pottstown landfill and recycling center annual … · 2012-08-17 · freshwater macroinvertebrates...
TRANSCRIPT
POTTSTOWN LANDFILL AND RECYCLING CENTER
ANNUAL MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY REPORT
WASTE MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
July 2012
Prepared for:
Waste Management Disposal Services of Pennsylvania
Pottstown Landfill and Recycling Center
1425 Sell Road
Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464
Prepared by:
STV Incorporated
205 West Welsh Drive
Douglassville, Pennsylvania 19518
(610) 385-8200
STV Project No. 10-04-11993
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLES ........................................................................................................ 1 2.2 ABIOTIC PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.4 WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 STUDY AREA AND SAMPLE STATION DESCRIPTIONS ..................................................................... 4
3.1 STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................................................. 4 3.2 SAMPLE STATION 0 ................................................................................................................................... 4 3.3 SAMPLE STATION 1 (BRIDGE) ................................................................................................................. 5 3.4 STATION 4 (LEVENGOOD ROAD) ........................................................................................................... 6
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................... 6
4.1 WATER QUALITY/STREAM CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................ 6 4.2 MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING RESULTS ................................................................................... 7
4.2.1 Sample Station 1 - Levengood Road ...................................................................................................... 7 4.2.2 Sample Station 4 - Downstream of Permit Area .................................................................................... 8 4.2.3 1998 – 2012 Data Evaluation and Comparison .................................................................................... 8
5.0 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
6.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Figures
1 Project Location Map
Appendices
A Data Field Sheets for Stream Macroinvertebrates and Characterization
B Photograph Log
C Station 0 Macroinvertebrate Sample Results
D Tables
1 Water Quality Results for Stations 1 and 4 (1988 - 2012)
2 Pollution Tolerance Indices
3 Station 1 Sample Results
4 Station 4 Sample Results
E Resumes of STV Personnel
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June 2012, STV Incorporated (STV) conducted a benthic macroinvertebrate survey of three
stations along Goose Run, a second order tributary to Manatawny Creek in Montgomery and
Berks Counties, Pennsylvania. The survey was performed on behalf of Waste Management
Disposal Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. to satisfy the requirements of Condition No. 14 of
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) Operating Permit No. 100549
issued to Pottstown Landfill on 19 April 1989. In accordance with Condition No. 14, STV
sampled two designated stream stations (Stations 1 and 4, one upstream and one downstream of
the landfill). A third station (Station 0), located upstream of the landfill, was also sampled as
part of the survey. Station 0, which was selected at the request of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, is located near the headwaters of Goose Run. It was selected as a spatial control to
evaluate a watershed improvement program implemented by STV upstream from the traditional
survey area. In addition to the collection of macroinvertebrate specimens, the survey also
included evaluations of substrate types and riparian vegetation, and measurements of dissolved
oxygen (DO), pH, specific conductance, and stream flow velocity at each sample station.
Macroinvertebrate field sampling techniques and qualitative post-processing of data were in
accordance with state and federal guidelines for stream surveys. Since 1998, an 800-micron
mesh, D-frame kick net has been utilized to collect representative samples at each station. Pre-
1998 samples were collected using a 595-micron mesh D-frame kick net. Based on this
equipment variation, and in accordance with Comment No. 1 of PADEP’s technical review letter
(November 2000), valid statistical comparisons between pre-1998 and post-1998 surveys are not
possible and are therefore no longer included in the annual survey reports. Since sample
methodology has remained consistent since 1998, statistical comparisons between Stations 1 and
4 from 1998 forward are included herein.
Along with routine polymetric calculations, climatological occurrences over the last five years
were also reviewed. The review concluded that the Goose Run watershed has been impacted by
severe drought and subsequent flooding since late spring 1998. In the aftermath of Hurricane
Floyd (September 1999), analyses of macroinvertebrate data indicate a general increase in
community structure values, including taxa richness, species diversity, and EPT/Chironomidae
ratios.
Year 2012 analyses of the various metrics used to describe the biological condition at each
station indicate that the integrity of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities within the study
area is generally comparable to previous years. Species density and diversity, and community
composition observed at the two sample locations represent an instream structure that has
rebounded well from past drought and flooding conditions within the watershed.
When compared to data from previous years, slight variations in water quality or periodically
reduced metric values cannot be attributed to any specific non-point or point source of pollution.
However, other environmental factors have contributed to moderately stressed communities
within the study area. Two of the most significant factors include extreme variations in stream
flow conditions and variable substrate composition at each of the stations.
iii
Evaluations of data collected and analyzed over the past 23 years indicate that the resident
macroinvertebrate communities in a second order stream such as Goose Run have exhibited
variations in biological structure when subjected to physical habitat alterations. These variations
are likely the result of weather variations (e.g., drought, hurricanes, thunderstorms) and other
perturbations (possibly including periodic runoff from adjacent farmlands and roads).
