Nestle Eldred Township Environmental Impact Statement Township Engineer's Review

8/18/2019 Nestle Eldred Township Environmental Impact Statement Township Engineer's Review

1/6

nover

ngineering

s s o ates

nc

April 15, 2016

Mary

nne

Clausen, Chair

Board

of

Supervisors

Eldred Township

P.O. Box 600

490 Kunkletown Road

Kunkletown, PA 18058

Dear Mary Anne:

RE: Special Exception Review

Environmental Impact Statement

Deer Park - Chestnut Springs Project

Hanover Project ELD15-21

The following materials were reviewed with regard to environmental impact concerns and

regulations,

as

related to the above-referenced project:

• A Site Plan consisting

of

fifteen

15

sheets, prepared by Miller Bros. Construction,

Inc., dated December 10,2015, with most but not all sheets having a latest revision

date of February 22, 2016.

•

On e 1

copy

of

the Deer Park - Chestnut Springs Project Volume 1

of

3

Application, Environmental Impact Statement,

and Erosion

and Sediment

Contro /Stormwater Management Plans.

• One l) copy

of

the Deer Park - Chestnut Springs Project Volume 2

of

3

Hydrogeological Report, prepared by EarthRes

Group

Inc., dated December 2015.

• A Wellhead Protection Area

Zone

1 and Zone 2 Map dated February 2, 2016.

• A Wellhead Protection Regulation Analysis Table.

This sire

is

located in Eldred Township, Monroe County, south east

of

the intersection

of

Chestnut Ridge Drive

SR

3001) and Kunkletown Road (SR 3004).

The

Applicant proposes to

access the site

via

an unlabeled Stone Arch Bridge Road

to

Chestnut Ridge Drive.

We have reviewed this Special Exception Use Application with respect to the applicable

Township ordinances

and

State and Federal regulations, and we have the following comments

to

offer:

ENVIRONMENT L IMP CT

ST TEMENT

REVIEW:

1.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not indicate that the Buckwha

Creek

is

a nearest surface water

to

the project site, noting thar wetlands and the

unnamed tributary are listed.

252 Brodhead Road Suite 100 Bethlehem 18017 8944 • 610.691.5644 • Fax 610.691.6968 www.hanoveren9.com


2/6

Mary Anne Clausen

Eldred Township

2 April 15, 2016

2. The wedand evaluation report provided in olume 2 of 3 is unclear on the extent of

the evaluation area. The report references a study area

is

outlined

on

Figure

4,

yet

only a Property Boundary

is

shown on Figure

4.

Figure 4 does not indicate the

location of field data collection points. Only eight

8)

field data forms are provided

as

an attachment to the wedand evaluation report, and based

on

descriptions all are

concentrated in the location

of

the delineated wedands and ponds in the western

portion of the site. There does

not

appear to be any supporting data for the

remainder of the 71-acre property. If a smaller study area \us used for the

wedand eHluation, this study area should be clearly depicted on plans and in reports.

The study area should include the entire project area, accounting for buffers on any

edands and waters located outside of the project area.

3. Based on all mapping and reporting provided, the Ordinary High Water Mark

boundaries ofBuckwha Creek and the unnamed tributary flowing through the site

are not located and depicted. The regulated boundaries

of

these features are

necessary for planning and permitting requirements, and should be included on the

plans and in reports.

4. The stream channel connecting upslope identified wedands which conveys surface

flow to the 48-inch CMP

is

not shO\m

on

the plans, and is no t identified

as

a

regulated stream channel which may be within the project area. Further, the stream

enclosure in the existing 48-inch CMP

is

not

identified on the plans or in the EIS as

a regulated waters of the Commonwealth/United States. This feature conveys

surface waters from upslope wedands and unnamed stream channel direcdy to

Buckwha Creek, and therefore

is

a regulated watercourse hich should be delineated

at its Ordinary High \1( ater Mark boundaries. Per Township ordinances, buffers on

this stream channel should also be shown on the plans. Per State regulations,

permits may be required for activities within the watercourse s floodway.

5.

The condition of the 48-inch CMP used for the stream enclosure should be

evaluated to ensure that it is sufficient to maintain functionality as part of the

proposed project activities.

6.

Documentation

dut

the stream enclosure was completed

compliance with State

and Federal regulations should be provided to the Township by the Applicant.

7. Crossing of the stream enclosure with water lines, utility lines, roadway

(improvements), etc. requires State approvals,

and may require Federal approvals if

there will be any repairs to or replacement of the existing 48-inch CMP.

a.

Statewide General PermitNo.5 is required for the water line and any other

utilities.

b. Statewide General Permit o. 7 would be required

for

any upgrade (e.g., fill,

gravel, paving, etc.) to the road for this new use at the site.


