3600-FM-WSFRO353m 10/2005 COMMONWEALTH OF …5800-FM-WSFRO353m 10/2005 F. PROJECT NARRATIVE (See Section F of instructions) Z A narrative has been prepared as described in Section

3600-FM-WSFRO353m 10/2005

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

BUREAU OF WATER STANDARDS AND FACILITY REGULATION

SEWAGE FACILITIES PLANNING MODULEFOR

MINOR ACT 537 UPDATE REVISION

Code No.A3 -67955-238-3M

Component 3m. Municipal or Authority Sponsored Minor Sewage Collection Project(Return completed module package to appropriate municipality)

DEP USE ONLYDEP CODE #

A3 -67955-238-3MCLIENT ID # SITE ID # APS ID # AUTH ID #

This document provides a simplified planning format for municipalities and municipal authorities proposing the constructionof a sewer extension primarily serving existing development. Typically, this format would be used for projects involving theextension of sewer service to no more than 100 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) and where the majority of the projectserves existing development. For projects where more than 50 percent of the proposed customers will result from newland development, a Component 3 Sewage Facilities Planning Module would typically be used. For larger projects or if theproject would involve the construction or modification of a wastewater treatment facility, then a general Act 537 UpdateRevision, meeting all of the requirements of Title 25 Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 71 § 72.21, is appropriate.

DEP staff will make a final determination as to the appropriate type of planning for a given project based on the review of aplan of study. Eligibility for a grant to offset the cost of planning will be determined by DEP staff based upon review of aTask/Activity Report (3800-FM-WSFR0005). The project sponsor submits both documents. DO NOT use this formwithout coordinating with your local DEP staff. Refer to the instructions.

This planning document, along with any other documents specified in the cover letter, must be completed and submitted tothe municipality with jurisdiction over the project site for review and approval. All required documentation must be attachedfor the Sewage Facilities Planning Module to be complete. Refer to the instructions for help in completing this component.

A. PROJECT INFORMATION (See Section A of instructions)

1. Project Name

Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension

2. Brief Project Description

Installation of a combination low-pressure and gravity collection system to serve 36 existing residences andcommercial building.

B. CLIENT (MUNICIPALITY) INFORMATION (See Section B of instructionsMunicipality Name County City Boro Twp

Shrewsbury Township York

Municipality Contact - Last Name

Montanarelli

First Name

Gene

MI Suffix Title

Township Supervisor

Additional Individual - Last Name

Grove

First Name MI Suffix Title

Jodi Municipal Secretary

Municipality Mailing Address Line 1

11505 Susquehanna Trail South

Mailing Address Line 2

Address Last Line - City

Glen RockState ZIP+4

PA 17327-9067

Phone + Ext.

(717) 235-3011

FAX (optional)

717-227-0662

Email (optional)

jodi@shrewsburytownsh p.org

PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor

http://www.cvisiontech.com

3800-FM-WSFRO353rn 10/2005

C. SITE INFORMATION (See Section C of instructions)

Site NameVillage of Seitzland

Site Location Line 1 Site Location Line 2Area surrounding the intersection of Baltimore Street andClearview Drive

Site Location Last Line - City State

Glen Rock PA

ZIP+4 Latitude

17327

Longitude

Detailed Written Directions to SiteTake Exit 8 if traveling southbound on 1-83. Turn right onto PA -216. Continue to follow PA -216. Turn left onto PA -616.Enter project area,

Description of SiteModerately dense aged suburban area consisting of single-family homes, multi -family homes, an apartment complex, anda commercial property.Site Contact - Last Name First NameMontanarelli Gene

MI Suffix Phone(717) 235-3011

Ext.

Site Contact TitleTownship Supervisor

Site Contact Firm (if none, leave blank)Shrewsbury Township

FAX(717) 227-0662

Email

[email protected]

Mailing Address Line 111505 Susquehanna Trail South

Mailing Address Line 2

Mailing Address Last Line - CityGlen Rock

StatePA

ZIP+417327-9067

D. PROJECT CONSULTANT INFORMATION (See Section D of instructions)Last Name First Name MI Suffix

Cichy MatthewD P.E.

Title Consulting Firm Name

Project Manager Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc.

Mailing Address Line 1 Mailing Address Line 2

369 East Park Drive

Address Last Line - City State ZIP+4 Country

Harrisburg PA 17111

Email Phone Ext. FAX

[email protected] (717) 564-1121 (717) 564-1158

E. AVAILABILITY OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLY (See Section E of instructions)The project will be provided with drinking water from the following source: (Check appropriate box)

Z Individual wells or cisterns.

A proposed public water supply.

An existing public water supply.

If existing public water supply is to be used, provide the name of the water company and attach documentation fromthe water company stating that it will serve the project.

Name of water company:

2



5800-FM-WSFRO353m 10/2005

F. PROJECT NARRATIVE (See Section F of instructions)

Z A narrative has been prepared as described in Section E of the instructions and is attached.

The applicant may choose to include additional information beyond that required by Section E of the instructions.

Ej G. SEWAGE DISPOSAL NEEDS IDENTIFICATION (See Section G of instructions)

Conduct sanitary and water supply surveys per DEP's publication entitled Sewage Disposal Needs Identification.This is highly recommended for all projects. It is required if PENNVEST funding is to be sought for the project, orif required by DEP as indicated by the checked box opposite this item.

H. EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES (See Section H of instructions)

1. COLLECTION SYSTEM

Provide requested information concerning the existing treatment facility.

a. Name of existing collection system

Clean Streams Law Permit Number

b. Name of interceptor Glen Rock Sewer Authority

Clean Streams Law Permit Number

2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

Provide requested information concerning the existing treatment facility.

Name of existing facility Glen Rock Sewer Authority Sewage Treatment Plant

NPDES Permit Number for existing facility PA0020818

PROPOSED WASTEWATER FACILITIES (See Section I of instructions)

1. Provide an estimate of the immediate and five year projected flow from the proposed sewer extension. Addressthe capacity for this flow in the existing conveyance and treatment facilities in terms of the most recent wasteloadmanagement annual report for these facilities.

2. PLOT PLAN

The following information is to be submitted on a plot plan or map of the proposed project that clearly reflects therelationship between the proposed facilities and the identified features.

a. Existing and proposed buildings.

b. Lot lines and lot sizes.

c. Adjacent lots.

d. Existing and proposed sewerage facilities.

e. Show tap -in or sewer extension to the pointof connection to existing collection system.

f. Existing and proposed water supplies andsurface water (wells, springs, ponds,streams, etc.)

g. Existing and proposed rights -of -way.

h. Existing and proposed streets, roadways, access roads,etc.

Any designated recreational or open space area

Wetlands - from National Wetland Inventory Mapping andUSGS Hydric Soils Mapping.

k. Flood plains or Floodprone area soils, floodways,watercourses, water bodies (from Federal FloodInsurance Mapping)

I. Prime Agricultural Land.

m. Any other facilities (pipelines, power lines, etc.)

n. Orientation to north.

3



3SUU-1-1111-VVbrKUJ*4M 1UIZUUb

I. PROPOSED WASTEWATER FACILITIES (continued)

3. WETLAND PROTECTION

a.

b.

YES NO

Are there wetlands in the project area? If yes, indicate these areas on the plot plan as shown inthe mapping or through on -site delineation.

Are there any construction activities (encroachments, or obstructions) proposed in, along, orthrough the wetlands? If yes, Identify any proposed encroachments on wetlands and identifywhether a General Permit or a full encroachment permit will be required. If a full permit isrequired, address time and cost impacts on the project. Note that wetland encroachmentsshould be avoided where feasible. Also note that a feasible alternative MUST BE SELECTED toan identified encroachment on an exceptional value wetland as defined in Chapter 105. Identifyany project impacts on HQ or EV streams and address impacts of the permitting requirements ofsaid encroachments on the project.

4. PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL LAND PROTECTION

a. Z Will your project involve the disturbance of any prime agricultural lands? If "yes" indicate anyalternatives to this disturbance that were considered and the reasons they were not deemedfeasible. Identify any primary or secondary impacts of the project on the Commonwealth's primeagricultural lands. Evaluate alternatives to avoid or mitigate undesirable impacts. The selectedsewage facilities plan must be consistent with local measures in place to protect primeagricultural lands.

5. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPACTS:

a. Z Will the project impact an area covered by a DEP approved County Stormwater ManagementPlan? If yes show that the proposed facilities are consistent with that plan.

6. PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL DIVERSITY INDEX (PNDI) CONSISTENCY:

Check one:

Z The "Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Project Environmental Review Receipt" resulting frommy search of the PNDI database and all supporting documentation from jurisdictional agencies (whennecessary) is/are attached.

A completed "Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) Project Planning & Environmental ReviewForm," (PNDI Form) available at www.naturalheritaoe.state.pa.us , and all required supportingdocumentation is attached, I request DEP staff to complete the required PNDI search for my project. I

realize that my planning module will be considered incomplete upon submission to the Department and thatthe DEP review will not begin, and that processing of my planning module will be delayed, until a "PNDIProject Environmental Review Receipt" and all supporting documentation from jurisdiction agencies (whennecessary) is/are received by DEP.

Applicant or Consultant Initials

7. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY:

E A narrative and mapping to show that the proposed project is consistent with any comprehensive plandeveloped under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (Act 247) is attached. Document that theproposed project is consistent with land use and all other requirements stated in the comprehensive plan.

8. COOPERATION WITH PA. HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION (PHMC):

A copy of DEP's "Cultural Resource Notice" and map which were sent to the Commission and a copy of theCommission's response are attached. Note that the Commission may require archeological surveys iffederal funds, including PENNVEST, will be used in the project. If PENNVEST funds are to be used, DEPcannot recommend the project to PENNVEST for consideration until any required surveys have been doneand the project has been "cleared" by the Commission.

9. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PENNVEST PROJECTS:

Z A copy of the additional information is attached. If PENNVEST funding is to be sought for the project,

- 4 -



3800-FM-WSFRO353m 10/2005

address these additional items in terms of any project impacts and measures to avoid or mitigate same.

Cost EffectivenessAir qualityFloodplainsWild and scenic riversCoastal zone managementSocio-economic impactsWater suppliesOther environmentally sensitive areas

J. ALTERNATIVE SEWAGE FACILITIES ANALYSIS (See Section J of instructions)

E An alternative sewage facilities analysis has been prepared as described in Section J of the instructions and isattached.

The applicant may choose to include additional information beyond that required by Section J of the instructions.

K. CHAPTER`94 CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION (See Section K of instructions)

E Projects that propose the use of existing municipal collection, conveyance or wastewater treatment facilities, orthe construction of collection and conveyance facilities to be served by existing municipal wastewater treatmentfacilities must be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 94 of DEP's rules and regulations (relating toMunicipal Wasteload Management). If more than one municipality or authority will be affected by the project,please obtain the information required in this section for each. Additional sheets may be attached for thispurpose.

1. Project Flows 12 900 gpd

2. Total Sewage Flows to Facilities

a. Enter average and peak sewage flows for each proposed or existing facility as designed or permitted.

b. Enter the present average and peak sewage flows for the critical sections of existing facilities.

c. Enter the average and peak sewage flows projected for 5 years through the critical sections of existingfacilities which includes existing, proposed, or future projects.

To complete the table, refer to Section K of instructions.

a. Design and/or PermittedCapacity (gpd) b. Present Flows (gpd)

c. Projected Flows in5 years (gpd)

Average Peak Average Peak Average PeakCollection* 123,750 495,000 10,146 40,584' 23,046 92,184'

Conveyance** 300,357 750,893 10,146 40,584' 23,046 92,184'

Treatment 600,000 810,000 376,000 497,0002 500,000 600,000

*Peak Collection Capacity calcula ed using an 8 -inch diameter ma'n at minimum slope. Existing 8 -inch diametermain is considered to be a private main and is owned and operated by the Southern York County School District.Present flows are measured by the Glen Rock Sewer Authority using water meter readings.

**Peak Conveyance Capacity calculated using a 10 -inch diameter main at minimum slope.

' Peak Flow calculated using a peaking factor of 4.

2 Maximum Monthly Average Flow

3. Collection and Conveyance Facilities

The questions below are to be answered by the sewer authority, municipality, or agency responsible forcompleting the Chapter 94 report for the collection and conveyance facilities. These questions should beanswered in coordination with the latest Chapter 94 annual report and the above table.