Differences in weather patterns can influence organic enrichment, sediment loading from the
surrounding watershed, in-stream temperatures, and other water quality parameters, as well as
other parameters such as diversity and density of benthic assemblages. Variations in
macroinvertebrate community metrics from year to year are the result of communities adapting
in response to environmental (natural) influences such as the recent droughts and subsequent
flooding conditions. Generally, increases in assorted benthic measurement parameters indicate
that macroinvertebrate communities in Goose Run continue to recover from recent
climatological influences that resulted in variations in flow conditions, runoff characteristics,
sediment composition, and other abiotic conditions within the stream.
1
1.0 BACKGROUND
In May, 1988, Waste Management Disposal Services of Pennsylvania, Inc. (WM), conducted a
surface water resource assessment that included (among others) the collection, characterization,
and cataloging of resident benthic macroinvertebrate communities within Goose Run, a tributary
to Manatawny Creek in Montgomery and Berks Counties, Pennsylvania. The assessment was
performed in accordance with Sections 273.118(a) (4) and 277.118(a) (4) of the Municipal
Waste Regulations in support of Waste Management’s Re-permitting Application for the
Northern Expansion. Data collected during the assessment were utilized in the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources (PADER) Operating Permit No. 100549, which was
issued to Pottstown Landfill on April 19, 1989. Since 1988, Waste Management has performed
subsequent annual assessments of Goose Run’s water and habitat quality (i.e., biological
integrity) in accordance with Condition No. 14 of the operating permit.
Included herein are descriptions of water quality, riparian vegetation, and stream substrate types
at three sampling stations along Goose Run (Stations 0, 1, and 4). It is important to note that
macroinvertebrate, habitat, and water quality data from Station 0 are presented for informational
purposes only. Station 0 was added in 1996 in accordance with a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
request to further evaluate and monitor channel improvement and wetland mitigation activities
performed along Goose Run. In accordance with the original intent of Condition No. 14 of the
operating permit, only data from Stations 1 and 4 were subjected to rigorous qualitative and
quantitative comparisons. Data from these two stations were compared with previously collected
data to assess cause and effect relative to degrees of biological impairment, if any, above and
below the existing permit area. This report contains biotic and abiotic sampling data from the
previous eighteen years for ease of comparison.
Macroinvertebrate collections, habitat descriptions, and water quality measurements were
performed by Peter Gaskins, an STV Environmental Scientist with experience in aquatic
sampling procedures. Samples were sorted and specimens identified by Normandeau Associates,
Inc. This report was prepared by Peter Gaskins and Steven Sottung, STV Project Manager.
Resumes of key individuals are provided in Appendix E.
2.0 METHODS
2.1 MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLES
Benthic macroinvertebrate field sampling techniques were in accordance with PADEP’s
Guidelines for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys for Landfills (1988). Qualitative post-
processing of quantitative data, which included some statistical evaluations of data from 1998,
and 2000 through 2011 were performed by STV in accordance with EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers (Plafkin, 1989), and previous assessment methods
conducted between 1988 and 1998. Macroinvertebrate sample collection methods utilized for
the 2012 sample program were identical to those used during STV’s previous benthic sampling
programs within Goose Run.
Sampling began by gathering qualitative macroinvertebrate collections in shallow pools,
backwaters, and riffle areas using a D-frame kick net of 800-micron mesh. A total of three
substation locations were identified and sampled at each station location. In the riffle areas, the
2
net was positioned closely against the bottom substrates, with the water flowing into the net. The
substrate upstream of the net was manually agitated to allow dislodged organisms to be swept
downstream into the net. In order to maximize the number of organisms collected, nettings were
performed for three minutes, moving diagonally across the riffle area. In the pool and backwater
areas, the net was placed in the water column and the underlying substrate was agitated. The net
was then gently swept through the water over the disturbed area. Similar to the riffle areas,
sample time at each of the pool and backwater substations was three minutes. All of the
substation kick samples were composited to produce one general sample for each of the three
locations.
Macrobenthic specimens were preserved in the field in wide mouth glass jars containing 70%
isopropyl alcohol. Samples were submitted to Normandeau Associates, Inc, in Stowe,
Pennsylvania for processing. Invertebrates were identified to the lowest taxon practicable using
a dissection microscope (45x magnification), with genus the desired taxonomic end point.
Individuals within the Chironomidae (midge) family were identified to family, due to the amount
of time necessary to prepare them for generic identification (clear and slide mount).
Taxonomic identification was conducted using the following taxonomic keys:
Merrit, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of
North America. Second ed. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh Water Invertebrates of the United States. Third ed. Protozoa
to Mollesca. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Pekarsky, B.L., P.R. Fraissinet, M.A. Penton, and DJ. Conklin. 1990. Freshwater
Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America. Cornell University Press, Cornell,
New York.
