13, Philadelphia Electric Company and Pu>1ic Service Electric 6 l} . _ Gas. Company have coordinated their efforts with other members of the Merrill . Creek Owner's Group (MCOG) *". As a result of this coordination, the Applica-tion for Section 3 8 approval of Merrill Creek is a joint Application filed
- Cooperating Agencies Include:
- 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District.
- 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III.
l -- 3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Servico. l 4. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. S. Pennsylvania Department of Envircnmental Resources.
- 6. Pennsylvania Fish Commission.
Consultants Include : l 1. Weston Environmental Consultants-Designers.
- 2. Historic Sites Research.
- 3. O'Brien and Gere, Justin and Courtney Division.
- **The Merrill Creek Owner's Group (MCOG) is made up of:
- 1. Atlantic City Electric Co.
- 2. Delmarva Power and Light Co.
- 3. Metropolitan Edison Co.
- 4. Jettey Central Power and Light Co.
S. Pennsylvania Power and Light Co.
- 6. Philadelphia Electric Company. -
l
- 7. Public Service Electric and Cis Co. .
!, IV-7 on behalf of these MCOG companies, and addresses a storage recervoir to supply the anticipated compensation requirements of these member companias of MCOG rather than only the needs of the Limerick and Hope Creek Stations. > c. Level B Study.--Several letters asked that DRBC's Level B Study be used as the basis of a systematic evaluation in a single, updated, inter-disciplinary EIS, integrating all of the component parts of DRBC's Comprehensive Plan. DRBC's Level B Study was written in enough detail to satisfy the analytical requirements of an EIS for that study. ' Chapter Eight of the Level B Study outlines how NEPA requirements were incorporated in the course of formulating the Level B plan. With the completion of that study, a Final ~ EIS is to be prepared covering the recommended Level B Plan and Alternatives. s:. e- In assessing the probable impact of the water treatment plant and related components, both the Level B findings and the existing water resources development plan have been considered. The scope of this EA was determined with full knowledge of the scope of the Level B environmental analysis. This f approach is consistent with CEQ regulations on " tiering" (Sections 1502.20 and IS08.28) as a means to eliminate repetition and to reduce paperwork. e- .
- d. Yardley Pumping Station.--There is no application before DRBC for appr; oval to construct a Yardley Pumping Station.
NWRA has stated that it -appears unlike1y that this station will ever be needed. Although DRBC incor- .. 3 porated elements of the Bucks County Master Plan for Water Supply, including a pumping station near Yardley, in its Comprehensive Water Management Plan, I i: - - in 19,78 th.e County, acting through NWRA, advised DRBC that the need for the Yardicy pumping facilities for general water supply uses had been climinated l ,1 from.the Bucks County Plan. However, NWRA retained the concept of a Yardley ; t [* me IV-8 sw .4 w .. .--e---- me e e =w m, *-m-" . %.e-e--a woe =s .w -.m - , ., , - - Y ' " 'r r r-' pumping facility for possible implementation at a future, undesignated date to maintain a full recreational pool in Lake Luxembourg at Core Creek Park. According to NWRA*, if needed, the facility would be limited to a capacity of five mgd in accordance with the 197S amendments to the Bucks County M::ter Plan for Water Supply.
- e. Flood Control Reservoirs.--In April 1976, the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Servive, released its Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Neshaminy Creek Watershed. The Plan includes a program of conservation land treatment, eight floodwater retarding
, dams, two multiple purpose dams (municipal water supply, recreation and. flood prevention) and two sets of water-based recreation facilities. Six floodwater retarding dams and both multiple purpose dams (PA-617 , c-and PA-620) have been completed. Recreation facilities at Peace Valley and I Core Creek County Parks located at PA-617 and PA-620, respectively, are also 4' - installed. Remaining to be installed are two floodwater retarding dams. Since these reservoirs are substantially completed, relatively non-controversial, and under jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, i l . they were mentioned only as background information in DRBC's EA, except for Lake Galena (PA-617), which acts as a storage reservoir for the North Branch Water . Treatment Plant. ~
- 3. Ph'ysical components covered by this EA The physical components covered by this EA include those of the Neshaminy Water Supply System as it relates to Bucks and Montgomery Counties' l ,fLetter from Mr. Robert A. Flowers, Executive Director, NWRA, to Mr. licebert A. Hewlett, Chief Engineer, DRBC, April 9,1980. '
e ' ~~ IV-9 1 - _~ a public water supply service areas and those that relate to cooling water for the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station; i.e.: Components for Bucks and Montgomery Counties' water supply: Delaware River Groundwater Point Pleasant Pumping Station Combined Transmission Main "~ North Branch Neshaminy Transmission Main North Branch Neshaminy Creek Lake Galena -- North Branch Water Treatment Plant Pine Run Sludge Lagoons ~ Intake Dams (North Branch Neshaminy and Pine Run) Service Area Transmission Mains (West, South, East, North) Components for cooling water for the Generating Station: Bradshaw Reservoir PECO Pumping Station , Perkiomen Transmission Main East Branch Perkiomen Creek Perkiomen Creek e e e M o PM l l . . 23. F " MW r _'~~ I r I wm IV-10 , , ,, . ---ww. - - + + - w== a=* L D. Updating of Analysis in 1973 EIS ._ . Most of the letters requesting a new EIS contend that the studies upon which the 1973 EIS was based and the EIS itself are outdated. A number of recent studie; -ere used in the EA of the water treatment p12nt and provided ! ths foundation for the updated review of the related components. ~ ie "revisitation" of the other components of the Neshaminy Water Supply System, covered in DRBC's Final EIS prepared in 1973, was undertaken to see if studies made suVieque'nt to that FE!S indicated any significant changes that would require supplementing that EIS. It should be clear that DRBC used more than a do:en recent studies to compare the impacts that might occur with the project as proposed in 1973, when the proposal was to ~ divert 150 million gallons per day, with the project as proposed in 1979 when the proposal vss to divert 95 million gallons per day, or about 37 percent less.
- p -
Also, DRBC staff reevaluated earlier studies that were used as references for ,_ the 1973 EIS. Studies reviewed that were made during 1980, 1979, 1978, and
- 1 1977 include the following:
7 .. 2J 1980 ~l 1. Converse Ward David Dixon, Inc. Report on Evaluation of Rock Excavation and Impact of Blasting for the propcsed Point Pleasant Pumping Facili-ties, Point Pleasant. Pennsylvania. Prep'ared for the Delaware River ., Basin Commission, Project No. 80-7140-01, 20 May 1980. _T -
- 2. Lupine,- Arthur (N.J. DEP, Fish, Game and She11 fisheries) . Personal Communication. May 1980.
u, _ . . .. 1979 = ~
- 1. Delaware *.<iver Basin Commission. Water Quality Factors Associated with C,: the Point Pleasant Oiversion. September 1979.
2.. Delaware. River Basin Commission. Final Report and Environmental Imcact '] Statement of the Level B Study. The Delaware River Basin Comprenen-gj - , sive (Level 8) stuay. Octouer 1979. ..,, _ .3. Dresnack, Dr. Robert. " Impact of Delaware River Flow Augmentation on the Trophic State in Lake Galena." November 1979. f "~ t I -.
- A IV-11
,- eem sun .. . - < ;__- _ -- . .. . -~- ~_ i . . {. l r l 4. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Letter from James L. LaBuy (EPA,
- . West Virginia) to Pennsylvania Power 6 Light (Martins Creck), July 7, 1978; Letter from James L. LaBuy to Metropolitan Edison Company
~ , (Portland Stantion), March 27, 1979. S. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. Environmental Report on Neshaminy Water Supply System. February 1979. .- 6. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. Transcript of Public Hearing Re: Draft Environmental Report on Neshaminy Water Supply System. May 30, 1979. l 7. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. " Responses to Significant Concerns
- At and After Public Hearing of Environmental Report." August 28, 1979.
- 8. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. 3.8 Application to Delaware River Basin Commissien. Prepared by E.11. Bourquard Associates, ir.c.
June 1979.
- 9. Philadelphia Electric Company. Environmental report. Bradshaw Reservoir, Transmission Main, East Branch Perkiocen, and Perkiomen Creeks.
. July 1979. 1978 i ,. ,. 1.- Bucks. County Planning Commission. "The Vegetation and Wildlife of the Delaware River Corridor." Draft Report by Tom Backhouse. June 1978.
- 2. Delaware Valley P.egional Planning Commission. Draft CCWAMP/208 Water
-- Quality Man 12ement Plan. April 1978. '~
- 3. Didun, Andrew, Jr., A Study of the Fishes of the Delaware River in the
; Vicinity of the' Portland tenerating Station of Metropolitan Edison Company - Final Report. Ichthyological Associates, Inc. Ithaca, , - r" New York. August 1978.
- 4. Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Letter from Richard W. Marshall, Area Fisheries Manager to Robert G. Flowers, Executive Director, Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. August 11, 1978.
S. Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of, Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management. Report on the Application of Neshaminy Water Resources Authority from Pine Run North Branch ' -Neshaminy Creek, and Delaware River. November 1, 1978. n - 6.- RMC-Ecological Division, Kehnle, Andrew W., Reisinger, H. James, Rutter, Robert and Assoc., "Neshaminy Water Supply System, Delaware River at . Point Pleasant and North Branch Neshaminy Creek. Environmental Report. Water Quality-Aquatic Biota", Pottstown, Pennsylvania. November 1978.
- o es e see n m * . . . s e _ s = o
~~ IV-12 ~ m._..._ _ t 1977 ,
- 1. 20t: Environmental Engineers. Water Supply Study for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, 1977.
- 2. Ichthylogics1 Associates, Inc. Willis, Terry B. and Harmon, Paul L.,
" Gilbert Generating Statica Biological Monitoring Program Final Report" for Jersey Central Power and Light Company July 1977
- 3. Johnson, T.D. and Phoenix, D.R. An Ecological Study of the Effects of the Martins Creek S.E.S. Cooling Water Intake for Pennsylvania Power and Light Company. Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, Pa.
November 13, 1977. E, i 4 b .e I me j -. t 4 -o 64 9e m M emme 9 4 h IV-13 ~ B e , , - w%.- w - --- -, .- =4 ,,t-p g--*y.7,,L- ->4Fw? w- e--d-* yapW m- >* - - l . E. Response to Specific Issues Raised in Letters Received by DRBC The above discussion has been to put the scope of this EA in perspec-i tive. In doing so, partial answers to some of the specific issues have been provided. The six procedural issues are addressed in Part D: Summary / Conclusions of this revised EA. The 14 environmental issues are addressed in this Part (IV). Since it is impractical to respond to repetitive questions and comments listed i in individual letters, these responses are aimed at general answers to cover specific issues. However, specific questions that are particularly relevant in given let:ers are used as the basis for making a genersi response.
- 1. Low Water in the Delaware River 8i
, Issue: Would diversion of up ts 95 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Delawals River cause low water and ecological damage to the river?
Response
Low water.--The key concern expressed by many of the comments received was whether the requested withdrawal wculd substantially reduce low flows in the river below Pt. Pleasant or increase the frequence of such low flow occur-
?-
r- - . ances. DRBC currently has a minimum flow objective in the mainstem at Trenton of 3,000 cfs (1940 mgd). This. flow objective is fundamentally based on re-quirements for salinity control in the lower estuary. It is also the basis for current wasteload allocations and water quality standards in the Estuary. m
@ 4 e.
w e
\ .
r- - IV-14 _, L .
-- __m-
e e A withdrawal af 95 mgd (147 cfs) of water from the Delaware River is
~ . equivalent to approximately St. of the minimum flow objective at Trenton.
However, it must be understood that 95 mgd is the maximum allocation requested by the combined applicants for withdrawals at Pt. Pleasant, assuming full
. utili::ation of the water supply system in the year 2010 coupled with peak
-- -- wit drawals for Limerick (assuming no flows were available in the Perkiomen or l, Schuylkill watersheds for power plant uses) . The proposed withdrawal would not significantly change the incidence (the number of times, or relative risk) of 3 - - - lov flow conditions being experienced at or below Pt. Pleasant.
The flow of the Del;;. are River mainstee is substantially a " managed
~ jflow."_ The' icvel and incidence of low flow conditions is basically governed by
-s the capacity of the New York City Reservoirs (Pepacton, Neversink and Cannons-ville), coupled with Belt ville Reservoir and several State and hydroelectric
- r. facilities, to maintain target flows at Montague and Trentcu.
t 2-l In almost all conditions, including a repetition of the 1930's drought, l sufficient capacity now exists to maintain or exceed the minimum flow objective i of 3,00_0 cfs at Trenton. The 1930's drought is estinated to have a recurrence interval, or risk, of once in 15-20 years. Sufficient capacity does not exist to maintain the current Trenton flow objective in a repetition of the worst drought of record, the event of the 1960's. That drought has an estimated incidence of once in 100 to 300 years. 7, V - - While the drought of record is of serious concern to the basin, l . . . -. . l C particularly in planning for the future reliability of basin water supplies
~
and needs'for emergency operating programs, three points must be made: l 1 -. -e_ -. I
.]
- IV-15 -
I l . l ., a e O . . - . . - min.-., = we m= -, *y-e===g- --im - -em -- e-
- a. The incidence of a drought of record type is rare, and its risk is fundamentally dependent on relatively extreme climatic conditions--not on withdrawals.
- b. The proposed withdrawal is already conditioned upon meeting the flow objectives at Trenton. The major consumptive use involved, that is the with-drawal for Limerick cooling water, will not be allowed to reduce flows when extreme drought con-ditions cause Trenton flows to fall below 3,000 cfs, unless augmented flows frca a utility-owned reservoir f
art available. '
- c. Both the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and DRBC, in previous actions, have already imposed on the appli-cants conditions limiting the rates and circumstances of withdrawals at Pt. Pleasant during low flow periods.
l ( About one-half of the maximum diversion would be for the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station. The amount of water diverted from the Delaware to Limerick during drought emergencies (35 to 46 mgd) could only be diverted if l the flow at Trenton was above 3,000 cfs or, if it was not, water would be re- _ leased from an off-main-stem reservoir constructed and operated to provide for con-p~ sumptive losses from Limerick as for other steam electric facilities in the basin.
-~
Therefore, since the generating station is--in effect--neutrali:ed in its impact on low flow in the river, only about 2.5 percent of the river flow would be diverted from the river to the Bucks / Montgomery Counties' service area when the flow at Trenton is 3,000 cfs. I l . IV-16 1
,, . . . * *=e . -w+- = -~* -'
e About 90 percent of the water diverted at Point Pleasant for municipal water supply needs in Bucks and Montgomery Counties would return to the basin's hydrologic system either by treated sewage effluents or on-lot systems which help recharge the ground water aquifers. Much of the water diverted at Point Pleasant for public water supply would be returned to the Delaware via Neshaminy and Penny-pack Creeks. - The net loss to the Delaware River is in the range of 1/5 of one percent, which is less than can be accounted for at the gauges. The measurement on the Trenton gauge is about 8.030 feet when the flow of the river is 3,000 cfs. The measurement is about 3.079 feet when the
-flow is 3147 cfs. The difference on the gauge would be between 8.079 feet and
- r. .
8.030 feet or about 0.049 foot, which is about 6/10 of an inch. Considering that the flow would probably be diminished by only about 2.5 percent or about 75 cfs, the difference on the gauge would be more in the order of 3/10 of an inch. I'
._ When the average flow of the river is running about 7637 cfs, the 9' measurement on the Trenton gauge is about 9.255 feet. Adding 147 cfs to that
. flow, for a total of 77S4 cfs, would register 9.237 on the gauge. The difference between the two flows, as registered on the gauge, would be about 0.032 foot or about 4/10 of an inch. The percentage differences in river flow (less than five 3
_ percent) and fractions of inches in river levels are both insignificant. l r~ Ecological Damage.--As discussed above, the net loss of water to the
,, Delaware'~ System is probably too low to measure. Consequently, the impact on the ecology of the river would likely be negligible. The approximately 42-mile reach of the river from Point Pleasant (m!1e 157.2) to the mouth of the Neshaminy
_. IV-17 . O
, , , , , .% w.- - . . - *-=-e * - -
w
(mile 115.36) would lose about 2.5 percent of its volume of water at a flow of 3,000 cfs at Trenton but natural flue.tuations tend to be more than that. Since about 90 percent of the municipal water would return to the Delaware below Neshaminy Creek and thus be available to help control the salt front, oyster beds in the estuary would be unaffected by this project, as would other aquatic biota in that area. (See response to " Impact on Aquatic Biota", starting on page IV-23 of this revised EA.) r. r. U
,.t - .
r O*
*m .u a
IV-18 , i p we. ~ g -n ,-w.+m.- -me m .m w
^
~
- 2. Need for Additional Reservoirs Issue: Would diversion of 95 mgd from the Delaware River for the proposed project require additional reservoirs and other storage facilities upstream and on tributaries to provide s::fficient water during periods of low flow?
- -- Response: DRBC manages both the surface and ground water in the Delaware River Basin in accordance with State and Federal laws. The
!-- flow of the Delaware River at Point Plessant reflects natural runoff plus U.S. Supreme Court
- directed reservoir releases to maintain a flow level at Montague, New Jersey, plus releases called for by DRBC from Beltsville Reservoir on a tribu-tary to the Lehigh River in Carbon County, Pennsylvania. Notwithstanding upstream water uses, the Commission's Water Management Plan has a Delaware River flow at Trenton, New Jersey, sufficient to protect downstream users from sea water intru-
~
sion during low flow periods. Currently, this flow objective is 3,000 cubic feet u~' per second (approximately two billion gallons per day). As the downstream water m. uses increase in the future, the flow required at Trenton to meet these uses and also to hold the sea water in check must increase. Further, due to the slowly rising sea level, an additional 10 cfs (approximately) of fresh. water must enter the estuary each year to hold the sea water at the designated location. The lowest four-month flow of record (at Trer. ton) occurred during June, July, August and September 1965, averaging about 2,000 cfs (approximately 1.3 billion gallons ) per day, Hence, DRBC's present operational goal provides
~
- Decree of the United States Supreme Court in New Jersey v New York, 347 U.S. 995 (1954).
. IV-19 ,
= .
em--mn= *ew.m -e--- ==e,-~ -. - .e:.- er -
fcr flows 50 percent greater than those experienced during the low-flow sonths in 1965. Flows in other months would be higher, reficctir..3 seasonal variations _. in precipitation. For instance, flows at Trenton this year reached more than f 100,000 cfs in March. DRBC's Level B Report (page 33 and Figures 5-12 and 5-13, p.35), (Figure No.IV-1 in this revised EA) discusses monthly flows at Trenton which would have occurred under " natural" conditions over the drought period of the 1960's, actual flows which were achieved during that period by operation of available reservoirs (including hydroelectric impoundments), flows which might be achieved using present reservoir capacity in an optimal way, and various pro' posed L, impoundments. The analysis also explores the use for flow maintenance of other existing impoundments (routinely or under emergency conditions), conjunctive use of surface and groundwater, and of strong conservation measures to reduce
- f. depletive usw.
, t -- . Figure 5-12 of the Level B Report, indicates the relationship among c; natural flows, observed flows, and flows that could be attained with present r' management capacities. Figure 5-13 indicates the percent difference from natural
~
flows that were observed during the 1964-65 drought years and from the present
. management capacity.
Even though the lowest one-month observed flow of record at Trenton a: - averaged only about 1548 cfs (July 1965), it was about 28 percent higher than it would have been if the river flow had not been managed; i.e. the natural low
._r t flow for July 1965 would have been about 1210 cfs. With the Cannonsville reservoir on line since the drought of the 60's, thus making possible maintenance of 1750 cfs 5 minimum flow at the Montague Gauge, and with Beltsville on line, managed flow could be increased about 114 percent over natural flows at Trenton, or to about 1600 cfs.
I
. A l
~
- _._ _. . . - ____ IV-20 _
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ ~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
i i i . E ~i 1 ; I . ! ; e i 'i ! l ' ~l i 'l i 'i i i - 4
. FIGURE NO. IV-1 FIGURE 5-12 (In Level B Study) FIGURE 5-13 (In Level B Study)
FIDf AT '!RENTON - CALENDAR YEARS 1964-1965 EFFECT OF MANAGEMENT ON FLOW AT TRENTON
- CALENDAR YEARS 1964-1965 l
1 see
, H.e...e as...
. - - o s..a..J ri. .
g: ..... . s . .: . e . J r e .. . - r, . . ..
- M . . ., . .. . e c. . . m . .
;{ tio 1
I so -
- H.I. ret flowe j ,{
> - - - ob..,..Jre.w. -
I -
...... si. t.s.J Flow s . Prese.t* {k ,
n o .. o . . . . . c. .. . ... . .oo : u _ . g i : :: m - fji i :i Is t i
~
\ . ,
i y :i p, _j Tl j ;- b eo to - II I l) X g i I i Ig l]1 g
; - 1lI\ 2 ao
\-i\ ,
s 1 i -- ! ! o i1 2 - I t i t
- 8 is r-1t s t
<o j !! I
- i y 1 t \, 5 H't t
J 1 g i 1 e c \ \
\\ : 1 Jg
,i t
. I 1: :p :
to -3 --
-c ,
20 i I s I t
\- ::j\ l
~
4 - - tf *** * :ja Vs A I \. 5
~
f s(\a *
'.jj \ lI \1 f.h ri m :I \
N)
- w. .. . ..... . -
.,o /- v/ L.>.A_/ T.f iL
. ... ..... ... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y . . . . . t. # ..
J IMANJ JASOMpJFMANJ JA&OHD JfMAMJJASONDJ FMAHJ B A5ON D 1944 1945 1964 1965 Source: USGS natural and observed
- includes operation of Neversink, Pepacton, Cannonsville, g
data, DRBC staff calculations Beltr.ville, Blue Marsh, with 1750 cfs flow maintained at Montague gaging station.
- o. ...
!$e difference between the flow objective of 3,000 cf.1 at Trenton and the present possible flow of about 2,600 cfs during periods of drought (400 cfs) might be made up hy water conservation practices, more intensive management practices, additional off-main-stem reservoir storage, or a combination of any two or all three of these measures. The measures taken would be necessary for water management throughout the basin, with or without the proposed diversion at Point Pleasant.
e e p.*w me _4 -65
$9@
G e 0
=-
M=
- O my e m
e e 4 J W h
.m e
~
'IV-22 ,
- e. . . =-w rwe e- me- - - - *%m%...e -we *+=M= * ~ h=* -*
- ~.. ,,_ - ..... -. , - -- , - - , .,, . _ , , , , ,, , , - -- , .- , , . . - . , . , .
1
- 3. Impact on Aquatic Biota
~
Issue: Would the proposed diversion at Point Pleasant be detrimental to aquatic biota and to recreation, including fishing, in the Delaware River, East Branch Perkiomen Creek, and North Branch Neshaminy Creek?
- Response
- Many of the comments expressed conce c n for potential I
adverse impacts on aquatic organisms (fish primarily) inhabitating the Dela-ware River, North Branch Neshaminy, East Branch Perkiomen and Lake Galena, _ as well as for sport fishing which depends on adequate fish stocks. Tbc original Environmental Assessment (February 1S,1980) stated that existing
} aquatic biota would be both enhanced and adversely affected by the proposed project. The main task for this revised EA then is to supply more informa-tion to test the judgments presented in the original EA. Specific questions ,_ have been raised regarding water ir*ikes, changes in water velocity and volume, water levels, upstream reservoir r. ,ases, etc., as they would affect fish and f:? - -
wildlife. These are addressed below. i -- Delaware River.--The major concerns are that the diversion would kill fish by extreme physical forces (impingement on the intake screen or en-i .. trainment with the water through the pump), or would reduce the volume of water
'. - " needed'to maintain fish (and shellfish) in a healthy condition, or would dis-l l . 2,. . : rupt fish habitats as a result of upstream reservoir releases.
.. _- - ..a. Impingement and Entrainment. Subsequent to the February IS,
_d. _. 1980 SA, . representatives of the U.S. Fish 6 Wildlife Service (Departysnt of the _ Interior) and the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, discussed the project with NWRA
.g_
. . representatives and _ agreed to prepare a list .of standards or criteria for a safe T.. . intake. design. The .NWRA Excutive Director restated the applicants' intention of a
constructing an intake wuich would equal or surpass the most mcdern, EPA approved - w i IV-23 -
.- ~ .. - -. -
intake deilgn. NWRA representatives also introduced a new intake design ("wcil-
~~
screen") they are considering, which would draw water directly from the bottom of the river through a manifold of screened intakes. The "well-screen" design might cause less impingement and entrainment than the conventional flush-to-the-bank, traveling-screen intde originally proposed because juvenile fish, which are most susceptible to imp'ngement, i are more a'oundant in near-shore sur-
~
face. waters.
- The judgment in the EA that a bank-flush intake facility would not
- have a significant adverse impact cn Delaware River biota, was based on a com-parison with three existing water inteke facilities: Martins Creek, Gilbert, and-Portland Electric Generatdr.g Stations. The facilities which are all located on the non-tidal, fresh-water section of the Delaware River (within 49 miles of Point Pleasant), presently withdraw from 144 mgd to 274 mgd as a maximum. See Table IV-1 for i fomparison of the physical features of the thee intakes with theproposedPointiPiehsantintake. Major analytical studies of the impact of l
' the three intakes on; Delaware River fish were completed 3ver the last few years (D' dun 1978; Willis and Harmon 1977; Johnson and Phoenix 1977).