This project proposes sewer extensions or tap -ins. Will these actions create a hydraulic overload within fiveyears on any existing collection or conveyance facilities that are part of the system? Yes E Noa. If yes, this sewage facilities planning module will not be accepted for review by the municipality, delegated

local agency and/or DEP until all inconsistencies with Chapter 94 are resolved or unless there is an

- 5 -



3800-FM-WSFRO353m 10/2005

approved plan and schedule granting an allocation for this project. A letter granting allocations to thisproject under the plan and schedule must be attached to the module package.

b. If no, the sewer authority, municipality, or agency responsible for completing the Chapter 94 report for thecollection and conveyance facilities must sign below to indicate that the collection and conveyance facilitieshave adequate capacity and are able to provide service to the proposed development in accordance withChapter 94 requirements and that this proposal will not affect this status.

c. Collection System

Name of Agency, Authority, Municipality N/A

Name of Responsible Agent N/A

Agent Signature N/A

Date N/A

d. Conveyance System

Name of Agency, Authority, Municipality Glen Rock Sewer Authority

Name of Responsible Agent Dale E. Getz

Agent Signature

Date

K. CHAPTER 94 CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION (continued)

4. Treatment Facility

The questions below are to be answered by the facility permittee in coordination with the information in the tableand the latest Chapter 94 report.

This project proposes the use of an existing wastewater treatment plant for the disposal of sewage. Will thisaction create a hydraulic or organic overload within 5 years at that facility? Yes No

a. If yes, this planning module for sewage facilities will not be reviewed by the municipality, delegated localagency and/or DEP until this inconsistency with Chapter 94 is resolved or unless there is an approved planand schedule granting an allocation for this project. A letter granting allocations to this project under theplan and schedule must be attached to the planning module.

b. If no, the treatment facility permittee must sign below to indicate that this facility has adequate treatmentcapacity and is able to provide wastewater treatment services for the proposed development in accordancewith Chapter 94 requirements and that this proposal will not impact this status

c. Name of Agency, Authority, Municipality Glen Rock Sewer Authority

Name of Responsible Agent Dale E. Getz

Agent Signature

Date

L. INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION (See Section L of instructions)

An institutional evaluation is attached. Identify the entity which will design, obtain necessary permits, construct,own and operate the proposed facilities. If a low pressure vacuum or effluent sewer are proposed, discusspurchase, installation, operation and maintenance responsibilities for the individual pumping, valves, tanks, etc.

-6PDF compression, OCR, web optimization using a watermarked evaluation copy of CVISION PDFCompressor


M. PROJECT COST AND FUNDING ANALYSIS (See Section M of instructions) A detailed cost estimate and present worth analysis for the project is attached. Provide a financing plan for theproject, identifying the funding source(s) and identifying estimated tap fees and user rates. For projectsproposing the use of PENNVEST funds, see Section I. 9. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PENNVESTPROJECTS. Complete the following table:

Cost and Funding Information (Estimated)Assumes PENNVEST Funding

COST

Construction cost$963,000

Administrative, legal, engineering cost $209,000Total project cost

$1,172,000Annual 0/M cost

$12,384FUNDING

Tap -in fees ($ per EDU X no. EDUs) $0 $0

Proceeds from primary funding source $1,072,000 -Loan $747,000 -Loan $325,000 -Grant

Proceeds from other funding sources $100,000 (CDBG) $100,000 (CDBG)USER COSTS

Initial user base43 EDUs

Monthly debt service per EDU $140' $562

Monthly 0/M cost per EDU $243 $243

Total estimated monthly user cost per EDU $164 $801 Debt Service is based upon an interest rate of 2.991% for a term of 20 years and a 100% collection rate.2 Debt Service is based upon an interest rate of 1% for a term of 30 years and a 100% collection rate.3 Operation and Maintenance Cost is estimated from the Glen Rock Sewer Authority's quarterly rate of $41.75 for the first 5,300gallons and $7.82 per 1000 gallons thereafter. Assumes usage of 100 gal per day per ECU.

N PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE (See Section N of instructions)El A project implementation schedule showing milestone dates for submission of DEP permit applications, initiationand completion of construction and any other milestones significant to this particular project is attached to thiscomponent

O PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT (See Section 0 of instructions) Attached is a copy of the public notice. All comments received as a result of the notice are attached. Municipal response to these comments is attached. No comments were received. A copy of the public notice is attached.

7-



3800-FM-WSFR0353m 1012005

P. ADDITIONAL CHAPTER 71 PLANNING ELEMENTS (See Section P of instructions)

a. Additional planning elements are required by DEP.

Q. PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW (See Section '0 of instructions)

Local Planning Commission comments or Component 4a are attached.

County, Area, Or Region Planning Commission comments or Component 4b are attached.

County or Joint County Health Department comments (if appropriate) or Component 4c are attached.

R. RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION (See Section R of instructions)

An original signed, and sealed Resolution of Adoption is attached.

_g



PROJECT NARRATIVE

Shrewsbury Township proposes extending public sanitary sewer service to an existing area of theTownship lmown as the Village of Seitzland (Seitzland), Seitzland generally includes the area borderedby State Route 0616, Walker Road, State Route 3006 (Clearview Drive), and Railview Court inShrewsbury Township, York County, Pennsylvania.

The project area was identified as a needs area in Shrewsbury Township's 1992 Act 537 Official SewageFacilities Plan, however; no structural alternatives were prepared as part of the 1992 Plan. On October28, 1994, a Consent Adjudication was reached between Shrewsbury Township and the Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP) pursuant to providing structural alternatives for the Seitzland area. In

1998, Shrewsbury Township purchased 155 equivalent dwelling units (EDU) at 350 gpd/EDU of capacityat the Glen Rock Sewer Authority Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). In 2007, Shrewsbury Townshipinitiated a study to evaluate alternatives for extending public sanitary sewer service to the Seitzland area.As part of the alternatives evaluation, several methods of sewage collection and disposal were identifiedincluding an all gravity collection system with pump station(s), low pressure collection and conveyancesystem, community on -lot disposal systems (COLDS), and combination systems. A meeting with DEPwas requested following the alternatives evaluation to discuss project feasibility. At this meeting it wasdetermined that the Township would need to prepare a Component 3M Planning Module to identify theselected structural alternative and perform a Sewage Disposal Needs Assessment which is a requirementof projects considering PENNVEST Funding

The dwellings in Seitzland currently utilize on -lot disposal systems (OLDS) for the disposal ofwastewater. Due to small lot -sizes, poor soil conditions, and the age of most OLDS systems, Seitzlandhas been experiencing an increasing number of confirmed OLDS malfunctions (See Section G -SewageDisposal Needs Identification for full details regarding OLDS malfunctions).

The project area includes 36 properties consisting of 30 single family homes, five (5) multi -residentialbuildings, and one (1) commercial building. For purposes of this plan each single family home and thecommercial building was counted as one (1) EDU and each housing unit in the (5) multi -residentialbuildings were counted as an EDU for a total of 43 EDU. There is currently 60 EDU that remain from theoriginal 155 EDU purchased from the Glen Rock Sewer Authority in 1998. The Glen Rock SewerAuthority defines an EDU for new construction as 300 gallons per day (gpd). Therefore, averagewastewater flows from the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension are anticipated to be 12,900 gpd

The selected wastewater disposal method is an extension of the existing Glen Rock Sewer Authoritysanitary sewer system. As shown on the Plot Plan, Seitzland will be served by a combination lowpressure / gravity sanitary sewer collection system. The area east of the South Branch of Codorus Creek isproposed to be served by a low pressure sewer system. The area west of the South Branch of CodorusCreek, along State Route 0616 is proposed to be served by a gravity sanitary sewer extension. Both thelow pressure and the gravity sanitary sewer systems will connect to an existing private gravity sewer mainwhich currently serves the Southern York County School District Campus. The private gravity sewermain connects to the Glen Rock Sewer Authority's sanitary sewer system at manhole 167 which islocated in State Route 0616 near the legal boundary between Shrewsbury Township and the Borough ofGlen Rock. The Township is currently conducting negotiations with the Southern York County SchoolDistrict to make public the section of sanitary sewer main between the upstream proposed connection

PN- 1



point at manhole MH-6 and the connectionith the Glen Rock Sewer Authority's sanitary sewer systemat manhole 167.

It is intended that Shrewsbury Township own the new sanitary sewer facilities and an agreement with theGlen Rock Sewer Authority to operate and maintain the sanitary sewer lines.

Ownership, operation, and maintenance of the grinder pumps will be dependent on the funding used topurchase and install them. If PENNVEST funding is utilized, the Township intends to develop and enterinto an agreement with the Glen Rock Sewer Authority for the operation and maintenance of the grinderpumps, while still maintaining ownership of them. If other funding sources are utilized, each individualresident will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of their own grinder pump.

Some of the land around the project area includes Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importanceper the York County Soil Survey; however, none of this land is expected to be disturbed as part of thisproject. A wetland absence/presence determination was conducted by the Township's Engineer duringJanuary 2008. Although wetlands are present throughout the project area, none are expected to beimpacted by the construction. It is expected that a General Permit for utility line stream crossings, a

Water Quality Management Part II Permit, Erosion and Sedimentation Pollution Control Permit, andHighway Occupancy Permits will need to be obtained prior to construction. A railroad crossing permitmay also be required for crossing of the York County Heritage Rail Trail.

PN-2



SEWAGE DISPOSAL NEEDS IDENTIFICATION

The types of on lot disposal systems located throughout Seitzland vary, but can be classified as one of thefollowing:

In -Ground - Systems consisting of absorption areas, trenches and other disposal systems that relysolely on the surrounding soil for treatment.

Elevated Sand Mound - Systems utilizing a bed of sand, elevated above the existing surface, toenhance the treatment provided by the underlying soil.

Holding Tanks - Holding tanks and privies that require periodic pumping for removal of waste andresidual solids.

Types of systems observed during the sanitary survey include:

Standard in -ground systems (septic tank with below -grade seepage bed).

Elevated sand mounds (septic tank with above -grade seepage bed).

Privies.

Holding tanks.

Cesspools.

Current regulations renarding on -lot disposal systems began in 1966, and most systems that were createdbefore 1972 did not use best available technologies or methods that would be acceptable today.

Sanitary SurveyAs part of the planning work for the Minor Act 537 Update Revision, sanitary surveys of on -lot disposalsystems (OLDS) were conducted throughout the Seitzland area. The Act 537 Sewage Disposal NeedsIdentification Guidance (SDNIG) document published by the PA DEP was utilized as the basis for performingthe Sanitary Surveys. The Township Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO), Steve McKeon, P.E., SEO fromMcKeon Associates, conducted the sanitary surveys.

A. Public Health NeedsThe PA DEP has designated "public health needs" as a general needs category relating to sewage disposal thatmust be considered. The definitions and requirements stated in this section are taken from the PA DEP 'sSDNIG document. Public health needs are considered to be those health hazards and water pollution problemsthat involve discharging untreated or inadequately treated sewage to the surface of the ground or waters of theCommonwealth, including groundwater. Most commonly, these needs are found to be malfunctioning on -lotOLDS and malfunctioning community on -lot disposal systems (COLDS). On -lot disposal system malfunctionsare classified into three categories: confirmed, suspected, and potential. When determining the public healthneeds of an area using OLDS/COLDS, all systems inventoried, mapped, and analyzed must be placed into oneof four categories:

Confirmed Malfunctions are malfunctions documented by dye testing, laboratory test results,observation by a Sewage Enforcement Officer (SEO) or a professional with experience in OLDS,"Best Technical Guidance" repair permits, and seasonally wet absorption areas. Also included arepiped discharges from a single structure with direct evidence of sewage (i.e. direct observation of soap

SDNI-1



suds, food residue, solids, odors, etc.), reported system backups, malfunctions with photographicdocumentation, or other similar evidence.

2. Suspected Malfunctions are systems exhibiting some malfunction characteristics such as abnormallygreen grass in the vicinity of an absorption area, piped discharges from a dwelling without directevidence of sewage (i.e. no observation of soap suds, food residue, solids, odors, etc.), absorptionareas located in known unsuitable soils (observed wetlands, rock outcropping, etc.), cesspools in high -density development areas, and pit privies.

