DOCSLIB.ORG

Ar5dooi9 Draft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ar5dooi9 Draft //// DRAFT CROYDON TCE SITE BRISTOL TOWKSHIP, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY MEETING DATE: August 20, 1987 TIME: 7:00 PM LOCATION: Bristol Township Municipal Building 2501 Oxford Valley Road Levittown, Pennsylvania 19057 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III (EPA) held a public meeting at the Bristol Township Municipal Building on August 20, 1987. The purpose of the meeting was to explain the Superfund process and to discuss the remedial investigation (RI) that the EPA is planning to conduct at the Croydon TCE Site in Bristol Township. Representing the EPA were Abraham Ferdas, Assistant Superfund Branch Chief; Harry Harbold, Regional Project ' Manager; Nanci Sinclair, Community Relations Coordinator; and Richard Brunker, Toxicologist. The EPA's contractors for the Croydon TCE Site were represented by Ray Wattras, REM III Site Manager, and Carrie Deitzel, REM III Community Relations Coordinator for Region III. Edna Roth, Bristol Township Administrator; Councilman David Hite; and Councilwoman Terry Bradley were also present. At 7:00 pm, few people had arrived, and the start of the meeting was delayed. At 7:20, Ms. Sinclair called the meeting to order. She then presented an overview of the Superfund process and the upcoming RI. She stressed that the EPA encourages citizen participation throughout the remedial process and explained how residents can become involved. Before turning the program over to Mr. Harbold, Ms. Sinclair provided her address and phone number, as well as the locations of local information repositories where residents can find copies of site-related documents. AR5DOOI9 DRAFT During Mr. Harbold's presentation, he explained how the study area boundaries were established for the Croydon TCE Site. He also discussed the three primary objectives of the Phase I RI: to determine the quality of the groundwater, to assess the impact of groundwater on public health and the environment, and to. identify potential contaminant sources. In addition, Mr. Harbold said that 29 new monitoring wells will be installed, and several existing monitoring wells will be resampled in order to collect data about contaminants and local hydrology. Mr. Harbold reminded meeting attendees that domestic well sampling will not occur until October and encouraged everyone who has not yet responded to the EPA's well-users' survey to return the questionnaires or contact the Agency as soon as possible, if they want their wells sampled. Following the presentations, questions were presented by members of the audience. Below is a summary of public comments and concerns and the EPA's responses to them. 1. Several questions concerned the RI conducted at the Rohm & Haas Superfund Site immediately adjacent to the Croydon TCE Site. Residents wanted to know if data from the Rohm & Haas investigation will be used in the Croydon TCE Site study and if the Rohm £ Haas Site will be resampled. They also wanted to know whether the EFA will split samples with Rohm & Haas, if company property is resampled, and if the company's data will be made available to the public, if sample splitting occurs. EPA RESPONSE: Data from the Rohm & Haas Site RI will be reviewed, and some of the existing Rohm & Haas monitoring wells will be resampled. No decision has been made regarding the splitting of samples. (A member of the audience, who identified himself as the public affairs manager for Rohm & Haas, stated that if samples are split, the company will make its data available to the public.) 2. One resident wondered what might happen if Rohm & Haas data and EFA data are widely divergent or if EFA data from the Croydon TCE Site suggests that the existing Rohm & Haas Site RI data is wrong. He reminded the EPA representatives that both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) and the EFA had already sampled in the Croydon area during the Rohm & Haas site investigation and, therefore, should already have pertinent information about the current site. 2 AR500020 DRAFT EPA RESPONSE: The Rohro & Haas RI was performed by a contractor hired by Rohm & Haas. The EPA did not perform a quality check of the data and will not be relying on it during the Croydon TCE site study. During the Croydon TCE Site investigation, the Agency will sample new monitoring wells, as well as some existing Rohm & Haas monitoring wells. Although both PADER and the EPA did do some sampling during the Rohm & Haas study, no sampling occurred north of State Road. The Croydon TCE Site RI extends the study area so that sampling will occur in that area. Since new data will be gathered, there is no need to depend on historical data from previous studies. 