2.2 ABIOTIC PARAMETERS
Determination of the biological condition of Goose Run would not be comprehensive without the
evaluation of abiotic features. In order to fully characterize stream conditions, the field team
also considered outside influences such as nutrient loading from the surrounding watershed.
Vegetative communities adjacent to each sample location were evaluated to assess the type of
food available to the stream ecosystem, and its influence on macroinvertebrate communities.
Additionally, the habitat evaluation component of the assessment included the collection of
physiochemical parameters (e.g., instream features such as sediment and substrate type, stream
size, and water quality characteristics). Data sheets were utilized to record the specified
information (Appendix A).
3
2.3 DATA ANALYSIS
In order to evaluate and compare macrobenthic communities and make a judgment on the
presence or absence of biological impairment at each station, STV utilized qualitative biosurvey
data, stream habitat data, and water quality information. An integrated benthic analysis was
completed to include the following ecological parameters:
Total number of taxa and specimens (Taxa/Species Richness);
Total number of pollutant sensitive taxa (EPT Index);
A ratio between sensitive and tolerant taxa (Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae
abundances);
Taxa/Species Richness Indices: This metric is a simplified species diversity index, and is often
used as the first measure of ecosystem health. Richness is determined by the total number of taxa
and specimens identified in a sample. Taxa richness values should demonstrate a proportional
increase with increasing water quality, diversity, and suitability.
EPT Index: The EPT Index is the total number of distinct taxa within the three most sensitive
orders of aquatic insects: Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera
(caddisflies). Typically, the EPT Index generally increases with increasing water quality. The
EPT metric value summarizes taxon richness for the insect orders expected to disappear or
dramatically decrease in the event of environmental disturbance.
Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae Abundances: This ratio is a measurement of community
balance based on the relative abundance of the family Chironomidae and EPT taxa. Taxa within
the EPT orders generally are considered intolerant of most forms of pollution and are often
poorly represented in samples from stressed environments. Conversely, the midge family
Chironomidae is considered to be pollution tolerant. The EPT and Chironomidae abundance ratio
uses relative abundance of these indicator groups as a measure of community balance.
Essentially, having a fairly even distribution of all four groups (with substantial representation in
the sensitive groups) reflects a good biotic condition.
Brillouin's Diversity Index and Evenness Values: These index values are statistics that
compare the distribution of individuals among all taxa observed in a sample. Maximum
diversity is obtained when the number of individuals in a sample is evenly distributed. Diversity
values tend to vary according to how samples are processed. However, for this collection, values
less than 1.25 can be considered low, whereas diverse communities should exhibit values greater
than 1.50. Evenness provides a comparison of relative diversity, a sample's actual diversity with
the maximum diversity attainable by that sample. Values range between 0.00 and 1.00. Samples
with values close to 1.00 represent a community in which the individual taxa are optimally
distributed. Diversity indices and evenness values also can be used to evaluate a community's
ability to continue as a functional entity in the presence of pollution stress and to recover once
pollution problems are corrected.
4
2.4 WATER QUALITY
The water quality measurements were conducted following guidelines established in Kopp and
McKee (EPA-600/4-79-020, 1983). Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and specific
conductance were measured with a YSI-63 field-sampling device. Stream velocity was
measured with a Marsh-McBirney Model 201 current meter.
3.0 STUDY AREA AND SAMPLE STATION DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 STUDY AREA
STV collected biotic and abiotic data from three sample stations along Goose Run, which is
located within the Schuylkill River drainage basin. The location of each stream station is
indicated on Figure 1. Goose Run, which is a second-order stream, originates approximately one
mile south of the village of Colebrookdale, at an elevation of 320 feet above mean sea level
(amsl). Portions of Upper and West Pottsgrove Townships (Montgomery County) and Douglass
Township (Berks County) drain toward Goose Run. From its point of origin, Goose Run flows
south/southwest approximately 2.2 miles toward its confluence with Manatawny Creek in
Montgomery County. Two small tributaries define the headwaters of Goose Run. The
tributaries converge at a point approximately 2,000 feet north of the northern boundary of the
permit area, and about 250 feet east of the north/south stretch of Levengood Road to form the
main channel of Goose Run. As it flows south from the convergence point, Goose Run forms
the western perimeter of Waste Management’s Northern Expansion Permit Area. The
watercourse is impounded within the Dandy Dam before its confluence with Manatawny Creek
at an elevation of approximately 160 feet amsl. The stream drains a watershed of approximately
1,215 acres. Stream gradient through the study area is 70 feet per mile, or 1.3 percent (Figure 1).
Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Chapter 93; Water Quality Standards designates Manatawny Creek
and all unnamed tributaries to Manatawny Creek (including Goose Run) as protected for the
maintenance and/or propagation of fish species including the family Salmonidae and additional
flora and fauna which are indigenous to a cold water habitat (CWF).
Specimens were collected during normal weather conditions.