3. Potential Malfunctions are systems that appear to be operating satisfactorily but were constructed priorto system permitting requirements, systems located in areas extremely unlikely to receive permitting bycurrent standards, systems constructed in areas having soils mapped as unsuitable or with severelimitations for OLDS and systems located on exceptionally steep slopes greater than 25 percent.Included as potential malfunctions are permits issued for OLDS repairs that meet Chapter 73standards. While this needs category does not represent "stand alone" existing needs, the informationmay be utilized in a needs analysis to locate areas affected by poorly defined adverse circumstances.For example, clusters of legitimate repairs will often indicate areas requiring closer scrutiny.

4. No Malfunction are those systems that appear to be operating satisfactorily, were constructed since theimplementation of system permitting requirements, and appear to have been constructed in accordancewith the permitting requirements in effect at the time of construction. For the purpose of needsidentification, OLDS permitting under Act 537 became effective on May 15, 1972.

5. Holding Tanks are watertight receptacles designed to retain sewage for disposal at another location.All holding tanks installed as repairs are counted as "needs." Specifically excluded are holding tanksinstalled to serve new land development or low flow commercial facilities. While not actuallydischarging sewage into the environment, properly maintained holding tanks, when used in OLDSrepair situations, are included in the confirmed malfunction category.

B. Sanitary Sewage Survey

"Door-to-door surveys" were performed for a percentage of the properties based on guidelines set forth in theSDNIG document during May and June 2008. According to the SDNIG document, a recommended minimumnumber of properties with OLDS within each Sewage Management Area (SMA) should be surveyed in orderto conduct a "representative", or "valid" door-to-door sanitary sewage survey of the SMA. The minimumpercentage of the properties that should be surveyed varies with the total number of properties in the SMA inaccordance with the requirements published in the SDNIG (Table 1-1).

Table 1-1 Minimum OLDS Requirements fo Door -To -Door Sanitary Survey

OLDS in the SMAMinimum Pet centage of OLDS to

Stu yes

Up to 50 50%

51 to 100 35%

101 to 500 25%

501 to 1,000 20%

Greater than 1.000 15%

SDN1-2



A Tier 2 survey was conducted for the Seitzland Area. The Township SEO made general observations of theproperties and performed closer investigations of sites that demonstrated evidence of sewage malfunctionsincluding direct observation of sewage, soapsuds, food residues, solids, or odors. Other environmentalconditions including abnormally green grass, piped discharges and swampy or wet areas in the vicinity of theon -lot systems were also noted.

A total of 21 properties were surveyed. The number and percentage of the properties that were determined tohave confirmed, suspected, potential, and no malfunctions are summarized in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 Summary of Survey Malfunction Category

OLDS ConfirmedSurveyed' No

21 11

Percen52%

Malfunction (% oSuspected

No Percent7 33%

OLDS Surveyed)Potential

No Percei3 14%

NoneNo Percent,

0 0%

* Based on door-to-door sanitary sewage survey and soils limitations

Well Water SurveyDuring the door-to-door sanitary sewage survey, well water samples were collected from the surveyedproperties where permitted.

Well water samples were collected according to the guidelines for well water surveys published in the SDNIGdocument. Each well water sample was analyzed for total coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria and nitrate-

nitrogen concentration.

A number of homeowners participating in the sampling program indicated that they have installed some type ofwater treatment system on their well. Where possible, well water samples were collected from these propertiesprior to the treatment system; however, this was not possible for all of the samples.

A total of 19 water samples were collected. These samples were analyzed by Analytical Services, Inc. Theresults of the water sampling are displayed in Table 1-3. A letter containing the laboratory results for eachsample and general information on water quality was prepared and sent to the homeowners who participated inthe well water sampling.

Table 1-3 Well Water Survey Results - Bacteria and Nitrate Contamination

Wells Surveyed

Total CohforniPresent (% of

Surveyed)

Fecal Conform-Present (% ofTotal Conform)

Nth ate > 5mg/L,but <10 mg/L

(% of Surveyed)

Nitrate >10mg/L MCL (%

of Surveyed)No Percent -No Pei cent No Pet cent' No. Percent

19 13 68% 4* 31% 8 42% 3 16%

E -toll was detected in one water sample where fecal coliform was not

Environmental Protection Agency: Safe Drinking (Pater Act set the limit for nitrate (as nitrogen) to 10 mgper liter.

SDNI-3



Summary and ConclusionsTable 1-2 displays the results of the sanitary surveys. The results indicate that the majority of these systemsappear to be malfunctioning. The survey indicated a 52% confirmed malfunction rate based on fieldobservations.

Table 1-3 displays the results of the water samples collected. Water sampling revealed a positive totalcoliforms result of 68%. Fecal coliforms were present in 31% of samples that contained total coliforms.Nitrate / nitrogen concentrations greater than 5 mg/L but less than 10 mg/L was present in 42% of the watersamples with 16% of the samples containing a concentration greater than 10 mg/L.

SDNI-4



HIIGHerbert Rowland & Grave inc.Engineering & Related Services

LOCATION MAPGLENROCK QUADRANGLE

SCALE: 1"=2000'

(PROD. MDR. - 00 DENNING NO.

369 East Perk CctveSITE LOCATION MAP

1DESCH- ...rtE

Harrisburg, PA 17111fill) 564 4 121 FOR CAPD- REF

Fax (1171564 -11S8

hrgthrwtric-comwww.hrThIncoom SEITZLAND AREA SANITARY SEWER

CHECKED- SHEET NO.

Cr 1SCALE- 1"..2000.

SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIP YORK COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA FATE- JULY 2008 \PROJECT 2.50.012



ALTERNATIVE SEWAGE FACILITIES ANALYSIS

Shrewsbury Township proposes to discharge wastewater from the Seitzland area of ShrewsburyTownship to the existing Glen Rock Sewer Authority sanitary sewer system. Wastewater is proposed tobe collected by a combination gravity / low pressure sewer system and would involve the utilization andpossible rehabilitation (if needed) of a private 8 -inch diameter sanitary sewer main that currently servesthe Southern York County School District Campus located on Fissels Church Road. The private sanitarysewer main currently connects to the Glen Rock Sewer Authority's existing system at manhole 167 in

State Route 0616. Wastewater from Seitzland will be conveyed via the Glen Rock Sewer Authority's 10 -inch diameter sanitary sewer main to final treatment at the Glen Rock Sewer Authority Sewage TreatmentPlant (STP).

The project area includes 36 properties consisting of 30 single family homes, five (5) multi -residentialbuildings, and one (1) commercial building. For purposes of this plan each single family home and thecommercial building was counted as one (1) equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) and each housing unit in the(5) multi -residential buildings were counted as an EDU for a total of 43 EDU. The Glen Rock SewerAuthority defines an EDU for new construction as 300 gallons per day (gpd). Therefore, averagewastewater flows from the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension are anticipated to be 12,900 gpd.

Seitzland generally includes the area bordered by State Route 0616, Walker Road, State Route 3006(Clearview Drive), and Railview Court in Shrewsbury Township, York County, Pennsylvania. Accordingto the Township's 1992 Act 537 Plan, the Seitzland Area is zoned Suburban Residential and is identifiedan area requiring public wastewater service. Some of the land around the project area includes PrimeFarmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance per the York County Soil Survey; however, none of thisland is expected to be disturbed as part of this project. A wetland absence/presence determination wasconducted by the Township's Engineer in January 2008. Although wetlands are present throughout theproject area, none are expected to be impacted by the construction. It is expected that a General Permitfor stream crossings, a Water Quality Management Part II Permit, Erosion and Sedimentation PollutionControl Permit, and Highway Occupancy Permits will need to be obtained prior to construction. A

railroad crossing permit may also be required.

The current method of sewage disposal in the Seitzland area is through the utilization of on -lot disposalsystems (OLDS). Due to small lot -sizes, poor soil conditions, and the age of most OLDS systems,Seitzland has been experiencing an increasing number of confirmed OLDS malfunctions (See Section Gfor full details regarding OLDS malfunctions). A private gravity sanitary sewer main serving theSouthern York County School District divides the project area east to west. No public sewer service iscurrently available in this area.

As previously stated, the project area was identified as a needs area in Shrewsbury Township's 1992 Act537 Official Sewage Facilities Plan, however; no structural alternatives were prepared as part of the 1992Plan. On October 28, 1994, a Consent Adjudication was reached between Shrewsbury Township and theDepartment of Environmental Protection (DEP) pursuant to providing structural alternatives for publicsanitary sewer service for the Seitzland area. In 2007, Shrewsbury Township initiated an alternativesstudy to evaluate the feasibility of extending public sanitary sewer service to the Seitzland area. Becausethe generally rolling topography of the area limits the -feasibility of gravity sanitary sewer severalalternatives were evaluated. As part of the alternatives evaluation, several methods of sewage collection

AA -1



and disposal were identified including an all gravity collection system with two pump stations, acombination gravity / low pressure collection and conveyance system, low pressure collection andconveyance system, and community on -lot disposal systems (COLDS). Community on -lot disposalsystems (COLDS) were evaluated in -lieu of providing public sewer to Seitzland, but due to poor soil

conditions and the high costs associated with this alternative, COLDS were not considered feasible. Thecosts associated with deep gravity sewers, pump stations, and COLDS lead to the recommendation of

Alternative 11. Alternative 11 recommends the use of a combination gravity / low pressure sanitarysewer system to serve the project area. Alternative 11 also includes utilizing an existing private gravitysanitary sewer main to collect and convey wastewater generated from the project area to the Glen RockSewer Authority's sanitary sewer system. Because the private sanitary sewer main may have significantsources of inflow and infiltration, a closed circuit televisual inspection will be conducted to determine if

rehabilitation of the main is required.

This project will involve the installation of approximately 27 grinder pumps and 2,900 -feet of lowpressure sewer main as well as approximately 600 -feet of gravity sanitary sewer main The low pressuresewer extension will connect to the private gravity sanitary sewermain at manhole MH-6 located in State

Route 0616. The gravity sanitary sewer main will connect to the private gravity sewer main at manhole

MH-5. As previously stated, the private gravity sewer main downstream of manhole MH-6 is expected toneed rehabilitation and will be evaluated as part of this project. The Glen Rock Sewer Authority willprovide ultimate conveyance of project flows to the Glen Rock Sewer Authority STP via a 10 -inchgravity main located in State Route 0616. In 1998 Shrewsbury Township purchased 155 EDU (350gpd/EDU) of capacity at the Glen Rock Sewer Authority STP. To date 60 EDU remain and are intendedto be used for this project.

As requested by the DEP, alternatives were examined for extending public sanitary sewer service to four(4) properties located along Walker Road originally not included in the study area due to their large lotsizes and/or recent construction. The four (4) properties are labeled C through F on the Alternative 11Exhibit. The cost effectiveness of extending public sanitary sewer to each of the properties along WalkerRoad was evaluated (See attached Cost Estimates Alternative 10A, 10B, and 10C). Based on theestimated cost per EDU, it was determined that it was not cost effective to extend public sanitary sewerservice to properties C, D, and F. hi addition, property E was recently subdivided from property F andeach property has an approved OLDS back-up area, therefore; the Supervisors determined property Ewould not be required to connect to the proposed sanitary sewer system. The Township SEG evaluatedproperties C and D and determined that they have suitable OLDS replacement sites if needed.

According to the Glen Rock Sewer Authority, there are no overloaded public sewer sections in thesanitary sewer system that would receive the wastewater flows from the Seitzland Sanitary SewerExtension.

It is intended that Shrewsbury Township own the new sanitary sewer facilities and develop and enter intoan agreement with the Glen Rock Sewer Authority to operate and maintain the sanitary sewer lines.

Ownership, operation, and maintenance of the grinder pumps will be dependent on the funding used topurchase and install. them. If PENNVEST funding is utilized, the Township intends to develop and enterinto an. agreement with the Glen Rock Sewer Authority for the operation and maintenance of the grinder

AA -2



pumps, while still maintaining ownership of them. If other funding sources are utilized, each individualresident will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of their own grinder pump.

Cost estimates and exhibits for Alternatives 10A, 10B, 10C, and 11 are attached.