~
~ In May and June 1976 a't the Martins Creek Electric Generating Station,
- hom 3,737 to 28,000: fish eggs and larvae per day were entrained during pumping of 172 agd'. Under flow conditions at that time (assuming unifotn dispersion of
, x -
I the or'ganisms), less.than 2.1% of the daily total larval population in the river
; at that point was entrained (Johnson and Phoenix 1977). Typically a high pro-l . .
_ m.e portion (but mot all-) cf the organisms entrained are killed by extreme phy.sical
~ '
I forces during passage through the pump.
~
Sampling-during April-August 1976 at Gilbert Stetion revealed the maximum estimated. number of larval fish entrained equalled 602,604 fish for i l the month of June. Less that. 2t of the river was withdrawn at this time. While IV-24 -
l 4 l l 1 f i ^ Table IV '1 Comparison of Physical Design Feature &-Existing Portland, Martins Creek and Gilbert Electric Cencrating Stations and the Proposed Point Pleasant Pumping Station. j . Martins Creek Intake - Intate i F2-ture Portland Station thalts I and 2 tlnits 1 and 4 t ,Cilbert Station , Point Pleasant Del: ware River Mile Location 206 190.9 171.3 157.20 Installation Date 1958; 1962 1954; 1956 IJ75; 1977 1930; 1949 Nunher of Pumps 4 4 4 4 4 Rats of Water Withdrawal A 218,000 119,389 17,600 100,000 0 (gpa) (Total =136,989 max.fl-4) Rito of Water Witimfrawal 313 max. 172 75.3 144 max. 95 a,as. (agd) (Total =IS+.3 avg. 81-4) , i g Parcentage of River Flow Avg.6% (at 7,980 cfs) 13.6% (at 1,961 cfs)* 2.0% (at 1,961 cfs) 7.4% (at 3,000 cfs) 5% (at 3,000 cfs)
< Kitlidrawn (_cfs river flow) 25% (at 1,920 cfs-(44% st 609 cis 'minimud'), (Tots! 15.6% at 1,961 cfs l3 critical low flow) 81 )c vs Intake Location flush to river bank flush,to. river bank on small cove flush to river bank flush to river bank Rivsrbottom Hodification .
Jredged e b nel 150'long x 50%L% a j3' deep (max); 7 5p< rap . 1 Screening y 4 traveling bar screen plus 4 traveling 3 travelin;;I 4 travelingE 2' wide x 50' high 8.3' wide x 21' highE 10' wide I Scrain Dimensions (feet) 2-2' wide x 22' high 2-2' wide x 25' high E Scrstn Hesh Size (inches) 3/8 3/8 3fg I Scree:n Rotation Time 5-10 9-18.5 12-34 (minutes) Ustsr Velocity Through 0.75 0.04 - c 80 0.5 Screen 1. 0.81 0,5 nex Intake Screen (feet /secon.1) (1.05 at intake tunnel: 0.64 (durly avg. flow)F Screen 2. 0.92 1.62 (aox) Screen 3a, 3b. 2.30H
- v. ,
~ Table IV-1 '(Continued): REFERENCES
. . i A. F'nal EIS - Proposed Martins Creek Electric Generating Station Expansion Units 3 and 4 DRBC, February 23, 1974; page 56 B. 316(b) Report - Martins Creek G4nerating Station, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
November 1977; page 2-3. C. Mar'-ts Creek EIS, op cit; p33? 55. D. 316(b) Report - Gilbert Generating Station, Icthyological Associates, August 1977; page 29.
'2-E. 316(b) Report - op cit; page 1-5.
'~
F. ~ Ibid; page 1-7.
~ ~
G. Martins Creek EIS, op cit; page 61. H. 316(b) Report - op cit; page 29.
~
~ I. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority, Environmental Report, February 1979;
. page.A-5.
J. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority, Sec. 3.8 Application, June 1979. _, K. All data supplied by Metropolitan-Ediser Company, May 1980. O N
~
e pS-4
** We S?* .
{ _ l M w t
~
l _. _ __ _IV-26 _. _ . _ __ _
larval fish density showed a 10 fold decrease at the discharge relative to the
. intake, density of larval fish at 3 mid-river downstream stations was un-changen (Willis and Harmon 1977).
Entrainment of fish eggs and larval fish during 9 hours of evening , l sampling ranged from ero to 269,438 at the Portland Station in May-August 1977. On one evening 47.7% of the ichthyoplankton passine the station was estimated to have been withdrawn (Didun 1978). Roughly 6% of the eggs and larvae en-trained at Port?and Generating Station were American shad with a maximum of 34,600 :had larvae possibly entrained on the evening of May 26, 1977. Pldun judged these values to be insignificant since a single shad female produces between 116,000 and 639,000 eggs, and the major nursery and spawning areas are further upriver. All three studies concluded that the water withdrawals had an in-
- t. .-
.significant impact on the river's fish eggs and larvae. A major reason for this finding is the fact that the three stations are located on the non-tidal portion of the river. Lofton (1976) documents the low rate of impingement
-- and entrainment in non-tidal sections. The Point Pleasant Diversion would
>- likely entrain far less eggs and larvae because it would withdraw a maximum of 5% of the river fIcw for short periods.
~
- Th'e number of fish impinged against the 3/8" mesh intake screens of the three generating stations was also found to be very low, in the above
"- cited stludies. The rate of impingement was: 7 fish in 26 hours (Martins Creek);
58 fish in 420 hours (Gilbert); 41 fish in 170 hours (Portland--see Metropolitan-
. Edison (1977)). The percentage of impinged fish which were alive when collected
__ was ,26% a.t Portland and 95% at Gilbert. The most common fish impinged were: spottail shiner (344 at Gilbert); alewife (50% at Portland) and the anadromous 6 IV-27
shad--an important sport fish during migration (2 out of 7 or 29% at Martins
~
Creek). Shad represented 0.and 10% of the impinged fish at Gilbert and Portland. In contrast, during July-November 1973, shad juveniles made up approximately 25% (and ranked first) of the total juvenile fish sampled by seine in the fresh water non-tidal sections (Point Pleasant to Little Falls, N.Y.); see Table 21 in J. P. Miller, J. W. Friedersdorf et al, December 1975. At Point Pleasant shad
] juveniles accounted for 28's of the total sampled. This information suggests that the frequency with which shad juveniles are impinged by the areas-intakes is 1ess than their relative abundance in the river.
In another study, Lofton (19/6) described the impingement of anadromous species in the free flowing
,(non-tidal) portion of the river sa " infrequent" and "often rare."
The ability of a fish to swim away from a water intake is related to the si:e of the fish. During the juvenile fish sampling in 1973, shad ranged
- =. from 11LtoA-3M" " Doint Pleasant which, at the high range certainly, is
- sufficient for them readily to escape the 0.5 feet per second water velocity
~-
at the prt$osed intake. As part of an assessment of water intake systems under Section 316(b) of the Water Quality Act, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Pennsylvania Depart-
- _ _ _ men.t_of_ Environmental _ Resources, and the Environmental Protection Agency reviewed both the impingement and entrainment studies for Martins Creek and Portland Staticns. The three agencies concurred that the intakes were "not adversely
[- - 3 affecting the (balanced) indigenous community of aquatic organisms in the
~~
Delaware River" (EPA 1978;10')). A similar judgment is likely for the Gilbert Station _(Roche, 1980). j Considering the maximum rate of water withdrawal at the three gener-
~
atingptationsstudied is from 1.5 to 3 times the proposed diversion, and at
= *7
- IV-28 __
q .
. ,--. -+ -w-g+_ , 3 . -- ~ q ., - . , . , , - - , q
a higher velocity, it is safe to conclude that, all things equal, the impingement of Delaware River fish by tF.e Point Pleasant diversion would be less than that experienced at the existing generating stations which have deered to be not significant. The large number of shad. juveniles (64.6 per haul) taken during 1979 sampling across the river from Point Pleasant, at Byram, N.J. (Lupine,1980), may mean that the entire P?i:t Pleasant pool area is used as a nursery area; or that there was exceptionally high shad reproduction in 1979; or that it can only be explained by any one of several other causes. While the analysis presented above indicates that shad juveniles are not impinged at the relative frequency at which they e.nist in the river, it w uld be prudent to monitor the proposed intake so that, in the unlikely event of an adverse impact, corrective measures could be undertaken. Such measures might include altering pumping schedules,
,. or modifying the intake facility itself to reduce impingement or to increase survival following impingement. This element of the impingement and ectrain-ment issue would not be illuminated by further snalysis at' this time, there-fore, the EA recommended that an intake monitoring study be required as a permit condition, should the application be approved.
l As far as cumulative effects are ccncerned, the aquatic life which l would be killed would obviously be added to the constant mortality occurring at every intake in the basin. The information which.has 'oeen reviewed, however, indicates that at three of the largest existing intakes, the impact en aquatic l l life is insignificant. The Point Pleasant diversion would mean the addition of another facility with an even smaller, less significant, effect. Up river from l Trenton, the existing fish population is quite varied and supports a good (if l
^
underutili:ed) sport fishery. Shad sport-fishing activity has been increasing yearly. There is no reason to believe that these conditions would be affected a l e IV-29
by impingement and entrainment at Point Pleasant. As a final note of clarificati.an, the Point Pleasant intake would notrequireadamarimpoundmentofanykindontheDelaware. Present plans require a 150 foot long trough to be dredged in the river bottom, from the river bank out to the deepest part of the river, to insure a supply of water during periods of low river flow. Dredged materials would be used for back-fill in the construction of the intake facility or stockpiled for later use as top soil. The intake design will not be completed until the state and federal fishery managers' design criteria or standards have been considered. bv..'Instream Uses. The effect of altering the river flow on the river's aquatic organisms is a concern of many reviewers. The Environmental Assessment judged this effect to be very slight for the following reasons: The maximum withdrawal of 95 mgd is equivalent to 5% of the river's flow during a period when the river is at 3,000 cfs at Trenton, which is the current DRBC minimum flow objective. Section IV-E of this revised EA presents
' ~
data showing that the river level would be lowered about 6/10 of an inch under these conditions. Based on records from 1955 - 1975, a flow of 3,000 cfs or less at Trenton occurred approximately lot of the time (U.S. Geological Survey,1980).
~
hte frequency in the future would depend on: the " natural" river flow, the minimum flow objective selected for the Montague gauging station, the flow at Trenton selected to trigger releases from storage reservoirs and new depletive uses.
- The .~ amount of shoreline, and aquatic plants and animals, that would be
.:J - exposed .to the air as the water level dropped would depend upon the stage of the river at the time. Under minimum river flow conditions, the slope of the shore-line would be at its lowest, hence the area exposed would be the maximum. While
.. 9 IV-30 _.
. e
certain aquatic plants and animals would be stressed and succumb, other marsh and wetland forms would be enhanced. In a pond environment, daily water level fluctuations of up to 3.5 feet a day were not found to affect significantly the success of fish-spuwning in shallow water, while emergent vegetation was en-hanced (Baren, C.E. ,R.C. Kausch,1971) . The effect of an infrequent lowering of the water level by 0."10 of an inch in a naturally variable, riverine environ-ment would be insignificant. Release of water from upstream reservoirs,to compensate for the water diverted by Point Plearant during periods of very low river flow, would have a beneficial impact on aquatic biota in the reach upstream of Point Pleasant. 8 Any increase in water level wod1d be larger than the decrease projected to occur below Point Pleasant, as the river would naturally be at a lower stage in the r- upstream reaches.
~ " ~
~-7 Th'e proposed project would have a very slight adverse impact on down-stream warer quality because there would be less water flowing into the estuary to dilute existing wastewater discharges. As an illustration, under extremo
~
conditions of low river flow (2,780 cfs) and maximum diversion (95 mgd) the
.. level of dissolved oxygen (a vital substance for aquatic organisms), would be reduced by approximately 0.08 mg/l in the Trenton to Philadelphia reach (Zone 2)*.
The effect' is stearly halved further down river. 'El There would be an even smaller reduction in oxygen when the river has a higher flow or when lesser volume of Tif ~ ^ iater l's' diverted. ~: ~ ~ Biological impact could result if the oxygen level was caused to fall significantly below a critical threshold level causing organisms to move, cease
~ ' migration ~or die. In this case, however, with the infrequent, slight effect
~~: .-
-
- Based on data used in Figure C-2 " Dissolved Oxygen and Flows-Preliminary Runs I Delaware Estuary Model" p.56, Level B Draft Final Report, DRBC. '
IV-31
~ -
..m
on oxygen levels projected, the probability of significant adverse effect on resident biota is judged to be very low to nil. Spring and fall shad migrations, similarly, should not be significantly affected as the maximum oxygen reduction would tend to occur during mid-summer periods when the shad are not migrating in the estuary. As explained in Section IV-E, Water Quality - Salinity, the diversion would not significantly affect the concentration of chlorides in the estuary since
~
only 4.5 mgd of the water diverted to the Neshaminy Creek basin, would not be returned to the Delaware under low-flow conditions--when the movement of the ocean salinity frost is of concern. Year-round diversion of water would not cause a ' detectable change in salinity levels. Consequently, the oyster industry l in Delaware Bay could not be affected by the proposed project.
'~
Periedic maintenance dredging of the submerced channel leading to flush-
~~ ~
to-the-bank intake facility would have a very slight adverse impact on the river's
" ~
' benthic organisms because of the small area involved. Recoloni:ation would be
!,, fairly rapid, also making this a temporary impact. As the orginal Assessment notes,'by dredging in the November-March period, migrating shad would not be affected. (As noted earlier, a possibility exists that a river bottom intake
- facility may be found more desirable by the fishery managers and NWRA, elimina-ting the need fc a. cenance dredging.)
North Branch Neshaminy and Pine Run.--Some reviewers request additional t l -- information concerning possible changes in stream morphology, hydrologic condi-
"tions, intake design and operation, and water quality as chose factors might affect aquatic biota.
~ ~ '
- a. Water Flow. The median flow in the 19,000 foot reach of the j
f' North Branch,,beginning at the proposed point of inflow of the Delaware River
- e. . water down .to Lake Galena, is from 1.3 to 4.6 cubic feet per second (cfs) . The average annual minimum discharge,which lasts for 7 days with a 2-year recurrence I i
~
IV-32 t
interval,is less than 0.05 cfs. For a 10 year recurrence interval, the minimum
. flow is zero. The proposed project under maxim.u pumping conditions would cause the flow in this reach to be about 76 cfs. The water depth at this time would range from 0.5 to 1.0 ft. , with a velocity of 2.0 to 2.2 feet per second. These latter figures compare to a median flow depth at present of 0.1 to 0.15 ft. and a ve-locity of 0.5 to 0.7 fps and the mean annual flood (670 cfs). with a depth of 4.7 ft. and a velocity of 3.5 fps. (Table IV-9) .
- c. Existing aquatic biota in the upper reaches of the North Branch reflect the small stream si:e and occasional periods of little or no flow--the populations are small and diversity is low. The propo::ed project would benefit existing populations by substantially increasing the si:e of the habitat (living space, niches) allowing greater productivity and higher survival while, at the same time, reducing the seasonal mortality caused by insufficient flow.
Adverse effects which could result from large and rapid fluctuations of stream flow would be prevented in this case because: (1) the proposed augmented flow regimen would be well below the lower range of ordinary flood flows; (2) the diversion would only be curtailed when the natural stream flows were adequate
--preventing a large drop from augmented flows down to the natural low flows; and (3) the start-up and stopping of pumping would be done gradually over sev-U eral days. Because the outflow of Lake Galena, through which the North Branch passes, is regulated, the effect of the increased flow on the creek's biota p.
would be primarily limited to the 19,000 foot-long reach a. cove the Lake. Pine Run biota would not be affected at all by the water diversion. l , By pumping into the creek during periods of low flow, the yearly mini-e , mum and maximum flow pattern would be reversed and the adverse biological effects _ normally associated with la stream flows during the productive late spring and summer periods, would not occur. The actual patt9tn of pumping can be seen in , i ! IV-53 -- I
Table IV- 2 which shows the number of days per month the diversion would be necessary during an average flow year for the North Branch and Pine Run. For an average production of wate'r (20 mgd) at the North Branch water treatment plant, the Delaware would be tapped a, total of 56.8 days / year--occurring in April-August; there would be no pumping from September-March. Monthly values are also given for periods of maximum production which, it should be noted, could not be maintained for long periods; therefore, an annual total is not included. Table IV-2 Schedule of Pumping from
' Point Pleasant into North Branch Neshaminy Creek for Three Levels of Production (10, 20, 40 mgd)
, at the North Branch Water Treatment Plant. (In days.)
MONm 10 mgd 20 mgd 40 mgd
,, Jan. 0 0 0
. Feb. 0 0 0 4 . Mar. 0 ,
0 7.4 Apr. C 3.1 15.4 7 - May 4.2 13.4 - 15.2 June 8.5 14.3 15.9 July 12.0 13.2 18.4
- Aug. 11.5 12.8 17.9 Sept. 0 0 0 Oct. 0 0 14.7 Nov. 0 0 15.6 Dec. 0 0 10.5 0
ANNUA:. TOUL 36.2 56.8 (See text)
? . ..
l - SOURCE: E. H. Bourquard, 1980. 1 'r, 'b. Water Quality. Aquatic biota would further benefit from improve-ment in water quality which would result from a higher volume of water for dilution, and from the quality of diverted water. Downstream of the Chalfont Water Treatment Plant, water flow and quality would be improved by establish-
- r -
._. ment of a minimum release of 5.3 mgd during March 1 through June 15 and
- IV-34
*~ *-w * - - - - - =p.-... w_ .,e ...me.
4 2.73 mgd during the rest of the year, which the diversion would make possible. The Pennsylvania Fish Commission, which recomeW.ed the minimum release flows,
.- believes the flow increase "shouid significantly improve water quality con-ditions and therefore represent an enhancement to any future fishery" ; (Pennsylvania Fish Commission,1978) .
4 Turbidity levels in the North Branch may increase tr.aperarily during construction and during establishment of the new flow regime. However, because modified flows would be well within the lower range of ordinary flood flows and the velocity at 2.0 to 2.2 fps would generally be below erosion limits of the existing channel materials--alluvial sand and gravel, i rock outcroppings in steeper areas, and Bowmansville silt loam in the stream banks, (the limits being 1.5-2.0 fps for coarse sand, and 2.5 fps for loose l, gravelly soil and ordinary loam)--the impact on biota is likely to be very slight. Use,of an energy dissipator _ at the point of in-flow to the North
~
~~
Jranch would mitigate the erosional force of the water.'where it would be , [ _ _ .1,'_ _ lh'ighest'andsede"to'limitturbidity. ~f_Z ~ ~
~
[ The level of phosphorous in the Delaware River at Point Pleasant is lower than the level in the North Branch Neshaminy, therefore, the diversion l would not cause rapid growth of undersirable vegetation downstream of Lake Galena. l '
. . c. Water Intakes. The original plan for intake structures on the
--- North Branch Neshaminy and on Pine Run included bar screens to protect pumps l
and other equipment from trash, but lacked a fish screening device. During final engineering design, it was decided also to include vertical, traveling screens to reduce the likelihood of entrainment of aquatic organisms. NWRA's i L consult' ant has indicated that the screening would meet EPA's latest criteria s
' ~
5 IV-35 _ t .
(E.H. Bourquard, 19J0). Advsrsa cff cts en fish projccted in tna 'dnvir:n-mental Assessment (February 15, 1980) would not occur as a result of this design change. Lake Galena.--Some reviewers question the effect on the aquatic biota of changes in the hydraulic characteristics of Lake Galena, caused by the . diversion.
- a. Water Level. According to the current plan of operation for Lake Galena, up to half the water in the lake could be utill:ed for water supply (1.63 billion gallons out of 3.26 billion galicus.) With no means to aaintain the lake's water level at present, fishing and boating would be ad-
-. versely affected during the spring and summer seasons as water supply needs 4
were being met. Under the proposed project plan, water pumped from the Delaware would allow vnter supply demand to be met while maintaining an optimun water level for recreation. Therefore, the diversion project would have a beneficial impact on recreation in Lake Galena. Under the proposed plan, diversion would be cut back during
. periods of low recreational use (fall and winter) causing the water level in Lake Galena to drop. The impact of drawdown on biota would depend on the ~~
condition of the fishery at the time. A drop in water level could be beneficial if the lake contained populations of " stunted" sunfish caused by over-population. Fishery managers often use this technique to increase predation on small fish in
- improving a sport fishery. On the other hand, the impact could be harmful if the juvenile fish populations were unusually small at the time. (Present fish populations have good growth rates indicating a well-balanced fishery (Pennsylvaaia Fish Commission, 1980).) If prolonged drawdowns led to a 7 duction or loss of aquatic weed beds which were providing cover for juvenile fish, various kinds of u~ artificial habitats could be used readily in mitigation. Overall, the beneficial +. -
Iv-36 - i e Mavek* e- se
-he-- Me-+ hw =
p- m a4W
effect on biota and recreation provided by stable water levels in spring and summer would probably off-set any slight adverse effects caused by fall and winter drawdowns. .
- b. Water flow. Diversion of Delaware River water, although of similar quality to the North Branch, would substantially change the total amount
~
of a particular caterial entering the lake, because of the increased flow; for exampla, total solids (dissolved and suspended) would increase from 1,463 pounds / day when the North Branch is flowing at 1.2 cfs to 24,442 pounds / day when 20 mgd is diverted from the Delaware; alkalinity would go from 129 pounds / day to 7,409 pounds / day; and iron from 3 to 115 pounds / day (Acton,1976). These changes would be less than those generated by natural storm events, as explained
. elsewherer however, the frequency of such changes would be greater as a result of the diversion.
~
Increased flow into the reservoir, caused by the diversion, combined with the proposed schedule of releases from the lake would reduce the detention time of phosphorous, a key plant nutrient. The potential for eutrophication in Lake Galena would be reduced as a result, although the level of phosphorous would still be high enough to support high levels of algae productivity. (See Dresnack (197$ for a discussion of the effect of hydraulic retention on
~
phosphorous levels in Lake Galena.) Diversion of Delaware River water into the North Branch Neshaminy
'~ ?~
would cause a significant change in the rate of watcr movement through take
. Galena. At present, it has been estimated that the lake water is completely t.
-- replaced or flushed out once every 151 days as an average over a year, under i
average stream flow conditions. With maximum pumping from Point Pleasant the
" tu -
average would drop to 43 days. At present the shortest detention period occurs during hbrch when the natural in-flow from North Branch would cause a turn-over IV-37
in 61 days. With the proposed diversion of Delaware River water into the North Branch Neshaminy, the shortest detention pericd would occur in November with a ! i turn-over rate of 14.5 days (Dresnack, 1979). ! l Increase in water velocity through the lake would be substantial when
... maximum and minimum rates are ccmpared, but the highest velocity generated by the diversion would be too low to impact significantly the aquatic biota. As a rough illustration, a natural North Branch low flow of 3.56 cfs at present would generate a velocity of 0.0004 feet per second (fps) (based on a lake of 17.8 feet deep by 1,500 feet wide and assuming the main flow passes through 1/3 of the cross-sectional area), whereas a flow of F3 cfs (partially generated by the diversion) would produce a velocity of only 0.016 fps during a November draw-down (dimensions =10 ft. deep by 1,000 ft. wide) with the detention time of the take at 10.5 days. A current of 0.016 fps is far less than the velocity of even small streams in the area, where velocity would typically be measured in the range of several tenths fps on up to one plus fps. The change in the hydraulic character of Lake Galena indaced by the proposed project would be large, but would not create a riverine habitat.
The proposed prJject, therefore, would generate both an incr3ased load-ing of the natural materials contained in water and, at the same time, would _ reduce the residence time of those materials in the lake. Because of the com-plexity of physical, chemical and biological inter-actions naturally occuring within a lake, it !? not possible to predict the precise effect of the induced changes in ' hydraulics and water chemistry on Lake Galena's biota. The Pennsylvania Fish Connission's fishery management plan for Lake Galena, now under development, .
- __ would have to recogni
- e the potentially beneficial and adverse effects which could result from the diversion. Fish sampling and management studies would very likely have'to be increased. To mitigate completely any potential adverse effects, the DRBC,as a condition of a Section 3.8 approval,could require the NWRA to assure that 3 t
h
~~
IV-38 t -
the lako's fishery resource would be maintained at an equal or higher level than would exist without the diversion. NWRA could be required to utilize the ex-pertise of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and the U.S. Fish and 'dildlife Service in managing the fishery resources. f. East Branch Perkiggn.--The magnitude of change in the stream's morphology and the impact on aquatic habitats has been questioned. The effect on the creek's flow, depth and velocity is tabulated in Tables 1 and 2 of Section IV Flows of PECO's Environmental Report (July, 1979) . The average values c f 15 channel sites Table IV- 3 Natural Conditions (No Pumeste) Average Fu:: mage _ Maximum Pw:msee cFlow(cfs) Depth (ft) Velocity (fps) Flow (cf2) Depth (ft) Velocity (fps) Flow {cis) Depth (ft) Velocity (fps) 7 Day - 2 Yest Low Flov "eriod 0.69 0.05 0.19 34.7' O.59 1.13 65.7 'O.80 1,57 Median Stres:n Flow Period , Ic.6 1 25 0.71 53.6 0.61 1.40 (3.6 0.88 1 64 The average water depth in the East Branch, while receiving Delaware River water, would be lest than one foot (0.88 ft) and the average velocity
~
1.68 fps. The change in depth and velocity would rep'esent slightly less than l a two and a half fold increase over natural, median flow periodr.