3.2 SAMPLE STATION 0
Sample Station 0 was not included in the original monitoring program that was initiated in 1988.
Station 0 is located on the eastern fork of the Goose Run headwaters, approximately 1,000 feet
west of Chestnut Grove Road, in Montgomery County (Figure 1). Since the 2003 sample for this
site a large tree has fallen across the stream, blocking flow and creating a natural dam upstream
of the sample area. Also, it is important to consider the lack of rainfall in the two months prior to
the sample date that affected normal flow readings. During the 2012 sampling program, stream
velocity and flow conditions within the two upper forks of Goose Run were similar to conditions
encountered during other previous sampling years; that is, stream flow and velocity in the eastern
fork was greater than the western fork. Station 0 is located upstream from the wetland creation
and stream enhancement project area that was completed in 1997.
5
On June 15, 2012, stream velocity at Station 0 was recorded at 0.01 cubic feet per second (cfs),
and the water was clear (Appendix B - photograph log). There was no detectable odor present at
the sampling site. The stream width at Station 0 (between riffle/run and pool areas) ranged
between 2 to 15 feet and stream depth was 2 to 3 inches (riffle/run) and 20 to 30 inches (pool).
Substrate material in the pool was composed of boulders (>10 inches), cobbles (2.5 to 10 inches),
and gravel (0.1 to 2.5 inches). Substrate material in the riffle included some boulders, cobbles,
and gravel. The station was located upstream from a check-dam and within a reach of the stream
that was partially shaded (approximately 50%) with mixed hardwoods including white oak
(Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The riparian
community at Station 0 consisted primarily of various species of grasses and forbes. Herbaceous
vegetation surrounding the stream was dominated by jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Station 0
was located at approximately 260 feet amsl. Land surrounding Station 0 had moderately sloping
terrain to the north and south of the sample location, and uses included pasture, fields,
agricultural land and forested land.
Approximately 5% of substrate materials, including boulders, cobbles, gravel and submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) were covered with periphytic algae. The sample area consisted of a
riffle, a run, and a pool.
3.3 SAMPLE STATION 1 (BRIDGE)
Station 1 (background or reference station) was located at the northern tip of the permit area,
immediately downstream from the bridge crossing at Levengood Road (Figure 1). Instream
habitat improvements (e.g., check-dams and bank stabilizers) associated with the aforementioned
stream mitigation projects were located between Station 0 and Station 1. Station 1 was located a
sufficient distance upstream from the limits of the permit area to be unaffected by potential
discharges from the landfill.
Stream velocity at Station 1 (riffle/run) was recorded at 0.01 cfs. Stream turbidity was clear
(Appendix B - photograph log). As with Station 0, no detectable odor was identified during
sampling procedures. Substrate materials in both the riffle and the run consisted primarily of
boulders and gravel. Stream depths at sampling points ranged from 1 to 2 inches in the riffle/run
area and up to 20 inches in the pool area (pools in the vicinity ranged from 20 to 30 inches).
Stream width ranged from 12 to 15 feet. The location was partially shaded (about 60% cover)
with a mixture of shrubs and deciduous trees. Herbaceous plants primarily included jewelweed.
Shrubs included fox grape. Tree species located primarily around the Levengood Road bridge
included Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), box elder (Acer negundo), Norway maple (Acer
platanoides), and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
Similar to previous years, minnow species (e.g., longnose and blacknose dace, and darters),
crayfish and tadpoles were observed in standing pools of water within the sample area. A small
percentage of the substrate material across the sample area was covered with periphytic algae.
The sample area consisted of pool, riffle and run areas. The upper reaches of the riffle area flow
across exposed bedrock.
6
3.4 STATION 4 (LEVENGOOD ROAD)
Station 4 is located approximately 150 to 200 feet upstream from the Dandy Dam impoundment
area, north of the confluence with Manatawny Creek (Figure 1). The station is located below the
permit area and the stream and habitat improvement areas.
Stream velocity was 0.01 cfs (riffle/run and pool areas), and once again turbidity was clear
(Appendix B - photograph log). Substrate composition within the approximate 120-foot sample
stretch was comparable in both pool and riffle areas. Substrate was primarily composed of
cobbles and gravel. Approximately 50% of the cobble and gravel substrate and minimal SAV
were covered with periphytic algae. Stream width ranged from approximately 8 feet (riffle/run)
to 20 feet (pool), and stream depth ranged from 12 inches (pool) and 1 to 8 inches (riffle/run).
Streamside cover, which predominantly included broadleaf trees and herbaceous vegetation,
created shade over the stream course in the area of Station 4. Jewelweed dominated herbaceous
plants in the area. Tree species included red maple, white oak, American beech (Fagus
grandifolia), black willow (Salix nigra), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Station 4 is
bounded to the east by a large upland with wetland pockets throughout. The stretch of stream
within the sampling area is bounded to the west by a steep embankment and forested overhang.