3 . Several questions concerned households with wells as the sole source of their domestic water supply. One resident wondered if he and the five other families on his street (Pine Street), who depend on wells, will have to wait until the RI is completed before alternate water supplies will be provided, if their wells are found to be contaminated. The costs that homeowners might incur, if alternate water supplies are needed, were also a major concern. EPA RESPONSE; The well samples will be collected and analyzed as soon as possible, and if a health threat is found, the EPA will take emergency action to provide an alternate source of potable water. This will be provided at no cost to the homeowners. Two possible alternatives might be bottled water or the installation of carbon filters on existing plumbing. A long term solution may be to extend the public water supply lines to households with contaminated or potentially contaminated wells. The affected households could be connected to the public water supply with Super fund money; however, the homeowners would then have to pay the resulting monthly water bills. 4. Several questions were raised about TCE. The currently-known level of TCE contamination in Rohm £ Eaas monitoring wells and the concentration level, or parts per billion (ppb) , of TCE that might pose a health threat were of concern. One resident asked several questions about the regulation of TCE in the workplace and the potential routes of TCE exposure, including whether the chemical is mobile in groundwater. He stated that at his workplace, no precautions are employed in handling TCE. He and others reportedly mix it with their bare hands and 3 AR50G02! DRAFT dump it on the ground at the end of the day. Residents also asked if TCE was the only chemical of concern to the EPA. EPA RESPONSE ; The concentrations of TCE present in some monitoring wells were very low - - "a thimble-full in a tank car". But the level of TCE that poses a danger to human health depends on the length of exposure and the type of health threat. There are three types of health threats: acute, chronic, and the longer-term cancer threat. An acute threat would be a situation in which concentrations are so high that drinking a single glass of water causes illness. A chronic threat refers to a concentration level that causes illness in a limited period of time - - for instance, a period of a week or a month. A cancer threat involves a much smaller concentration over a much longer period of time several decades. In addition to TCE, samples will be analyzed for all volatile organics and priority pollutants. In the work place, the use of TCE is regulated by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act) , not by Super fund. TCE can be taken in by normal breathing, and it can be absorbed through the skin. Anyone putting bare hands into TCE is taking an unnecessary risk. If this is occurring where you work, you should report it to OSHA. TCE is very mobile in groundwater; this is the primary problem at the Croydon site. If TCE is being dumped on the ground, that should also be reported to OSHA. (Ms. Sinclair spoke privately with the resident who raised the occupational-use concerns and exchanged information so that the proper authorities can be notified of the situation described.) 5. A number of residents wondered if it is possible to determine the source (s) of contamination and if the groundwater can be treated. Come expressed fear that the problem might be permanent and might cause their property values to drop; they wondered if Croydon might be another Love Canal. They were also concerned about how long treatment will take, if it is found feasible. EPA RESPONSE; Croydon is not another Love Canal, and it is not an isolated situation. Groundwater contamination is typical throughout Bucksp r However , because there are so many industries3,'-' 4 DRAFT source (s) may be hard to find. This type of groundwater contamination is treatable, but this is a very large area, and treatment will be a difficult process. It is not possible to predict how long treatment will take. 6. Residents also asked about the proposed monitoring veils. They wanted to know how large an area could be monitored by a single well and whether it would be more practical to sample the existing, non-functional domestic wells than to install new monitoring wells. EPA RESPONSE; The area covered by a single well is dependent on subsurface conditions, but it is a relatively small area. In Phase I, monitoring wells will be concentrated in the "focus area", but throughout the rest of the site, surface waters and intermittant streams will be sampled. Groundwater discharges into surface waters, so if contaminants show up in the surface waters, that will indicate a need for additional monitoring wells. Samples will be collected at numerous locations along Neshaminy Creek, Hog Run Creek, and smaller intermittant streams. Dependent upon Phase I findings, additional monitoring wells may be installed in Phase II.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Quality of Northern Bucks County, Pennsylvania
    HYDROGEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER QUALITY OF NORTHERN BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA by Ronald A. Sloto and Curtis L Schreftier ' U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4109 Prepared in cooperation with NEW HOPE BOROUGH AND BRIDGETON, BUCKINGHAM, NOCKAMIXON, PLUMSTEAD, SOLEBURY, SPRINGFIELD, TINICUM, AND WRIGHTSTOWN TOWNSHIPS Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director For additional information Copies of this report may be write to: purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey Earth Science Information Center District Chief Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Box 25286, MS 517 840 Market Street Denver Federal Center Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-1586 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract....................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................2 Purpose and scope ..................................................................... 2 Location and physiography ............................................................. 2 Climate...............................................................................3 Well-numbering system................................................................. 4 Borehole geophysical logging............................................................4 Previous investigations ................................................................. 6 Acknowledgments....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options
    Advocacy Sustainability Partnerships Fort Washington Office Park Transportation Demand Management Plan Geospatial Analysis: Commuters Access to Transportation Options Prepared by GVF GVF July 2017 Contents Executive Summary and Key Findings ........................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 ArcMap Geocoding and Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 6 Travel Times Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 7 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 7 1. Employee Commuter Survey Results ................................................................................................ 7 2. Office Park Companies Outreach Results ......................................................................................... 7 3. Office Park
    [Show full text]
  • (TMDL) Assessment for the Neshaminy Creek Watershed in Southeast Pennsylvania Table of Contents
    Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Assessment for the Neshaminy Creek Watershed in Southeast Pennsylvania Table of Contents Page A1.0 OVERVIEW………………………………………………………………………… 1 A2.0 HYDROLOGIC /WATER QUALITY MODELING………………………………. 8 A2.1 Data Compilation and Model Overview………………………………………… 8 A2.2 GIS-Based Derivation of Input Data……………………………………………. 10 A2.3 Watershed Model Calibration…………………………………………………… 10 A2.4 Relationship Between Dissolved Oxygen Levels, Nutrient Loads and Organic Enrichment…………………………………………………………….. 16 B. POINT SOURCE TMDLs FOR THE ENTIRE NESHAMINY CREEK WATERSHED (Executive Summary)……….……….………………………. 18 B1.0 INTRODUCTION.…………………………………………………………………. 19 B2.0 EVALUATION OF POINT SOURCE LOADS……………………………………. 20 B3.0 REACH BY REACH ASSESSMENT……………………………………………… 27 B3.1 Cooks Run (482A)………………………………………………………………. 27 B3.2 Little Neshaminy Creek (980629-1342-GLW)………………..………………… 27 B3.3 Mill Creek (20010417-1342-GLW)…………………………………………….. 29 B3.4 Neshaminy Creek (467)………………………………………….……………… 30 B3.5 Neshaminy Creek (980515-1347-GLW)..…………………….………….……… 32 B3.6 Neshaminy Creek (980609-1259-GLW)………………………..………………. 32 B3.7 Park Creek (980622-1146-GLW)………………………………..……………… 34 B3.8 Park Creek (980622-1147-GLW)……………………………..………………… 35 B3.9 West Branch Neshaminy Creek (492)……………………………..……………. 35 B3.10 West Branch Neshaminy Creek (980202-1043-GLW)…………..……………. 36 B3.11 West Branch Neshaminy Creek (980205-1330-GLW)………………………… 37 B3.12 West Branch Neshaminy Creek (980205-1333-GLW)………………………… 38 C. LITTLE NESHAMINY CREEK……………………………………………………… 40 D. LAKE GALENA……………………………………………………………………… 58 E. PINE RUN…………………………………………………………………………….. 78 i Table of Contents (cont.) Page F. SUB-BASIN #1 OF WEST BRANCH NESHAMINY CREEK……………………… 94 G. SUB-BASIN #2 OF WEST BRANCH NESHAMINY CREEK……………………… 107 H. SUB-BASIN #3 OF WEST BRANCH NESHAMINY CREEK…………………….. 121 I. SUB-BASIN #4 OF WEST BRANCH NESHAMINY CREEK……………………… 138 J. COOKS RUN………………………………………………………………………….. 155 K.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
    Prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission BUCKS COUNTY FLOOD RECOVERY AND MITIGATION STRATEGY Prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration Prepared by the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission This Economic Adjustment Strategy was accomplished by staff of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission through Economic Development Administration Adjustment Strategy Grant No. 01-09-58005. The statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and other data in this report are solely those of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration. The background flood map is used in part solely for state affairs only. courtesy FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION SEPTEMBER 1998 DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Publication Abstract TITLE Date Published: September 1998 Bucks County Flood Recovery and Mitigation Strategy Publication No. 98032 Geographic Area Covered: Bucks County Key Words: Floods, Flooding, Floodplain, Flood Prone, Flood Proofing, Regulations, Impervious Coverage, Watersheds, Sub-Basin 2, Emergency Management, Neshaminy Creek, Buck Creek, Brock Creek, National Flood Insurance Program, Levee, Dam, Floodwall, Acquisition, Relocation, Army Corps of Engineers, Delaware River Basin Commission ABSTRACT This report provides a flood recovery and mitigation strategy for those flood prone communities in Bucks County. As an element of a flood mitigation plan for eastern Pennsylvania, which
    [Show full text]
  • A Timeline of Bucks County History 1600S-1900S-Rev2
    A TIMELINE OF BUCKS COUNTY HISTORY— 1600s-1900s 1600’s Before c. A.D. 1609 - The native peoples of the Delaware Valley, those who greet the first European explorers, traders and settlers, are the Lenni Lenape Indians. Lenni Lenape is a bit of a redundancy that can be translated as the “original people” or “common people.” Right: A prehistoric pot (reconstructed from fragments), dating 500 B.C.E. to A.D. 1100, found in a rockshelter in northern Bucks County. This clay vessel, likely intended for storage, was made by ancestors of the Lenape in the Delaware Valley. Mercer Museum Collection. 1609 - First Europeans encountered by the Lenape are the Dutch: Henry Hudson, an Englishman sailing under the Dutch flag, sailed up Delaware Bay. 1633 - English Captain Thomas Yong tries to probe the wilderness that will become known as Bucks County but only gets as far as the Falls of the Delaware River at today’s Morrisville. 1640 - Portions of lower Bucks County fall within the bounds of land purchased from the Lenape by the Swedes, and a handful of Swedish settlers begin building log houses and other structures in the region. 1664 - An island in the Delaware River, called Sankhickans, is the first documented grant of land to a European - Samuel Edsall - within the boundaries of Bucks County. 1668 - The first grant of land in Bucks County is made resulting in an actual settlement - to Peter Alrichs for two islands in the Delaware River. 1679 - Crewcorne, the first Bucks County village, is founded on the present day site of Morrisville.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Valley Regional Comprehensive Plan May 2015
    INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAY 2015 INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAY 2015 (Final adoption June 1, 2016) i INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ii INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter One – Community Profile 1 Chapter Two – Existing Land Use 31 Chapter Three – Goals and Objectives 43 Chapter Four – Natural Environment 49 Chapter Five – Open Space 81 Chapter Six – Community Facilities 97 Chapter Seven – Transportation 111 Chapter Eight – Economic Development 145 Chapter Nine – Housing 161 Chapter Ten - Future Land Use Plan 175 Appendices Appendix A Resolutions for Plan Adoption iii INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN iv INDIAN VALLEY REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTER 1 COMMUNITY PROFILE The Indian Valley is located in the north central section of Montgomery County. It includes the four townships of Franconia, Lower Salford, Salford, and Upper Salford and the two boroughs of Souderton and Telford. These six municipalities comprise a region nearly 49 square miles in size. As little as 30 years ago, the region was an undeveloped, rural area with many working farms and a few small villages. While a good portion of the Indian Valley retains that rural character to this day, much of the region has changed. Growth pressures pushing outward from Philadelphia have resulted in the rapid construction of many homes and businesses on what was once open land. Similar growth and development patterns have occurred repeatedly throughout Montgomery County and the larger Delaware Valley region. The development patterns experienced by the Indian Valley region can be largely attributed to the fact that the region is conveniently located for easy access to jobs, stores, and highways.