. . . The flow, depth and velocity under maximum pumpage and median stream
- . flow conditions would be far below what occurs naturally during flood periods; l '.- _
see below. There would be no pumping from the Delaware during maximum stream flow (flood) periods.
' Table IV-4 Plow (cfs) Depth (ft) Velocity (fps) 1 .-
i 1 Year Flood 870 3.2 3.8 Mean Annual Flood 2,484 5.0 5.4
- m. 5 Year Flood 3,627 6.0 6.2
- 50 Year Flood 7.453 8.4 7.6 .__
IV-39
The higher velocity generated by pumping would also be below the erosion limits of the stream materials as discussed in the section on the North Branch Neshaminy. Therefore, the habitat of the native biota will not be significantly affected, although as described in the EA (February 15, 1980), undoubtedly there would be subtle enanges in the kinds of acmatic biots present over time. The increased volume of water in the channel would provide more space for organisms to carry out thei: life cycles and would allow for increased production. The migration, hibernation, predation, desiccation and other responses of aquatic organisms to lack of water which would normally occur in the East Branch during low flow conditions, would not occur as a result of the diversion project. This 4 effect is considered a beneficial impact on the existing biota. To clarify a statement on page 2-53 of the original EA, PECO would assure a minimum flow of 27 cfs in the East Branch throughout the normal low flow period, once pu= ping started. The 27 cfs would be 51% of the median stream flor during average pu= ping and 32% of the median flow during maximum pumping. In
, addition, DRBC staff have informed PECO of the need to augzent the flow of the East Branch on a year-round basis, up to 10 cfs, for the protection of the
~
aquatic biota. A 10 cfs minimum stream flow would be equal to 19% of the median l stream flow during average pumping. The existing 7 day - 2 year low-flow of 0.69 ! cfs is only 3.7% of the median stream flow, and occurs in the summer. Recant studies suggest that base flows during productive per:ods should be 30% of the average flow to sustain " good" survival conditions for most aquatic i life forms (Tennant, 1976). Lower base flow can be tolerated (20% rather than 30% for " good" survival conditions) during the October-March period, a period of reduced biological activity. The proposed schedule of minimum flows (i.e. i
- 27 cfs during naturally low flow periods and 10 cfs for the remainder of the year),
therefore would be a considerabic improvement over existing conditions because the resulting winimum stream flow would be a greater fraction of the average stream flow and would occur during the winter. -
- IV-40
~ , - -,
l PECO would draw from the Delaware River when the flew in the Perkiomen
. and Schuylkill fell below specific threshold levels already established by the DRBC. Based on a simulation of stream flow and power needs during 1974-1977, Table IV- S indicates the frequency of withdrawal from the three sources. The Delaware would have been drawn on 40% of the time or a mean of 21 weeks per year.
It would not have been utili:ed during December, January, February or March. Pumping would have been required during only one of the 19 April weeks and three of the 15 November weeks. Ferkiomen Creek.--Questions have been raised concerning the design of the intake structure which would supply water to Limerick. As noted in Part IV, Section E (item 14) of this Revised Environmental Assessment, the design and operation of the Limerick station, including the Graterford intake on the Perkio-e men, is not within the scope of DRBC's environmental analysis. The proposed
. Limerick station was the subject of an Environmental Impact Statement which was completedin1973(U.S.AtomicEnergyCobmission).
Upstream Storage.--Additional information is sought concerning the impact on the aquatic biota in upstream storage reservoirs during those periods wnen the reservoirs are drawndown to compensate for the water diverted by the proposed project. As noted elsewhere, under present plans, water withdrawn by PECO ! for use at Limerick would be compensated by releases from the proposed Merrill Creek reservoir, whenever the flow at Trenton reached 3,000 cfs. The Merrill Creek reservoir would be owned by a consortium of electric utility
~~
companies and operatec for the sole purpose of supplying water during low flow periods, to compensate for the water consumed during generation of IV-41 --
,_ e-gai'-- w e'm- ehow a m'- *** gun e4 +'m"a "" " ' " " " "'" ~ ^
Table IV-5 1 1 i SIMULATION OF _ , ESTIMATED WEEKLY WATER WITilDRAWALS DURING TWO-UNIT, FULL-POWERCENEp\ TION, 1974-1977
' Total WEEKS WATER WITHDRAWN FROM Estimated Withdrawal Month Weeks Schuvikill Pe rkior.e n Delaware From Celaware. CFS _
January 16 16 0 0 0 February 16 16 0 0 0 March 17 17 0 0 0 April 19 18 0 1 43.5 May 16 6 4 6 23.8 June 17 3 0 14 46.2 July 19 0 3 16 39.4 August 16 0 0 16 45.1 September 20 0 3 17 40.7 October 16 3 3 10 27.6 November 16 12 1 3 37.5 December 20 20 0 0 0 TOTAL = 208 111 14 83
% of Total 100: 53: . 7: 40%
Mean Weeks / Year 28 3 21 I Based on weekly means of 1) daily Perkiomen Creek flows (Craterford), 2) daily Schuylkill River flows and te=peratures (Pottstown), and 3) hourly meteorology from LCS Tower No. 1. ConcentratLon factor equals 3.34 and drift equals 0.017 l percent of circulating water and service water flowa. l SOURCE: Section IV Flows (Table 1) Envirormental Report. Philadelphia Elcetric l Company, July 1979. a a
^ ~~
l IV-42 l -.
electricity. The environmental impact of the Merrill Creek project, including
. the impact of drawdown on resident biota, will be fully evaluated by the DRBC i and described in an EIS, now in preparation. ~'
With Merrill Creek replacing 46 mgd of the 95 mgd total to be diverted at Point Pleasant, 49 mgd (as a maximum, for short periods) would need to be added to. the Delaware from another source to maintain a flow of 3,000 cfs at Trenton or any other flow objective, as compensation for the NWRA withdrawal. This is less than the 102 mgd which would have been required originally to off-t** set the water diverted for water supply and water quality augmentation. If releases from storage were triggered by the extent of salt movement up the estuary rather than by a flow objective at Trenton, the need for compensating releases from storage would virtually disappear in this instance because the consumptive loss from the NWRA portion would be on the, order of only 5 mgd. The precise effect on reservoir water levels and biota of releasing 49 mgd is uncertain. Under the present analytical scheme, for a repeat of the 1960's drought, the reservoir operation would be unchahged (i.e. the rate of drawdown would be the same with or without Point Pleasant), however, the maximum sus-tainable level of flow would be lowered. In a mathematical modeling exercise in which the conditions experi-enced during the worst years of the 1960's (drought of record) were analyzed, Belt:ville reservoir in the Lehigh River Basin would have been drawndown 25
; feet over six months (including 20 feet within two months) during one year, and 49 feet over four months the next year to maintain a flow of 2,529 cfs at Trenton.* The average monthly release from the reservoir ranged from 37 cfs i
i rm l
- Releases from the New York City c.:ned reservoirs in the Upper Delaware would i
have provided a flow of 1,600 to 1,750 efs at Montague during the period, under this simulation. a 1 _.
~~
IV-43
- wtGM "'*W- '
4 m .eg imW *
- 4 tW
up to 231 cfs during this period. In ecmparison, 76 ct's would be required to
. offset water withdrawn by NWRA for ~ potable water supply. In isoth years the reservoir level would rise to its initial level within four to seven months.
A drop in a lake's surfac- water elevation at the rate projected in the above exercise would have a serious impact on aquatic biota. The entire ecosystem could be unbalanced with i=portant shallow-water flora and fauna
'~
being the most affected. Most fish (juvenile and larger) would simply migrate with the receding water level, while predator fish would benefit by increased concentration of prey. While a precise effect on upstream storage reservoir
, biota cannot be determined, diversion would be damaging to the extent that it contributed to large drawdowns in those impoundments. Several points must f be considered in weighing this impact: the main. purpose of a storage reservoir is for it to be drawn.cawn to augment river flows when necessary, therefore
[.. they are designed to permit recreational use during the period of drawdown; the 40 mgd (76 cfs) to be diverted by the Nh1\ is a short-term maximum under the absolute worst conditions and would not be maintained for any long period; a flow at Trenton of 3,000 cfs (which would trigger releases from storage) occurred only 10*3 of the time during 1955-1975--which covers the 1960's drought of record--and that flow did not always occur in the most biologically productive periods; and the volume of water which would now have to be compensated for by i . reservoir releases is less than half the amount originally proposed.
'A I
0
- h IV-44 -
e umsn,re e gl,a - e, -Ne--- w-+ a,.e,=e*. -----.i-w-
- 4. Water Quality Issue: Would the project have an adverse effect on water quality throughout the service area? Specifically, would temperature, salinity, chlorine, trihalomethanes, trichloroethylene, and lead levels in and below Lake Galena be associated with adverse impacts?
Response: Adverse impacts on water quality in the service area would be minimal because DRBC, individual states, and federal agencies would require the project to be operated in compliance with provisions of the Compact, of State laws, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Section 3.10.2.B of DRBC's Water Code (July 1978), specifies that the quality of Basin waters shall be maintained in a sat:sfactory condition for use by agricultural, industrial, and public water supplies; wildlife, fish and other aquatic life; recreation; navigation, waste assimilation, and other uses pro-i vided by DRBC's Comprehensive Plan. Chapter Five of AEC's Final Impact Statement (AEC 1973) discusses en-vironmental effects of operating the Limerick station. The discussion includes planned discharges of waste including radioactive, chemical, thermal, and sani-l tary wastes. The chapter also discusses the effect of the project on terres-trial and aquatic biota associated with various water bodies, such as Perkiomen r- Creek and the Schuylkill River. AEC recognized DRBC's water quality standards i and management practices, which have been updated as necessary. I' More specific answers to questions concerning water quality are as l follows: l .-
~~
Temperature.--Section 3.20.6, C,2 stipulates that, except in designated ( , t
- IV-45
~
f
heat dissipation areas, temperature shall not: a) exceed.5 F (2.8 C) rise above ambient temperature until stream temperature reaches 87 F (30.60C) and b) natural temperature will prevail above 87 F (30.6 0C). Section 3.3 of AEC's EIS, discusses heat dissipation systems. It diagrams major heat and water paths, including the Limerick natural draft hyperbolic cooling tower (Figures 3.4 and 3.5, pages 3-6 and 3-7 ). Tem-peratures of the water are indicated for various points in the cycle, in-cluding an exit discharge from a cooling tower of 88.9 F with 463,950 gpm. AEC considered a case where the Schuylkill River flow of 230 cfs 0 0 (summer with a temperature of 83.3 F, with blowdown temperature 88.9 F conditions); and a case where a river flow of 440 cfs with a temperature of 35.3 F, with a blowdown temperature of 60 0 F (winter conditions). The re-1 sulting increases in ? mperature were, respectively: 1) one degree F and
- 2) 2.1 degrees F.
The AEC staff considered the problem of river temperature after mixing for the combination of low flow and maximum temperature differences between the blowdown and Schuylkill River water. For this most severe but highly improbable condition, the calculated temperature increase is 5 F and will quickly decrease downstream from the discharge due to further mixing with the rest of the river and heat loss to the atmosphere. The results of both the staff's and the applicant's analyses indi-cate that with respect to temperature and affected area the discharge is j within allowable limits. The Delaware River Basin Commission has specified a :ene of allowable surface temperature excess as being 150 feet wide by 3500 feet long with 50F temperature difference at the edge of the zone. The l l Commonwealth i Fennsylvania regulates water quality in accordance with its e a
- h IV-46 --
Cloan Stream Law, and has reviewed the applicant's proposed discharge scheme and found it acceptable. The Pennsylvania regulation, applicable to indus-trial water users, prohibits the discharge mixing one from encompassing more than one-half of the river cross section at the discharge point. The analyses reported above clearly demonstrate compliance with applicable regu-lations of the Delaware River Basin Commission and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. e Salinity.--DRBC Water Quality Standards for interstate tidal streams, Section 3.30 (DRBC Regulations,1978), contains required chloride levels for each Estuary Zone. A key requirement is the 250 mg/l maximum required at the mouth of the Schuylkill River. The control of chloride during low flow drought conditions has been and is a primary objective of tb3 DRBC's comprehensive water resources planning and regulatory process. The proposed project would withdraw up to 95 mgd (147 cfs) from the non-tidal Delaware River. Up to 49 mgd would be introduced into the Neshaminy system by 2010. Up to 40 mgd would be used for public water supply, about 4.5 mgd would be lost in transit, and the remainder, about 4.5 mgd, would be released to Neshaminy Creek below the treatment plant. Up to approximately 36 mgd of the water treated at the Chalfont Plant would be returned to the Neshaminy as i ! treated wastewater (a projected 90% return). Therefore, of the original 49 mgd l pumped to the Neshaminy Watershed, only about 4.5 mgd (7.0 cfs) would not be l f~ returned to the Delaware River to assist in retardation of salinity. This lost freshwater flow is insignificant. Up to 46 mgd would be pumped from the Delaware River at Point Pleasant , -- into the Perkiomen Watershed. During power generation, up to approximately 42 l l e h
~~
IV-47 n-sem-== w go yen- .w-e 4- , gm-- -e y g , - , - - ,
.4 mgd would be consumed and thus unavailable for salinity retardation. For thi,s reason during drought conditions (when Delaware River flows at Trenton, N.J. are less then 3,000 cfs), pumpage of water for power generation would be suspended unless compensated by off-stream storage. Salinity control is not an issue during non-drought conditions. Chlorine and Trihalomethanes.--Chlorination of potable water for disinfection is a recent concern due to the formation of trihalomethanes and other carcinogens. That some type of disinfection is required is not arguable. Even the purest sources of public drinking water require disinfection for pro-tection of the public. The past history of widespread incidents and epidemics of water-borne disease justify disinfection. The issue of alternatives to chlorination is largely outside the purview of this project. The issue is national in scope and currently the
. subject of research. The subject of alternatives to chlorination was summar-t i:ed in a recent article *:
"It is too early to draw any firm conclusions as to which alterna-
~~
tive disinfectant would pose a lesser health hazard than chlorine." Introduction of organic chemical precursors which lead (with chlor-ination) to formation of possible carcinogenic compounds in water treatment or direct introduction of these compounds into the Neshaminy Watershed from the Delaware River has been raised as an issue. If this is a valid issue for
- Bull, R. J. " Health Effects of Alternate Disinfectants and Their Reaction
- Products", Journallof the American Water Works Association, Vol. 72, No. 5, May 1980.
-1 O
~
IV-43 aww4 %w as - g ase-. 4
the proposed project, it is equally valid for the systems now serving Lower Bucks County, the Trenton Metropolitan Area and the City of Philadelphia and its Suburban custcmers as well as most systems across the nation. Data do not indicate levels of these compounds to be significantly higher in the Delaware River. The issue is, therefore, also considered outside the purview of this project and is logically the subject of national research and regulation, including establishment of future treatment requirements which could include the NWRA Treatment Plant if appropriate. Trichloroethylene (TCE) .--TCE isa known problem in some areas of Bucks County and some other areas of the Delaware River Basin. The problem is largely one of groundwater contamination and the improper use or disposal of a degressing agent. Although TCE is a widespread prcblem, the problem will not be aggravated by the proposed project because TCE levels are insig-nificant in the Delaware River at Point Pleasant. The availability of this uncontaminated water in the Neshaminy Watershed will provide an alternative water supply to homeowners with contaminated wells and provide dilution of contaminents leached into the Neshaminy Creek system. , Lead.--The U.S. EPA primary drinking water standard calls for lead l levels of less than 'O.05 mg/1. Lead is of concern in the Neshaminy Water-shed because of naturally occurring deposits, that once were mined. During construction of Lake Galena, these mine shafts were pumped out, filled and
~
sealed. A review of availabic water quality data indicates that most samples of the Neshaminy contain concentrations of less than 0.05 mg lead / liter. A set of samples taken by the Bucks County Planning Commission in 1971 (one sample) 5
~
I IV-49 -
-* h- e ' ' * -
=w-e a w emm- A 46 arm
-,- - ~ . - ,.
and 1973 (11 samples) averaged 0.05 mg/1. More recent samples have not exceeded these values. The introduction of Delaware River water with its low background levels of lead should serve to dilute any lead concentration in the Neshaminy System. As a precaution, lead should be monitored in the early days of operation of the proposed treatmen.t plant and appropriate treatment steps should be taken if w:rranted. General.--The water pumped from the Delaware River would mix with water from the North Branch and the chemical makeup of the combined waters would depend upon the chemical constituents and proportions of each. Tabulated on Table IV-6 , are the average test results from monthly samplings from the two streams during the period from September 1971 through December 1975. The Delaware River water samples were taken at the site of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station and the North Branch water samples at Silo Hill Road which is about 0.4 mile downstream
'of State Route 611, and at the Treatment Plant site.
Tabulated on Table IV 7 are the test results of single samples or short term sampling analyses for additional parameters. In this tabulation the l North 3 ranch water samples were taken only at the Treatment P1rnt . Site. A review of Tables IV- 6 and 7 reveals that introduction of the t i Delaware River water should generally produce a slightly higher quality of water. l However, it appears that the differences between the chemical makeup of the two waters are not of significant magnitude to prcduce major changes. Pa. DER (Nov.1,1978, pp 17-20) ". . . finds that the raw water quality of the Delaware River, Pine Run, and North Branch Neshaminy Creek are all of satisfactory qual'ity to be used for water supply." The study concludes that e b
~
IV-50 ww se e air = wew e==- ~ wee
.;n -
4 J
* " ...because of the plan to pump water over from the Delaware River, an adequate quantity of water will be available at all times. Therefore, the public safety will be protected both as to quality and quantity of the water supply." DREC's a
staff's evaluation of the water quality aspects of the proposed project agrees
~
with Pa. DER's conclusions. 4 l 1 A v% p 5 ! L. .
~
r- IV-51 l ..
WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
- l Avarage af Monthly Sampling l Se pt. 1971 thru Dec. 1975 -
. 1 (MG/L uniess otherwise shown) ..
~
Delaware North Branch Parame te r Rive r Silo Hill Tr. Plant
~
B acte riological Total Plate Count - No. /ML@37' 2,855 2,626 2,358 Total Coliform - No. /100 ML 5,977 4,174 6,003 Physical Turbidity 9. 7 12.5 7. 7 Odor 1.1 1. 0 1.1 Colo r 15 17 19 Conductivity 187 313 --- Solids - Total 147 222 144
-Dis solved 149 214 145
-Suspended 28 ~19 19
-Volatile , 58 79 .---
. -Fixtd 104 120 ---
~
~
Inorganic Chemicals - pH 7. 5 7. 2 7. 6 Alkalinity 44.4 72 52,7 Carbon Dioxide 5. 5 9. 9 --- m . Dissolved Oxygen 10.6 10.4 --- Nitrog'en -Ammonia - O.26 0.22 0.35
- Albuminoid O.10 0.08 0. 14
- Nitrite 0.033 0.040 0.017
- Nitrate -
O.94 1.61 1,25 Hardne s s 78 107 85 Phosphate - Ortho-Phosphate O. 8 1. 3 --- Poly Phosphate < 0.1 0. 8 --- Total-Pho sphate s 0.90 1.63 , 1. 9 Chloride 13 23 15 Fluo ride O.25 0.21 0.14 Sulfate 25 41 25
~
Iron 0.71 0.48 0.57
.- Mang ane se 0.15 0.1 0.21 Phenol 0.020 0.010 0.047
! Heavy Metals Me rcury <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Lead - Total 0.025 O.040 0.01 0.01 Suspended O.01 0. O i Dis solved 0.01 0.01 <0.01 Cadmium < 0. 01 <0.01 <0.01 Chromium (Hexavalent) < 0. 01 <0.01 <0.01
. _ , ' Source. Extracted from E.thibit No.27 and No.28, Environmental Report, NWRA. 6 r- , 'a
~
IV-52
-m% -. -- -- -
Table IV-7 WATER QUALITY PARAMETER VALUES
- Results of Single Sample, or Short Te rm Sampling Analyses
, 1971 - 1978 .
(MG/L unie ss otherwise shown) - Delaware North Parame te r Rive r B ranch horganic Chemicals - Arsenic . 0.001 0.001
~
Barium . <0.01 <0.01 Copper 0.005 0.004 Selenium $0. 001 <0.001 Silve r , O.002 0.005 Zinc 0.006 0.006 Organic Chemicals - Pe sticide s Chlordane 0.007 0.007 Endrin 0.005 0.COS Heptachlor 0.005 0.005 Heptachlor Epoxide <0.0001 <0.0001 Lindane <0.03 0.007 Methoxychlo r O.06 0.06 l Toxa--hene 0.008 0.008 He rbicide s 2,4-D <0.001 0.005 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) <0.01 <0. 01 Cyanide 0.08 0.09 l MBAS 0. 0 0. 0 :
=~e i
- Source: Extracted from Exhibit.'lio.29, Environmental Report, NWRA.
I e s i .!
'~' ~
IV-53 m D . ,
,n
- 5. Flood, Erosion, and Sedimentation Issue: Would the projec't impose adverse impacts on property in the flood plain or upon environmental values in the service area, as they relate to
~
flood, erosion, or sedimentation? Response: This response answers specific questions posed relating to release of project water into receiving streams, specifically North Branch I Neshaminy and East Branch Perkiomen. As noted, partial answers are in other sections of this revised EA.
- a. How does the depth of water in streams now compare with what it would be with the project?
I
._ An;wer: .
North Branch Neshaminy 2 reek.--Table IV-8 indicates average monthly characteristics of the North Branch stream flow at a channel section upstream of State Route 611, with the advent of a wbt year, a normal year, and a dry year. The flow records or Neshaminy Creek at Langhorne were examined and daily flows of
, the year having the maximum annual flow, 1973, were used for the wet year; and daily flows of the year having the least annual flow, 1965, were used for the dry
~
year. The normal year consists of selected months from various years which renths are the closest to the mean monthly flow of record for each specific month. Table IV-8 compares flow charscteristics under the "Nat." condition which is prior to installation of any compenent of the Neshaminy Water Supply System, with
- the "W.S." condition which is with Reservoir PA-617 and the Point Pleasant Pump-
,] ing Facilities in operation and with the North Branch Water Treatment Plant pro-ducing 20 mgd, the projected need of about the year 2000. It will be noted that
[_ only during certain months of the year do the flow characteristics differ; these
, are the months when water would be pumped from the Delaware River iato the North
!. Branch. ,
em -* IV-54
- - - - m- .. w mm -wme -m m, , , . - - - ~ - , , , . - - . .
gq _ _ _ , _.
, g- ; ,
-) , .; - ; , j -- ; , , ,
l Table IV.8 - - AVERAGE MONTHLY STREAM FLOW CHARACTERISTICS . NORTH BRANCII AT STATE ROUTE 611 , j - j Month WET YEAR NORMAL YEAR DRY YEAR of Q in cfs D in ft. V in fps Q in cfs D in it. V in fps O in cfs D in ft. _V in fps j , , Year Nat. I V7 S. Nat. W. S. Nat. W.S. Nat. W. S. Nat. ' W. S. Nat. W. S. Nat. W . S. Nat. W. S. Nat. W. S. January 19 19 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 12 16 0. 9 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 49 0. 5 1. 4 0. 5 1. 5 i February 22 22 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 19 19 1. 0 1. 0 1.1 1.1 17 28 1. 0 1. 2 1. 0 1. 2 M a rch- 12 12 0. 9 0.9 1. 0 1. 0 19 19 1. 9 1.0 1.1 1.1 10 10 0. 8 0. 8 0. 9 0. 9 I
! 30 30 1. 2 April 1. 2 1. 3 1. 3 13 13 0. 9 0. 9 1. 0 1. 0 7 7 0. 7 0. 7 0. 7 0. 7 M ay 13 13 0~9 0. 9 1. 0 1. 0 8 24 0. 7 1.1 0. 7 1. 2 1 39 0.3 1.~ 3 0.3 1. 4 1
June , 25 38 1,1 1. 3 1. 2 1. 4 3 28 0. 4 1. 2 0. 4 1. 2 1* 40 0.1
- 1. 3 0.1
- 1.4 July' 10 26 0, 8 1. 3 0. 9 1. 2 1 32' O. 2 1. 2 0. 2 1.3 1* LS 0.1 1. 3 0.1 1. 4
, ; August 12 35 0.9 1. 3 1. 0 1.4 2 32 0. 3 1. 2 0. 3 1. 3 1* 38 0.1 1. 3 0,1 1. 4 4
, Sept ;mbe r 1 1 0.3 0. 3 0. 3 0. 3 1 1 0. 2 0. ,2 0. 2 0. 2 1* 1* 0.1 + 0.1
- 0.1
- 0.1 *
- Octobe r 3 3 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 2 2 0. 3 0.3 0. 3 0. 3 le 10 ' O. ;
- 0.1
- 0.1
- 0.1
- Nove mbe r 0.1 0.1 0.1 l 9.1 6 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 0. 6 22 0. l e 1.1 0.1
- 1.1 i 1 1 1*
j , Decembe r 33 33 1. 2 1. 2 1. 3 1. 3 10 10 0. 8 0. 8 0. 9 0.9 1* 35 0. l
- 1. 3 0.1
- 1. 3 l
1 j Legcnd: "O in cfs" is North Branch flow at Rt. 611 to nearest cubic feet per second (cfa), developed from-l discharge recowls of Neshaminy Creek at Langhorne.