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Station 0 was added in 1996 in accordance with a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers request to
further evaluate and monitor channel improvement and wetland mitigation activities performed
along Goose Run. While it is of interest to evaluate the habitat and macroinvertebrate
community at Station 0, it should be noted that the original requirements, as indicated in
Condition 14 of the operating permit, included benthic macroinvertebrate sampling at only two
stations (1 and 4) on Goose Run (one upstream of the landfill permit area and one downstream)
during the third quarter of each year. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the
original permit, qualitative and quantitative comparisons between benthic communities and
habitat are limited to Stations 1 and 4 only. Water quality, habitat, and raw macrobenthic
numbers for Station 0 are presented in Appendix C.
4.1 WATER QUALITY/STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Physical and chemical factors of the surrounding environment are among the strongest
determinants of the biological structure of benthic macroinvertebrates at any location. Such
being the case, STV collected abiotic measurements of pH, conductivity, temperature, dissolved
oxygen (DO), and stream flow velocity at each station location.
Table 1 presents 24 years of water quality field data from Goose Run (1988 through 1998, and
2000 – 2012). In 2012, stream flow velocities at Stations 1 and 4 were consistent with the
previous eight years (with the exception of 2008, when stream velocities were impacted by more
significant rainfall amounts). Dissolved oxygen at Station 1 (9.5 mg/l) and Station 4 (9.3) are
within the optimal range for a healthy and stable aquatic ecosystem (6 to 14 ppm).
7
The Station 1 pH level (6.41) was the second lowest pH recorded to date at that station and
slightly below the optimal range for a healthy and stable aquatic ecosystem (6.5 to 8.5). The
Station 4 pH level (7.04) is within the optimal range and slightly below the average over the last
24 years of data collection (7.41).
Stream temperatures at Station 1 and Station 4 were identical (22.3C) and above the average for
each station location (20 for Station 1 and 20.6 for Station 4). Stream temperatures are related to
the velocity of the stream through open, shaded, or partially shaded areas, depth of stream,
substrate materials, and the time of year that samples are collected. It is notable that stream
conditions (including temperature, DO, conductivity, and pH) are also impacted by recent
weather events (downpours, thunderstorms, weather fronts, prolonged drought, etc.).
Neither station emanated detectable odors when sediments were disturbed during sample
collection.
Terrestrial conditions differed between Stations 1 and 4. Adjacent woodlands and grass/shrub
cover were found at both stations. Station 1 is abutted by gently sloping woodlands and fields.
The Levengood Road bridge is located immediately upstream from Station 1. Lands adjacent to
and east of Station 4 exhibited low topographic relief and included palustrine emergent (PEM)
wetlands and uplands, as evidenced by existing vegetation and hydrology. An almost vertical
rock formation, which extended along the western edge of the watercourse at Station 4, defined
the downstream limits of the sampling area.
4.2 MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING RESULTS
All macroinvertebrate taxa collected from 1988 through 2012, their common names, available
pollution tolerance indices, and Hilsenhoff Biotic Indices are listed in Table 2 (Appendix D).
Tolerance indices utilize a revised Hilsenhoff (1988) scale of 0-10. The 0-10 scale was adopted
for use with EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III and was modified to include non-arthropod
species. Low tolerance values indicate pollution sensitivity among specific organisms. Since
1988, density and diversity indices have reflected a rich benthic community supported by good
quality habitat. In 2012, a total of 22 taxa and 447 specimens were collected from Station 1
(Table 3 in Appendix D). A total of 16 taxa and 170 specimens were collected from Station 4
(Table 4 in Appendix D).
4.2.1 Sample Station 1 - Levengood Road
In 2012, 447 specimens representing 22 taxa were collected from Station 1, located upstream
from the permit area. The representative taxa, number of individuals collected, and associated
Hilsenhoff sensitivity enumerations are listed in Table 3. The following table presents the five
most dominant taxa among the specimens collected (expressed in percent abundance):
Scientific Name
Common Name
Number
Collected
Percent
Abundance
Tolerance
Values
Biotic Index
Chironomidae Midges 380 85 6.0-8.0 6
Hydroporus Diving beetle 17 3.8 8.9 5
Dugesia Flatworm 7 1.6 7.5 7
Aquarius Water Strider 7 1.6 NA
Crangonyx Sideswimmer 6 1.3 8 6
8
The number of specimens captured from EPT and Chironomidae taxa produced an
EPT/Chironomidae ratio of .013, which is below the median value recorded for Station 1 since
the study began in 1988. This ratio indicates an unbalanced EPT and Chironomidae ratio for the
year 2012 sampling program.