AA -3



CONNECT TOEXISTING MANHOLE

RAILROADCROSSING

EXISTING PRIVATE8 INCH SEWER MAIN

sfiIa 0676

rTYC-ca

a,

SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIP

i05 SUSQUEHANNA TRAIL SOUTH

GLEN ROCK, PA 17327

ALTERNATIVE 10A

FOR

SEITZLAND AREA SANITARY SEWER

I

PRO,

DESK

CADE

C11'

SCAI

DATE



t

1/44NECT TOSTING MANHOLE

I I,

STREAMCROSSING

_

RAILROADCROSSING

SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIP

SUSQUEHANNA TRAIL SOUTH

GLEN ROCK, PA 17327

ALTERNATIVE 10B

FOR


'PRO.). MC

DESIGN-

GADD-

CHECKED

SCALE-



'STREAM' CROSSING

551ii

RAILROADCROSSING

17,4 e?151

CONNECT TOEXISTING MANHOLE

'III EXISTING PRIVATE8 INCH SEWER MAIN

06

SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIP

505 SUSQUEHANNA TRAIL SOUTH

GLEN ROCK, PA 17327

ALTERNATIVE 10C

FOR


DES1

CADI

CHE1

SCA]



4

ONNECT TOXISTING MANHOLE

-STREAMCROSSING

a"u".

tt

tu_

(.3j,

RAILROAD g.

CROSSING

16

EXISTING PRIVATE8 INCH SEWER MAIN

STREAMCROSSING

(5411- 4

v.

44.

SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIP

D5 SUSQUEHANNA TRAIL SOUTH

GLEN ROCK, PA 17327

REVISED ALTERNATIVE 11

FOR


PROJ.

DESIO

CADD

I Ea

SCAL

DATE



HRGHerbert Rowland AS Grubic Inc.Engineering & Related Services

369 East Park DriveHarrisburg, PA 17111

(717) 564-1121FAX (717) 564-1158www.hrchinc.com

COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 10AFOR

SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIPSEITZLAND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT

Prepared By: Matthew D. Cichy, P.E.June 10, 2008

BASE (Clearview Drive,-Raihnew-Court, V trlikerRoad,:Baltimore Street, Cedar. Lane)ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST. I UNIT UNIT COST EXTENSION

MOBILIZATION1 LG. $ 48.200.00 $ 48.200.00

2 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 1 L.S.16,500.00 $ 16,500.00rosirgi' EF igimwimeng 6t1ISANITARMWER30JReA DAIIPART AROESidi ' de12)IViiiekkiiiieffinini:112,fl KB di

3 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER PIPES -10' 1,630 L.F. $ 122.00 $ 198,860.004 CLAY DIKE 13 EA. $ 150.00 1,950.005 CLEANOUTS 15 EA. $ 200.00 $ 3,000.006 6" PVC LATERAL PIPE 300 L.F. S 70.00 $ 21,000.007 8" x 6" WYE 15 EA. 85.00 $ 1.275.00

IdtitiaBtetkigkihitalkhiekiii7IDIDONDIVIDIGh2eZanibtfiditteibeDetUidiktiidtibitIF ANI407LESHGB:401 tagthilliiiiiiifliihND mJ:Ins.4,,qini.witeig,1/4,,e5 0,r,:;j:

6 4 FOOT DIAMETER MANHOLES 0.10' DEEP 14 EA. 4,500.00 $ 63,000.009 CONNECTION TO EXISTING MANHOLE i EA. 1,500.00 5 1,500.00

eetelltheletibbh DillegaatfMnDIIKfl''JZGIIIIDifit@iiieb%`DitcritIGSIIRRACING DAESTORATil0 Mrkg :it.fi,x ltT24ovgMg'Fax.cta AriT:vit'0VEGETATION

10 Lawns I 960 L.F. 5 6.00 $ 5.760.00MUNICIPAL PAVED

11 Paved Street 1,660 L.F. $ 35.00 $ 68,100.00PENNDOT PAVED

12 PAVED ROAD - S.R. 3006 1,180 L.F. 55.00 5 64,900,00Bettiedratezrhatidfaht@hilifleid

_ 1vi h eh 5h- M. IREA1P4RC/SSINGSVOIthedgEGWeigkkeif 45 weikkmakitadetoiiit: .72.blat)

13 LPS MAIN 40 L.F. $ 175.00 $ 7,000.00ervIGB6020IllettretikfragreketeNel@ttgaitatheidelikeeteZetitetiY.6 11316RAIIROADMIROSSING53601016163 366 3Tz e ,!;IP'''. 4.4°'f 2,.,

14 8" PVC PIPE 30 L.F. 5 375.00 5 11,250.0015 LPS MAIN 30 L.F. 175.00 $ 5,250.00

077Htaitiedtitektbitilii itdeieThdak eArr41. i!:i .. . ,i .:-..r,,,aa@LJQW .RESSLIREI5SWEISPZOHNO13313 6131363 3116611331 O 1 Fr, 6363INamovom16 LPS MAIN - STATE ROAD 1,000 L.F. $ 41.00 $ 41,000.0017 LPS MAIN - TOWNSHIP ROAD 670 L.F. 37.00 $ 24,790,0018 LPS MAIN - OUTSIDE TOWNSHIP ROAD 500 L.F. 5 32.00 $ 16,000,0019 GRINDER PUMP - SIMPLEX 13 L.F. $ 7,500.00 5 97,500.0020 ONLINE FLUSHING STATION 2 EA. 1,750.00 5 3,500.0021 END LINE FLUSHING STATION 2 EA. 1,750.00 $ 3,500.0022 LPS LATERAL 910 L.F. $ 25.00 $ 22,750.0023 AIRNACUUM RELEASE VALVES 2 EA. 5 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00

Assumption :

6" PVC Lateral Pipe 20 -feet per HomeLow Pressu e Sewer Lateral 70 -feet per Home8 -inch Sanitary Sewer Pipe Refelects Proposed DepthManholes Reflect Average DepthsMultiresidential Homes Have 1 Building SewerPennDOT Road Restoration Assumed Trench Restoration Only. No MIII and Overlay.Quanities Shown Above are Based on Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Alignment and Aerial Photography.

BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTSCONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15%

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25%TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS

SAYESTIMATED NUMBER OF EDUs TO BE SERVED

ESTIMATED COST PER EDU

$ 724,585.005 108,587.75

$ 181,146.25$ 1,014,419,00$ 1,014,000.00

35

$ 28,983.40

Page 1 of 2



ADDER #1 (PRIVATE SEWER REHAB - CIPP LINING)

Lr - ffi:T. - I f II -PRIVATE SEWER! EHABILITATION COST- CIPP LINING= -_

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST.

QUANTITYUNIT UNIT COST EXTENSION

24 CLEANING OF 8" SANITARY SEWER MAINS 2.160 L.F. 435 $ 2.916.0025 INTERNAL TELEVISING OF 8" SANITARY SEWER MAINS 2,160 L.F. 1.45 $ 3,132.0026 8" CIPP LINER 2,160 L.F. 35.00 $ 75,600.00

ADDER t/ 1 SUBTOTAL $ 81,648.00BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 724,585.00

TOTAL $ 806,233.00CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 120.934.95

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @25% $ 201.558,25TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 1,128,726.20

SAY $ 1,129,000.00ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EDUs TO BE SERVED 35

ESTIMATED COST PER EDU $ 32,257.14

;ADDER #24STAIt ROAD 0616)ITEM NO. I DESCRIPTION I EST. I UNIT UNIT COST EXTENSION

'1.,,TTPIITI Tak, ic.,

27 'MOBILIZATION1 L.S. 8,600.00 S 8.600.00

28 'TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION i L.S. 3,000.00 $ 3,000.002IT, ,,, -4 ,,o 1SANITAR.YSEWERPIPE:AND,APPURT,ENANDES ;i:I.: Ifi IIF I. ., I.''71941 - C !i a ---1

29 18" PVC SANITARY SEWER PIPE 6'-10' 520 L.F. 122.00 $ 63,440.0030 CLAY DIKE 2 EA 150.00 300.0031 CLEANOUTS 9 EA. 200.00 $ 1,800.0032 6" PVC LATERAL PIPE 180 L.F. 70.00 $ 12,600.0033 8" x 6" WYE 9 EA. 85.00 765.00

0*41,EN 3x tEX IV 4, 4 441 4 11 HOLIES, 11' ,1 MIEN A JP -1:', VM e trr34 4 FOOT DIAMETER MANHOLES 0-10' DEEP 2 EA 4.500.00 $ 9.0000035 CONNECTION TO EXISTING MANHOLE 1 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 1.500.00

1414,011114414411. 11 ,1114114414k411114.0041 414 .11141e7,,,WESUREACINGIANDRESTORATION 1q, , `,',!:.621,1il c -,,,

PENNDOT PAVED36 PAVED ROAD - S.R. 0616 520 L.F. $ 55.00 S 28,600.00

ADDER ft 2 SUBTOTAL $ 129,605.00BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 724,585.00

ADDER #1 SUBTOTAL $ 81,648.00TOTAL 5 935,838.00

CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 140,375.70ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @25% $ 233,959.50

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 1,310,173.20SAY $ 1,310,000.00

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EDUs TO BE SERVED 44

ESTIMATED COST PER EDU § 29,772.73

Page 2 of 2



Herbert, Rowland it. Grubic inc.Engineering & Related Services


(717) 6641121FAX (717) 564,1158nw.hro-inc.com

COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 10BFOR



- BASE(GlearwewDrwe,:Railview Lourt,IWalkeFRoad, Bellmore Street, Cedar:Lane)ITEM NO.1 DESCRIPTION EST. 1 UNIT UNIT COST

1 EXTENSION.-,..,E E$!$,:ur,4 .,- '!.:V., rR id ,,,,-$it,!] kl!$E,Ufilot,

MOBILIZATION 1 L.S.48,200.00 $ 48,200 002 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 1 LS. 16,500.00 $ 16,500.00

A, rldd il If d.idd ,7;', !:''SANITARY9SMIVERMIPEYANDARBURTENANCESdiddgdf90:dr t laattataalt$) $ "j3 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER PIPE E-10' 1.630 L.F. 122.00 $ 198,860.004 CLAY DIKE 13 EA. 150.00 1,950.005 CLEANOUTS 15 EA. 200.00 $ 3,000.006 6" PVC LATERAL PIPE 300 L.F. 70.00 $ 21E00.007 8" x 6" WYE 15 EA. 85.00 $ 1,275.00

raglegnEirletilherilItigittllie ,1teilietWge LS er 6 xi 4 it EINE ROE Xs ;',4 ,Ii'kl ']-5, i;,. , '-d3d gal ' a*,8 4 FOOT DIAMETER MANHOLES 0-10' DEEP 14 EA. 4,500.00 5 63.000E09 CONNECTION TO EXISTING MANHOLE 1 EA. 1,500.00 S 1,500.00

11,161111,NENtireinaIl-anibilt toscitebeingrni63661111EXI $SURRADINGlANDiRESTORAMONE$l)taaa cao al,:c aataaatatc,latia .t.ita.tiarareVEGETATION

10 Lawns 960 L.F. S 6.00 5 5,760.00MUNICIPAL PAVED

11 Paved Street 1,660 L.F. S 35.00 $ 58,100.00PENNDOT PAVED

12 PAVED ROAD -SR 3006 1,180 L.F. I$ 55.00 S 64,900.00it iti e_ Tli 1 t] -- -'-- ' II 2 ' I-SITREAMCROSSItilGSMCVni2M' ddISdf&ddddQddidd iddd 'dd, 'redt÷thtdd.%.dddfdddd. ,,,, rit

13 LPSenMAIN 40 L.F, $ 175.00 5 7,000.00i' .1X - , -1,-- - i 1 ' Iv -- _ Idd d -.' 1RAILatOADiCROSSINGStatella at tat it TT d'i'dA'dd'd.ddid.M.CtigOdFdddRit deddldf*ild .l I'

14 8" PVC PIPE 30 L.F. 375.00 $ 11,250.0015 LPS MAIN 30 L.F. 175.00 $ 5,250.00

_esti:MIZE lieneiteTtElleitinITIEKei IIr. 1, . '2I -2, 2 23':A20 RRESSUREE1NEI;b:&gatc*i:Stn - iii :I: atr. , e)

16 LPS MAIN - STATE ROAD 1000 L.F. $ 41.00 S 41,000.0017 LPS MAIN - TOWNSHIP ROAD 670 L.F. 5 37.00 $ 24,790,0018 LPS MAIN - OUTSIDE TOWNSHIP ROAD 500 L.F. 32.00 5 16,000.0019 GRINDER PUMP - SIMPLEX 13 L.F. 7,500.00 5 97,500.0020 ONLINE FLUSHING STATION 2 EA. 1,750.00 5 3.500,0021 END LINE FLUSHING STATION 2 EA. 1,750.00 5 3,500.0022 LPS LATERAL 910 L.F. 25,00 S 22.750.0023 AIRNACUUM RELEASE VALVES 2 EA. $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00

Assumption :

6" PVC Lateral Pipe 20 -feet per HomeLow Pressu e Sewer Lateral 70 -feet per HomeB -inch Sanit ry Sewer Pipe Refelects Proposed DepthManholes Reflect Average DepthsMultiresiden ial Homes Have 1 Building SewerPennDOT Road Restoration Assumed Trench Restoration Only. No Mill and Overlay.Guanines Shown Above are Based on Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Alignment and

BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 724,585.00CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 108,687,75

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, 8 LEGAL FEES @ 25% $ 181,146.25TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS 5 1,014,419.00



Aerial Photography.