; "D in ft. " is depth of flow in feet above low point in channel.
"V in ips" is ave rage velocity of flow it feet per second.
"Nat. " is the condition prior to installation and operatira of the Neshaminy Wate r Supply System.
"W.S. " is the condition when Re se rvoir PA-617 is in ope ration ar4d the Treatment Plant is ;
producing 20 MGD. - i
.
- inucate s "le s s than". '
I .
The channel section, located 150 feet upstream of State Route 611,
. - is about midway between the terminus of the North Branch Transmission Main and Lake Galena, and is considered representative of the North Branch channel above this reservoir. The drainage area of the North Branch at Route 611 is 5.8 square miles, which is about nne-third of the 15.S square-mile watershed of Reservoir PA-617. . - The stream flows used for the "Nat." ccndition were developed from the daily stream flow records of Neshaminy Creek near Langhorne, Pennsylvania and, for the "W.S " condition, daily pumpages from the Delaware River developed by flow routing computations were added. As may be expected, the increases in stream flows by the pumpages are least in the wet year and greatest in the dry .. year. However, under all conditions, the combined natural flow and pumpage do 4
not constitute a major flow and will have flow depths well within the channel. e- . i Table LV- 9 NORTH BRANCH NESHAMINY CREEK CHARACTERISTICS DURING NATURAL FLOOD FLOWS *AND DURING MAXI!E1 DIVERSION l E Flood Q in cfs D in f3 V in fus Mean Annual 673 4.7 3.5 1.- 5-Year 980 5.8 3.9 10-Year 1,270 6.6 4.2
~
50-Year 2,010 8.2 4.6
~~ b Max. Water Supply Flow . 76. 0.5 2.2
- a. Source: Bourquard, E.H. Associates, Inc. Personal Communication, August 6, 1980.
I' b. 49 mgd pumped in from Point Pleasant under minimum stream flow conditone. L- [' 5
. A
- IV-56 --
i_
1 Table IV-9 presents information on flow, depth and velocity of the North Branch Neshaminy during natural high-flow periods (mean annual flood; ! 5-year flood; 10-year flood and 50-year flood) near Route 611, upstream of Lake Galena. Also shown are the stream characteristics that would occur under n. maxims diversion from the Delaware. I East Branch Perkiomen Creek.--Table IV- 10 indicates characteristics of the median stream flow, plur average pu=pages from the Delaware River, for r- 15 channel sections along the East Branch which are shown on Figure IV- 2 i Examination of the columns on Table IV .10 titled " Median Flow Plus Average I Pumpage" reveals that flow depths are one foot, or less, well within the normal flow channel. , ,, The possibility of pumping taking place during ;; flood may be con-o sidered by comparing the two sets of mean annual flood flow characteristics. It will be noted that even with the maximum pumping rate, the depths and velocities of the Mean Annual Flood increase only about 0.1. Such an increase in water level would not be discernable during a flood and a 0.1 fps increase in velocities ranging from 4,6 - 7.0 fps would not be measurable. Also, for larger floods, increases due to pumping would be even more minute. In any case, the probability of any pumping occurrhu during a flood is very remote. A stream r t' u
~
l~~ IV-57
,,,,w,. _ . . , - . .-.ww=- -"N" ' ' * - -*
;- M M p ==') C, j j ; ; ; , ; 1
. ~ . . . _ - - - ,_, , ". ,
. Table IV 10
, MEDIAN FLOW AND FLOOD FLOW CilARACTElstSTICS EAS!' DRANCil OF I'ERKIOMEN CIIEEK i Meilan Median Flow Plus Mean Annual Meau Annual Flood 5-Year 50-Year - Flow Ave rage Pumpare Flood Plu e Max. l'u mpare Flood Floc.t
, Se c tion Q D V Q D V Q D V Q D V Q D V Q D V
' efe it , fp s ele efs
, No, fps efs it. fpa efe 't. it. fps it. fos cfe it. fg{ .
l t t I. 34 0. 7 0. 7 68 0. 9 1. 5 4,200 9. 0 5. 2 4.271 9.1 5. 3 6,130 11.0 6. 0 12,600 15.6 7, 3 , 2 32 0. 4 0. 6 66 0. 5 1. 0 4,000 5. 3 5. 2 4.411 5. 3 5. 3 5,840 6. 6 6.1 12,000 9.1 7. 5 3 30 0. 4 0. 9 64 0.5 1. 4 3,700 4.9 7. 0 3,778 4. 9 7. 0 5,400 6.2 8. 4 11,100 9.2 10.7 4 29 0. 3 0. 8 63 0. 5 1. 3 3,600 4. 6 6. 3 3,671 4. 7 6. 4 5,260 5.8 7.6 10.800 8.5 9. 7 5 27 0.3 0. 7 68 0. 4 1.1 3,500 3. 9 5. 3 3,571 3. 9 5. 3 5,180 4.9 6. 4 10,500 7.3 8.3 -- .
; 6 25 0. 3 0. 7 58 0. 4 1.1 3,300 4. 0 5.6 3,371 4.1 5.7 4,820 4.9 6.5 9,900 7. 0 - 8.2 ,
7 22 0. 4 0. 7 56 0. 6 1. 2 3,000 5. 2 5. 4 3,071 5. 3 5.5 4,380 6. 3 6. 3 9,000 9.1 8. 0 ye 8 28 0.4 0. 6 55 0. 6 1. 0 ' 2,700 5. 6 4. 7 2,778 5. 7 4. 8 3,940 6. 7 5. 3 - 8,800 9. 3 6. 6 us o 9 16 0. 4 0. 9 50 0. 7 1. 6 2,300 5. 5 6. 3 2,371 5. 6 6. 4 3,360 6. 5 7. 0 6,900 8.7 8. 6 . 10 12 0. 4 0. 7 47 0. 8 1.5 1,950 6.1 5. 4 2,021 6. 2 5. 5 2,850 7.1 6.1 5,850 9.5 7. 4 10A 10 0.4 0. 8 44 0. 9 1. 6 1,650 5. 8 5.1 1,721 5. 9 5. 2 2,410 6. 9 5. 8 4,950 8.9 6. 9
~
11 9.1 0. 4 0. 7 43 0. 8 1. 4 I,400 4. 7 4.7 1,478 ' 4. 8 ' 4. 8 2,040 5.4 5. 2 4,200 7. 5 6. 2 I I 12 5.4 0.3 0. 6 39 1. 0 1.6 965 4. 9 4. 6 1,036 5. 0 4.7 1,410 5. 6 5. 0 2,900 7. 3 6. 0 l3 3.4 0. 2 0. 6 37 0. 7 1. 8 680 3. 2 5.0 758 3. 3 5.1 990 3.5 5.3 2,040 4.8 6.1 14 1.4 0. 2 0. 6 35 0. 9 2. 4 320 2. 6 5.1 391 2. 8 5. 3 470 3. 2 5. 7 960 4.1 6. 6 Ave re8e 10.6 0. 4 0.7 53 0. 7 1. 4 2,484 5. 8 5.4 2,555 5.1 5. 5 3,630 6. 0 6. 2 7,450 8.4 7. 6 f f m e e e. l .
, - :- IT .j R [ ~! R ; j l ? I i 1 R R "
'I 'I ,l' Figure IV-2 .
i N / PROPOSED PERKlOMEN POINT PLEASANT
\ // TRANSMISSION M AIN ' , j'[ PUMPING FACILITIES i
/d PEAKI ti N fEEK ' #e
, l ! f +o, WATER SHED 11 g ji f ~ g PROPOSED ( ( 8" t t+ e t($ ORADSHAW
) , PUMPING STATION
,,,,,t,,,
/ j nestnvosn ' -
p ,s s M o r) i 7
'a '"
' /li lg
- ,t*p h, s ,. / g j /,oo<<e.ro. s ;
U to 47s i PROPOSED PHIL. ELEC._ g1 ".___ 1 PUMPlNG FACILITIES L^ I I) - - ~ i
*\* bs l%
s.
~~- N l
i g TREATMENT f s, A s V ,,3
. , f . 3 Lansoate LANT \
k
~
i / f} a.,gn,ano
- 8^5E
( I N
% g j
- LIMERICK .PL ANT
- i (PHIL. ELEC.)
__-x f-
'k 5
g >".
)
\vT i-
""'*s.a.S
// i oon.., .. 5
~S N S (
,-{ ' g ...<.. j M s q
#Nn <,q 'i
\}
tiuirs or l 0pok NESHAMINY CREEK
NgNA WATER SHED i enoc invitte NORRisioWM q e t**C f)(
' Y 422 CHANNEL SECTION 6-3
gaging station would be instal, led on the East Branch at Bucks Road (Section No.13) which would be connected by telemetry to.the control center handling'the pumping operations. With the advent of higher than normal flow in the East Branch, an
~
alarm would be activate 2 and the booster pumps at Bradshaw Pumping Station would be shut off.
- b. How much additional area would be covered by flood water if oroject water was pumped into receiving streams during flood periods?
Answer: There would be no need for pumping water into receiving streams if s_ there was adequate flow to serve demands on the water system. It is not likely that water would be pumped into flooded streams for several reasons. Fir t, the Treatment Plant is only 5-6 miles from the port on d of the watershed above I~ Reservoir PA-617 and all releases will be controlled at the Plant. As any L. release increases operating costs, the plant operators will be expected to main-r tain a constant vigil of rainfall in both the North Branch and the Pine Run water-sheds. Heavy rainfalls sufficient to produce floods would be of particular interest as they may affect operation of the supply facilities. The plant-operators would have to be unusually alert during periods of potentially heavy rainfall in order to assure that no unnecessary releases are made, that appro-priate treatment techniques and dosages are utilized, and water supply costs
. remain at a minimum. Also, if such releases did occur during a flood the effect -~
would be minimal. Even with the maximum projected release of 49 mgd which is
, based on both the North Branch and Pine Run being dry, a minimum flow release of 5.3 mgd downstream of the Plant, and the maximum water production rate of 40 mgd 1
in the Year 2010, the water surface of the Mean Annual Flood above State Route 611
, would only be 0.2 ft. higher and with the 5-Year, 10-Year, and 50-Year Floods, 5
i
=d e
h
~
IV-60
- * = w - * - - + = -w.
c - , -~,
only 0.1 ft. higher. This would be hardly measurable'during any of these floods.
, Furthermore, the possible concurrence of this maximum release and production rate with a flood is ext 2 > oely r' emote. Even if project water was pumped into these streams during ficod periods, there would be very little additional area covered by project witer; for example, the 0.1 ft. or 0.2 ft. increase in height would cover 10 percent and 20 percent of a one-foot contour interval, respectively. ~
- c. What would be the likely damage to property due to flood associated with addition of project water to the receiving streams?
Answer: If project water was added to the receiving streams when flow is less than flood stage, the project water would be well within the stream channel and so wculd not damage property. If project water was added to receiving streams
.-- during flood flows, it would be such a small percentage of the total flow that damage that could be traced to f.t would likely be insignificant. Again, pumping would not be needed if flood conditions existed.
f *
.,a.
oen l l , , a h l . *
~
Iy.61 I -. --. . -- .- --. ~,
4 ~~ d. What would be the extent of erosion in streams that receive project water? . ; * ,' ' i, . Answer: .s ., l - North Branch Neshaminy Creek.--Turbidity levels in the North Branch
!_ - may increase . temporarily during construction and during establishment of the i
new flow regime. However, modified flows would be well within the lower range r + - of ordinary flood flows and velocity at 2.0 to 2.2 fps would generally be below .i erosion limits of existing channel materials--alluvial, sand and gravel, rock outcroppings in steeper areas, and Bowmansville silt loam in stream banks, (limits being 1.5-2.0 fps for coarse sand, and 2.5 fps for loose gravelly soil i and ordinary loam).*' Use of an energy dissipator at the point of in-flow to the North Branch would mitigate the erosional force of the water where it would be l highest and serve to limit turbidity. Flood flows generally establish the channel geometry of a stream so the mean annual flood and certain frequency floods have been computed for the North Branch at State Route 611. These flood flows and their hydraulic characteristics e are tabulated below. The velocities shcwn for these floods are average for the entire section, including the overbank areas, and velocities in the main channel
~
would be higher. j - j Table IV-Il Flood Flows and Hydraulic Characteristics i l Flood Q in cfs D in ft. V in fps _. Mean Annual 670 4.7 3.5 i, 5-Year 980 5.8 3.9 10-Year 1,270 6.6 4.2 50-Year 2,010 8.2 4.6 L
. .; a. King and Brater, Handbook of Hydraulics, 5th Edition.
- b. American Society of Civil Engineers. Sedimentation Engineering, M and R, '
__ No.54, 1975. . . . ! IV-62
-h -- "
p , -w*4 e.W.yv y -. my - em -g-..rg... ,
Comparison of the above flows, depths and velocities with those of
,_ , the average flows, even including the pumpages, make it readily apparent that -
floods are the channel-makers. Flood flows have the mass, energy and velocity to erode and move materials, which the low and average flows do not possess. A typical exa=ple may be demonstrated by showing that by doubling the velocity from 2 to 4 fps, the sediment increased 33 times; tripling the velocity from 2 to 6 fps, increased the sediment 133 times; and quadrupling the velocity from 2 to 8 fps increased the rate 280 times. The effect of velocity is certainly made evident by this comparison. As indicated on Table IV- 8, shown in answer to question "a" above, the highest of the stream flow velocities that would exist in the North Branch
-channel during pumpages from the Delaware River would be below erosion level j, and several times less than those that would occur during floods each year. It is anticipated that there would be some one-time adjustment of the stream channel due to the increased flow but this would be minor and take place over a long period of time. There would be no compicison with the erosion, sediment transport, and bed shifting that presently takes place several times annually during floods.
In fact, the effect of the increased flow would be to stahilize the channel and l l - make it better able to withstand aggressive flood flows. l
, East Branch Perkiomen Creek.--All of the channel sections listed on Table IV- 10, (Page IV-38), except section 14, indicate that for median flow plus average pumping velocities would be in the 1.0 - 2.0 fps range; the average velocity would be about 1.4 fps. Except for a short reach near Perkasie, the East Branch channel is cut through Bowmansville silt loam which was described
, _ _ previously in connection with the North Branch Neshaminy channel. Materials l
l L. along the short reach near Perkasie are classified as Rowland silt loam which I
~
IV-63
m is about the same as Bowmansville except slightly coarser, and Urban Land-Lansdale complex which is a mixture of several types of soils. It is expected that there would be minor enlargement of the low flow channel at the upper limit of the East Branch but the remainder of the reach would be only slightly, if at all,
._ affected by the pumpages. Flow velocities of the three floods shown on Taole IV-10 show averages ranging from 5.4 fps to 7.6 fps. It should be evident that the ~'
channel gecmetry on the East Branch would be established by floods - not by pumped firas, except for minor one-time adjustment at the upper end.
,. e. What would be the extent of increased sedimentation of receiving streams?
Answer: Based on suspended solids measurem nts of Delaware River water r- at Point Pleasant and at Trenton, New Jersey, it was calculated that in the 2S-Year period from 1985 to 2010 the pumped water would contain suspended solids y, which would oce,upy a volume of 410,000 cu. ft. , or 9. 4 ac. ft . Utilizing particle si e data from the U.S.G.S. tests on suspended materials in the Delaware _ River at Trenton, about 55% or 5.2 ac.ft., would settle out in Bradshaw Reservoir which would have 6 ac.ft. of sediment storage capacity. The remaining suppended
~
material, 4.2 ac. ft. in volume, would pass through Bradshaw Reservoir; approxi-mately 1.0 ac. ft. is expected to go to the North Branch and 3.2 ac.ft. to the East Branch. For comparison, Reservoir PA-617 contains 366 ac.ft. of space for __ sediment storage. Accordingly, even if there were 100% settlement of the sus-l pended materials remaining in the Delaware River water, the effect on the North Branch and on Reservoir PA-617 would be almost nil. As mentioned above, it is estimated that about 3.2 ac.ft. of suspended material in the pumped Delaware River water would enter the Eas: Branch Perkicmen s IV-64
during the 25-year period from 1985 to 2010. This material would consist of the finer particles, less than 0.008 mm, and very little should settle out in the moving waters of the East Branch. However, even if all this material settled out in the 22.2 miles of East Branch channel, which has an average width of __ about 70 feet, the depth of sediment would average out to only 1/5 inch - this is the total over a 25-year period.
- f. What would be the chemical makeup of sediment in the receiving streams 3 r including Lake Galena, compared to what it is now?
Answer: Receiving streams.--DRBC's response to the " Water Quality" issue, starting on page IV-45 of this revised EA, discusses temperature, salinity, i
^
chlorine, trihalomethanes, trichloroethylene, and lead levels in streams likely r-
. to'be impacted by project water. The discussion applies to the chemical m'keup a of sediments as well as to the general condition of the streams. ._ We do not have any data on the chemical makeup of suspendad materials in Delaware River water but, in view of the maximum amount that might be deposited in the North Branch channel in the 25-year period from 1985 to 2010 (about 1 ac.ft.)
and the 1/5 inch that would settle in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek over that 25-year period, the effect on receiving streams would certair.ly be very minor at _. most. (See answer to question "e" concerning sedimentation, p. IVsGP) . Lake Galena.--As discussed in the section on aquatic biota, starting en page IV-36, diversion of Delaware River water, although of similar quality to the North Branch, would substantially change the total amount of a particular
"~
material entering Lake Galena because of the increased flow and volume; for u. l example, total solids (dissolved and suspended)would increase from 1,463 6 , -- IV-65 l
pounds / day when the North Branch is flowing at 1.2 cfs to 24,442 pcunds/ day when 20 mgd is diverted from the Delaware; alkalinity would go from 129 pounds / day to 1 7,409 p6nnds/ day; and iron from 3 to 115 pounds / day (Acton, 1976). These changes-l would be less than those generated by natural storm events, as explained else-where; however, the frequency of such changes would be greater as a result of the diversion. 1
- g. Will water added to streams cause flooding in areas where the water table j-- and soil mantle is already saturated?
Answer: Where the water table and soil mantle is saturated, the
- natural flow of a particular stream wculd be adequate, or nearly adequate, to
~~
provide the flow necessary for operation of the water supriy system. If the natural flow was not completely adequate, only enough water would be pumped into i r-the system to provide the necessary flow. Pumping to provide the necessary flow would stop well short of flood stage. ,
- h. Would the combination of maximum puiroing and a sudden thunderstorm 4
create flooding alone streams where pumped water is released? I Answer: Since the monitoring system would anticipate rainstorms, and automatic equipnent--backed up by human monitoring--would discontinuo pumping when natural flows were adequate, there is littic likelihood of pumping during ! periods of heavy rainfall. Consequently, pumping should not contribute to flood-
~
ing of receiving streams. That is not to say that natural flows may not reach i - flood stage, as they could without the project. V$ km i
- I I 4 ,
h IV-66
- i. What is the imnact on flooding when project water is released into frozen streans? De the released waters go under, over, or through ice on the stream?
Answer: Factors that would influence the impact of water pumped into
,, ice-covered receiving streams would include: 1) strength of ice cover, 2) timing of ice-sheet formation, 3) temperature of water entering stream, 4) volume of water entering stream as a percentage of total water in stream, 5) shear stress on ice cover, 6) forces of ice poving in stream charnel, and 7) velocity of water and ice in a given stream.
As with unfrozen water, the impact on flooding would be related to the amount of water in the receiving stream when project water is added. When a l stream is relatively full and frozen solid on top, the water added would be a
, . , small percentage of the total flow and would go under the ice with a " venturi effect where the flow is speeded up in.a confined space to accommodate the increased volume. At the other extreme, if the stream wad relatively low, the space under the ice might not accommodate the ine: eased volume so it would go over the top. If the volume of flow was ,ctween the extreme stages, added water would erode the ice and establish its own channel through the course of i -
least resistance. As indicated on tablo IV- 8' (page IV- 55),_ not much pumping would t take place 'during the winter months; the principal raason for such pumpages, when it would occur, would be to start the refilling of Reservcir PA-617 so that' _ it could be brought up to normal pool for the recreation period with minimum pumping rates. The introduction of pumped water into the North Branch, or the ' ~ East Branch, during periods of free:ing weather should be beneficial. numped
-~
vater would be coming from an underground piping system and an open reservoir l -. IV-67
having an average depth of 13 feet. The temperature of this water would approach that of groundw2e.er, about S0 F, and when flowing in a stream channel the effect i would be to open up and maintain a small waterway sufficient for passage of the ! pumped water and normal stream flow. As with unfro:en water in a receiving stream, project water would not be added if sufficient flow existed to meet demand for water supply. When the flow in a receiving stream is low enough to require project water to be added, the added water would be within'the stream channel. ,
.. j. Would cutting into the too of the cliff overlooking the Villace of Point Pleasant expose the Village to additional flood threat?
i~ Answer: There is no cliff, only a steep slope well stabilized with
- 7. .
, overburden containing many small to large stonet snd boulders. Cutting into this slope would be limited to excavstion of a t,rench for installation of a 66-inch pipe, after which the trench would be backfilled and the ground surface rectored to the orininal contours. Where the pipe crosses water courses, the
] nackfill would be concrete or a soil-cement mix for erosion protection.
- k. Will flood maps be revised to show the change Jn likelihood of flood-ing along streams into which project water is pumped?
Answer: Each Flood Insurance Study prepared by HUD .*ncludes a flood boundary map. Such boundaries were delineated in FIA-FEMA's (formerly HUD) study of Sellersville in 1977. Since, as indicated in the answers to questions No."a" and No."b", there would be no significant change in the flood boundaries, due to addition of project water, there would be no need to revise flood maps for this reason. . . a
~
IV-68
i l 1. Who would be responsible for corre: ting damage associated with release of proje?? waters into receiving streams? Answer: The sponsoring agency of a particular portion of the project (NWRA, PECO, or both) would be responsible for its specific facilities and oper-ational procedures--including correction of damage judged by administrators of competent jurisdiction to be caused by the project.
- m. Has a fail-safe flood control method been de/ised for:
- i. North Branch Neshaniny Creekt
- 11. East Branch Perkiomen Creek?
iii. Perkiomen Creek (from confluence of East Branch, downstream)? a I i Answer: In a strict sense, there is always a risk associated with r-- vagaries of weather and other r.atural phenomena as well as with man-made facilities and management associated with floods on streams. Therefore, there is no completely " fail-safe" flood control method. However, as indicated in answers to questions above, especially "a" and "b", there would be no significant change in the flood boundaries, due to addition of project water to receiving streams. Managers of project water supply would monitor flows in streams and would not add water to already overloaded streambeds.
- n. Are models available that show:
I
- i. Monitoring of flow, erosion, sedimentation, and water
- quality in receiving streams?
- 11. Flood control methods to be used on each stream?
Answer: Rather than models, per se, engineering studies have been c933 ucted, including hydrologic and hydraulic analyses of the streram and lake a IV-69
l system to calculate the expected impact of the project on existing conditions.
-
- The data shown in answers to questions "a" and "b" were determined from these studies.
- o. How could people and property be evacuated during flood warnings and during flood conditions?
Answer: As shown in the responses to questions "a" and "b", above, flooding caused by pumping project water into receiving streams is very unlikely. Even if pumping continued during a flood peried (which would be unnecessary since i - the streams would have adequate flow for water supply), the percentage of the total flow would be insignificant (i.e. about one percent during a 50-year I frequency flood) . Consequently, the necessity to evacuate people or property from flooded areas, due to project water being pumped into receiving streams, is
.. highly unlikely. Evacuation warnings and procedures are, of course, necessary for floods likely to occur without the proposed project; development of these
~~ ~ ~
~
procedures is beyond the scope of this, revised EA.-
- p. Who would monitor environmental effects of addine croiect water to receiving streams? .
l Answer: As noted in the answer to question "1" above, the sponsoring agency of a particular portion of the project would_be responsible for its specific facilities and operational procedures, including prevention of in-flicting adverse impacts on the environment. Regulatory agencies at local, state, and federal levels would continue to be responsible for preventing
.- environmental damage related to their jurisdiction and so would monitor as necessary to fulfill '; heir responsibilities.
^
s T
.a IV-70
,.g - .**=qmee em.i-y m-g a wee mop -% e 9,se*+ M6 W -
m- p - - --v--- r -wy py----e- - - -*
- t. g g e-"%,.e. % nu.w.-g-.e-e-,w e e.-wepu.+ - - - -g- -waww.- y e-wW "* "
- 6. Growth Inducement Issue: Would the proposed project promote more land development or
- induce more growth in the project service area?
Response: DRBC used the same basic assumption used by U.S. EPA, Region III, in its FEII; for the Horsham - Warminster - Warrington, Pennsylvania Wastewater Treatment Facilities, May 1980, relative to population growth and land development in the proposed service area. That is, DRBC staff assumed that the comprehensive plans and growth management plans of the affected municipalities (and utilities) represent the policies and objectives practiced and sought by the municipalities in their efforts to guide future growth. The alternative systems presented by DRBC in its original EA and in this revised EA therefore were i assessed to determine the extent of con formance with these municipal policies. Impacts of the proposed project on land development and growth would be related to changes in population, per-capita use of water, inducement to develop undeveloped or agricultural land for residential, commercial, or in-dustrial uses, and conformance with county and regional plans for the water service area. Changes in these factors would reflect in changes in land value, changes in use of the area's natural resources, changes in the sceio-economic status of people in the area, and changes in the aesthetic aspects of the
.. service area.