4.2.2 Sample Station 4 - Downstream of Permit Area
In 2012, 170 specimens representing 16 taxa were collected from Station 4, located downstream
from the permit area. The representative taxa, number of individuals collected, and associated
Hilsenhoff sensitivity enumerations are listed in Table 4. The following table presents the five
most dominant taxa among the specimens collected (expressed in percent abundance):
Scientific Name
Common Name
Number
Collected
Percent Abundance
Tolerance
Values
Biotic
Index
Chironomidae Midges 78 45.9 6.0-8.0 6
Hydroporus Diving beetle 19 11.2 8.9 5
Crangonyx Sideswimmer 13 7.6 8 6
Neoperla Stonefly 11 6.5 1.6 3
Psephenus Water Penny 10 5.9 2.5 4
The number of specimens captured from EPT and Chironomidae taxa produced an EPT/
Chironomidae ratio of .244, which is slightly below the median value recorded for Station 4
since the study began in 1988. This ratio indicates a stream in which EPT and Chironomidae
species have reached a stable balance.
4.2.3 1998 – 2012 Data Evaluation and Comparison
Station 1
The proceeding section details individual metrics utilized to describe community health from
year to year at Station 1.
1. Taxa/Species Richness Indices (1998 - 2011)
Total number of taxa (range):
- from 10 (2000) to 38 (2001)
- mean = 23.3; std. dev. = 8.8
- 2012 taxa value - 22
Total number of specimens (range):
- from 108 (2000) to 6875 (2003)
- mean = 1744.5; std. dev. = 2172.4
- 2012 specimen value - 447
2. EPT Index (1998 - 2011)
Total number of EPT taxa (range):
- from 1 (2000) to 15 (2001)
- mean = 7.2; std. dev. = 4.1
- 2012 EPT value - 3
9
3. EPT/Chironomidae Ratio (1998 - 2011)
Ratio of EPT to Chironomidae taxa (range):
- from 0.02 (2000) to 42 (2004)
- mean = 3.5; std. dev. = 11.6
- 2012 EPT/Chironomidae value – .013
In comparison with data from the previous seven sampling years, 2012 data represent median
values for taxa/species richness (density) and number of EPT taxa, and the lowest
EPT/Chironomidae ratio since 1998.
Station 4
The proceeding section details individual metrics utilized to describe community health from
year to year at Station 4.
Taxa/Species Richness Indices (1998 - 2011)
Total number of taxa (range):
- from 10 (2000) to 37 (2005)
- mean = 27.0; std. dev. = 8.6
- 2012 taxa value - 16
Total number of specimens (range):
- from 118 (1998) to 2781 (2003)
- mean = 857.5; std. dev. = 712.8
- 2012 specimen value – 170
EPT Index (1998 - 2011)
Total number of EPT taxa (range):
- from 2 (2000) to 15 (2003)
- mean = 9.5; std. dev. = 4.3
- 2012 EPT value – 4
EPT/Chironomidae Ratio (1998 - 2011)
Ratio of EPT to Chironomidae taxa (range):
- from 0.08 (2000) to 2.69 (2004)
- mean = 0.96; std. dev. =0.88
- 2012 EPT/Chironomidae value – .244
In comparison with data from the previous seven sampling years, 2012 data represent relatively
low taxa/species richness (density) values, the third lowest number of EPT taxa, and a below
average EPT/Chironomidae ratio.
5.0 SUMMARY
In mid-June 2012, STV conducted benthic macroinvertebrate sampling at three stations within
Goose Run, adjacent to Pottstown Landfill as part of an annual monitoring requirement specified
in PADEP Permit #100549. Sample collection methodologies and locations have remained
consistent since 1988, with one exception. The only inconsistency in methodology involved the
use of a different diameter mesh in the D-frame kick net from pre- and post-1998 samples. Prior
to 1998, an environmental sampling team other than STV utilized a 595-micron mesh net; post-
10
1998 samples were collected by STV using an 800-micron mesh net. Since 1998, STV has
performed benthic sampling in accordance with the most recent PADEP guidance for conducting
macroinvertebrate surveys (Guidelines for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Stream Surveys for
Landfills (PADER, 1988)). The document recommends the use of an 800-900 micron mesh net
for wadeable streams. Based on the variation in mesh sizes, and in accordance with previous
PADEP technical comments, this annual survey report no longer includes statistical comparisons
between pre and post 1998 sample data. Additionally, this report includes sensitivity
enumerations as identified by the PADEP in a table entitled Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Scores
(March 1997).
Evaluations of physical, chemical, and biological data collected as part of the stream survey
indicate that post 1998 Goose Run has effectively recovered from conditions that resulted from
extreme climatological and environmental stresses (i.e., drought, flooding events). An
evaluation of all available 2012 data presented herein does not indicate any adverse impacts to
water quality within Goose Run that can be attributed to the permit area. Comparisons of water
quality data over twenty three years of sampling reveal normal fluctuations in the stream’s
abiotic and biotic characteristics that are related to temporal changes. Accordingly, there is no
indication that fluctuations are in any way related to potential deleterious impacts attributable to
the permit area.