    [Show full text]
  • MINOW Neshaminy Creek Report 2016
    MINOW Management and Implementation for Neshaminy(Creek) Optimal Watershed Report By: Shannon Heybach, Katja Burke, and Patti Stelmaszczyk Table of Contents Mission Statement………………………………………………………………………………………2 Goals……………………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………....2 Background/CHaracteristics…………………………………………………………………..2 Figure 1: Map of Neshaminy Creek Watershed Table 2: Land Use Distribution of Neshaminy Creek Watershed Land Use………………………………………………………………………………………..4 Figure 2: Pennsylvania Land Use Table 2: Land Use Distribution of Neshaminy Creek Watershed Water Use……………………………………………………………………………………....5 Table 3: Summary of water discharges and withdrawals in the Neshaminy Creek Figure 3: Water withdrawn in the Neshaminy Creek watershed Environmental Concerns and Other Issues…………………………………………………………..7 Storms and Flooding…………………………………………………………………………...7 Figure 4: Flooding from Hurricane Irene in Neshaminy Creek Streambank Erosion and Habitat Loss…………………………………………………….8 Water Quality………………………………………………………………………………...9 Existing Organizations and Regulations……………………………………………………………10 Solutions……………………………………………………………………………………………...11 Sources……………………………………………………………………………………………….12 Mission Statement: To reduce Neshaminy Creek flow for a 2­year design storm by 10% before January 2020, thus improving water quality, preventing erosion, and preventing habitat loss. Goals: G1: To minimize flood events and protect from property damage G2: To minimize major erosion of stream banks G3: To secure floodplain land as habitat for wildlife G4: To ensure fishable and drinkable water by improving water quality in the Neshaminy Creek. Introduction: Background/Characteristics Figure 1: Map of Neshaminy Creek Watershed The Neshaminy Creek is 41 miles long, has headwaters starting in Bucks and Montgomery counties and extends to its mouth, on the Delaware River, in Bensalem Township. The entire drainage area is 233 square miles and held a population 256,000 in 1990, 333,297 in 2000 and is projected to reach 368,000 by 2040.