Page 1 of 2




-_- - --4f- if PRIVATE SEWER REHABILITATION-

COST -Zip? LINING - , -' - ir



24 CLEANING OF 8" SANITARY SEWER MAINS 2160 L.F. 1.35 $ 2,916,0025 INTERNAL TELEVISING OF 8" SANITARY SEWER MAINS 2160 L.F. 1.45 5 3,132.0026 8.' CIPP LINER 2160 L.F. $ 35.00 $ 75.60000

ADDER # 1 SUBTOTAL $ 81,648.00

BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 724,585.00TOTAL $ 806,233.00

CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 120,934.95

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25% $ 201,558.25TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 1,128,726.20

SAY $ 1,129.000.00ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EDUs TO BE SERVED 35

ESTIMATED COST PER EDU $ 32.257.14

ADDER #2 (STATE ROAD 0616)ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST. UNIT UNIT COST I EXTENSION

:14 LIGENERAL.27 MOBILIZATION L.S.I 8.600.00 $ 8,600.0028 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION I L.S. $ 3.000,00 $ 3,000.00

gfergrg$9,14,14 ac,,,dSANITARKSEWER EtAND AP PLIRTSNANCES29 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER PIPE 8'-10' 520 L.F. 122,00 $ 63,440.00

30 CLAY DIKE 2 EA. 150.00 300.00

31 CLEANOUTS 9 EA. 200.00 $ 1,800.00

32 6" PVC LATERAL PIPE 180 S 70.00 $ 12,600.00

33 8" x 6" WYE 9 EA. S 85.00 765.00

1,41114T44"1"41 ff,f444.( 'EU Fgki

34 4 FOOT DIAMETER MANHOLES 0-10' DEEP 2 EA. 4,500.00 9,000.00

35 CONNECTION TO EXISTING MANHOLE EA. 1,500.00 1,500.00VAS :arras SI3REACINGAND 'RESTS) AMON 41'

PENNDOT PAVED36 PAVED ROAD - S.R. 0616 520 L.F. 55.00 $ 28,600.00

ADDER # 2 SUBTOTAL $ 129,605.00BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 724.585,00

ADDER #1 SUBTOTAL $ 81,648.00TOTAL S 935,838.00

CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 140,375.70ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25% $ 233,959.50

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 1,310,173.20SAY $ 1,310,000.00



_ADDER #3 (WALKER ROAD #'S 38 & 39)

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST.QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT COST

441$411,Sr.$14,41,44fr, ,4141GENERALSoNfroxxx,11$441419

37 MOBILIZATION L.S. S 3.400.00 I

38 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION L.S. 1,200.00 I

4.1$ 41fB1O1191,1,111.111,44111, URFACINGANDIRESTORATIONf$4$4.44 Brig

MUNICIPAL PAVED39 Paved Street 360 L.F. 35.00

f1,....._18,14.4$14,1(111$4141Eff ffrifi$42),(14,,,11'4 IT-FELDWFPRESSURESEWER-Y54-1V,X;4,'40 ILPS MAIN - TOWNSHIP ROAD 360 L.F. 37.0041 GRINDER PUMP - SIMPLEX 2 L.F. 7,500.0042 ONLINE FLUSHING STATION EA. 1,750.00

43 LPS LATERAL 140 L.F. 25.00

Page 2 of 2

EXTENSION

$ 3,400 00$ 1,200.00

$ 12,600.001,1,B

$ 13,320.00$ 15,000.00

1,750.00$ 3.500,00

ADDER # 3 SUBTOTAL $ 50,770,00BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 724,585.00

ADDER #1 SUBTOTAL $ 81,648.00ADDER #2 SUBTOTAL $ 129,605,00

TOTAL $ 986,608.00CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 147,991.20

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25% $ 246,652.00TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 1,381.251.20





Engineering & Related Services


(717) 564-1121FAX (717) 564-1158www.hrodnc.com

COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 10CFOR



BASE (Llearvtew Drore,!RatIyiew Court, Walker Road Balhmore Street, Cedar. Lane)ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION I EST. I UNIT 1 UNIT COST l EXTENSION

:11 V.,1 /112:11GENERALM14MOF stiLLI 'X ThniTtAitincil ttt.tidthithilliiiiii; tv. .1.

MOBILIZATION L.S. 45.100.00 5 45,100.002 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 1 L.S.15,400.00 $ 15,400.00

nkttlIth@InittC. ti57 SZ;9ik .irg,?,-.7z2,Z i a .SA14ITA'RCSEWERPIPEAND,:A'ERLLRTENANCESWCt siril:, i t ='.:

3 8" PVC SANITARY SEWER PIPE 8'-10' 1,630 L.F. 122.00 $ 198560504 CLAY DIKE 13 EA. 150.00 $ 1,950.005 CLEANOUTS 15 EA. 200.00 $ 3,000.006 6" PVC LATERAL PIPE 300 L.F. S 70.00 $ 21,000.007 8" x 6" WYE 15 EA. 85.00 $ 1275.00

_ 1.2. nil ShlikiljnOttLII:17 Ilitkf el1ft ti VI -sot X ANHOIZE581t 'ts , rtto tt: tit it A: ,rzz Z.,tzzitz-ZSZ2E8 4 FOOT DIAMETER MANHOLES 0-10' DEEP 14 EA $ 4.500.00 $ 63.000.009 CONNECTION TO EXISTING MANHOLE 1 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00

T1 A122&222#102122202F,MM2V11222F E Thi!1;:;M::ZSzEE1SUREARINEVIREESIORATIONS?1:*-crOliAz il, SiSSVSSIESt-td iS[z& zwzdavdVEGETATION

10 Lawns 460 L.F. 6.00 $ 2,760.00MUNICIPAL PAVED

11 Paved Street 1,660 L.F. 35.00 $ 58,100.00PENNDOT PAVED

12 PAVED ROAD - S.R. 3006 1 180 L F $ 55 00 $ 64 900 00FT tv5_ is -_,

V I, = --=STREAMZROSEINGS,`., z1 ' i i' r 213 jLPS MAIN 20 L F $ 175 00 $ 3 500 00

th L tit er--.F '- ', L, " zaAltiROADICROSSINGS 4- 0-14 8' PVC PIPE 30 L.F.375.00 $ 11,250.0015 LPS MAIN 30 L.F. S 175.00 S 5,250.00

TtLIR - NO,: ,: hist el 1th Illint LLOW.5PRE5SUREMEWERtnt !E;z1/4t.itd11 :z,,,z,rct:r1/4m 22:E, =2: R2 ari2 g2 2W112:212.2e:

16 LPS MAIN - STATE ROAD 1000 L.F. 41.00 $ 41,000.0017 LPS MAIN - TOWNSHIP ROAD 670 L.F.37.00 $ 24.790.001B LPS MAIN - OUTSIDE TOWNSHIP ROAD 0 L.F. S 32.0019 GRINDER PUMP - SIMPLEX 11 L.F. 7,500.00 5 82.500.0020 ONLINE FLUSHING STATION 2 EA. 1,750.00 $ 3,500.0021 END LINE FLUSHING STATION 1 EA. $ 1,750.00 $ 1.750.0022 LPS LATERAL 770 L.F. S 25.00 $ 19,250,0023 AIRNACUUM RELEASE VALVES 2 EA. 4.000.00 $ 8,000.00

Assumptions:6" PVC Lateral Pipe 20 -feet per HomeLow Pressure Sewer Lateral 70 -feet per Home8 -inch Sanitary Sewer Pipe Refelects Proposed DepthManholes Reflect Average DepthsMultiresidential Homes Have 1 Building SewerPennDOT Road Restoration Assumed Trench Restoration Only. No Mill and Overlay.Guanines Shown Above are Based on Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Alignment and Aerial Photography.

Page 1 of 3

BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25% $TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $

SAY $ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EDUs TO BE SERVED

ESTIMATED COST PER EDU $

677,635.00101,645.25169,408.75948,689.00949,000.00

33

28,748.15




t '-;PRIVATE SEINERAEHABILITATION1posT - CIFJP_LINING - -_ t -ra a aa , i _


QUANTITY

UNIT UNIT COST EXTENSION

24 CLEANING OF 8' SANITARY SEWER MAINS 2160 L.F. S 1.35 $ 2,916.00

25 INTERNAL TELEVISING OF 8" SANITARY SEWER MAINS 2160 L.F. 1.45 $ 3,132.00

26 8" CIPP LINER 2160 L.F. 35.00 $ 75,600.00


BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 677,635.00TOTAL $ 759,283.00

CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 113,892.45ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25% 5 189.820,75

TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 1.062.996.20SAY $ 1,063.000.00


ESTIMATED COST PER EDU $ 32,212,12

.ADDER #2 (STA I # ROAD 0616) . '7,-- ' -

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION I EST. 1 UNIT UNIT COST I EXTENSION

'':':!!17V°C1'111I1a:WriiIII'1a1I1,iIaal'1i1h;"1"111a'11. a ail- I''''''''''. GENERAL L-aA5§1!::0;?..M.R.Rc.c5760-i-. ti.14:R%.+,-.

27 MOBILIZATION 1 L.S. 8.600.00 8,600.00

28 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 1 I L.S. 3,000.00_ $ 3,000.00

4 FAL 1Y ,r,_.--aL'TOAV4E AMTARYSEWERPIREANDABFORTENAKEISOft4-4- .°:: rr'1J ?, ;!.) '''' 1. Irl

29 8 PVC SANITARY SEWER PIPE 6'-10' 520 LF 122.00 5 63440.00

30 CLAY DIKE 2 EA. $ 150.00 $ 300.00

31 CLEANOUTS 9 EA. 200.00 1,80000

32 6" PVC LATERAL PIPE 180 L.F. 70.00 $ 12,600.00

33 8" x 6" WYE 9 EA. 85.00 765.00

ITiM.YgiMr,10$.':-VW5rNy 0 -' -'itgjak.,' 13 ANHOILES1h4ji, 44Mtn,E4,1ptil 14 - 11;.:Eg40.1g1140.45141W19141!P1h 411 14

34 4 FOOT DIAMETER MANHOLES 0-10' DEEP 2 EA. 4,500,00 $ 9,000.00

35 CONNECTION TO EXISTING MANHOLE 1 EA. 1,500,00 1,500,00

'f-Atii'laggra M-.13aW6WargicNtli*s n 1ii5,:r'iSUREACIN IANZIRESTIORAIIONI;gt -)T.$lIOW, 4;41 44 51:4 .'axIT, QAIWItZ;!,ti

I PENNDOT PAVED36 - PAVED ROAD - SR 0616 520 L.F. $ 55.00 $ 28,600.00


BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 677,635.00ADDER #1 SUBTOTAL $ 81,648.00

TOTAL 888,888.00CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 133,333.20

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25% $ 222,222.00TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 1.244,443.20



t:ADDER-.#3 MALKERROAEK#'8738'±& 39)ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST.