3/6

Mary Anne Clausen

Eldred Township

3 April 15, 2016

8. The

surface water recharge area delineation provided in the Special Exception

Application, which was generated in the Stream Stats program appears to exclude a

sizeable area draining from the east from the old quarry sites on the property.

Further clarification regarding this matter should be provided.

9.

The EIS states

no

fill

or

structures

i I I

be placed in the 1

DO-year

floodplain.

Grading ,,-ith cut-and-fill

is

proposed in the 100-year floodplain

on

the plans

•

t the

project location along the Buckwha Creek, the current FEMA floodplain mapping

indicates a Zone AE floodplain ithout floodway.

\s

such, the Ordinance allows

certain activities within the mapped floodplain area, including fill/development

which when combined i th all other existing and anticipated development,

will

not

increase the Base Flood Elevation more than one foot at any point within the

communiry. The majority of proposed development activities within the Zone AE

floodplain represent minor lowering

of

existing grades for new travel lanes with

curbing. \ temporary sediment trap for erosion and sediment control during

construction activities

is

also partially within the floodplain, but is also lo,,-er than

existing grades.

At

a minimum, activities representing

fill or

structures \vithin the

floodplain include guiderail and landscape plantings. Underground storrnwater

management facilities are also proposed. The applicant must provide proof that

proposed activities within the 1DO-year floodplain

will

not increase the Base Flood

Elevation by greater than one foot ) at any point within the community, with an

appropriate engineering study

and/or

concurrence from FEMA.

10. An existing berm

is

cited in the EIS and it is stated that

water

elentions... clearly

indicate the flood ,,-ater will not flow into the project area. To properly address this

purported discrepancy in the FEMA mapping, the Applicant should apply for and

coordinate

ith

FEl\1A for a fonnal approval and map revision to correcdy depict

on-site conditions.

The

corrected information should then be used for site planning.

11. The endwall, labeled

as

Headwall S-10, should extend to the edge ofBuckwha Creek

and discharge in a stable manner, rather than onto a steep slope. State and Federal

permits may be required, such as Statewide General Permit

No.4

- Intakes and

Outfalls and Federal Section 404 Permit. See Section 707.10.A

of

the Zoning

Ordinance_

12. Under EIS Section C, the two

2

storage tanks are

not

mentioned as new

impervious coverage, nor is there any mention of road re-establishment at Sandy Hill

Path at wellhead buildings.

13. Under EIS Section C, none

of

the species dependent

on

wedands and waters, such

as turtles, snakes, frogs, macroinvertebrates, etc. are mentioned. Potential impacts to

these -ater-dependent species are

not

discussed. Impacts associated with

both

direct and indirect impacts on wetlands and waters should be discussed in the EIS_

14. Crossing

of

the wedands, as shown

on

the plans requites a Joint Permit apprO\-al, as

wedands are designated as Exceptional Value due to reproduction

of

wild trout in

do,,-nstream ,,-aters, as listed by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. See

Section 707.1 O.A.

of

the Zoning Ordinance.


4/6

l\lary

Anne

Clausen

Eldred TO\\ fiship 4 April 15, 2016

15. The validity

of

clearance issued through the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity

Inventory for the potential impacts to a listed plant species with the Pennsylvania

Department

of

Conservation and Natural Resources should be investigated. The

Applicant s agent indicated,

as

part

of

the online search process, that the project

would not have any impacts to surface waters. The project plans and narrative,

however, indicate that there will

be

impacts to surface waters, including impacts

requiring State and Federal authorizations for encroachments. The Applicant should

pro,-ide an updated search with the corrected input and pertinent correspondence

from the jurisdictional agencies, including any additional srudy and associated

clearances that may be required. See Section 707.10.A.

of

the Zoning Ordinance.

16. Based on United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidance in the

Bog

Turrle

Clemmys muhlenbergi,

Northern Population Recovery Plan, all werlands

~ t i n

300 feet

of

the proposed Limits

of

Earth Disrurbance for the project site

must

be

evaluated for potential bog turtle ClemmYJ

l111/lJIenberg i

habitat, travel corridors, and

occurrence, including off-site areas/wetlands. Additionally, all ,,·erlands that are

within the cone

of

depression and within one-half mile of the extraction wells

must also be enluated for potential bog rurrle habitat/occurrence. The srudies that

were conducted do not indicate the srudy area boundaries, respective to the above

noted information. Based on available mapping and information, it is possible that

there are additional werlands within the 300 feet and one half mile radii of the

proposed project Limits

of

Disturbance and extraction wells, respectively. The

Applicant should prm-ide revised mapping and any additional studies and regulatory

correspondence/clearances that may be necessary to meet the USFWS guidance.