    [Show full text]
  • Septa-Phila-Transit-Street-Map.Pdf
    A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q v A Mill Rd Cricket Kings Florence P Kentner v Jay St Linden Carpenter Ho Cir eb R v Newington Dr Danielle Winding W Eagle Rd Glen Echo Rd B Ruth St W Rosewood Hazel Oak Dr Orchard Dr w For additional information on streets and b v o o r Sandpiper Rd A Rose St oodbine1500 e l Rock Road A Surrey La n F Cypress e Dr r. A u Dr Dr 24 to Willard Dr D 400 1 120 ant A 3900 ood n 000 v L v A G Norristown Rd t Ivystream Rd Casey ie ae er Irving Pl 0 Beachwoo v A Pine St y La D Mill Rd A v Gwynedd p La a Office Complex A Rd Br W Valley Atkinson 311 v e d 276 Cir Rd W A v Wood y Mall Milford s r Cir Revere A transit services ouside the City of 311 La ay eas V View Dr y Robin Magnolia R Daman Dr aycross Rd v v Boston k a Bethlehem Pike Rock Rd A Meyer Jasper Heights La v 58 e lle H La e 5 Hatboro v Somers Dr v Lindberg Oak Rd A re Overb y i t A ld La Rd A t St ll Wheatfield Cir 5 Lantern Moore Rd La Forge ferson Dr St HoovStreet Rd CedarA v C d right Dr Whitney La n e La Round A Rd Trevose Heights ny Valley R ay v d rook Linden i Dr i 311 300 Dekalb Pk e T e 80 f Meadow La S Pl m D Philadelphia, please use SEPTA's t 150 a Dr d Fawn V W Dr 80- arminster Rd E A Linden sh ally-Ho Rd W eser La o Elm Aintree Rd ay Ne n La s Somers Rd Rd S Poplar RdS Center Rd Delft La Jef v 3800 v r Horseshoe Mettler Princeton Rd Quail A A under C A Poquessing W n Mann Rd r Militia Hill Rd v rrest v ve m D p W UPPER Grasshopper La Prudential Rd lo r D Newington Lafayette A W S Lake Rd 1400 3rd S eldon v e Crestview ly o TURNPIKE A Neshaminy s o u Rd A Suburban Street and Transit Map.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTH PENN AREA 5 RI/FS WORK PLAN Lansdale, Montgomery County
    \J- NORTH PENN AREA 5 RI/FS WORK PLAN Lansdale, Montgomery County, FINAL Submitted to: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Region III 841 Chestnut Building Philadelphia. PA 19107 Prepared Fon BLANK, ROME, COMISKY AND McCAULEY Four Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19103 Prepared By: THE EARTH TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 53 Haddonfleld Road. Suite 316 Cherry Hill. New Jersey 08002 - Telephone: (609)482-5553/Fax: (609)482-6514 -PROJECT NO. 691546 SEPTEMBER 1993 AR3006I I TABLE OF CONTENTS .'"-.. :'" •'. '••- :' -.- . • SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background . 1 1.2 Project Objective 5 • 2.0 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION 7 2.1 AEL , 7 2.2 Stabiius 9 2.3 KEMA/Powertest/Webcrafl/ABB 10 2.4 Byers Choice/Lindberg 10 2.5 R&B/FMC Corporation . 14 2.6 New Yorker Steel Boiler Company, Inc. 14 2.7 Neotech 17 2.8 Lumber Yard 17 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 18 3.1 Regional Site Setting 18 3.1.1 Regional Topography 18 3.1.2 Regional Soils " 18 3.1.3 Regional Geology 18 3.2 Site Setting 20 3.2.1 Site Topography 24 3.2.2 Site Soils 24 3.2.3 Site Geology 24 3.3 Regional Climate 24 3.4 Hydrology 26 3.4.1 Surface Water 26 3.4.2 Groundwater 26 3.4.2.1 Shallow (Perched) Aquifer 26 3.4.2,2 Bedrock Aquifer 26 i ' " . ' • ' 3.4.3 Monitor Wells 28 AR3006I2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) SECTION DESCRIPTION PAGE 4.0 SUMMARY OF PAST ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 33 . 4.1 AEL 33 4,2 R& B/FMC 36 4.3 Stabiius 39 4.4 KEMA/Powertest/Webcraft/ABB 39 .