In addition to considering original reports by the county planning commissions and by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, DRBC
~
reviewed carefully the report prepared by Pa. DER, Bureau of Water Quality Management, Division of Dam Safety and Waterworks, entitled " Report on the __ Application of Neshaminy Water Resources Authority for Water Allocation from Pine Run, North Branch Neshaminy Creek and Delaware Diver", November 1, 1978. IV-71 __
*e ,-e..- N '
wm. +s.em'.~ =mw e es== p , = = + - .e
1 l Aeong the several determinaticus evaluated in the report was whether " Water
~
and water rights proposed are reasonably necessary for the present purpose and future needs of the public water supply agency making application." In considering the applicant's need for more water (Pa. DER, Nov.1, , 1978, pp 8-16), the report analy:ed population and water use by NWRA's con-sulting engineer, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, and Per.asylvania's State Water Plan. In text, tables, and a detailed map, by townshian, the Ps. DER study "... finds that the DVRPC and the State Water Plan' both ag"ee with (NWRA's) consultant that there is a r. lear and pressing need
,_ for additional (or supplemental) water." PaDER's study "... concludes that the requested allocation of 40 mgd to the Chalfont treatment plant in needed
[' l-to provide bulk water to meet the supplemental demands of the existing water supply systems. Just when more water is needed to meet the expanding develop- , ment of the area, the existing sources (mostly wells) are deteriorating due to a declining groundwater table." pad"9.'s study cited Section 7 of the Water Rights Act which ". . . requires that before granting an allocation, the Department (Pa. DER) determine that the proposed taking or exercise of water rights will not cause substantial injury to the Commonwealth." After analysis in text, tables, and a detailed map, pages 20 through 32, the Pa. DER study "... concludes that the present pro-
. posed allocation will not have a substantially adverse effect on the environment or cause substantial injury to the Commonwealth. Other agencies contacted
~
essentially agree with this conclusic.1." , NWRA's Environmental Report (NWRA, Feb.1979), evaluates public water _ supply demands, pages IV-1/IV-21. As noted above, NWRA's conclusions agreed closely with those of other responsible planning agencies in the area. Table 32, a i IV-72 i W
, m%w . p- Tw--r +e-- ee e -a**4*-e-e e m , mi a-
pages IV-9/IV-11, tabulate the various population and water demand projections
)
contained in each of the identified studies. The table presents the supple-
~
mental water demand that cannot be met by groundwater and which must be supple-mented by surface water supplies within the NWRA service areas. For the purpose of DRBC's dA for the proposed project, the projections used and the water demands derived by the several agencies listed above and consolidated in NWRA's Environmental Report are reasonable and consistent with the planning objectives of the agencies involved. Also, since the availability of groundwater in much of the service area has become even more severe since trichlorethylent was discovered in numerous municipal wells, it appears that the 5ost feasible alternative to supply supplementary water to meet the demaad in the service area would be impor-1 tation of surface water from the Delaware River. ihis conclusion is consis-tent with the "Responce to Issue 3", page 40, of EPA's Horsham - Warminster - Warringten FEIS, (EPA, May 1980) that states:
"A long-range potential for water supply lies with the Point Pleasant pumpover from the Delaware River to the Schuylkill River for the Limerick Nuclear Power Station. If this project is approved -- and implemented, Warminster Township and other Bucks and Montgomery County municipalities would benefit by being able to receive water
- along the conveyance route."
Chr:pter V of NWRA's Environmental Report, pages V-1/V-46, evaluates probable impacts of the proposed project. Tables No.35,36,37,38, and 39 discuss beneficiaiimpacts,adverseimpacts,andremedial,protectiveandmitigating
- measures as they relate to a list of factors, including land use, economics, aesthetics, wildlife, recreation, and social considerations. ~
NWRA's Environmental Report concludes that "... local control by each muncipality through its :ening powers can ensure controlled growth within its pp ! ~ IV-73 . he
==w.+ an ume + .ei -m.,-- -w-,-- w - -- .- -,- se.
L
boundaries." NWRA recogni:es "...these proper municipal powers...and will continue to (recognize these powers) in their future planning process." (p.V-32). l The potential for the project to encourage land development has been a major concern of the sponsors and of DRBC. For example, CRBC docket number D-65-76 CP (3), March 17,1971, allocated a finite amount of water to Central
- Bucks and Montgomery counties with the expectation that any request for an increased allocation of water in the future would be subject to a thorough analysis of water demand and supply situation at that time.
f 1 It should be clear that NWRA is seeking approval to divert less water than the sponsor originally requested. For example, NWRA is. seeking i approval to divert up to 40 mgd, which is the ultimate capacity of the I North Branch Water Treatment Plant in 2010. This is a substantial reduction from the 72.6 mgd which was originally requested and appr9ved by DRBC in 1971. If growth of development is associated with supply of water provided, it follows that the growth previously anticipated and approved has been reduced _ by about 50 percent. This indicates that the si:e of the proposed project r has been revised to correlate with the population and growth of development expected for the water service area. DRBC staff agrees with EPA and NWRA that the growth management plans of the affected entities represent the objectives sought by those entities in 4 their efforts to guide future growth and that local control by each munici-pality through its oning powers can ensure controlled growth within its bound-aries. DRBC staff assumes that the applicants (NWRA and PECO) have requested water supply to meet demands of their respective service areas after consul-tation with entities affected in their respective service areas. References cited indicate that the applicants have given full consideration of the impacts a ' IV-74 ; ne e6
-w -m- .Nw
of the proposed project on those factors that would change, for better or for worse, in the service areas and that the consequent land development and in-ducements for growth that may be associated with the proposed project are consistent with the wishes of the policymakers in the service areas. f
~
a IV-75 _
, ,,_g
_ . . _ , . w--+ .w*- e * * " '** * - " *
- 7. Aesthetic Impacts Issue: Would the proposed project be associated with aesthetic damage to the Village of Point Pleasant, to farmland, and to the general eco-system throughout the service area?
Response: Chapter V of NWRA's Environmental Report (February 1979) lists and discusses " Remedial, Protective, and Mitigating Measures" for each of the component parts of the Neshaminy Water Supply System. Ti.ose measures pertain to disruptions during the construction period (short term) and impacts that would persist after construction ceases (long term). On pages V-18/V-20 of its F.R, NWRA outlines mitigating measures for dealing with short term and long term impacts related to the Point Pleasant In-tske and Pumping Station. The measures speak to noise, traffic, endangered and threatened species of plants and animal,s, siltation, ar.d effects on spawning - nursery areas for fishes. NWRA proposes to meet the latest EPA design criteria to minimi:e adverre impacts. For example, water velocity at the traveling screens on the water intake structure would be limited to no more than 0.5 foot per second; the structure covering the pumping facilities would be a barn-like design that would blend with the surrounding environment and pump noise would be muted by enclosing the pumps which would be built into the terrain. Since the bulk of the pumpin~g facilities would be underground or underwater and those above ground would be landscapel to minimi:e their visual impact, there seems to be little likelihood of significant aestnatic damage to the Village of Point Pleasant in the long term. IV-76 i W m,,. ... .e, e.- * * ' '"*""*
- w *%
As indicated on pages V-3 through V-30 of NWRA's ER, alignment of
~ ~
future rights-of-way were selected with consideration to minimi:e disruption of communication to residential or service developments; wildlife habitats would be re-established; mains, when crossing streams, would be installed below stream beds; rights-of-way would be seeded where practicable and agri-culture in appropriate areas could continue over the pipelines which would be
~~
buried at least three feet underground. Since there would be minimal dis-t ruption of aesthetic qualities during construction and operation and as complete restoration as practicable after construction, there appears to be an accept-
,, able tradeoff if the project is completed and adverse impacts are mitigated as planned.
It is very unlikely that any vibration will be noticed by persons even when close to the pumping area. All five pumps, as they are installed individually, will be required to meet the vibration tests specified by the Hy-
, draulic Institute of Cleveland, Ohio, which are the standard tests for installation l
of pumps nation-wide. The verticle turbine pumps, with an electric motor on top connected by ( a shaft to the pump underwater, would be relatively slow speed (about 1185 rpm) . They will be mounted vertically on a specially designed concrete floor with a steel ring around the base of each pump. Vibrations, if any, would be transmitted 1 . through the floor and the wall support structure well down into the solid rock ' ! _- substructure. The pumps would be connected to a concrete-embedded manifold by flexible-joint Dresser Couplings. The manifold would be connected to the trans-mission main by an additional flexible-joint Dresser Coupling. This arrangement would effectively isolate the pumping units from the transmission main. a t-IV-77 - l
.__ _ _ _ . _ , __ . . _ , _ . - ~ ~ ---- - , ~ . -
-p- - -
- 8. Archaeological And Historical Issue: Would archaeological artifacts or historical landmarks be disturbed by construction or operation of the proposed project?
Resesnse: The Pennsylvania Office of Historic Preservation has re-examined the proposed pro,4ect and by letter, April 3,1980, informed DRBC staff that "the proposed project will have an adverse effect on the Delaware Canal, and the potential historic district". This judgment conflicts with an October 10, 1979 letter from that Office which was referenced in the EA and stated that no important historic or archaeologic sitas would be adversely affected, except for the Delaware Canal. In the April 3,1980 letter, Edward Weintraub (State Historic Preser-vation Officer, SHPO) directs DRBC, as the lead federal agency, to request a
~
determination of eligibility for listing the historic district on the National Register of Historic Places, and to submit a preliminary case report to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Staff of the Historic Preservation Office have verbally indicated their belief that the project could ultimately proceed once the proper review procedures are followed and appropriate miti-gation (similar to that proposed in the NWRA Environmental Report and the EA) l ~ l instituted. The district proposed by the SHPO, which includes the village of
., Point Pleasant and portions of adjacent Plumstead and Tinicum Townships, contains approximately 190 structures--85 of which are pre-1900. According to a report of the Bucks County Conservancy, submitted by the SHP0 in support of the his-l torical significance of the area, an 18th and early 19th century atmosphere is merged with a mid-19th century setting in the district.
i f IV-78 ;
DRBC staff is negotiating with the staff of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District, to implement the procedures necessary to determine if the project area is eligible for nomination and inclusion in the National Register. Broadly, these procedural steps are as follows:
- a. With technical assistance and agreement from the Pennsylvania His-toric Preservation Office, COE would make formal application to the Keeper of the National Registar that the area cited in the SHPO's documentation be declared eligible for addition to the Nacional Register,
- b. The Keeper of the National Register has 13 days to respond to the application. If he does not respond within 10 working days, the area is automatically eligible.
- c. If'the Keeper determines the area is eligible or included in the 9
National Register, the Rules and Regulations
- of the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) become binding on the Corps.
- d. ACHP would review the nomination form and would require determina-tion of the probable effects of the proposed project on the eligible i area. If there would be adverse impacts that could not be avoided, ACHP would determine mitigating measures necessary to minimi s the adverse effects associated with the presence of the project.
c 1-
- Federal Register, Vol.44, No.21, January 30, 1979, pages 6068 et. seq. Part 800 - Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties.
I IV-79 _.
In its Environmental Report, 3ection IX, (PECO July 1979) PECO presents results of a detailed study and field investigation in late 1978 to determine if the proposed facilities would destroy or encroach on any items of archaeologic value. The investigation relates to Bradshaw Reservoir and the entire route of the Perkiomen Transrission Main. The investigators found nothing that would be eligisle for nomination to the Historic Register.
~
DRBC staff agrees with the conclusion of the Pennsylvania State His-toric Preservation staff that the project could proceed once the proper review
, procedures are followed and appropriate mitigation measures instituted. If the mitigative measures outlined in NWRA's Environmental Report are implemented, there should be no significant adverse impact on archaeological artifacts or historical landmarks associated with construction and operation of the project.
l se e.
~
=4 G
o 6
. IV-80 ~~
m amp e m ee-= .%, _ e ,
m
. 9. Rock Slasting Impacts Issue: Would blasting hard rock during construction cause wide-spread damage to wells, foundations, utilities, and other structures?
Response: In a letter to Mr. Gerald Hansler, Executive Director, DRBC, dated Mey 14, 1980, Mr. Robert Flowers, Executive Director, NWRA, stated "The NWRA intends to take all necessary mea ures to protect the safety and property of all residents near the proposed construction." Enclosed with Mr. Flowers' letter was a letter dated May 9,1980, from Mr. Robert H. Davis, Blasting Consultant, to Mr. E.H. Bourquard, E.H. Bourquard Associates, Inc., r.. and specifications for elasting for construction of the Point Pleasant Pump-ing Station. Among other specifications, in the three pages of specifications, are instructions to:
" Design all blasts to a minimum powder factor of one (1) and a maximum peak particle velocity of 0.5 inches per second and a minimum scaled distance of 50. The blast hole diameter shall be 2-1/2 inch maximum. The noise level shall not exceed 132 decibels linear peak."
Additional specifications cover seismograph readings, stemming material, noti-
~
fication of blasting operations, safety precaution measures, pre-blasting surveys, written reports and a survey to determine whether the excavating or mining would affect the water wells in the area. In his covering letter, Mr. Davis cites his 14 years of experience in this field which has revealed that particle velocities less than 0.5 inches per second do not cause structural damage. Mr. Davis' only concern pertained to existing relatively shallow wells where excavation may lower the ground-water tables temporarily during construction. He expressed the opinion that
~
t IV-81 - 3 w aw. pg+gre 4
--m- *w i m p we- -en-_ -
blasting operations would not affect these tells and that the excavation would not be to sufficient depth to have a drastic effect. URBC also retained consultants to perfora a geotechnical investiga-tion rela'ing to the impact of using explosives in construction of the propo.<ed i project. The study for DRBC by Converse Ward Davis Dixon, c., entitled
" Report On Evaluation Of Rock Excavation And Impact Of Blasting For The Proposed Point Pleasant Pumping Facilities, Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania",
r- dated May 20, 1980, concluded that:
" ...with minor exception, the rock (argillite and diabase) '
r_ will require blasting in order to install the pumping sta-tien and the pipe lines. However, it is our opinion that the blasting can reasonably be controlled in both rock types so as to result in no noticeable damage te the nearby structures or water wells." Among specific conclusions and recommendations in DRBC's consultant's report e-- (page 16) are the following: 7 "3. For no noticeable damage to the residential structures, the ground vibrations produced by blasting should rot exceed 1.0 in./sec. at the structure nearest to the blasta
- 4. Based on our evaluation, we conclude the following con-cerning wells:
- a. If peak velocities at the nearest house are kept at 1.0 in./sec. or lower, adverse effects on well yield are highly
~~
unlikely.
- b. If sealing grouts of wcils are current.!y functional and nncracked, the potential for cracks developing as a result of controlled blasting and inducing surface pollution is highly unlikely."
g
- ep *M w
4 IV-82 ,
* +-- ' ewe e
, ow ye wee.
a mwM + J *-wmeg Anewmm+
DRBC's consultant's recommendations are conservative ccepsred to
~-
. some of the references listed in their report. For examp1<:, the U.S. Depart-ment of the Interior, Bureau.of Mines, recommends a safe blasting criterion of 2 in./sec. for structures sis '
.ar to those in the subject project area.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Regulation 715.19, Reference No.7 on Table One) recommends a criterion of one in./tec. or less with a minimum scaled distance of 60. The aost conservative of the references cited is the New j Swiss Standard (Reference No.6 on Table One) which recommends 0.5 in./sec.
- p. .
for buildings with wooden ceilings and masonry walls, in the frequency range of 10-60 Hert:.
!~
, The specifications proposed by NWRA's consultant (Mr. Robert H. Davis, r- cited above) are well wichin the criteria set by DRBC's consultant (Converse Ward i
Davis Dixon, cited above). Mr. Davis' recommended specifications are similar I~ to the New Swiss Standard which is the most conservative of the references c.ited by Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Since both consultants agree that no significant damage would occur if blasting is performed according to the pre-scribed specifications, we conclude that t!:is part of construction would not impose an unacceptable adverse impact on tbs environment. m. f w e = men e *s b. l , - D we o IV-83 --
,- e y -w+-ye - --y+ y -- p-- -A -*.v ,, w -
-A_
- 10. Emergency Services Issue: Would there be interference with emergency services because of road blocks and electric wires which would interrupt radio frequencies?
Response: Page V-23 of NWRA's Environmental Report (February 1979) states:
. "There will be detours available for local roads affected by construction of the main. At intersections of major roads, construction will be designed so that one lane of traffic will be maintained and kept open all the time."
This assurance is repeated in the tables throughout Chapter V which document
- beneficial and adverse impacts and mitigating measures to alleviate adverse impacts. Also, a spokesman
- for Pa. DER indicated that the River Road would be
[' kept open at all times during construction, with a temporary read installed when pipes are laid.
, Mr. John Mou 21, PECO (telephone call 30 April 1980), stated that . the electric wires installed to power the pumping station .would be sta.7dard in all respects and that such installation would not interfere with normal operation of household appliances, citizen band radios, and the like. He said that any unusual problem that might arise would be dealt with promptly by PECO so that interference, if any, would not persist.
In light of the applicants' willingness and ability to prevent inter-ference with emergency services, there appears to be little likelihood of such interruption. l "~
*0ral communication from R. Timothy Weston, Associate Deputy Secretary for l Resources Management, Pa. DER, to 6. M. Hansler, Executive Director, DRBC.
l IV-84 . 5
~
1
.-- . ~ . - - _~- . .- + . . , _
-~L--- .t -
, >w *m - - - -
- 11. Conservation Issue: Should DRBC emphasite conservation of water resources, especially as sutlined in 6RBC's Level B Study, rather than approve the
, proposed project? Response: DRBC's Water Code, Delaware River Basin, July 1978,
^
Article 2, outlines DRBC's policy concerning conservation, development, and utilization of Delaware River Basin Water Resources. Section 2.1.1 of the Code states that DRBC will undertake a long-range continuing program to re-
, duce wa ter use throughout the basin. Specifics of this policy are spelled out in DRBC's Resolution No. 76-17 which amends DRBC's Comprehensive Plan by 1
addition of policy on the conservation of water, as follows:
"1. The Commission will undertake a long range continuing program to reduce water use throughout the basin for the purposes of:
(a) reducing the likelihood of severe low stream flows that can adversely affect fish and wildlife resources and recreational ~ enjoyment; (b) assisting in the maintenance of good water quality by the provision of minimum dilution flows and repulsion of salinity; and aM (c) deferring the nesd for construction of new storage rerervoirs and other water supply structures.
- 2. It shall be the policy of the Commission (a) to require max-imum feasible efficiency in the use of water by new industrial, municipal and agricultural users throughout the basin, and (b)
. to require eventual application of those water-conserving practices .
or technologies that can feasibly be employed by existi::3 water users." - Section 2.5.2 of the Code states that during drought emergencies
-~
DRBC will give first priority to those uses which sustain. human life, health, and safety, and second priority to water needed to sustain livestock. The
'~
remaining water will be allocated among producers of goods and services, food and fibers, and environmental quality in a manner designed to sustain the general em IV-85 .
-w m eewa wp-w eigleu p m med
- h WM-*
- mhw- -m- -4@d- -
r
welfare of the basin and its employment at the highest practical level. DRBC dockets include the following standard conditions for munici-pal wells and surface water.and for industrial wells and surface water:
"(PA. and N.J. MUNICIPAL WELLS AND SURFACE WATER)
The applicant shall develop a program to monitor all water supply facilities including storage and distribution systems for leakage. The program must be approved by the Commission and the monitoring results shall be submitted within six months of this approval and thereafter as requested by the Ccamission. The applicant shall proceed expc.litiously to correct leakages identified by the monitor-ing. .
,. The applicant shall adopt and implement, to the satisfaction of the Commission, a continuous program to encourage water conservation in all types of use within the area served by this allocation permit.
The applicant will report to the Commission on the actions taken pur-suant to this program and tne impact of those actions, on or before March 31 of each year in Pennsylvania and within six months of tr.is approval in New Jersey."
"(PA. and N.J. INDUSTRIAL WELLS AND SURFACE WATER)
The applicant shall develop a program to monitor all water supply
'_ facilities including storage and distribution systems for leakage and to review all water uses for possible reductien. The program must be approved by the Commission and the monitoring results shall be submitted within six months of this approval and thereafter as i
requested by the Commission. The applicant shall proceed expedi-tiously to correct leakages and unnecessary usage identified by the monitoring. The applicant shall adopt and implement, to the satisfaction of the Commission, a continuous program to encourage water conservation in all types of use within the facilities served by this allocation per-mit. The applicant will report to the Commission on the actions taken
'. pursuant to this program and the impact of those actions, on or before March 31 of each year in Pennsylvania and within six months of this approval in New Jersey."
l In, its " Report on the Application of Neshaminy Water Resources Author-ity for Water Allocation...", page 33, (Pa. DER, Nov.'1, 1973), Pa. DER cites
, Section Seven of Pennsylvania's Water Rights Act which requires consideration
._. of the extent of conservation development and use to the best advantage of exist-( ing sources of water supply before an allocation request is approved. The re-port also considers controls that would tend to encourage conservation of water, s
I . IV-86 l . .- . . - . . . . - - - - - - - - l
such as charges for water, metering, control of leakago, publi; rclations
~~ - programs, and other conservation practices.
DRBC, in its preamble to Resolution No.76-17, states goals of a balanced program of water management with measures to reduce water demand and cites the Compact which seeks to bring about " increasing economies and ef-ficiencies in the use and reuse of water resources" (Section 1.3(d)) and to
" encourage and provide for the conservation...of tne water resources of the basin" (Section 1.3(e)).
Since DRBC already emphasi:es conservation of water throughout the basin and since conservation clauses would be included in the dockets for both NWRA and PECO applications for the subject project, further emphasis on water
'~ conservation would not eliminate the applicants) expressed need for water supply.
r-O t' . e F# l ... i t
- ~
w a IV-87 _, I l~ -. - - - --
- 12. Alternatives Issue: Should there be further study of alternative sources of water supply and electricity?
1
. Response:
Water Supply.--Some of the letters contend that there is adequate
~
groundwater to supply the service area if it is properly managed and if land development does not accelerate. In recent years the Delaware River Basin Commission has received numerous objections or expressions of concern regarding. new or existing ground-water diversions, especially to wells located in Bucks,?bntgomery i and Chester Countier. The complainte have come from a variety of sources: r- private citi: ens, civic associations, environmental groups, state agencies, county governments, township governments, water authorities, water ccmpanies, watershed associations and state and federal representat'ives. In response to various allegations, the Commission or its staff have held lingthy advisory l . . hearings, public hearings, and investigations; and also have required pro-l longed pumping tests, monitoring programs,and preparation of complex reports by applicants. l
. In 1970, Mr. Henry C. Barksdale prepared a rSport for the DRBC entitled "A Program for the Investigation and Management of Ground Water in the Delaware River Basin" in which he identified the Triassic portion of the
! basin as being one of the highest priox! ce areas in need of quantitative
, ground-water resources investigation. Also previous and ongoing reports, l _.
l , IV-88 .. l >!
~,e. w==,. = -
.eme,. m==q . .w. . -m-. ---.amm -
%.--em%
such as: the Pennsylvania State Water Plan, the Pennsylvsnia Comprehensive
- Water Quality Management Plan, the New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Master Plan, the Mercer County 208 Study, the DRBC Level B Study, and studies pre-pared for or by various county and local governments, have identified the Triassic Lowlands section of the basin as a region in which well pumpage is approaching development limits.
On September 22, 1976, Mr. Edward J. Welch, Manager, North Wales Water Authority, in a letter to Mr. Joseph V. F. Clay, III, Water and Sewer Coordinator, County of Montgomery, Public Facilities Department, stated:
" ...we are able to rest a few of our wells for three (3) or four (4) hours in early morning hours. ...as the ground water level drops we are forced to cut back on the pumping rate.... . . . should anything happen to any of our wells or pumping equipment we would be in an ime?diate crisis situa-tion with no reserve capacity.... . . . problems are cropping <- . up in a summer of minimum rainfall, but should severe drought conditions be brought on by a complete lack of rainfall, then very strong and urgent actions would be required, ,_ approaching. . . rationing and lack of water in the mains. . . ."
l I - l On January 24, 1977, Mr. Harry J. Borchers, Jr., Executive Manager, North Penn Water Authority, in a letter to Mr. Joseph V. Clay, III, Water and Sewer Coordinator, County of Montgomery, Public Facilities Department, stated:
"The .. Authority cannot stress enough the seriousness of the present water situation. Well capacities, between January 1, 1976, to January 1, 1977, dropped approximately
. 40%. The water table is still dropping at an alarming rate.
l
... Anything the County can do to encourage the inter- ~'
connection with a surface supply will be greatly appreciated."