Though Goose Run watershed had experienced periodic flushing from significant rainfall events
(thunderstorms with heavy rainfall totals) in the period March through April, sampling for the
year 2012 report occurred during a period of relatively normal stream flow volumes in
Southeastern Pennsylvania.
An important outcome of the 2012 survey was an imbalance of Chironomidae taxa relative to the
families that constitute EPTs, particularly within Station 1. Sampling at Station 1 resulted in a
total of 5 EPT specimens (representing 3 taxa) and 380 Chironomids resulting in an
EPT/Chironomidae ratio of 0.013 for this station. Station 4 collections resulted in 19 EPTs and
78 Chironomids resulting in an EPT/Chironomidae ratio of 0.244. This disparity has also been
present in previous sampling years leading to the conclusion that it is not a function of pollution
influences but instead habitat based. Station 1 in-stream conditions have been changing over the
years since benthic sampling began in 1988. Through normal flow conditions as well as
scouring during periodic rain events, a larger portion of Station 4’s substrate material is
represented by exposed shale bedrock. A depositional area is located downstream of the exposed
bedrock. Stream flow was also reduced throughout the watershed and riffle/run areas.
Representative EPT numbers in 2012 continue to support the conclusion that Goose Run is not
subjected to long-term environmental stress (in particular, chemical stress) from the adjacent
landfill activities. Any significant adverse impact from the landfill would likely have been
accompanied by a significant reduction in or disappearance of pollution-sensitive EPT taxa,
particularly at Station 4. This occurrence has not been shown in data collected to date.
Species density (taxa richness, diversity index) at Station 1 was the lowest recorded value since
sampling began in 1988. Using conventional values of 1.50 as a measure of a diverse
community structure and 1.25 as a community less diverse, 2012 data at Station 1 exhibits low
overall density. This finding is supported by a dominance of Chironomidae in the sample (380
specimens or 85 percent of the sample as a whole). Low diversity values within Station 1 could
11
be considered an anomaly when compared to historic data, particularly when compared to the
diversity value in downstream Station 4, which represents a stable and diverse community
(diversity value of 1.98).
Evaluations of data collected and analyzed over the past 24 years indicate that the resident
macroinvertebrate communities in a second order stream such as Goose Run exhibit variations in
biological structure when subjected to physical alterations within the benthic habitat. These
variations are likely the result of weather extremes (e.g., drought, hurricanes, thunderstorms) and
other perturbations (possibly including periodic runoff from adjacent farmlands and roads).
Variations in weather patterns can influence organic enrichment, sediment loading from the
surrounding watershed, in-stream temperatures, pH and other water quality parameters, as well
as other parameters such as diversity and density of benthic assemblages. Variations in
macroinvertebrate community metrics from year to year are the result of communities adapting
in response to environmental (natural) influences such as recent reductions in rainfall totals and
subsequent flooding conditions from periodic thunderstorms. Generally, recorded increases over
time in assorted benthic measurement parameters indicate that macroinvertebrate communities in
Goose Run have been maintained during climatological influences that typically result in
alterations in flow conditions, runoff characteristics, sediment composition, and other abiotic
conditions within the stream.
12
6.0 REFERENCES
Bode, R.W. 1988. Quality Assurance Workplan for Biological Stream Monitoring in New York
State. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York.
Brower, S.E. and J. H. Zar. 1977. Field and Laboratory Methods for General Ecology. William
C. Brown, Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid Field Assessment of Organic Pollution with a Family-Level
Biotic Index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. Volume 7, Number
1. Pages 65-68.
Klemm, Donald J. 1990. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory Methods for Evaluating the
Biological Integrity of Surface Waters. United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA/600/4-90/030), Cincinnati, Ohio.
Kopp, J.F., and G.D. McKee. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/600/4-79/020), Cincinnati, Ohio.
Lenat, David R. 1993. A biotic Index for the Southeastern United States: Derivation and List of
Tolerance Values, with Criteria for Assigning Water Quality Ratings. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society. Volume 12, Number 3 (September). Pages 279-
290.
Merritt, R.W., and K.W. Cummins, editors. 1996. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of
North America, Second Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.
Peckarsky, B.L., et. al. 1990. Freshwater Macroinvertebrates of Northeastern North America.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Pennak, R.W. 1990. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States, Third Edition. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc. New York, New York.
Plafkin, J.L. et. al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/440/4-89/001), Washington, DC.
Wallace, J.B., 1990 Recovery of Lotic Macroinvertebrate communities from disturbance.
Environ. Manage. 14:605-620.
FIGURES
FIGURES
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc.