'31114111,"1" :a.a 11. ria I' 1. 4rtraraartrarrata4GENERA25a1# a aar a "r a wart#144,5454140324,1154a/hWal'V Ej: 474

37 MOBILIZATION 1 L.S. 3,400.00 $ 3,400.00

38 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 1 L.S. 1,200.00 1,200.00

Late-, fr.jV4.0":1541gill: M't1SURFAtiNGANDAESTORAMCKRAgSt,gtA.M:qa kClissiM:,ii,1,,,cqi ',.,, ,70A_

39 MUNICIPAL PAVED40 Paved Street 360 L.F. 35.00 $ 12,600.00

Negi1XamoielL,0 egiN1011eleu 23aPe1PAE WA URESEWERLYPLAWALLe AR, ke7PA31137Pe,351EFERLIAILARReLPIRL'fq M.

4i LPS MAIN - TOWNSHIP ROAD 360 L,F. $ 37.00 $ 13,320.00

42 GRINDER PUMP - SIMPLEX 2 L.F.$ 7.500,00 $ 15,000.00

43 ONLINE FLUSHING STATION 1 EA 1,750,00 S 1,750.00

44 LPS LATERAL I 140 L.F, 25.00 15 3,500.00


BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 677,635.00

ADDER #1 SUBTOTAL $ 81,648.00ADDER #2 SUBTOTAL $ 129,605.00

TOTAL $ 939,658.00CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 140,948.70

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25% $ 234,914,50TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 1.315,521.20



Page 2 of 3



ADDER #4 -(WALKER ROAD 4 40, 15.& #16) ..- ., -



Ife '7:Z ,'L,, -,,' . "'''4GENERAIS --- -45 MOBILIZATION 1 L.S.5,20000 $ 5,200.0046 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 1 L.S.1,800.00 $ 1,800.00

P*PcII tefeefff.enfelPiefe3e 'e $F-feerfo URFACINGAND'ii ATJOWPL5P8d Pz 7 -- ,8-Pda -6- 07 0

VEGETATION47 Lawns 350 L.F. 6.00 $ 2,100.00

MUNICIPAL PAVED48 Paved Street 380 L.F. I $ 35.00 5 13,300.00

'!..t,ZtnEcTi.V.I.fj]rid. '± ..-2 i: ire, IALDINORRESSUREiSEWERAr:g Par 4 _

49 LPS MAIN - TOWNSHIP ROAD 730 L.F. 37.00 $ 27,010.0050 GRINDER PUMP . SIMPLEX 3 L.F. 7,500.00 $ 22,500.0051 END LINE FLUSHING STATION 1 EA. 1,750.00 $ 1,750.0052 LPS LATERAL 210 L.F. 25.00 $ 5,250.00

ADDER #4 SUBTOTAL $ 78,910.00BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 677,635.00

ADDER #1 SUBTOTAL $ 81,648.00ADDER #2 SUBTOTAL $ 129,605.00ADDER #3 SUBTOTAL $ 50,770.00

TOTAL $ 1,018,568.00CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 152,785.20

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25% S 254,642.00TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 1,425,995.20

SAY $ 1,426.000.00ESTIMATED NUMBER OF EDUs TO BE SERVED 47


Page 3 of 3



HHerbert,Rowland & Grubtc Inc.Engineering & Related Services


(717) 564-1121FAX (717) 564-1158www.hrq-inc.com

REVISED COST ESTIMATE FOR ALTERNATIVE 11SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIP

SEITZLAND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROJECTPrepared By: Matthew D. Cichy, P.E.

June 19, 2008

!BASE:(Cleannew.Drive,Railview Court.VValker Road SaltimoreStreetzCedartane)ITEM NO. I DESCRIPTION t EST. UNIT UNIT COST EXTENSION

to,o. ,z, an,,,as, E,:, n41Uft9f1tENERAD9,619. 114 ', I. " '' 16::q4 ,Z7WI!'.4:1:V[f p.!.:,[;:7;41t1; 7.j.,::

MOBILIZATION 1 L.S 41,60400 $ 41,600.002 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 1 L.S.14,300.00 $ 14300.00r ,

' -rtr , -- . l -I r 1r riMANHOLIESIS,71730el 1 riiinLi . in:3;1 .:2 4S, i '') 7 il' 7,3 !CONNECTION TO EXISTING MANHOLE EA $ 1,500.00 $ 1300.00

H '' 'T. r I I, r -1- il .ISURFACINGANDRESTORATION.66MM;gPM4Miaf; '111r :: irf47:,,g;!iit!:,::::in,',1:'VEGETATION

4 Lawns 960 L.F. 6.0D 5,760.00MUNICIPAL PAVED

5 Paved Street 1.660 L.F.35.00 $ 58,100.00PENNDOT PAVED

6 PAVED ROAD -S.R.3006 1,180 L.F.55.00 $ 64,900.00'0 ma n? - ,,, (6 gi., . ft±if. i, TR IDROSSINGEddfirdef66.616ifilIallts iF4 N1 ,t; -1, i- -' ''' -.7' "7 LPS MAIN 20 L.F. $ 175.00 S 3,500.00

_ I r _t ISS 11;11111 laRGAD BSI -r- I1 Ir et 1' m r 1 _ _i i r - Dr1r f .,rtl-r Lr8 LPS MAIN 60 LF $ 175 00 $ 10 500 00lwhiiia,iiala,,,,-0: 0 . i° n,l,:iii,- Icm iliE0 ES RESEM/ER Ir.. haD , - --I .lit nn i',d. i 1 1 ^ r -r,9 LPS MAIN - STATE ROAD 1.180 L.F. $ 41.00 $ 48,380.0010 LPS MAIN - TOWNSHIP ROAD 1,660 L.F. 37.00 61.4213.0011 LPS MAIN - OUTSIDE TOWNSHIP ROAD 960 L.F. 32.00 $ 30,720.0012 GRINDER PUMP -SIMPLEX 27 L.F. 7,500.00 5 202.500.0013 ONLINE FLUSHING STATION 4 EA. 1.750.00 $ 7,0009014 END LINE FLUSHING STATION 5 EA. 1.750,00 S 8,750.0015 LPS LATERAL 1,890 L.F.25.00 S 47,250.0016 AIRNACUUM RELEASE VALVES 5 EA. 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00

Assumption :6" PVC Lateral Pipe 20 -feet per HomeLow Pressu e Sewer Lateral 70 -feet per Home8 -inch Sanitary Sewer Pipe Refeiects Proposed DepthManholes Reflect Average DepthsMuttiresidentie Homes Have 1 Building SewerPennDOT Road Restoration Assumed Trench Restoration Only, No Mill and Overlay.Quanities Shown Above are Based on Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Alignment and Aerial Photography.

Page 1 of 2

BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTSCONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15%

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25%TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS

SAYEST NUMBER OF CONNETIONS TO BE SERVED

ESTIMATED COST PER CONNECTION

$ 626,180.00$ 93,927.00$ 156,545.00$ 876,652.00$ 877,000,00

27

$ 32,486.59



ADDER #1 (PRIVATE SEWER REHAB - CIPP LINING), t$

, - --- L 4PRiVATESEWEREHABICIltioN COST.= 011!P L1NNG -,- TI

= -ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST.


17 CLEANING OF 8" SANITARY SEWER MAINS 2160 L.F. i $ 1.35 $ 2.916.0018 INTERNAL TELEVISING OF 8" SANITARY SEWER MAINS 2160 L.F. 1 $ 1.45 $ 3,132.0019 8" CIPP LINER 2160 L.F, 1 $ 35.00 $ 75,600.00

ADDER # 1 SUBTOTAL $ 81,648.00BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 626,180.00

TOTAL $ 707,828.00CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% 106,174.20

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25% $ 176,957.00TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 990,959.20

SAY $ 991,000.00EST NUMBER OF CONNETIONS TO BE SERVED 27

ESTIMATED COST PER CONNECTION $ 36,703.70

- -LADDER #21S1A FE ROAD 0616)ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION EST UNIT 1 UNIT COST 1 EXTENSION

itY$11111917- .+;1 Ye 55 1 6 11 $ '1.11$gto t7., tGENERAL- 91 r pt20 MOBILIZATION

1 L.S.1 $ 8,600.00 $ 8.600.0021 TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION i L S $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00

9,1$4,4449P G G 491B144941FoatRWMANARAWZOIRATty;savgEttRipstathipARRIATENANOEsga-VMMIN: ij:!or4g-,Ti,:55' a , - qt2N122 I8" PVC SANITARY SEWER PIPE F-10' 520 L.F. 122.00 $ 63,440.0023 CLAY DIKE 2 EA 150.00 300.0024 CLEANOUTS 9 EA. $ 200.00 $ 1,800.0025 6" PVC LATERAL PIPE 180 L.F. 70.00 $ 12,600.0026 8" x 6" WYE 9 EA $ 85.00 765.00

4O392:9,FVWX1M9432$1$924$93f9X3$94F$1,690019999aff994149403,39249X33$ NtiODES.. L.-k,n :.-P-'49tiga.Miligtettatlagt !iLAFFelPr;i'N27 4 FOOT DIAMETER MANHOLES 0-10' DEEP 2 EA 4,500.00 $ 9.000.0028 CONNECTION TO EXISTING MANHOLE 1 EA 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00

54.14-$3132431$31:f.49%ZiFB-f2f4911$,M,B4,999320. a 115#1113111SUREAGINGIANDARESTORATION85511918.518.1V19#115$1C0151689777$789618/81811181 7' 7 1' -1to 11111PENNDOT PAVED

29 PAVED ROAD- S.R.6816 520 L.F.55.00 $ 28,600.00ADDER # 2 SUBTOTAL $ 129,605.00

BASE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 626,180,00ADDER #1 SUBTOTAL $ 81,648.00

TOTAL 5 837,433.00CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY @ 15% $ 125,614,95

ENGINEERING, ADMIN, & LEGAL FEES @ 25% $ 209,358.25TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 1,172,406.20

SAY $ 1,172,000.00EST NUMBER OF CONNETIONS TO BE SERVED 36

ESTIMATED COST PER CONNECTION $ 32.555,56

Page 2 of 2



INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION

It is not anticipated that there will be a need for new Authorities to implement the selected alternative. Itis the intent of the Board of Supervisors (BOS) to implement and finance the selected alternative withoutforming an Authority. The BOS will pursue an intermunicipal agreement with the Glen Rock SewerAuthority to address rate structure and operation and maintenance.

Shrewsbury Township will be required to obtain any necessary rights -of -way, easements, or properties toimplement the selected alternative. Any land requirements, in the form of rights -of -way, easements, oradditional properties will be acquired through negotiation procedures between the Township and theproperty owner. In circumstances where a suitable compensation cannot be negotiated, condemnationprocedures may be utilized to acquire properties for use in the construction of public facilities. Thenecessity for acquisition of property would be further evaluated during the design phase of the selectedalternative.

It is intended that Shrewsbury Township own the new sanitary sewer facilities and an agreement with theGlen Rock Sewer Authority to operate and maintain the sanitary sewer lines.

Ownership, operation, and maintenance of the grinder pumps will be dependent on the funding used topurchase and install them. If PENNVEST funding is utilized, the Township intends to develop and enterinto an agreement with the Glen Rock Sewer Authority for the operation and maintenance of the grinderpumps, while still maintaining ownership of them. If other funding sources are utilized, each individualresident will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of their own grinder pump.

IE-1



PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE



PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

TASK ESTIMATED DATEMay 2009DEP Approval of Minor Act 537 Plan Update

RevisionBegin Preliminary Design May 2009Submit Necessary Permits July 2009Obtain Necessary Permits January 2010

Submit Funding Application to PENNVEST January 2010Complete Final Design January 2010

Receive Notice of Award of Funding April 2010Advertise for Bids May 2010

Award Project/Begin Construction May 2010Finish Project Construction May 2011

Connect to Public Sewer June 2011

PS -1



MUNICIPAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW

Review form to be inserted upon completion.