~ On March 24, 1980, DRBC started studies of ground waters throughout l
the four-state basin area with special emphasis that includes sections of
- ~
Montgomery and. Bucks Counties that have experienced periodic lowering of l water tables, dry wells, and water quality problems. IV-89 $
=W e = ...a . .ve-w- ,-w 4 h-.-
-w w% h--- e va- wwes-
._ , On April 2S,1980, DRBC proposed to designate a " ground water protected area" that would include all of Montgomery County and a large
~
portion of Bucks County where new restrictions and regulations would be t imposed to reverse recent over-depletion trends. In the proposed protected area, DRBC would expand its permitting powers to cover any wells drawing 10,000 gallons or more daily. Two of the program's major goals are to protect owners of existing wells from infringement, and to prevent reduction
~
of flow in perennial streams. i About one million persons live in the proposed protected areas and groundwater withdrawals there either exceed, or threaten to exceed, l '
- sustainable yield of local groundwater basins. For example, in some areas o
dry-year recharge rates can support only two to four persons per acre, but !. populdtion density in many parts of the region ranges to 14 persons. The protected area designation would be an interim measure expiring July 1,1983, or one year following conclusion of investigations. Evidence at hand indicates a clear need for additional surface supplies to augment ground-water supplies in the Montgomery / Bucks Counties' service area that would be supplied by the Neshaminy Water Supply System. The basin-wide investigations are to help DRBC produce a four-state management program for all subsurface water supplies, including those where the protected area designation is under consideration.
.. Section 2.3, page 2-26 of DRBC's EA, summarizes alternatives con-sidered by both the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority and the Philadelphia ~~
Electric Company for their respective water supplies. More detail is presented a
. s IV-90 __
. , - - . ,m .,. . ,.e g e- --.w.+s.- e-. -
e .--~.e 4,e% - m.
in the applicants' respective reports. In NWRA's environmental report
~
(February 1979) all 53 pages of Chapter VI are devoted to this subject. In PECO's environm6ntal report update (July 1979), Section III is devoted to this subject. Alternatives to the proposed project are also discussed in the testimony of Mr. Timothy Weston, Assistant Attorney General, Ps. Der, at the public hearing held by NWRA, in Warrington, Pa. on May 30, 1979 (NWRA, Transcript, May 30, 1979). A summary of alternatives covered in the above references is as follows: No action.--hater users in these service areas would be forced
. to rely on existing water supplies for present and future water needs. There t would be essentially the same adverse impact on the environment as with further development of groundwater by continuing to over-subscribe available supplies l
to the service area, so "no action" is not considered a favorable alternative. r-Further develocment of ground water.--If ground water is to be
. managed as a replenishable resource, withdrawals must not exceed ground water recharge. Much of the subject service area is already overpumping ground water.
A water system dependent upon wells could lead to further exacerbation of the
~
expanding ground water mining problem. New wells are likely to create local l l interference with existing homeowner wells. Artificial recharge in this service area does not appear feasible since water to do so is only available when the
-- water tables are high. Storage in the ground is only available during dry pe-i riods, which is when there is no water available to put into the ground water basin. For these reasons, and others discussed in detail in references cited, further development of groundwater is not considered a desirable water aupply alternative for the area.
-- Lake Nockamixon.--Water sunply usage of the lake would result in j large drawdowns that would reduce the usefulness of existing recreation facil- ,
IV-91 i -
._. . ~ . ._- . . . _ --.-
me aM ities. Also, use of this lake for water supply would restrict its capacity to provide an eme gency source of water during periods of severe drought. So long as recreation use of the lake has first priority, it is not considered a viable alternative for water supply for the subject service area. Schuylkill River.--Water from this river is used and resused close to its practical limits. Agricultural, industrial, municipal, and other uses limit supply available for the subject service area. Opportunities for develop-ing additional storage to increase flow is very limited. Increased use of the river's water would contribute to deterioration of the quality of the water. i
}
For these reasons, among others discussed in the references, the Schuylkill River is not considered a viable alternative for water supply for the subject area. i Evansburg Reservoir - ".ais reservoir has net been authori:ed or funded but if it were built it could serve some of Montgomery Countys' water service area. However, the reservoir would supply only 13 mgd which would not meet the demand of the service area. Considering the stage of planning for this reservoir, its relatively small yield, and the high cost of its water, 1 , Evansburg Paservoir is not a viable alternative. Susquehanna Basin.--Because this water would need to be imported from another major river basin, and because of the great distance the water would need to be transported, and the complicated legal obstacles related to inter-basin transfer of water, as well as high costs involved, this is not a viable alternative for water supply for the subject service area.
- Independent Water Supply Prejects.--The Central Montgomery County
~
Water Supply Study, by Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. (GFCC, Jan.1980), page 102, recommends that North Penn Water Authority and North Wales Water Author-ity ". . . jointly adopt an independent Montgomery County water supply proj ect." I IV-92 - i e
.p --
-e.w,- ew.- 4%w e ,upm-m .. e-em ee ,
a
If Montgomery County withdraws from the project, as it is described in NWRA's application to DRBC (NWRA, June 1979, DRBC EA), two more options are possible:
- 1) Bucks CUunty and PECO could join forces to build a project to supply water to those two entities or 2) each of these entities could also adopt an inde-i -
pendent water supply project. Well publici ed negotiations among officials of Bucks and Montgomery Countiec indicate that they have not reached final agreements on contracts for water supply from the proposed project. However, Bucks County and PECO have reached such agreements. The outcome of final agreements among the three po-tential applicants could indicate what options they prefer to follow. As indicated in DRBC's EA, pages 2-30 and 2-31, after analysis of I sever. alternative pipelines from the Delaware River to the East Branch Perkiomen
. Creek, reservoir alternatives, and groundwater alternatives (PECO July 1979, DRDC EA, pp III-3,4), PECO concluded that the joint facilities would result in annual cost savings of more than 20% for Bucks County and 10% for PECO as well i
as providing advantages in operating flexibility and reliability. Since the joint project also wou'd require 2 fewer miles of total right-of-way than the combined individual facilities, the proposed project is superior to the most preferred alternate pipeline route. Also, the joint facilities would result in only one, intake / pumping station on the Delaware River to serve several users rather than a series of stations, each having a single purpose. A new reservoir in the Schuylkill River Basin would have a greater environmental impact, larger land use, and higher cost tnan the proposed pipeline system. The use of ground-water or existing reservoirs is not feasible since insufficient supplies of water to meet PECO needs are available. l I IV-93 --
~
l
L Since the source of water for each of these options appears to be
, the Delaware River, DRBC staff prefers :o develop a single regional plan that would impose fewer adverse impacts on the total environment. Also, it seems clear that the hydrologic and geologic factors point to joint use of water aquifers and surface stream watersheds by water users in Bucks and Montgomery
[ Counties. For these reasons, te say nothing of additional total financial cost of building separate systems, independent water supply projects for the subject service area is not considered a viable alternative. i t Electricity.--Since the application before DRBC is for water supply
, to cool PECO's Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, DRBC's Environmental Assess-ment addresses alternative water supply for that purpose. The issue of alter-native sources of electricity to supply PECO's service area was a procer subject 1
in AEC's original EIS, as were other issues related to the Limerick Stati~on. The issue wil) be reviewed in the hearings to be held by NRC in relation to its consideration of issuing an operating license for the . station. Alternative energy sources and sites are covered in Section 10 of AEC's original EIS (U.S. AEC, Nov. 1973). These sources and sites include l alternatives not requiring creation of new generating capacity; alternatives requiring creation of new generating capacity; and evaluation of site and energy-
~
source options such as site selection, hydroelectric generation, coal, oil, gas, and nuclear fuel. These subjects, plus others related to recent energy pro-
!, duction controversies, are likely to be subjects aired in public hearings to be held by NRC.
l l - IV-94 - e w ,m , se mv s
- -m. mm-,,,- mmwe. ~n .
- 13. Financial Plan Issue: Should DR9C complete a detailed financisl plan to construct and operate the project, including social and economic costs?
Response: Since DRBC is a wholesaler of water, it does not have [ jurisdiction over retailing of water which, in the case of the Neshaminy Water Supply System, is the prerogative of the applicant, the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. The Delaware River Bisin Compact states, in Section 4.S that "... the commission shall have power to provide storage, treatment, pumping and trans-mission facilities, but nothing herein shall be construed to authori:e the commission to engage in the business of distributing water." Consequently, financial arrangements negotiated by an applicant for construction and operation I of its facilities, or for retail sale of its water are beyond the jurisdiction of DRBC. However, NWRA has documented data and analyzed financial arrangements t, hat DRBC considered in its analysis of the proposed project. Construction And Operation Costs.--Included in DRBC's EA, Table 2-2, page 2-16, is Document No.22 from NWRA's 3.8 application to DRBC for the proposed project; it shows installation costs, past expenditures, and future costs at the April 1979 price level. For convenience, that table is also included in this
, revised EA. The Agrc ement cetween NWRA and PECO,12 February 1980, spells out the computation of service charges in part six. Operating costs of the project , are defined in 6,E and are listed in Attachment II, Schedule of Costs. The numbers are not in the agreement becsase sharing of costs is to be based upon proportions of actual cost, now unknown.
6 9 IV-95 -. i _ _ , , .. ...-e e'=N-
- TABLE NO. IV-12 NESHAMINY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
- ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COSTS April 1979 Price Level i-Installation Pa st Future Name of Facility Costs Execnditures Casta Point Picasant Pumping Facilities Pt. Pleasant Pumping Station $ 4,365,000 Combined Transmission Main 3,015,000 North Branch Trans. Main 795,000 Total $ 8,175,000 $ .370,000 $ 7,805,000 Reservoir PA-617 Water Supply Cost 2,100,000 2,100,000 0 N: -th B ranch Water Treat. Pit. 19,010,000 1,230,000 17,700,00^
l Western Transmission Main 1,235,000 70,000 1,165,000 Southern Transmission Main 2,825,000 20,000 2,805,000 Administration & Overhead 620,000 420,000 200,000 TOTAL ALL ITEMS $33,965,000 $ 4,210,000 $29,755,000
~
*DOCW.ENT NO.22 From NWRA's 3.8 Application To DRBC For The Proposed Project a
IV-96 ; 9
* ** ---eim- ---e .- . . _ , .
~-w- , ,m-
Social and Economic Costs.--Table No.35, page V-6 through V-11, of NWRA's Environmental Report (NWRA, February 1979) lists in detail beneficial impacts, adverse impacts ar.d remedial, protective and mitigating measures I associated with the N.B. Water Treatment Plant. The items evaluated include [" natural resources and man-made resources--including employment, traffic, noise, i l land, hunting, energy, aesthetics, lighting, historic and archaeological features. t I Tables 36, 37, 38 and 39 evaluate the beneficial and adverse impacts associated with the Service Area Transmission Mains, Point Pleasant Intake and Pumping Station, Combined Transmission Main, and North Branch Main and North Branch Neshaminy Creek. f All of the other options for water supply were more expensive than the project proposed by NWRA and PECO and none of the other options had less environ-mental impact than the proposed projc:t. Applicants' Financial Arrangements.--The Delaware River Basin Compact is silent en whether the Commission will evaluate economic justification (benefit / cost analysis), dutermine financial feasibility (c'r taining and repaying money l i for financial costs), or negotiate cost allocations (division of costs among beneficiaries) for those projects which come before the Commission in its function as a regulatory agency. In absence of specific directives, it has heen the prac-l tice of DRBC to confine its analysis of the appli snts' proposed action to con-
- formance with DRBC's Comprehensive Plan and the project's impact on the environ-rent and not to evaluate those internal financial arran3ements which are the l responsibility of the applicant and its related entities.
h IV-97 _ 5
- 14. Water for Limerick Nuclear Generating Station p,
1 Issue: Should water be diverted from the Delaware River for use by the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station? Response: Under the heading " Scope of The Environmental Assessment", 7 .. starting on page IV-5 of this revised EA is a discussion of DRBC contention that the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station is not an issue in this EA because of past decisions that have the effect of law and cannot be changed arbitrarily by DRBC staff. Alsq the fact remains that, except for inefficient and prohibitively expensive dry cooling towers *, water will be necessary for cooling large electric generating stations regardless of the fuel used or their
- location in the basin, t
DRBC staff also contends that concerns regarding further construction and operation of the Limerick Station should be addressed to the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission since it is the agency that would issue a license to operate the station and will hold hearings and conduct investigations regarding that I , licensing. Specific regulatory att. inns that have been taken that relate to the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station include.the following: 1 4
- EPA has indicated that dry cooling towers cannot generally be applicd to large electrical generating units due to the significant loss of plant efficiency which results. (Sec: 39 Federal Register 8296, October 8, 1974)
(^ . IV-98 t - . O i .
~
- a. Dalawtre River Basin Commission. Final Environm:ntal Impact Statement on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania. February 1973.
This Final EIS concluded that the proposed project would be bene-ficial to the Neshaminy and Perkiomen watersheds and not detrimental to the Delaware River provided that specific, listed mitigating measures were observed. F- b. Delaware River Basin Commission. ' Docket No. D-69-210CP; Philadelphia Electric Company, Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. March 29, 1973. This Docket deferred including the project in the Comprehensive Plan or Section 3.8 review pending completion of an environmental impact i statement as required by law. It conditionally approved, within the limita-r tions of the findings of the docket, the water supply features of the project subject to a specific list of conditions. e, United States Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing. Final Environmental Statement related to the proposed Limerick Generating Stations, Units 1 5 2. Philadelphia Electric Company. Novemoer 1973. After weighing environmental, econcmic, technical and other bene-fits of the Limerick Generating Station Units 1 and 2 against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, the AEC concluded (page v, item 8) that the action called for under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 is the issuance of construction permits for the Limerick facility subject to a specific list of conditions for pro-tection of the environment.
- d. Delaware River Basin Commission. Resolution No. 76-13. A Resolution I to initiate provision for supplementary water supply storage by
. certain atomic-fueled plants. September 30, 1975.
t ..
,*=
IV-99 5 he t
This Resolution rssolvc:d:
"1. Pursuant to the provisions of the conditions of Decket No. D-69-210CP and Docket No. .-73-193CP, the Commission
. has determined that provision of supplementary water supply storage is required as described in those conditions.
- 2. The applicants are hereby required to proceed to de-velop, or cause to be developed, an application under -
Section 3.8 of the Compact, supported by an environmental report in compliance with the Commission's rules and
; regulations, for the construction of the required supple-mental storage. The application and accompanying envirca- , mental report shall be submitted by October 1, 1977."
- e. Delaware River Basin Commission. Docket No. D-69-210CP (Final);
Philadelphia Electric Company, Limerick Nuclear Generating Station,
; Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. November 5, 1975.
This docket approved the proposed project, as described in Docket No. D-69-210CP and as supplemented in this docket, for additioa to DRBC's Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 3.8 of ~ the Compact, subject to a list of specific mitigating measures and conditions. The decision, sheet 15, II, c requires:
"If...the storage will not be adequate for all
- projected needs of the Basin, the applicant will build or cause to be built, at its own expense, at a location approved by the Commission, a reser-voir of sufficient storage capacity co assure the water supply needed for consumptive use by the Limerick plant, during periods when such use would reduce the flow in the Delaware River at the Trenton gage below 3,000 cfs. Storage and release of water in such facility will be under the Commission's regulation, at the expense of the applicant."
- f. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuis. No. 75-1421, ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION OF NUCLEAR POWER, LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, and DELAWARE VALLEY CCMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF Ti!E ENVIRONMENT, Petitioners. v. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONMISSION and PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition to Review an Order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Argued NoverScr 10, 1975, Before: ALDI5ERT, HUNTER and GARTH, Circuit Judges. Decided November 12, 1975.
~ a IV-100
- r- ;
u-
., . . . _ ~; = _ _ ~. -- . - .
e
That Court held invalid the contentions of the petitioners that the "... analysis by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was incomplete and that the environmental effects associated with that mode of operating the Limerick Generating Station were not analyzed in accordance with the National Environ-mental Policy Act...." As a result, the water supply element of the Limerick 1 i Project may not be reviewed de novo within the scope of this environmental
- assessment unless there has been a major change in that element of the project.
In fact, there has been no significant change in the design and proposed opera-tion of the Limerick water supply element since the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The actions of the DRBC, A2C and Third Circuit Court of Appeals, l' i cited above, established the right of PECO to draw water from the Delaware e__ for consumptive use at Limerick. At a result, tnere is no basis to include this element of the Limerick project in the scope of the EA. Concerns regarding further construction and operation of Limerick should be addressed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) who must review q and decide on any remaining permits. As scheduled, PECO intends to submit its safety analysis repo:? to NRC in August 1980. The report must be submitted 30 months prior to NRC's issuance of an operating license. That schedule indicates that interested parties may have until early 1983 to be heard con-cerning operation of the station. Construction of the multi-billion dollar Limerick Station .s more than half complete. l l l l l t 5 l IV-101 __ 5 ! L L
. .. ~ . .. . _. . _ _ _. . . - -.
4 ,a. 4 1 .
..c 1
a (. a f j- IJ w
~ .~
;.. a _
.+ i
,. e .
~ , .
,a -. .
. , 4 l . ,C ,
? 5 .
f a ~
; +
, , ,,p4
, - . . . ..- ~ PART V. - 1 . -
s- . . - a , 4 '
.g. *2 '
. . - +
9& , .. ., . .h. n% ,}y,. ( h.i; ,
. .o e .
.s , , .:
< . w.
,f . . .
-. m. y.., . .L,j .: w .
m 1 s c, e ' ~
- , . ~
.=.. .*i.,.. .-
, <.t. : w. ,
. c. .
e < a.:
- 4
. s m ,
.c.: . , ,, .,
m yn, -*.,, 04 a,R, . r,..s ..,,, e.c- .r- *3.p.rli .pn. %, r&,, Ng.,
*4.- , *, **.o
.~j;,.
- y* 2.*u..e ; '
t.%r.N V '* 1
"* a +
,.,c..cy 3
.. s
. m , 4s.r.y :
o9 5
.- , j.,e ,,_ e n, J ?
- , , s N .fE . .' . ,
-.ha"Y *d %'y ~
4 ' 7 4.' G W. - 9.% - .,' a, r M "r. 9 !.. ' .. ~- r i . J-. e- Q ',. M,.%.. N.,.. # '
.f,. * ~. - C ~ ' . . , .- y #.
1 Dt.
% ;i@a ;* . W. .m.Q .;r. ., - . vS., Y..p.g RA p,. % 4..
r y i,m. **. , L E.. i ~ : %c
.:x
? ~ % g. C. ,>s&o, &. .~.~g.4; ; Q* b; . nM+ ' ;.: ,. -
.v ' ,; > v . . ~
< .w - r.,.~.
# Sg. w,. , %a_
~fQ '.g. >
_.w L
. c N.:y . p s. ,
, ,, y .p.~-.,n. . c n.s.g . . . ,
,,,.f.3.,,i?'W m p. ..?. . ** # " * ' # C~ . ~ #*.
.u r.
~f,Y,7 $.c.h Y$&&.,
. c. . . - . . .
). - ~ l.ldh,#,.s$ . -. ..-
y c w g n * < .~
.v sn.;,c. .eq,., . 1~
- ~ ..
, .. ; n . . - .
~.,y- w ,.y..
4
., Yh - z *.,h5 3 :.:
me h.1., ... . ,~..(> M E I M iN
., . > 5+A
[ d y>
,_, . . -,.~- . .
, . . g. .. .c..,.,....~- m. .
,.... ., e v m g~ m. , .
.; ,c, .. . .u, t ...wp ~ ,
j . N
- s s ,.'e [ ._.I r ."~/Pf .,],. * +
.. . h.j{..~.4,w; fwy . .,.. ,#,gh { g. . . s-m.
M.v"J8{h cq.., y
; -. . . - *j
- s. , . . . . ~ . a . .L y.
e
. a.
. ,yw n:so m *:C .m. c r %. e.
v . w . '.
, <' .r, " ,J -n,,4 %
v
. g. z, s , ,m . .
. .: ....v
%g ;.y g:d c h. y& "yWQ&,/- 1f A;-~~!:@.y.g w.;A.. 3 ;'e x ..n~ .gp,e m.
.,pp . .W. A ;- - ;
4.F;. a y< e 7: W :
,+. , % ' '. ,%. v :u :>N.Qry::.D.;%
w
. '%7
..s ,Qhr;:u -g ca
., w ;%.k ,".f ;g + y.g. W.g, i ;
r f .' MT L'.m{.fk","Qyfg ' h f. & n 9 - A l k,-% m. fkQ' '*yg'q%&.3. .
"i' n
.i&n%n,h"'ry.al:
l&*- f
'Qh , y y... ~ w).'";d
- z. o
..2
.~
A,, (w .W $K. w j'Q"_ > p-r g3 M..--. . c
&9% g.< Q *QSMEhW..s1 a..}s u n s
, -l*c(. '~ glp s*h-Q.i.&.. %
-ff.
\
- f. p
~
n , p,s t QLY - .' ;.thf,A * .M Q, _i ~ l V,N. .'f.K< g.
*^ -
- dy g 4t,*-if* J 1
- s. .
f.Q. 3._ n.. 4- - w
*)> yt *g.T-. y.>o p@.p$m.g.v./,j,r':p;:=~f.7..,0.c
-u ;.
- p. ,n ,f,w. q
, v.
y g.hg.;M.
. f *r vs... .,.d . n..+$)@W.;d.%.WlGf3'!-j,. w ;;p .g,:e..v. <n a
,: . > .y n - .my ..a. w x., a +. g n %w.s;.
, w a
,b_-=C,owh.y.5*sey>.*y ,%y g m.:y.a. 3.s y ..,, . % y, ,;,m - q e# * ., ets ? . ,hu3 m yv- a ~.x. rm z.p o*; . ~g g %y.;- a-
.+ . s. , n%.,. <aC y-M .y. *t v- a.
. . . ,#=3.f - f .. . z. + ,. . . ?.w .~J t
- m. v:'m;..w s .I d,o w.*ir 4 g.+p:;n< 7 4*p.,y ,,:
. . g'4 .-
- e yg A.
M sp
*
- y 1., y.-*s. T 1 p > *-
- 4 3.
. - a . r. .w 3' .W ** .
~'
~
-e'..
- g.
W. myt. l4.x&l,.Q* % a . -o .,, ="*'m ~/.M ; %, M .m r." v - * ,~ ' e
- 3. -e <n! - .
a ,,.-:..l M. oq;p,,2.p:
. . . ~ -
., ..o..4 -- h, u.
* , - .' '
- a i ]>c5 ** -e ' .,'wp,y. p. p*$ Q'.7'$<. .,**t., I ,m ,,'n tO.(d..y.1 h*V.
1 ,
.y_ -
. . .3 P. . M*. . y . ,5,. x ., ,
. :(/ , .' ~. P,>
.L . MQ'm." ;yvy*Q.G.;* s . ,."g, ~3. jz a y *
.L , ;
.-; g ( .. - :% m&>. Qf; . . . . ,
x- @ m
- . '. -> s,.n.
, ..%. ' p'*Wi.,$',
^ *%,;*TA. -
,aa { N'-W.-Q ,.*; W W' g4 m
y.,. 9*t,G
. - h. ,%,
.,s. 3*r1 *~* v W./
? h.'" sV *m.h.-'.
.' .- j;.
Y i A%*m' d, s*'. 5/. '
- r-t fV1 w N*. ,) o - 7 ** ,
.w . .P. -
*m,*-.",y,Y.
-m
* '., < * ~ '-
._-). ? ~
( - h .**Ya s Y L~
~_* .
~~ r
.m + l ; .r ... .%s *,.%.t ,. gt.:.yp.p gn ,W r , ' 2, *.
< ~- i* - - * , t-t 3-?.-
~. s - - , <+ .
. - . , ~ . e.m;* Os-
- T. -...T,**
GW.
< . < ~ h .Q, 'y; A 1 Ql g - W
- 2. e..: @ m
%.-' '*5 Az
- 1- e ,' 4
*.~;. p. % ;y g nf. . . . Qg.,,j$o *yi,vM, ,(1*L ,. .
, .a ,
l, - w . 5. j- . , . ,
=- ..
,.~.-.-**A.
y mM* j,.;,& %. e -C! . <&4; - c. ?,,.e . ....-e. -., ::p % y x ~. g . ,.. *-. . . n y - . ,,3...
,a
, . w a x.4<;5.,, . n. e .m,oc .- g..* , w.c.y.
9,~..+ 9&n.am . ., . J, >A y w .,. , , , . .
~% -
vs 4 ...= .-
.~
2,- r T
- 2 , ," m~,*~g , ;@.Y' ic D** - 4WN:. g~ Ql'* 'N,%h,5 :p n.pe+.t. Q[W'hA.>M aQJ/.f-/ ' j/ 'I'*2,p* b % s. . ' *.hi'; G. . !.4. ~,- '
^
*i-
--D -/.
H
- s *-
~ *
;w~
; i .f i g,~ -Q l m .*;"O<,a' $g-" #Q. &z,E. % . m ....* .e ~ . wd. .1eQNQ. QE]l.Yr.*e%y<m.*.9,,*A. p ww ,. w:. * ..
a . . . . .- ..
,e**'
- I s 4/
s .,-.W.- .A '
* - D. ; ,
,g ta w.. ., A - k
- D g, # & s ,,y "'. f..a.-
e. I 1,g-1" sg.a,+ 8*a.x
.f
.. -;: y
%* f ,., , g g. u.# ,%-
.b e
* ,Y. ..**
~ ' * 'a
^
? r ' _ . ,'* , o ._'y** e S _-;
_,J 'k'
,%g m4
..:_ 5.m.. c... W %; x.J s..., s. w.,y q . g .%,R.. q . . c y'"'.. %, ,, g n ..., w . . . . .. . . . . .