17. The plans designate the existing settling ponds

as

wetlands. TI,e EIS states that

only one 1 of these ponds has developed wetland conditions. This discrepancy

should be revised, accordingly.

is

recommended that the Applicant provide a

Jurisdictional Determination from the United States Army

Corps

of

Engineers to

ensure that all wetlands and waters boundaries are properly delineated and classified.

18. The EIS states, There

w

be no detrimental impact to wetlands or Buckwha Creek

as

a result of the project. Test results presented to the Township by the Applicant

indicate a decrease in baseflo,,·s to and in Buckwha Creek, as well

as

to nearby

existing wells. The EIS should contain discussion

of

how these decreases will not

result in detrimental impacts to the on- and off-site waters and wetlands. The EIS

should also contain a discussion on how the proposed stormwater discharge to the

Buckwha Creek will affect the Buckwha Creek.

19.

The EIS

states that the proposed silos (storage tanks) will resemble farm silos and

would be compatible with a typical rural setting. Are there similar stainless steel

farm silos in the area? The property

is

not a farm or an agricultural setting. The EIS

should contain additional discussion to show how the

proposed

facilities at the site

will

not

detract from the actual setting.


5/6

Mary

.\nne

Clausen

Eldred Township

5

April

15 2016

20.

The EIS

indicates periodic existing use

of

Buckwha Cteek by small watercraft such

as kayaks and canoes. The application should contain discussion

on

how the

proposed project and decreased baseflows may affect this recreational use of

Buclru ha Creek.

21.

The EIS

states,

The

project

is

no t

anticipated to require services

of

the

fIre

company, police, or other municipal services. Based

on proposed

facilities and

uses, howe er, services by the fIre company and police may actually be needed.

22. The EIS states that no flammable materials of concern to a [lIe company will be

stored or used in conjunction with the project. Propane generators are proposed,

however, and tanker trucks will continually be entering and exiting the site during

hours of operation.

23. The Conclusion section of the EIS states, The proposed water extraction use,

which is regulated by both DRBC and PADEP is designed to be operated in a

sustainable manner that complies with applicable regulations, without adversely

impacting surface waters

or

groundwater. Studies prm-ided by the Applicant

indicate lower baseflows in streams (and nearby existing wells) which may indicate an

adverse impact on aquatic flora and fauna, as well as recreation potential noted in the

EIS.

ZONING ORDINANCE

(Section VII):

1. Section 701.1 Setbacks and Buffers - The Ordinance requires that a m x of ground

coyer and shrubbery vegetation and canopy trees, of such variety compatible weith

the local climate, may be required so that a dense screen not less than

six

feet (6 ) in

height will be formed within three

3

years of planting. In addition to proposed

landscape plantings, the report states that there are suffIcient existing natural buffers

between the project area and adjacent residential land. The plans should clearly

show

tillS

buffer area and indicate hov.. this buffer area

w be

protected from future

impacts.

2. Section 707.7 Regulated Uses - Storage tanks are prohibited in Wellhead Protection

Zones 1 and

2. The

EIS states that the tanks will get sanitized, periodically and

that

solution

is

collected and transported for off-site treatment. Therefore, the tanks do not

only contain clean groundwater.

3.

Section 707.7 Regulated Uses -

The

existing truck maintenance facility would require

a Special Exception approval

in

Wellhead Protection

Zone

2.

The

use should

be

formally classifIed and a determination should be made with regard

to

\X ellhead

Protection regulations.

4. Section 707.7 Regulated Uses - The proposed on-lot septic system is a Special

Exception n Wellhead Protection Zone 2.


6/6

Mary Anne Clausen

Eldred Township April

15 2 16

5. Section 707.9 - Subdivisions and Land Developmenr - It states land developments

proposed with subsurface sewage disposal within the \1Ii'ellhead Protection Zone shall

provide a tested and suitable primary absorption area and a tested and suitable

secondary absorption area.

Test

results for a secondary absorption area must be

provided.

Please note that the re iew

of

the application is ongoing and is therefore subject to further

comment

If you have any questions or comments regarding this information please contact tills office.

Respectfully

HANOVER

ENGINEERING

ASSOCIATES INC.

- -

Jason E. Snlith PWS

Project Scientist

jes:aat

S:\PWj< en \ r n1C1 :II\Eld ...

\EId I )-21·; \ c c\\ · ~ r F . . r Mi l \Enmonmt nt AI\RC\ f

Documents

Nestle Eldred Township Environmental Impact Statement Township Engineer's Review