COUNTY PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW

Review form to be inserted upon completion.



a II

Engineering & Related Services

369 East Park DriveHarrisburg, PA 17111(717) 564-1121www.hrg-inc.com

JULY 2008

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTSEITZLAND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION

SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIP, YORK COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA

FIRG Project No. 002456.0012

©Herbert, Rowland & Crania, Inc., 2008



SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIPYork County, Pennsylvania

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTFOR

SEITZLAND SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND NEED

1.1 Purpose of Project

Act 537, enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature in 1966, requires that every municipality in the statedevelop and maintain an up-to-date Sewage Facilities Plan. Shrewsbury Township adopted its currentAct 537 Sewage Facilities Plan in 1992. The 1992 Act 537 Plan identified immediate sewerage needsareas in the Township as those areas where, because of development density, soils/geologic limitations, oridentified septic tank malfunctions and/or well contamination, on -lot systems are no longer considered anappropriate means of providing for wastewater treatment and disposal. The majority of the immediateneeds areas of the Township identified in the 1992 Act 537 Plan have been connected to public sewer.

The Seitzland area was identified as a needs area in Shrewsbury Township's 1992 Act 537 OfficialSewage Facilities Plan, however; no structural alternatives were prepared as part of the 1992 Plan. OnOctober 28, 1994, a Consent Adjudication was reached between Shrewsbury Township and theDepartment of Environmental Protection (DEP) pursuant to providing structural alternatives for theSeitzland area. The purpose of this Minor Act 537 Plan Update Revision is to present the selectedstructural alternative for extending public sanitary sewer service to the Seitzland area.

1.2 Need for Project

Seitzland currently utilizes on -lot disposal systems (OLDS) for treatment and disposal of domesticwastewater. The type of OLDS utilized in Seitzland varies but is classified as one of the following:

In -Ground - Systems consisting of absorption areas, trenches and other disposal systems thatrely solely on the surrounding soil for treatment.

Elevated Sand Mound - Systems utilizing a bed of sand, elevated above the existing surface, toenhance the treatment provided by the underlying soil.

Holding Tanks - Holding tanks and privies that require periodic pumping for removal of wasteand residual solids.

1.2.1 Sanitary SurveyTypes of systems observed during the sanitary survey performed as part of this Minor Act 537 PlanUpdate Revision include:

Standard in -ground systems (septic tank with below -grade seepage bed)

Elevated sand mounds (septic tank with above -grade seepage bed)

Holding tanks

Cesspools

Greywater discharge directed to ditches, streams, and surfaces



Shrewsbury TownshipYork County

Environmental Report

Current regulations regarding on -lot disposal systems began in 1966, and most systems that were createdbefore 1972 did not use best available technologies or methods that would be acceptable today.

In accordance with the methods for identifying and documenting sewage disposal needs presented in theAct 537 Sewage Disposal Needs Identification Guidance, published by the Pemisylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection (PA DEP) in March 1996, a sewage disposal needs assessment was completedfor the Seitzland Area as part of this Minor Act 537 Plan Update Revision.

Public health needs, in teens of system malfunctions, were identified based upon the followingcategories, as defined by the SDNIG:

Confirmed Malfunctions: Those malfunctions documented by dye testing, laboratory test results, andobservation by a licensed SEG or professional with experience in on -lot disposal systems, "BestTechnical Guidance" repair permits, and seasonally wet absorption areas. Also included are pipeddischarges from a single structure with direct evidence of sewage, reported system back-ups,malfunctions with photo documentation or similar evidence.

Suspected Malfunctions: Systems exhibiting some malfunction characteristics, such as abnormally greengrass in the vicinity of the absorption area, piped discharges from a structure without direct evidence ofsewage, absorption areas located within lmown unsuitable soils (observed wetland or rock outcroppings),cesspools, and pit privies.

Potential Malfunctions: Systems which appear to be operating satisfactorily but were constructed prior tosystem permitting requirements, systems located in areas unlikely to receive pennitting under presentstandards, systems in areas having soils mapped as unsuitable or with severe limitations for on -lotsystems, and systems located on exceptionally steep slopes greater than 25%.

1.2.2 Sanitary Survey Results"Door-to-door surveys" were performed for a percentage of the properties based on guidelines set forth inthe SDNIG document during May and June 2008. According to the SDNIG document, a recommendedminimum number of properties with OLDS within each Sewage Management Area (SMA) should besurveyed in order to conduct a "representative", or "valid" door-to-door sanitary sewage survey of theSMA. The minimum percentage of the properties that should be surveyed varies with the total number ofproperties in the SMA in accordance with the requirements published in the SDNIG (Table 1-1).

Table 1-1 Minimum OLDS Requirements for Door -To -Door Sanitary Survey

OLDS in the SMAMinimum Pei centage of OLDS

to Survey

Up to 50 50%

51 to 100 35%

101 to 500 25%

501 to 1,000 20%

Greater than 1,000 15%

The Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project is proposed to provide public sanitary sewer service to 36properties which currently utilize deteriorating OLDS for wastewater treatment. A total. of 21 properties





were surveyed. The number and percentage of the properties that were determined to have confirmed,suspected, potential, and no malfunctions are summarized in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 Summary of Survey Malfunction Category*

OLDSSun eyed

Malfunction (% of OLDS Surveyed)Confirmed Sus ected Potential None

No Percent No Pm cent1) No Percent No Percent21 11 52% 7 33% 3 14% 0 0%

* Based on door-to-door sanitary sewage survey and soils limitations

1.2.3 Well Water SurveyDuring the door-to-door sanitary sewage survey, well water samples were collected from the surveyedproperties where permitted.

Well water samples were collected according to the guidelines for well water surveys published in theSDNIG document. Each well water sample was analyzed for total coliform bacteria, fecal coliformbacteria and nitrate -nitrogen concentration.

A number of homeowners participating in the sampling program indicated that they have installed sometype of water treatment system on their well. Where possible, well water samples were collected fromthese properties prior to the treatment system; however, this was not possible for all of the samples.

A total of 19 water samples were collected. These samples were analyzed by Analytical Services, Inc.The results of the water sampling are displayed in Table 1-3. A letter containing the laboratory results foreach sample and general information on water quality was prepared and sent to the homeowners whoparticipated in the well water sampling.

Table 1-3 Well Water Survey Results - Bacteria and Nitrate Contamination

Wells Surveyed

Total ColiformPresent (% of

Surveyed)

Fecal CohformPi went (% of

Total Colifox m)

Nitrate >NibSmg/L, but <10

mg/L (% ofSurveyed)

ate >10mg/L MCL (%

of Surveyed)

No Percent No Percent No Percent No Percent19 13 68% 4* 310/0 8 42% 3

1 16%

E-coli was de ected in one water sample where fecal cohlomt was not

Environmental Protection Agency: Safe Drinking Water Act set the limit for nitrate (as nitrogen) to10 mg per liter.

3





1.3 Project Description

The Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project is proposed to provide public sanitary sewer service to 36properties or 43 EDU, which currently utilize deteriorating OLDS for wastewater treatment. Public sewerservice will be provided to the project area by a combination low-pressure / gravity collection system.Approximately 27 properties are proposed to be served with individual grinder pumps and associated low-pressure force mains, while the remainder will be served with gravity sanitary sewers. Both the low-pressure and gravity collection system would connect into an existing 8 -inch diameter private gravitysanitary sewer main before connecting to the Glen Rock Sewer Authority's 10 -inch diameter main locatedin State Route 0616. Rehabilitation of the 8 -inch diameter private gravity main is expected to beevaluated as part of this project, due to the age and anticipated condition of the pipe. Wastewater flowsare expected to be conveyed through the Glen Rock Sewer Authority's 10 -inch diameter gravity mainlocated in State Route 0616 to final treatment at the Glen Rock Sewer Authority Sewage Treatment Plant(STP). USGS maps showing the location of the proposed structural alternatives as well as maps showingthe location of the proposed collection facilities are provided with this Environmental Report.

The estimated project cost for the construction of the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension is $1,172,000.A low interest PENNVEST loan is the anticipated primary source of funding, and a CommunityDevelopment Block Grant in the amount of $100,000 is expected to be a secondary source of funding forthe project. Assuming no grant from PENNVEST, the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project willresult in a monthly user rate of approximately $164 assuming PENNVEST financing of 2.991% for 20years with a 100 percent collection rate. If a $325,000 PENNVEST grant was awarded, the SeitzlandSanitary Sewer Extension project will result in a monthly user rate of approximately $80 assumingPENNVEST financing of 1.000% for 30 years with a 100 percent collection rate.

2.0 SUMMARY OF REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

2.1 Alternatives Considered

The structural alternatives for extending public sewer service to the project area are detailed in thefollowing sections and are evaluated based on technical feasibility, environmental impact, total projectcost, and cost per user.

Estimates of construction cost and overall project cost were calculated for all of the structural alternativesidentified in this Minor Act 537 Plan Update Revision. These costs as well as operation and maintenanceand present worth costs are summarized in Tables 2-1.

2.1.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action alternative represents the status quo. It proposes the continued repair and construction ofon -lot facilities in compliance with Chapter 72 Standards and under the guidance and permitting of theTownship's SEO. In some cases these systems will not be feasible based on the site limitations, includingsoil and slope and space restrictions. In these instances, Best Teclmical Guidance (BTG) permits will bethe only option and should be installed under close scrutiny by the SEO. These BTG repairs do notassure the proper function of an on -lot system; they represent the best solution available for a limited site.As such, systems with BTG repairs are still considered to be "confirmed malfunctions" in the sanitarysurvey procedure.

This option represents the least upset to the community and status quo; however, it does not address theissues raised in the sanitary survey - those of greywater discharges, malfunctioning systems anal fecalcontamination. of wells in the area and would not be in accordance with the 1994 Act 537 Official Sewage

4





Facilities Plan. Greywater discharge malfunctions could be alleviated by connecting them to existing on -

lot treatment systems; however, it is likely that the systems will fail under the increased loading - apotential recognized by the citizens as indicated by the large number of untreated greywater discharges.

The restricted ability to repair and replace on -lot systems in the project area has been discussed with theSEO. Costs for repair and replacement of systems will vary greatly from property to property; therefore,a realistic cost estimate for comparison purposes could not be prepared for this alternative.

2.1.2 Structural AlternativesAlthough several alternatives were evaluated during the conceptual stages of the project, Alternatives10A, 10B, 10C, and 11 were evaluated to be the most feasible alternatives for comparison. Alternatives10A, 10B, 10C, and 11 include combination gravity / low-pressure collection system, as well as therehabilitation of a private 8 -inch diameter gravity sanitary sewer main. Wastewater flows from theproject area will be conveyed to the Glen Rock Sewer Authority's STP by an existing 10 -inch diametergravity sanitary sewer main located in State Route 0616.

Alternative 10A includes approximately 2,100 -feet of 8 -inch diameter gravity sewer main, 13 individualgrinder pumps, and associated low-pressure sewers. Alternative 10B includes the addition of individualgrinder pumps and associated low-pressure sewers for the properties labeled F and C located alongWalker Road. Finally, Alternative 10C includes adding an individual grinder pump and associated low-pressure sewers for the property labeled D located along Walker Road. The cost effectiveness ofextending public sanitary sewer to each of the properties along Walker Road was evaluated (See attachedCost Estimates Alternative 10A, 10B, and 10C). Based on the estimated cost per EDU, it was determinedthat it was not cost effective to extend public sanitary sewer service to properties C, D, and F. In addition,property E was recently subdivided from property F and each property has an approved OLDS back-uparea, therefore; the Supervisors determined property E would not be required to connect to the proposedsanitary sewer system. The Township SEO evaluated properties C and D and determined that they havesuitable OLDS replacement sites if needed. Alternative 11 follows the same general alignment asAlternative 10A and includes approximately 520 -feet of 8 -inch diameter gravity sewer main, 77individual grinder pumps, and associated low-pressure sewers. Alternative 11 is the recommendedalternative because it offers the lowest total present worth cost and present worth cost per EDU.

2.2 Comparison of Alternatives

Using the assumptions outlined above, several cost estimates were prepared to use as a basis to comparethe cost effectiveness of each structural alternative. Where applicable, a direct cost comparison ofalternatives has been provided. Annual costs per EDU are based on these project costs and an assumedloan on the full project cost of 2.991% for 20 years.

Table 2-1 summarizes the cost estimates of the structural alternatives serving the project area. Table 2-1includes the estimated annual cost per residence for payment of annual debt service for each alternative.As a means of comparison, the operation and maintenance fees assumed a water usage of 100 gallons perday per EDU.