.Y k. ! . f, k -
-l . ~
in gh.- *r. ~n*,~:p"rm ;u ~- vh.s. ws .m ~ ,- ' _m b s.. w. ..
. n ,.v. :--
m,_,. s :W,.'.<e v"L* . y> y_m% :w;},? sJ&.e *w.M
~ -
- 7 ,44. cL.- &. . n.x .,,:
>-l x.. , . ~ *; -
%mv
*w-. .
-5.
+ W as
%. ut. . . ,.y. e. yJ , ;<' .t* ve
. .g g.. g3w<.
- s. ~- -
u f .g .g h , Y *17 ),*h. ;e I.".,..
.d '
- D' ' -*
f . . '- , ,. 4 bh ~."hd .g = 4. U 6M 'e '* ,
. s. W. a. y e. :. -
1
.: .~ .. . , s .m. - - . . . e. . > ,ev _i "*a - .
l . t 4,1.
- . ** f1> g .A f *-., ." $ . .h. ; g A u++. . * } a. ,
+N W.%,
t . -
- , '"5 .'. -t.a.4 ..(. a es' 3, %g. . .%
~
2'.. a &. y 1 *A e, L t
. . %.'s.
<,t -p' ,.2.x, . .m
..e , 4
- o. u z. . .,e
. x g
, . . . -e w * %%%.3
- k. .* 5 *.,
*.,c.#.
, . .- '(
ar* s er v *~. ,* . .3r, %.' s,b <. . s . _ _ -. % :.+.~'. {
+ . . , e s., sy .~
** n
..e.',.
- S f w. . ..ih.' .# .,pgv\
;/..s [ 3#m[e *'; . m'
, .;* */. ' e.f,...
f w
,'".V-a .v,'.c.
s + m8'.,.'q, .,)ng. 'IM 'I. . f., . - 1< m._. a.-- 2..y _ A.n.a g
.Vo*. 4,u 4.5 -w 4
*,e. ,3 *,..v.
. g- - .3. , o.
t
. . ,v 6
.j
.u,, .
- g. ."*.
Jf* ;Il h 3 .g 7'.% y(*w.,=,.q yp,,l 4y g . y
- f.*J( f.,
.,4', ,.#,*, ,
*[g
.....e.,----
s., $c
~...c- .
. y
.+s gg7. p.4 ** $ . -4 -
e, ..;,, ',aeeJ.-}4, '
* -t
. g '. % 4-
. .. A
. + N "...g
**4.J .
4,
. (. .
M g a ,. -s 1 s' .-[ % -[fwb . .r.. f M* w g .*.,? Y' # 'E.. s...g, . be.i.-e
~
-- I 'e
]
' - {* . r O.
3 . . ., , jr **N !
*a.
* "+ * * . , ; j , ,
-.e .
. . . , _ , . ,~.%.m a. - . ,
_ . .- .-.s
~
.l _
APPENDIX A , O SU? MARY OF PUBLIC CCR'!ENTS r-NOR711 BRANCl! WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND RELATED COMPCNENTS - u.
'~
This chart summarizes the most frequently mentioned issues in L responses received in 409 communications concerning the Executive Director's intention to issue a finding of no significant adverse impact (negative declaration) for the North Branch Water Treatment Plant and Related Compo-nents, Bucks and Montsamery Counties, Pennsylvania. These communications
' were received by 5:00 p.m., March 12, 1980, the deadline set in the " Notice of Intent". '
There were J0D comunications (mostly letters) and 644 signatures F (written or accepted by telephone). The number of letters and signatures related to e given issue are listed by number and as a percentage of the total number. The is::ues are ranked according to the frequency mentioned. r-R r example,197 letters, or 48.2*a of the total, requested a new EIS; 253 signatures, or 39.3+. of the signatures requested an EIS. By percentage of
letters written this was the number one issue; by percentage of signatures, this was the number three issue.
.-me O
e 4 O 9 4 \ . i
-=
J O
=
V-Al -.
+-
_ , ,,p es. " *
---g
Number and Percentage of Responses Letters Signatures No. *4 No. % i Responses Received 409 100 644 100 ISSUES DISCUSSED
~ RANKING No. S. No. % Letters Signature:
- 1. PREPARE AN EIS Request a new EIS. 197 48.2 2S3 39.3 1 3
- 2. LOW WATER IN DELAWARE RIVER Diversion wculd cause low water and ecological damage to the Delaware River. 167 40.8 294 4S.6 2 1
. 3. NO WATER FOR NUCLEAR STATIONS Do not want water diverted for use by Nuclear Generating Station. 163 39.8 188 29.2 3 5
"'4. ADVERSE IMPACT ON ACUATIC BIOTA '
, Project would be detrimental to aquatic biota and to recreation, including fishing, in the Delaware l River, East Branch Perkinnen Creek, and North Branch Neshaminy Creck.
149 36.4 236 44.4 4 2
- 5. ESBIETIC DAMAGE Project would generate aesthetic
' damage to village of Point Pleasant, to farmland, and to general ecc:ystem throughout the service area. Would also create noise. 116 23.4 223 34.6 S 4
- 6. ALTERNAT!VES
- i Need further study of alternatives .
l for cicetricity and water supply. 92 22.S 113 17.6 6 i 7
" 7. FI;;ANCIAL PLAN
,. Need a complete and detailed finan-cial plan ta construct and operate the project including social and
~
economic tosts, changes in the tax - structure, payments for liability, l t_ and mistakes related to generation l of nuclear power. 59 14.4 116 18.0 7 6 V-A2 #
, -,e ,. --n-+ y- A "'** "~
- + .
Number and l'crcentage
. of Responses ,
ISSUES DISCUSSED Letters Signatures RANKING No. % No. % Letters Signature
! 8. EIS BY ANOT1!ER AGENCY Rcquest EIS by ano:hcr agency, such as U.S. Army COE or EPA. 56 13.7 96 14.9 8 8
- 9. ARCl!AEOLOGICAL 6 IIISTORICAL The Delaware Canal (Roosevelt State Park), a national historic landmark would b,e compromised. Also, archaeo- .
logical artifacts and historical landmarks wculd be disturbed. SO 12.2 S7 8.9 9 10 i
- 10. ADDITIONAL INFOR.\tATION The public necds more information, more time to respond, more references, more maps, 2nd some agencies were not consulted. 37 9.1 61 9.S 10 9 i 11. DRBC CONFLICT OF INTEREST DkBC has a conflict of interest
+
because it receives money for water
, sold and has promoted the project. 33 S.1 37 S.8 11 12 i
- 12. ADDITIONAL RESERVOIRS (tie)
The project would require additional reservoirs and other facilities up-( , _ stream and on tributaries to provide water during periods of low flow. 33 8.1 33 S.1 11 13 l 13. h*ATER CUALITY (tie) I The project would have an adverse impact on water quality throughout
- the service area. Specifically, studies --
should be made regarding temperature,
.'~ salinity, chlorine, trih21omethanes,
.trichloroethlene, and Icad levels in
, . and below Lake Galena. 32 7.8 33 S.1 12 13 I.
, I L_ 7 l . 5
,, V-A3 ..
L_ l ___ . _ _ - - . . ' - t
Number and Percentage
, of Responses ISSUES DISCUSSED Letters Signatures RANKING No. % No . *s Letters Signatur b' -
- 14. LAND DEVELOPMENT
{~ Project would promote more land '
._ development, including housing and industry. 29 7.1 39 6.1 13 11 .!' DAMACE FROM BLASTING s_'iS.
Blasting the hard rock during con-struction would cause widespread i damage to wells, foundations, utiliti'es, and other structures. 26 6.4 30 4.7 14 14
.. 16. AKAIT COMPLETION OF RELATED STUDIES DRBC should wait for completion of related studies such as the " Good ;' Faith Negotiations", DRBC's ground- ., watet study, COE's salinity study, and the Merrill Creek EIS. 23 S.6 23 3.6 IS 16 r--
- 17. EMERGENCY SERVICES
'~
There would be interference with
- emergency services because of road blocks, electric wires which would interrupt radio frequencies, power-lines for pumpir. stations, etc. 19 4.7 24 3.7
,- 16 IS
- u. ' 3 . FLOOD DAMACE DRSC should study related flood r- damage and stormwater runoff. 18 4.4 20 3.1 17 17 J.
SCOPC OF NEW EIS
,. DRBC should enlarge the scope of the j study to include the Limerick Nuclear
- Generating Station or the Merrill Creek Reservoir or both. Also, the
[^ scope should include integration with L ORBC's Comprehensive Plan and Lcycl 8 Study. 10 2.4 e 18 2.8 18 18
\_ J' . CO.: 1 SERVAT!GN DRBC should emphasi:e conservation of
- r. water resources, especially as outlined
(_, in DRBC's Level B Study. 9 2.2 9 1.4 19 19
% b w*
, .- V-A4 -.
+ -- - - . - - - . , - - - ' ,
a.-~.-+-.-n -..r.-.- m -ev . --~ -. ---y-y - r - w
=y
APPENDIX B REFERENCES Material Cited May Be Examined At DRBC Headquarters Library By Appointment (609) 883-9500
- 1. Acton, David W., Nater Quality of the North Branch and Delaware River and Potential Environmental Imnacts of the Point Pleasant Diversion.
Bucks County Planning Commission. September 1976.
- 2. Backhouse, Tom, "The Vegetation and Wildlifr of the Delaware River Corridor",
Draft Report for Bucks County Planning :ommis sion. June 1973.
- 3. Baren, Carl F. and Robert C. Kausch. Limnological Effects of Pumoed Storage Operation at Yards Creek. Delaware River Basin Commission. December 1971.
- 4. Bet: Environmental Engineers. Water Supply Study for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, 1977.
, 5. Bourquard, E.H. Associates, Inc. Feasibility Study of Delaware River Pumping Facilities at Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania. March 1970.
- 6. Bourquard, E.H. Associates, Inc. Point Pleasant Pumping Facilities. Design Report 50.1. Location of Perkiomen Transmission Main, for Philadelphia Electric Company. December 1971.
- 7. Bourquard, E.H. Associates, Inc. Point Pleasant Pumoing Facilities, Design Report No. 2. Location of facilities, bbrch 1972.
'8. Bourquard, E.H. Associates, Inc. Point Pleasant Pumping Facilities. Design Report No. 3. Preliminary Determination of Capacity Requirements and Facility Sizes. August 1973.
- 9. Bourquard, E.H. Associates, Inc. (E.H. Bourquard). Personal Communication.
July 1980.
- 10. Bull, R.J. "Healta Effects of Alternate Disinfectants and Their Reaction Products," Journal of the American Water Works Association, Vol. 72, ,
~
No. 5. May 1980.
- 11. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. Report on Evaluation oi Rock Excavation
. and Impact of Blasting for the crocesed Point Pleasant Pumoing Facili-ties, Point Pleasant, Pennsvivania. Prepared for the Delaware River Basin Commission, Project No. 80-7140-01, 20 May 1980.
~
- 12. Council On Environmental Quality. National Environmental Policy Act ,
Imolementation of Procedural Provisions: Final Regulations. l Federal Register, November 29, 1978, Part IV. l
- 13. Delaware River Basin Commission, Staff briefing paper. Point Pleasant Pumping Facility. October 8, 1969.
l" -. l 14 Delaware River Basin Commission. Final Statement - Environmental Impact of ! the Proposed Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, Buckc and Montgomery Countics, l Pennsylvania. December 1971. 6 V-B1
- 15. Delaware River Basin Commission. Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan, Bucks ard Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania. February 1973.
- 16. Delaware River Basin Commission. Notice of Intention to act upon Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Sunplement No. 1), July 1974
- 17. Delaware River Basin Commission. Hearing on Objections filed by the Environ-mental Coalition for Nuclear Power, August 1975.
- 18. Delaware River Basin Commission. Resolution No. 76-13. A resolution to initiato provision for supplementary water supply storage by certain
_. atomic-fueled plants. September 30, 1975.
- 19. Delaware River Basin Commission. Draft Final Report and Environmental Impact Statement of the Level B Study. The Delaware River Basi, Comprehensive (Level B) Study. October 1979.
- 20. Delaware River Basin Commission. Administrative Manual - Part III, Basin
- Regulations - Water Quality, May 24, 1978; amended with DREC Resolu-tion No. 80-2, March 10, 1980.
- 21. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Draft CONAMP/208 Water Ouality
, Management Plan, April 1978.
- 22. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Co= mission. Interim Projections Report for Bucks, Chester. Delaware, Montgomery, Philadelphia Counties, Pennsylvania.
September 1977.
- 23. Didun, Andrew, Jr., A Study of the Fishes of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of the Portland Generating Station of Metropolitan-Edison
! Company - Final Report. Ichthyological Associates, Inc. Ithaca, New York. August 1973.
, 24. Dresnack, Dr. Robert. " Impact of the Delaware River Flow Augmentation on the Trophic State in Lake Galena", for Neshaminy Water Resources Authority, November 1979.
i
- 25. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . Letter from James L. LaBuy (EPA i West Virginia) to Pennsylvania Power 6 Light (Martins Creek), July 7, 1978; Letter from James L. LaBuy to Metropolitan-Edison Company (Portland Station), March 27, 1979.
- 26. Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. Central Montgomery County
.. Water Supply Study, Engineering Report. Prepared for North Penn Water Authority and North Wales Water Authority, Montgomery County, Penn-sylvania. January 1980.
~
- 27. Goldmann, Judge Sidney, Hearing Officer for Objections Filed by the Environ-mental Coalition for Nuclear Power. Report and Conclusions on Adversary Hearin g.- July 21, 1975.
- 28. Hogg, Everett, Bucks County Health Department. Personal communication.
November 3, 1979.
~
**See Item No.65. .
w V-B2 f y. g= - y- - - -
- w-+ , - ~ - --
l l
- 29. Johnson, T.D. and Phoenix, D.R. An Ecologica' Study of the Effects of
- the Martins Creek S.E.S. Cooling Water intake for Pennsv1vania Power and Light Company. Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester,~Pa.
- 30. Justin and Courtney, Inc. Master Plan for Water Supply. Bucks County, Pennsylvania - 1970, for the Bucks County Planning Commission, 1972.
- 31. Justin and Courtney, Inc. Bucks County Master Plan for Water Supply, for Bucks County Planning Commission, 1975.
- 32. Kahnle, Andrew W.; Reisinger, H. James; Rutter, Robert P.; and Assoc.,
"Neshaminy Water Supply System, Delaware River at Point Pleasant and . North Branch Neshaminy Creek. Environmental Report. Water Quality-Aquatic Biota," RMC-Ecological Division, Pottstown, Pennsylvania.
November 1978.
- 33. Lofton, Larry. Impingement of Fishes on Water Intake Screens of Maior Industrial Water Users on the Dalaware River with Particular Refer-ence to Anadromous Fish. Special Report #3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rosemont, N.J. December 1976.
- 34. Metropolitan-Edison Company. Letter from L.L. Lawyer tc Ronald Preston (EPA, Wheeling, West Virginia). January 21, 1977,
- 35. Miller, Joseph P., Friedersdorf, J.W., et al. Annual Progress Report -
Delaware River Basin Anadromous Fish Project (January 1973-January 1974) . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rosemont, N.J. December 1975.
- 36. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. Water Allocation Permit Application to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Permit t0978601, Approved November 1, 1978.
- 37. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. Environmental Report on Neshaminy Water Supply System. February 1979.
- 38. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. Transcriot ,3E Public Hearing Re:
Draft Envirenmental Report on Neshaminy Water supply System. May 30, 1979 and Correspondence Received by .NhRA Relative to the Public Hearing... (undated).
- 39. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. " Responses to Significant Concerns i
At and After Public Hearing of Environmental Report". August 28, 1979.
- 40. Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. 3.8 Application to Delaware River
-- Basin Commission, Prepared by E.H. Bourquard Associates, Inc. June 1979.
- 41. Ne:1 Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Personal Communication.
! 1979. i
- 42. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish, Game and She11 fisheries. Personal Communicction, Arthur Lu;ine, May 1980.
- 43. Pennoni Associates, Inc. The Central Bucks County Water Supply Study. For the Bucks County Water 4 Sewer Authority. January 1, 1977. ,
~~
V-S3
i
- 44. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,-Bureau of Water Quality j Management. Report on ,the Application of Neshaminy Water Resources Authority from Pine Run, North Branch Ncshaminy Creek, and Delaware River. November 1, 1978.
- 45. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Personal con.munication.
C.H. McConne'.1. September 13, 1979.
- 46. Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters (now Pa. DER); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; Bucks and Montgomery Counties; Water Resources Study - Neshaminy Creek Basin (Pa. Water Resources Bulletin No.2) 1966.
, ____. 47. . Pennsylvania Fish Commission. Letter from Richard W. Marshall, Area Fish-eries Manager to Robert G. Flowers, Neshaminy Water Resources Authority. August 11, 1978.
- 48. Pennsylvania Fish Commission (M. Kaufmann). Personal Communication. July 1980.
- 49. Pennsylvania Historic and Museun Commission. Personal Communication.
l William O. Hickock. October 10, 1979.
... 50. Pennsylvania Water and Power Resources Board. Bucks County Water Allocation
- l. Permit No. WA-649. December 8, 1970.
- 51. Philadelphia Electric Company. Environmental Report, Bradshaw Peservair,
. '_T. ..__________ Transmission Main, East Branch Perkiomen, and Perkiomen Creeks. July 1979.
- 52. Philadelphia Electric Company. Aonlication for Annroval Under Section 3.8
, . :_ . __ . ._ of the Delaware River Basir Ccmpact, Eradshaw Reservoir and Related i Portions of the Point Pleasant Diversion Project. July 27, 1979.
- 53. Roche, Michael (Jersey Central Power 4 Light) . Personal Communicatien. May 1980.
- 54. Romm, Jerry K. Water Supp1'y, Land Use and Urban Growth. Journal of the Water Resources Planning and Management Division. Proceedings, ASCE, V. 103, No. WR2. November 1977.
- 55. Smith, Donald C. and Harmon, Paul L., "An Ecological Survey of the Delaware -
,- River in the Vicinity of Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania, July 1972-December 1973." Ichthyological Associates, Inc. February 1974.
,. 56. Tennant, Donald L. "Instream Flow Regimens for Fish, Wildlife, Recreation and Related Environmental Resources." Fisheries, 1(4) pp. 6-10, July-August 1976.
- 57. United States Army, Corps of Engineers. Letter from Colonel James G. Ton, i
j Philadelphia District Engineer to Gerald M. Hansler, Executive Director, Delaware River Basin Commission,
Subject:
Comment on Environmental
. . . Assessment for Proposed North Branch Water Treatment Plant and Related Components, March 31, 1980.
_. 58. United States Atomic cnergy Commission, Directorate of Licensing. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Proposed Limerick Generating ,
. Station. Units 1 6 2. Philadelphia Electric Company. November 1973.
~~
V-B4 5 m.w. **em e +ewy ---mu -.mh --er -- -am-si-- ,.e %, --. . e
- 59. United States Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board. In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Comnany (Limerick Generating Station, Units __1 6 {1, Docket Numbers 50-352 and 50-353. March 19, 1975.
- 60. United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. No. 75-1421. ENVIRON-MENTAL C0ALITION OF NUCLEAR POWER, LIMERICK ECOLOGY ACTION, and DELANARE VALLEY CONMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, Petitioners v.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION and PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CCMPANY, Respondents. On Petition to Review an Order of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Argued November 10, 1975, Before: ALDISERT, HUNTER AND GARTH, Circuit
, Judges. Decided November 12, 1975.
- 61. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Final Environmental Statement, Neshaminy Creek Watershed.
Bucks and Montgomery
. Cocaties, Pennsylvania. April 1976.
- 62. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II!, Philadelphia, Pa.
Final Environmental Imnset Statement, Horsham - Warminster - Warrington, Pennsylvania. Nastewater Treatment Facilities. May 1989. I
. 63. United States Geological Survey (Robert Shapp). Personal Communication.
June 1980. F 64. Willis, Terry B. and Harmon, Paul L., " Gilbert Generating Station Biological i Monitoring Program Final Report" for Jersey Central Power and Light Company. Ichthylogical Associates, Inc. July 1977.
** 65. Delaware River Basin Commission. Dockets.
Number Date Project and Sponsor L. D-65-76CP Cet.26, 1966 Neshaminy Creek Watershed Project, Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania,
,' Bucks and Montgomery County Commissioners.
s' - D-65-76CP (2) Jan.25, 1967 Neshaminy Creek Watershed Project, Bucks and Montgon. cry Counties, Pennsylvania, Bucks and Montgomery County Commissioners. l ,, D-65-76CP (5) Mar.17, 1971 Point Pleasant Pumping Station, Bucks l County, Pennsylvania, Bucks County l ' Commissioners. I D-69-210CP Mar.29, 1973 Limerick Nucicar Generating Station, Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Electric Company. D-73-193CP Juna 17, 1975 Hope Creek Generating Station, Lower Alloway Creek Township, Salem County, New Jersey, Public Service Electric and Gas Crmpany. D-69-210CP (final) Nov.5, ! ;75 Limerick Nuclear Generating Station, I Limerick Township, Montgomery County,
~~
Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Electric Company. s V-B5 --
=wg- amv 3+ a
-e , em%. m d wena m. We a--
- - ,ge,
APPEND 1X C CONSUMPTIVE USE DATA FOR ELECTRIC GENERATING STATIONS IN THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN FOR WHICH MERRILL CREEK REScRVOIR RELEASES WILL BE MADE WHEN THE FLOW AT TRENTON IS LESS THAN 3,000 CPS (YEAR 2000) t r~ f Merrill Creek E1cetric Cencrating Enter at Merrill Creek Res. Replace-Avg. Cons. Res. Replace-Station Model Nodd Use ment Flou at ment Flow Trcr. ton cfs cfs
, cfs Martins Creek #3 & #4 Riegelsv111e 10.4 -10.4 O
Cilbert #8 & #9 Pt. Pleasant 16.5 16.5 *O
} L1= crick #1 & 02 Pt. Pleasant 54.0 54.0 0 Eddystone #3 & J4 Chester 3.5 3.0
, 3.0 chester 010 & #11 Chester 23.4
, 18.7 18.7
'Edgemoor #5 Del. Me=orial 3.2 ~ 1.9 Bridge , l. 9 Deepwater #10 4 #11 Belev Del. '
! ', 9.4 .7 Memorial Bridge 5.7 I Su=mit #1 & #2 Belov Del. 19.8 - (or alternative) 6.4 6.4 Me=orial Bridge ' Salem #1 & #2 Belov Del. 23.0 . 5.0 5.0 Memorial 3 ridge
- Hope' Creek #1 & 12 Below Del. 35.0 ' ' 6.3 6.3 Memorial Bridge .
Total 203.2 126.9 46.01 I i, 1/
~
Althcugh this uster from Merrill Creek Reservoir. passes through the
~
Trenton gage, its act ef fect is :cro, since it merely ot!sc.ts the consumptive use u sted for the stations downstream. V-C1
- a e-o bd g , , ,_ ~ - * * * *
. _ ~ . . - -
m , _. - . - , _ .
APPENDIX D PERTINENT DATA FOR NESHAMINY
,_ WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM COMPONENTS, 1979 i
North Branch Water Treatment Plant l-~ Location Chalfont Borough Design Gutput -
. Initial 20 MOD t'
Ultimate 40 MGD [ Site Area 29 acres Structures I' ' North Branch Intake Dam 7 ft. high 95 ft. long
- s Pine Run Intake Dam 4 ft. high 55 ft. Iong -
~ Storage Reser,uirs .
'~
Finished Water 5 MG 80 ft. high,100 ft. dia. , . Filter Wash Water 5 MG 80 ft. high,100 ft. dia. Slucge Storage Lagoons (3) ea.1.125 MG 140 ft. x 220 ft. L Buildings .
~
- Raw Water Pumping Static Chemical Feed & Storage Euilding.
t l Pine Run Intake Filter Gallery Building
.- Process & Adminittcation Euilding High Lift Pumping Station Minim"m Release Belcw Plant 5. 3 MGD from 3/1 to 6/15 2.73 MGD Remainder of Yarr
[" 1- - eg a
..e V-D1 i
m m*
** ~ *
,__ , . . , , . . -.-+-a+ - * =
- w w - -- ,- - - , , , , , - ,- -w, ---,g x -m-s,. q w.m--_ np , --- -g--9
Finished Water Transmission Mains ~ Western ISee Exhibit No.12.for the alignment) The Municipalities Served are all in Montgomery County, except as indicated in Bucks County. Boroughs Chalfont (Bucks County) Hathoro Scudertown North Wales
~
( Hatfield Schwenksville Lansdalo Green Lana Ambler . Townshins New Britain (Bucks County) Montgomery (Part)
- l Marlborough ' Horsham Salferd Upper Gwynedd Hanover Lower Gwynedd
~
- Upper Frederick Towamencin Lower Frederick Worcester (PaM)
Upper Salford Whitpain i (Part) i Lower Salford White Marsh (Part) Perkiomen Upper Dublin (Part) Skippack pper Moreland (Part) Franconia
~
HaVield . c Main Size 36" and 30" dia. - 13,350 ft. l i
*~
M
?