    [Show full text]
  • Bucks County
    BUCKS COUNTY START BRIDGE SD MILES PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT TYPE TITLE DESCRIPTION COST PERIOD COUNT COUNT IMPROVED Bridge replacement on Worthington Mill Road in Northampton and Wrightstown BASE Bridge Replacement Worthington Mill Road Bridge Townships 1 $ 3,300,000 1 1 0.3 Reconstruct roadway on Lawn Avenue from Maple Avenue to Farmers Lane in BASE Reconstruct Lawn Avenue from Maple Avenue to Farmers Lane Sellersville Borough and West Rockhill Township 2 $ 15,000,000 0 0 0.72 BASE Bridge Replacement Clay Ridge Road Bridge Bridge replacement on Clay Ridge Road over Beaver Creek in Tinicum Township 2 $ 3,525,000 1 1 0 BASE Bridge Replacement Old Bethlehem Road over Kimple Creek Bridge replacement on Old Bethlehem Road over Kimple Creek in Haycock Township 1 $ 4,767,300 1 0 0.25 BASE Bridge Replacement Pineville Road over Pidcock Creek Bridge replacement on Pineville Road over Pidcock Creek in Buckingham Township 1 $ 1,925,000 1 1 0.09 BASE Bridge Replacement Walnut Street over Perkiomen Creek Bridge replacement on Walnut Street over Perkiomen Creek in Perkasie Borough 1 $ 4,741,000 1 1 0.04 BASE Bridge Replacement Racket Road over Morris Creek Bridge replacement on Rickert Road over Morris Creek in Hilltown Township 1 $ 1,021,900 1 1 0.01 BASE Bridge Replacement Main Street over SEPTA Bridge replacement on Main Street over SEPTA in Sellersville Borough 1 $ 4,180,000 1 1 0.03 Reconstruction and widening of PA 663 from Weiss Road to Mill Hill Road and replacement of two bridges on PA 663 over Unami Creek and Licking Creek in BASE Bridge Replacement
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan
    TOWNSHIP OF BRISTOL Comprehensive Plan June 2008 Bristol Township Comprehensive Plan 2008 ADOPTED JUNE 19, 2008 BY BRISTOL TOWNSHIP COUNCIL TOWNSHIP OF BRISTOL 2501 Bath Road Bristol, Pennsylvania 19007 P: 215-785-0500 ~ F: 215-785-2131 www.bristoltownship.org PHOTOGRAPHS ON COVER (clockwise from top left) War Dog Memorial—Bristol Township Municipal Campus Delaware River—Burlington-Bristol Bridge George Washington Elementary School—Levittown PA Route 413—Town Center District Silver Lake County Park Croydon Manor Edgely Fire Company No. 1 Legacy at West Bristol BRISTOL TOWNSHIP COUNCIL Tina Davis, Chairman Linda Tarlini, Vice Chairman Don Mobley, Member John Monahan, Member Rick Pluta, Member BRISTOL TOWNSHIP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE Jeff Bartlett, Managing Director Glenn Kucher, Director of Building, Planning & Zoning Tom McDermott, Director of Community Development Russ Sacco, Township Solicitor Gary Smith, Township Engineer Tina Davis, Council Chairman Linda Tarlini, Council Vice Chairman Rick Pluta, Council Member PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY BUCKS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1260 ALMSHOUSE ROAD DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901 P: 215-215-345-3400 ~ F: 215-345-3886 www.buckscounty.org This document was prepared with financial assistance from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development through a Land Use Planning and Technical Assistance Program (LUPTAP) grant. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1 The Planning
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary Little Neshaminy Creek River Conservation Plan
    Executive Summary Little Neshaminy Creek River Conservation Plan Little Neshaminy Creek at Forks of the Neshaminy September 2007 Project was funded by a Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund Program Grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 85 Old Dublin Pike Bureau of Recreation and Conservation. Doylestown, PA 18901 (215) 345-7020 (215) 345-4328 www.heritageconservancy.org Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program FINAL REPORT “Little Neshaminy Creek River Conservation Plan” Final Report September 2007 CZM PROJECT NUMBER: CZ1: 2004-PD.08 This project was funded, in part, through a Federal Coastal Zone Management Grant, administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Funding provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States Department of Commerce, under Award Number: NA07OZ0130. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, the PA DEP nor any of their sub-agencies. Acknowledgements This project is funded in part by a grant from the Community Conservation Partnership Program, administered by the Bureau of Recreation and Conservation, Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Matching funds were provided through a grant of the Pennsylvania Coastal Zone Management Program, funded by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The following
    [Show full text]