Alternative 11 was found to be the least expensive structural alternative to provide public sanitary sewerservice to the project area. Estimated additional monthly cost per user for construction of Alternative 11is approximately $199/month (assuming no PENNVEST Grant). Maps of proposed structural alternativesserving the project area are included in this Environmental Report.

The alternatives formulated for the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension epresen eclutically feasible

5





solutions for wastewater management in the project area. Theses alternatives are environmentally sound,resulting in the abandonment of malfunctioning on -lot disposal systems in the project area and secondarytreatment of the wastewater at the Glen Rock Sewer Authority's STP.

Table 2-1 - Summary of Cost Opinions for Structural Alternatives (PENNVEST Financing)PresentWorth

Estimated Annual Annual of Total Number Present Annual MonthlyProject Debt O&M Annual Annual Present of Worth Cost Cost

Alternative Cost Service Cost Cost O&M Worth EDUs Per EDU Per EDU Per EDU

10A $1,310,000 $87,979 $12,384 $100,363 $164,637 $1,474,637 44 $33,514 $2,281 $190

108 $1 381 000 $92,748 $12,384 $105,132 $164,637 $1,545,637 46 $33,601 $2,285 $190

10C $1,426,000 $95,770 $12,384 $108,154 $164,637 $1,590,637 47 $33,843 $2,301 $192

11 $1,172,000 $78,711 $12,384 $91,095 $164,637 $1,336,637 43 $31,085 $2,118 $177

Notes:

Annual Debt Service Calculations Assume PENNVEST Financing of 2.991% for 20 Years

O&M Fees are estimated based off of Glen Rock Authority quarterly rate of $41.75 for first 5,300 gallons and $7.82 per 1,000 gallons thereafter.

O&M Fees assumed usage at 100 gpd/EDU.

Present Worth Calculations Assume 4.25% for 20 Years

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROJECTS

Reasonable Alternative

As described above, the reasonable structural alternative serving the project area is the implementation ofAlternative 11. The proposed routing for each alternative is considered the preferred location, as it willminimize enviromnental and farmland impacts for the lowest present worth cost. The proposedconstruction of the sewers serving the project area involve the excavation of a trench, placing a crushedstone base, installing the pipe, then backfilling with excavated material or crushed stone. Alternateconstruction methods, such as trenchless installation methods, will also be evaluated during the designstage of this project.

Description writhe Affected Area

The majority of the properties within the project area are residential residences. The combination lowpressure / gravity collection system will be placed within the State, Township, and private rights -of -way.A portion of the private rights -of -way will be along managed lawns and stream corridors.

The South Branch of Codorus Creek and Trout Run are located within the project area. Stream crossingswill temporarily disturb the surrounding natural environment; however, they will not inflict permanentdamage. Although there are wetlands within the study area, there are no wetlands located within theanticipated disturbance area.

Environmental Consequences of the Reasonable Alternative

Environmental consequences of the reasonable alternatives include direct and indirect effects. Directeffects are consequences directly related to project activity. These typically include vegetation clearing,earth disturbance, and stream crossings.

6





The proposed alternative will require the crossing of streams. The stream crossings will be temporaryencroachments during construction. The stream crossings will be reviewed throughout the design phaseof the project, and avoidance and minimization of impacts to surface waters will be implemented.

An Erosion and Sedimentation (E&S) Plan will be established and submitted to the York CountyConservation District to ensure the preservation of surrounding natural environments. In order tominimize the potential for soil erosion and resulting sediment pollution from leaving the construction site,a construction sequence will be outlined in the E&S Plan. The contractor shall minimize the area ofdisturbed soil at any one time by following the construction sequence, and shall prevent sedimentpollution by installing pollution control measures as detailed in the E&S Plan.

3.1 Land Use/Important Farmland/Formally Classified Lands

3.1.1 Land UseThe York County Planning Commission will be notified of the scope of the Seitzland Sanitary SewerExtension project to ensure that the project is consistent with local zoning and land use planning.

The Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project does not propose any revisions to the existingComprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Zoning Boundaries of Shrewsbury Township.

3.1.2 Important FarmlandPrime farmland, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service(USDA-SCS), is the land that is best suited for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. Ithas the soil quality, growing season, and water supply needed to economically produce a sustained highyield of crops when it is treated and managed using acceptable fanning methods. According to the SCS,prime farmlands generally include Class I and II soils, which produce the highest yields with minimalinputs of energy and economic resources. Qualities that characterize prime agricultural soils include highpermeability to water and air, few or no rocks, optimum levels of acidity and alkalinity, 0 to 8 percentslopes, and the absence of flooding during the growing season. These soils may currently be utilized forcrops, pasture, woodland, or land covers other than urban land or water areas.

The following soils are considered to be prime agricultural soils with the project area:

Chester silt loam (CeB)Codorus Silt Loam (Cm)

Although the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project does anticipate encroaching on soils consideredto be prime agricultural soils, the areas where the soils are located are in an suburban built-up area andwill have no adverse affect on fanning.

3.13 Formally Classified LandsThe Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project will have no impact within one mile of any national orstate parks, forests, or any registered and/or eligible national monuments and landmarks. The SeitzlandSanitary Sewer Extension project proposes two (2) crossings of the York County Department of Parksand Recreation's Heritage Rail Trail. The impact of the Heritage Rail Trail will be minimized bytrenchless construction methods. Necessary precautions will be made during construction to protect theHeritage Rail Trail.

7





3.2 Floodplains

In accordance with the policies and procedures of the National Flood Insurance Program, the FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) has prepared mapping of the 100 -year floodplains for TroutRun and South Branch Codorus Creek in Shrewsbury Township.

Portions of the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension Project are within the 100 -year floodplain of theSouth Branch of Codorus Creek and Trout Run. A portion of the collection system proposed to serve thisarea will be constructed within the floodplain as a result of the stream crossing. A soil and erosionsedimentation control plan will be prepared as part of the design stage of the Seitzland Sanitary SewerExtension project. Stream crossings will be addressed and mitigated through requirements outlined inDEP Chapter 105 General Permit GP -5.

3.3 Wetlands

Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency andduration to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soils. Wetlandsgenerally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and other areas that exhibit the three criteria for defming awetland area: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology.

As more information has become available about the beneficial aspects of wetland habitats, scientists,engineers, environmental interest groups, and governmental agencies have worked to protect and maintainthe unique environments. Along with the traditional uses of wetlands as fish and wildlife habitat,wetlands are now being used for stormwater management and wastewater treatment.

Wetlands are a critical component in many ecological processes and are consequently protected by thefederal government. Wetlands provide the following benefits or functions:

Fish and Wildlife Habitat

Water Quality Maintenance

Pollution Filter

Oxygen Production

Nutrient Recycling

Chemical and Nutrient Absorp o

Aquatic Productivity

Flood Control

Recreational Land Preservation

Educational Opportunities

Microclimate Regulation

World Climate Regulation

Sediment Removal

Energy Source (Peat)

Open Space Preservation

The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, as compiled by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, isuseful as a background source of information regarding wetland locations. The maps are preparedthrough the use of color infrared aerial photographs, and the quality of the maps varies dependant uponthe time of year that the photos were taken and other factors. A field investigation was conducted todetermine the actual presence or absence of wetland areas. Wetland areas were found within the projectarea and their approximate locations are shown on the attached Plot Plan. As shown on the plot plan,

$





facilities to be installed as part of the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project are not anticipated tohave an impact on wetlands located within the project area.

3.4 Historic Resources

The Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Conunission (PHMC) must be consulted to identify the potentialimpact of the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project. A cultural resource notice request was sent tothe Bureau of Historic Preservation for a list of known historical sites and identification of potentialimpacts on known archaeological and historic sites by implementation of the Seitzland Sanitary SewerExtension project. Copies of the PHMC correspondence are included with this Environmental Report.

3.5 Sensitive Biological Resources

The Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) must be evaluated for adverse effects resultingfrom the implementation of the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project. Requests to the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Fish and BoatCommission, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Pennsylvania Game Commission were submitted forareas where new public sewage facilities are proposed. Copies of the requests and the appropriateresponses are included with this Environmental Report.

3.6 Water Quality Issues

Implementation of the Seitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project will not require new public wastewatertreatment facilities or stream discharges as wastewater from these areas will be conveyed to the existingGlen Rock Sewer Authority Sewer Treatment Plant (STP). No permanent, deleterious water qualityissues are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project. During construction activities,sedimentation to surface waters will be controlled by accepted E&S control methods outlined in anapproved E&S Control Plan. Once completed, the proposed project may enhance water quality in thestudy area by reducing the number of active, improperly functioning septic systems in the Township.

Water supplies, both public and private, will not be negatively impacted by the Seitzland Sanitary SewerExtension project. In fact, water supplies may be positively impacted through elimination of pollutionentering the water sources from existing malfunctioning on -lot systems and direct nreywater discharges.

3.7 Coastal Resources

The proposed projects are not located within a coastal zone management area. Therefore, no impacts tocoastal resources are expected.

9





3.8 Socio-Economic Issues

The availability of public sewer service in Seitzland is considered necessary to maintain communityviability, protection of public health, and secondarily to protect property investments.

The locations of the proposed collection facilities are based entirely upon the topography of the land withno consideration given to race or household income. The proposed projects will have no impact onminorities or disadvantaged populations.

3.9 Air Quality

With the exception of the minimal dust and exhaust during the construction of new sanitary sewer lines,the proposed projects will not create any significant impacts on air quality. Dust generated duringconstruction activities will be controlled by best management practices and engineering controls outlinedin the construction contract. Dust and exhaust generated during construction activities is usually limitedto between normal working hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.).

3.10 Transportation

There will be no permanent impact on transportation. There will be minimal disruption of traffic patternsduring construction along Walk Road, Clearview Drive, Baltimore Street, State Route 0616, MistyMeadows, and Railview Court. All traffic control and construction methods required by the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Transportation and Shrewsbury Township will be followed during construction withinthese roads.

3.11 Noise Abatement and Control

Noise will only be an issue during construction activities. Noise will be controlled by best managementpractices and engineering controls outlined in the construction contract. Construction noise is of a fixedduration and ceases at the completion of the construction phase of the project. Noise from constructionvehicles differs from normal vehicular traffic noise in that it is usually limited to normal working hours (8a.m. to 5 p.m.), whereas traffic noise is usually continuous.

3.12 Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are no rivers in Shrewsbury Township considered Scenic by the PA Scenic Rivers Act.

3.13 Miscellaneous Environmental Considerations

There are no other envirmunental issues, such as biosolids generation, treatment, and disposal; impacts onor from local landfills; impacts on or from Superfund/HSCA sites; and generation of hazardous,explosive, flammable, toxic, radioactive materials which pertain to the Seitzland project. Appropriatestate and federal permits will be obtained prior to the construction of the Seitzland Sanitary SewerExtension proj ect.

10





4.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION

Due to the temporary nature of all environmental disturbances associatedSeitzland Sanitary Sewer Extension project, mitigation is not necessary.

5.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

h the construction of the

As part of the Act 537 Planning process, a 30 -day public comment period will be held. During this time,the public can review and submit written comments in regard to the Minor Act 537 Plan Update Revision.Additionally, public meetings have been held to allow the public to participate in the alternativeidentification. In addition, the Township intends to work with the public during the design process.

6.0 EXHIBITS

Exhibits to this Environmental Report are included in the following pages.

11



Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc.Engineering 6. Related Services

CERTIFIED MAILRETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

June 27, 2008

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum CommissionBureau of Historic Preservation400 North Street, Second FloorHarrisburg, PA 17120-0093

Dear Sir or Madam:


(717) 564-1121FAX (717) 564-1158www.hrg-inc.com

Re: Seitzland Area Minor Act 537 Update RevisionShrewsbury Township, York County

Attached is a Cultural Resource Notice and supplemental material relative to the above referenced project.Please review and comment at your earliest convenience.

Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information. I forward to hearing from, you.

Very Truly Yours,

Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc.

Joshua T. Fox. E.I.T.Water and Energy Staff Professional

ITF/vjm002456.0012/Ph 2/Tk 0X:124 2456\1G56012\PianningTHMCW HMC Lettcr.doc

c: File



Documents

3600-FM-WSFRO353m 10/2005 COMMONWEALTH OF …5800-FM-WSFRO353m 10/2005 F. PROJECT NARRATIVE (See Section F of instructions) Z A narrative has been prepared as described in Section