~
V-D2 ;
-. ~~. - .- -..,- ~ ~ - -
Northern (See Exhibit No.15 for the alignment) - Municipalities Served (Bucks County) Borouchs
- Trumbauersville Perkasie
.Richlandtown Telford Quakertown Silverdale Townshics Milford (Part) -
East ,Rockhill (Part) Richland - H111 town (Part) Main Size 24" dia. - 21,500 ft. long
" Southern (See Exhibit No.13 for the alignment) 4 Municipalities Served (Bucks County)
- Boroughs i
Ivyland ( Townshics Warwick - - Doylestown (Part) l Warrington Warminster Main Size 30" dia. - 30,300 ft. long Eastern (See Exhibit No.14 for the alignment) Municipalities Served (Bucks County) Boroughs Doylestown New Britain Townshins New Britain . .' Plumstead (Part) _. : r. . Doylestown (Part) Buckingham (Part) Main Size 18" dia. - 25,200 ft. long l
~
I
% .e-V-D ', e a
., . ., , - + = " * " * '
Reservoir PA-617 (See Exhibit No. 4) - Drainage Area . 15. 8 sq. miles Lake Area. normal or recreational, also top of water supply pool 365 acres Storage Flood Control 1,128 MG Water Supply 1,629 MG , Conservation - 382 MG Total 3,139 MG I Embankment Earth fill, 66 ft. high,
, % mile long North B ranch Neshaminv Creek (See Exhibit No. 8)
Stream length from Reservoir PA-617 to North Branch Water Treatment Plant Length - 11,200 feet - Drainage Area 4. 4 s q. miles Pine Run (See Exhibit No. 8) Reservoir PA-616 ,
! Drainage Area 9. 9 s q. miles I.ake Area 39 acres Storage Flcod Control 661 MG -
Cons ervation 75 MG Total 736 MG Embankment Earth fill, 30 ft, high, 2,600 ft. long
-e V-D4 ; , i.
_ _ _ ._ _ .n_ - -- ---~ ~
-e syyya. p----r ------,,y e.m..-,s.-- ,-.,-y- ,-r-ya-p,- e,-v.-e w, , -- ,. w. - - , ,
Point Picasa f,Purnoin:r Facilities.- Delaware River Intake (See Exhibit No.16) Design Capacity 95 MOD
, Type ,
Shore ne structure with trash
~
racks and 3-10' wide traveling i screens 60" dia. - 390 ft. long Intake Ccnduit
," Pumpine Station (See Exhibit No.16)
Design ,.,apacity 95 MGD 1 story, 65 x 45 ft. with gambrel [ Building I roof, vertical board and batten alnm%m siding and stone-faced g walls Pumping Units 4 vertical turbi=e rated at 24
. MGD each -
I' . Combined Transmissien Main (See Exhibit No.16) ( Design Capacity 95 MOD . . Main Size 66" dia. - 12,850 ft. long i , North Branch Transmission Main (See Exhibit No.16) . Design Capacity 49 MGD f - i Size f 42" dia. - 5,600 ft. Iong l i Energy Dissipator Size 11 ft. high x 18 ft. lcng x 15 ft wide
' Construction Reinforced coucrete w/ rip-rap I erosion protection North Branch Neshaminv Creek (See Exhibit No.16)
Stream length utilized to
- Reservoir PA-617 (Lake
- Galena) 19,000 ft.
I. n-e. - _ ,-..- ..-- - ., ,w.-- . ..__,,_--%- , -
. ,. -, , q w
APPENDIX E WATER QUALITY FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE POINT PLEASANT DIVEPSION (DRBC, Septenber 1979)
- 1. Summary The water quality of the Delaware River in the vicinity of Point Pleasant, Pennsylvania, is generally gr.d. Data show it to have equel or better quality then either the Ecst Branch, Perkiemen Creek or the North Bronch, Neshaminy Creek. The net effect of introducing Delawcre River water to these watersheds.should be one of improvement, particularly to degrcded downstream crecs.
Withdrewal of water from the Delaware River should produce insignifict.nt changes to water quality of that River. II. Comoctibility of Delaware River water. Th'e represenretive water quality of the Delawcre River wcs developed by
; examining dcro from about 75 samples teken in the 1976 to 1978 pericd, and is presented in Table 1. Scmpling Iccations were Frenchtown, N .J ., Lumberville, Pa .,
and Lambertville, N.J. These data, in turn, were compared to the 1975 to 1978 data j summary of Delowcre River data taken by Philcdelphia Electric or Point Pleasant (Toble 5, reference 6). Overall the Delcwcre River in the vicinity of Point Plecsent exhibits geod water quality. O Trends in water quality have been analyzed in previous DRAC reports (1-5). These reports indicate possible declines in phespherus over time with other perameters relatively stable. A general trend towards better water quality, however, was indicated by a water quality index computed with 1973 to 1977 data from Trerjten, N.J. A. Compatibility with Perkiomen Creek ( A comparison of Delaware Ricer water quality with that ovci!cble for the Perkiomen Creek hecdweters (6) supoorts Philadelphic Electric's conclusion (6) that the quality of the upper Ecst Branch is similcr to that of the Delaware River. , One exception is noted. Generally ammonic concentrations appear to be lower and l nitrate cencentrations higher in the Perkiomen than in the Delaware River. This could
~,
suggest grecter nitrification eccurring in the former. Nothing suggests, however, that the introduction of a new source of ammonia (the Delaware River) will present problems,
, - particularly with the increcsed flow. Oxfgen consumption essociated with the nitrificatien of this ommonia (if it occurs) is not likely to cause problems because of the low ammonia
~
levels . The previously uted Philadelphia Electric report and the Mcent COWAMP/208
. Plan (7) analyses of the watershed cite degraded water quality from the Sellersville/
Perkosie cree to down stream. The introduction cf Delowere River will undcubtedly be beneficial by ougmentating low or intermittent flows and by diluting degraded water with ! good qualiby water. . t V-El
, - - w,-
~ ~
, ., Tcbio 1 R:pressntctivs Watzr Quality of tha Dal: ware River Dissolved Oxygen:
kny: 3.4 to 14.3w/meon of 10 mgA. (only one value is less than 4.0 mg/l)
" typical" summer D .O . = 7.0 mgA
- standard of not less than 4.0 mgA Philodelphia Electric range: 6.2 to 14.4 mgA with summer overage of 7.5 mg/l Temperature:
Range: 0 to 27.5 C. standard is a maximum of 30.6 C
.' pH:
~
- Range: 6 4to 8.7 w/mean of 7.7 5 values or 7% of total are greater than 8.5 (attributable to natural causet)
.- standard requires values between 6.0 and 8.5 ,
Fecol coliform: 1 knge: 0 to 2400/100 ml w/ geometric moon of 84.5/100 ml l Number of stendards violations undetermincble because of insufficient sampling frequency - ( [ Ammonia-nitrogen: Ponge: 0 to 0.75 w/mean of 0.19 mgA (49 values) Philadelphic Electric rcnge: 0 to 1.0 mgA with 3 month medians of 0.26 (Dec-Feb), 0.iO (Mar-Mcy), 0.03 (Jun-Aug) and 0.06 (Sepr-Nov) mg/l .
!. Nitrate-nitrogen: , . ,
F - Range: 0 ..' 1.63 w/mean of 1.01 mg/l (42 values) Philedelphk .ectric range: 0.11 to 1.54 with three month medians (see above) 0.89, 0.64, 0.96, and 0.75 mgA . 4 Phosphon;s - P: .
- o. Ortho phosphate Range:0.02 to 0.13 w/mean of .07 mgA (32 values)
Philadelphia Electric range: 0 to 0.18 mgA
- b. Poly phorphate Range:0.03 to 0.16 w/mecn of 0.10 mg/l ~(32 values)
- c. Total phosphorus
~
Range: 0.03 to 0.16 w/meen of 0.12 mgA (15 values) Philadelphic Electric range: 0 to 0.46 mg/l w/3' month median- (see above)
; 0.09, 0.07, 0.12 and 0.13 mg/l
~
~
i V-E2
With increased flows and no impoundments, nutrient concentrations and sub-sequent euthophicotion would not cppear to be of concern. In the COWAMP/208 Plon, however, photosynthesis is cited as cousing pH violations. Since the phosphorus content of Delavare River water is less than downstream Perkiomen lccotions, the net effect of Delowcre River water will be to decrease phosphorus concentrations by dilution B. Comootibility with Neshaminy Creek Available data for the North Branch of the Neshaminy is limited to the summary of 1971 through 1975 dere developed by the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority (8).
" Delcwcre River coto also presented in this report is comparable to the dcto presented in Table 1 except that high phosphore values appear in the 1971 to 1975 data set.
The report concluded that the Delowcre River water quality at Point Plecsont is relatively better then that of the North Branch. As the water cuality of the Delaware River has not declined since that time, the rsrirt conclusions remain valid. ill. Affect of withdrcwel on the Deleware River The Point P!ecsont Pump project will divert from 37.0 mqd (1981 daily e.mrege j . withdrcwai) to 95.0 mgd (yeer 20!O maximum daily withdrcwe') from the Delawcre River. With the mcximum projected diversion of 95 mgd (147) cfs) cnd maintencnce of the 3000 cf; flew ebiectim et Trenton, the Diversion will amount to cbout 4.6 percent of the available f freshwater flow. -This percent ficw is within the statistical occuracy of the Trenton flew gege.* ,' Mec:vrement of change in water quality due to the diversion is even less precise. Whila subtle changes cre theeriticcily possible, the degree of change will nor be mecsurable
, frem o practicci sense . This is particularly true et low flows where a variety of stresses wi;l be cifect.ing ambient water quality.
In any cvent, concentrations of conservctive substances which are delivered to Point Plecsent from u::: stream drainage should not be m9 d ified since concentrcriens cf the:c persmater; will be removeo precortionately with ficw. i.ess flow will be available to dilute sub;fct ces introduced below Point Piecsont, however. The 1.cmbertville wcste-worcr trectment p!cnt end non-point scurces cro the only such sources. The fcctors which dictate the concentration of non-conservative subdances, particulcrly BOD, dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform, will be modified by the slightly reduced flow. In the dynamic river system these chcnges will be indistinguishable. l I
. Discharge recorts at frenten cie rated excellent. ' Excellent' mecns that 95 percent of the daily discharges are cecurare to within 5 percent. Diversion percent computed l4 by 147 c5/0147cis = 4.6%. '
l ' l V-fi3 ~ l
,- %e y- --
,r--
IV. Reservoir Considerations Eutrophication of Lake Galena and Bradshaw Reservoir are possible concerns. The introduction of Delaware River water into the Perkiomen and Neshaminy watersheds above these impound =ents should not, however,' result in increased phosphorus concentrations. In fact n=bient phosphorus concentra-tions r.re likely to decrease since the Delaware River concentrations are less. Loadings of phosphorus will, however, increase because of the in-7 creased influent flows. On the other hand it can be reasoned that the in-i creased loadings may be wholly or partially offset by the small hydraulic retention times resulting from the proposed method of operation. i i Analysis of the Eutrophicction potential of Lake Galena was por-formed by Dr. Robert Dresnack, consultant to the Neshaminy Water Resources
- Authority, using accepted lake analysis technioues. The analyses' determined j (1) that the. eutrophication potential of Lake Galena was high withcut the project and (2) that the introduction of Delaware Siver water wculd no
. aggravate the situation, i.e., increase.the eutrophication potential. (It
. should be pointed out that the method predicts the eutrophication potential I and not actual algal concentrations. Reducing the potentisi does not neces-sarily re m1: in less algal concentraticns assu: ping the critical phosphorus r' criteria still excceded.) '
} ,
- - The above cited analysis suggested that the proposed system offers r opportunities for reducing the potential of eutrophicatien through proper
) reservoir operations. Some of these techniques include lowering the level of lake durin; the winter months to c.: pose bottom muds, use of a multi-level
, , outlet structure, and the use of algae control chemicals.
i l - Analyses using the abcVe methodology were performed for Bradshaw Reservoir. Thc ~'usions of the analyses were that while a eutrophication potential cou' monstrated the small reservoir size and retention time
.. placed the res. .nr "out of the ball park" in terms of the methology involved.
The short retention t he of 3 or less days would appear to preclude the build- , (, up of algal cencentrations in any event. ' l l '
'Ihe significant aspect of Bradshaw Reservoir is that it may poten-
, , tially act as a phosphorus sink due to the settling of suspended materials.
} .Less phospherus may be delivered downstream if this is the case.
For the same reason it is difficult to predict the effects, if any,
'. below.Laic.Calena. Phosphorus uptake by plants or removal by settling actions
- ._ will serve to reduce the outflow of phosphorus. It can be assumed that in the l free flewing situation with no increased phosphorus concentrations over existing l conditions downstream problems, if any, will not increase.
l y {~.. ~ The water will be taken out at treatment plan't so that the stretch l
, of North Branch Neshaminy Creek will act as a water conveyance.
l c _
- Impact of Delaware River Flow Augmentation on the Trophic State
! f.' in Lake Galena, 1979. 5
- tt -
~
i V-E4 - --
+ee-- w .ww * " " * * - ' ' " *
,m, r . - , , , . .
-m-g - - , - ,
References
- 1. DRBC 305(b) Report 1975
- 2. DRBC 305(b) Repert 1976 ,
,. 3. DRBC 305(b) Report 1977
- 4. DRBC 305(b) Report 1978 l, 5. DRBC 305(b) Report 1979 (in-Press)
.. 6. Environmental Report, Bredshow b :rvoir, Transmission Main, East Bronch Perkiomen, and Perkiement Creeks,. ;3epared by the Philadelpnia El3-tric
, Company, July,1979.
,. 7. Draft COWAMP/208 Water Quality Management Pfar:; Delaware Valley Regioncl Plannira Commission, April,1978.
; 8. Environmental Report on Nesheminy Water Supply System, prepered by the Nesheminy Water Rescurces Authority and censultants, February, IC?.
L .- ( .
)
I l i i i l l t l I' . [ t i I f e *
- b
. e ! V-E5 -
w P wr-,. - -, ---i -- w yr - - - - - - - 7
1 I APPENDIX F, AGENCIES CONSULTED 4 The following governmental agencies were consulted c s:erning
,' various technical analyses required to prepu c this assessment.
- 1. Ducks County Planning Commission i
- 2. Delaware Valley Reg ~.a1 Planning Commission 4
I 3. Mon.gomery Cotmty Planning ConLssion 1
- 4. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection I
; 5. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
- 6. Pennsylvania Fish Commission
- 7. Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission 4
[ 8. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Philadelphia District) l'
- 9. U.S. Lgartment of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
, [ (Anadromous Fish Coordination Project)
- 10. U.S. Environmental Prctection Agency (Region III)
J t f. 1 i i ) t-l L L r , l & L , V-F1 :* I _. I
~ -- . - - .- -
i APPENDIX G PUBLIC OBJECTORS Projects 'onsidered in this revised assessment hate been the subject of considerable cencroversy for more than ten years. Many arguments for and [ against the projacts and countless questions have been presented in that time. This assessment has end;;avored to address significtnt concerns which h,ve been raised. l The following list contains names of public agencies and private groups which have recently opp med the projects (or elements), or who have r- reservatier: c;ncerning procedatal matters. Not included are names of those I-who fully suppc t the projects or those who, wnile they have gres concern and have raised many questions, have n;r taken a position for or against. . [~ The names -are compiled from letters, from the transcript.of a public
! heari.3 held by NWRa and from aewspaper articles. Except for legislators, names of individuals are not ir.cluded.
(- j 2. %ir and Water Pollution Patrol
- 2. Alley Friends Architects
, 3. Banning, Rita, }bntgomery County Commissianer I 4. Bedminster Township aoard of Supervisors I
- 5. Blythewood-Briarwooo 'ivil Group ,
- 6. Bordentown City, New Jersey
- 7. Bridgeton Township Supervisors
- 8. Buckingham Township Board of Supervisors
- 9. Backingham Township Ci"it Association j 10. Bucks County Conservtacy i 11. Bucks County Conservation Alliance
- 12. Bucks County Land Use Task Force
, 13. Barlington, City of, New Jersey 1
- 14. Central Bucks Clean Energy Collective
- 15. Chalfont eviough Council, Bucks County
- 16. Clean Entegy Collective
- 17. Clean Water Action Project
- f. 18. Consumer Action in tne Northeast
- 19. Consumers Education .nd Protective Association International, Inc.
( 20. Cooks Creek Watershed Association
- 21. Delaware River Shad Fishermans Association
- 22. Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture 4-
- 23. Delaware Valley Conservacion Asscciation
- 24. Delaware Valley Protective As3ociation
- 25. Delaware Nater Emergency Group
- 26. Federation of Sportsman's Clubs, Bucks County
[_f 27. Federation of Sportsman's Clubs, Northampton County L. 28. Four-County Task Force on Tocks Island Dam
- 29. Friends of the Earth in the Delaware Valley
- 30. Giammarco, Henry J., Pennsylvania State Represantative
~
- 31. Green Valley Association
- 32. !!utton Recycling Circle. U.S.A.
,. 33. Island Ci"ic Association i
- w. s l- V-G1 ;
e _. k
- 34. Keystone Alliance
- 35. Kostmayer, Peter, Congressman, 8th District, PA
- 36. League of Conservation Voters
- 37. Lehigh River Restoration Association
- 38. Lerape Land Association
- 39. Limerick Ecology Action
. 40. Lower Makefield Township Park 6 Recieation Board ' 41. Merrill Creek Coalition
- 42. Montgomery County Commissioners
- 43. Montgomery County Well Owners Association
[ , Morrisville Borough Planning Commission
! 45. Ystional Audubon Society, Bucks County Chapter
- 46. ..ew Britain Township, Bucks County r* 47. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of Fish and Wildlife I 48. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, D: of Water Resources
- 49. New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
. 50. Northwestern Lehigh Citi: ens Coalition I. 51. Oak Lane Neighbors for a .iuclear Free World I 52. Open Space, Inc.
- 53. Paunacu::ing Watershed Association
', 54. Pennsylvania Air S Water Pollution Patrol ! 55. Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
- 56. Pennsylvar.ia Fish Commission
- 57. Philade'phia Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs
- 58. Plentiful Energy from Non-Nuclear Sources
- 59. Plumstead Township Civic Assoe2ation
- 60. Point Pleasant Fire Cort;any Ambulance Corps
- 61. Pollution Control Group of Lower Bucks County
- 52. Salvatore, Frank A., Pennsylvania State Representative 33 Save the De12 ware Coalition
! 64. Scilersville, Borough of
- 65. Sierra Club, Eastern Pennsylvania Group
- 66. Social Ccac3:ns Committee, Lower Bucks Unitarian Fellowship i 67. Solebury Township Board of Supervisors
; 68. Students for Human Rights, Bucks County Community College
- 69. Susquehann: Environmental Advocates
- 70. Tinicum Civic Association I
- 71. Tinicum Township Board of Supervisors
- 72. Trout Unlimited, ocucheastern Pennsylvania Chapter
- 73. Tullytown Borough Council
( 74. Unami Sunburst All;iace of the Upper Perkiomen Valley i 75. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
- 76. U.S. Envitcnmental Protection Agency, Region III e- 77. Upper Makefield Township Board of Supervisors ,
r 78. Warren Countj Planning Office
- 79. Wilson, Senjamin H., Pennsylvania State Representative
- 80. Yardley Borough Council 7
s t f V-G2 ; y -.
, - - m.m., ..--
m , -
APPENDIX H PREPA2ERS DRBC staff members listed below made significant contributions to I~ this assessment. While the final judgments are those of D',BC staff, they
! reflect expert opinions of personnel in agencies and individuals consulted by DRBC and findings i.t reports prepared by applicants and their consultants.
f' i Lead Agency Delsware River Basin Commission [ i Gerald M. Hansler, P.E., Executive Director : General Supervision J.W. Thursby, M.S. , Econo 71cs : Environtental Impact Analysis [ Fred W. Schult:, B.S. , Environmental Science *--: Environmental Impact Analysis t Robert C. Kausch, B.A., Biology : Environmental Impact Analysis Herbert A. Hwwlett, P.E. : Water Resources Engineering Seymour D. Sel:cr, P.E. : Water Resources Engineering Robert L. Geodell. P.E. : Water Resources Engineering F Richard C. Albert, M.S., Environmental Science
! and Engineering .: Water Quality Ar.alysis r H. Pace Fielding B.S. Geology : Geological Impact Analysis i'
Heidi L. Labb, Anna Mae Auch, Judy Scouten- : Secretaries Cooperators ( Contributors from outside DRBC are listed in Appendix 3 entitled g
" References" and in Appendix F entitled " Agencies Consulted."
l. i.
; *Mr. Schult: was project manager until he left DRBC, November 29, 1979. ! a t
I ? l- V-H1 _,
APPENDIX I CEPARTMENT OF TriE ARMY [g ,,,,%,, PHILADELPHIA OfSTMfCT, CORPS OP ENGINEERS b[
, we'f CUSTOM Houst-2 0 & CHESTNUT STREETS
. PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYt.VANIA 191oe
.m........
, 31 MAR 7980 NAPE:(-E i
~
L Mr. Gerald M. Hansler .. E::ecutive Director '-
- I- Delaware River Basin Cc==Licsion .
P.O. hux 7360 ' West Trenton,.New Jersey 08628 . I .
Dear Mr. Hansler:
1 This effice has reviewed the envirenr.catal assessment (15 Tchruary 1980) prepared by the cc =tissien as lead agency for the "Preposed North Bra.ch I Water Treatment Plant and a Review of Palated Corponents." Attached are cur detailed cce:nents on the enviren= ental assessment as { requested in your p .blic notice of intent to issue a Negative teclaratloa. t I suggest that the corpleted assessrent include consideration of all ccer.cnts received. E=phasis shculd be placed on indicat.ing the specific sources used [ for the updating data. We have no objection to the issuance of this Hogative Dec'.arction. Please i netify us of your decision cencerning tha preparation of an EIS in thia l r.atter. Sincerely, l Incl JNc3 C. TC:. (; x As-Stated N1onal, Corps of Engineerc District Engincer Copy Furnished /with Incl
-l..
' ' Honorable Sher =an W. Tribbitt U. S. Oce=tissioner - Washington, D.C. 20240
- L l [*
i - L l l . y_Il a j .
~~
, , . - - - , . , , _ -, - - - _ - - - - . - ~ . , ,
i .
- .* PRIMARY COMMTNT
- 1. several Cerps permits may be needed:
- 1. Point Pleasant Intake Uncertain
!. Bradshaw Peservoir - Philadelphia Electric
- 3. Outlet H. Brrnch Ncshaminy Creek Neshaminy Water Resources Authority
[ 4. North 3 ranch Intake Cam * * " "
- 5. Pine Run Intake Dam * * "" "
- 6. Pine Run Channelization (1,500') * * * *
; 7. Neshaminy Creek Crossing (South Trans- , mission Main) * * " "
- 8. Mill C cek Crossing (South Transmission '
Main) " "" * *
, 9. Perkiccen Trans=ission Main Outlet Structure Philadelphia Electric It is suggerted that this tabulation be included in the EA docu=ent.
- 2. As many i=portant documents (33 Reference) are incertorated by reference in the
! Notice of Intent, it would be apprcpriate to e=phasize this within the body of the assessment itself.
{ { SECONCARY COMMENTS Page 1-9 The effect of filling 29 acres of floodplain on storm flows should be
.i' discussed. An analysis of such floodplain impacts caused by this 'silling is re-quired by Presidential Executive Order 11988.
Page 1-10, Par. 2 The amount of detention pool behind the intake dams should be given. Pericdic sediment removal appears necessary and the disposition of such sedistats should be discussee, The nu=ber types of fish wh:se movement =ay be inhibited.should be added, Page 1-11, Par. 1 Methods to minimize fishery habitat loss through channel alteratien and bank stabill:ation need to be added. The Pennsylvania Fish C:mmissien has developed several methods to promote fishery rehabilitations they can offer advice in this regard. . r Page 1-11, Par. 1 The rechanneliration should be quantified. - g Page 1-11 & 1-12 Approximation by habitat types of the acreaga to be altered
} by Service Area Transmission Mains should be added.
Pago 2-7e Par. 1 h word appears missing at line 5. i l Page 2-27, Par. 1 Colete as this is a repeat of last paragraph page 2-26. [ L f I I e j t. 1 = t V-I2 ~~
~-
P go 2-33, sub-item 4 Th3 sch:duling cited'may not be cttainsd in cil inctanets; this should be considered in estimating the irnpacts. Page 2-27, Par. 3 The discussion could be expanded to clarify what impacts might '~ - follow if this scheduling goal could not be met and which WIS Con,:1usions would be i affected and to what extent. r- Page 2-41, Par. 4& Page 2-42, Par. 1 An explanation of what prevents screening at the North Eranch and Pine Pun intakes. An indication of whether increased headwater ficw enhancement p may increase entrainment and impingement downstream at the t-o water wi'.hdravel j points may be given. - 7 The detailed operating strategy ud related impacts for project operaticns could be expanded for clarification. j ( r-L 9 [. i T I, - t. j- . f 6 f~ i w.
! V-I3
~
l . . . . I
- ,-, . - . - . . -. .. --- - - . . . - ,-- ,. -- - - - - - -.}}