075° 41' 00.00" W
075° 41' 00.00" W
075° 40' 00.00" W
075° 40' 00.00" W
075° 39' 00.00" W
075° 39' 00.00" W
040° 18' 00.00" N
040° 18' 00.00" N
040° 17' 00.00" N
040° 17' 00.00" N
040° 16' 00.00" N
040° 16' 00.00" N
5 Sample Station 4
5 Sample Station 1
5 Sample Station 0
Magnetic Declination
12° W
�
APPENDIX A
Field Data Sheets for
Stream Characterization
APPENDIX A
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IZA
TIO
N/W
AT
ER
QU
AL
ITY
FIE
LD
DA
TA
SH
EE
T
ST
AT
ION
0
DA
TE
6
/15
/20
12
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IST
ICS
RIP
AR
IAN
ZO
NE
/IN
ST
RE
AM
FE
AT
UR
ES
Pre
do
min
ant
Su
rrou
nd
ing L
and
Use
:
Fo
rest
F
ield
/Pas
ture
A
gri
cult
ura
l R
esid
enti
al
Co
mm
erci
al
Indu
stri
al
Oth
er
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed E
rosi
on
: N
on
e M
od
erat
e H
eav
y
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed N
PS
Po
llu
tion
: N
o E
vid
ence
S
om
e P
ote
nti
al S
ou
rce
Ob
vio
us
So
urc
es
Est
imat
es S
trea
m W
idth
2
-15
fee
t
Est
imat
ed S
trea
m D
epth
: 2
0-3
0”
R
iffl
e
2
-3”
Ru
n
2-3
”
Hig
h W
ater
Mar
k
"
Vel
oci
ty
Rif
fle –
0.0
1 c
fs,
Ru
n-
0.0
1 c
fs, p
ool
- 0
.01
cfs
Dam
Pre
sen
t:
Yes
X
N
o
Ch
ann
eliz
ed:
Yes
___
__
__
No
__
Can
op
y C
over
: O
pen
P
artl
y O
pen
P
artl
y S
had
ed
Sh
aded
SE
DIM
EN
T/S
UB
ST
RA
TE
:
Sed
imen
t O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
A
nae
rob
ic
No
ne
Oth
er
Sed
imen
t O
ils:
A
bse
nt
Sli
gh
t M
od
erat
e P
rofu
se
Sed
imen
t D
epo
sits
: S
lud
ge
Saw
du
st
Pap
er F
iber
S
and
Rel
ict
Sh
ells
O
ther
Are
th
e u
nd
ersi
des
of
ston
es w
hic
h a
re n
ot
dee
ply
em
bed
ded
bla
ck?
Yes
N
o
Ino
rgan
ic S
ub
stra
te C
om
pon
ents
Org
anic
Su
bst
rate
Co
mp
on
ents
Su
bst
rate
Typ
e
Dia
met
er
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
S
ub
stra
te T
yp
e
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
Bed
rock
Det
ritu
s S
tick
s, W
oo
d,
Co
arse
Pla
nt
Bo
uld
er
>2
56
-mm
(1
0 i
n.)
5
0
Mat
eria
ls (
CP
ON
)
Co
bble
6
4-2
56
-mm
(2
.5-1
0 i
n.)
2
5
Gra
vel
2
-64
-mm
(0
.1-2
.5 i
n.)
2
5
M
uck
-Mu
d
Bla
ck,
Ver
y F
ine
Org
anic
San
d
0.0
6-2
.00
-mm
(gri
tty)
(F
PO
N)
Sil
t .0
04
-.0
6-m
m
Cla
y
<.0
04
-mm
(sl
ick)
Mar
l G
rey,
Sh
ell
Fra
gm
ents
WA
TE
R Q
UA
LIT
Y
Tem
per
atu
re
2
2.3
C
D
isso
lved
Ox
yg
en
pH
6.4
8
Co
ndu
ctiv
ity
23
5
O
ther
Inst
rum
ent(
s) U
sed
YS
I-6
3
Str
eam
Typ
e:
Co
ld w
ater
W
arm
wat
er
Wat
er O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
N
on
e O
ther
Wat
er S
urf
ace
Oil
s:
Sli
ck
Sh
een
Glo
be
Fle
cks
No
ne
Tu
rbid
ity:
Cle
ar
Sli
gh
tly T
urb
id
Tu
rbid
O
paq
ue
Wat
er C
olo
r
WE
AT
HE
R C
ON
DIT
ION
S S
un
ny H
igh
70
’s/
Lo
w 8
0’s
PH
OT
OG
RA
PH
NU
MB
ER
3
and
4
OB
SE
RV
AT
ION
S A
ND
/OR
SK
ET
CH
H
eav
y v
eget
atio
n g
row
th w
ith
in t
he
stre
am c
orr
ido
r. S
trea
m c
on
dit
ion
s co
nsi
sten
t w
ith
pre
vio
us
yea
rs c
on
dit
ion
s
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IZA
TIO
N/W
AT
ER
QU
AL
ITY
FIE
LD
DA
TA
SH
EE
T
ST
AT
ION
1
DA
TE
6/1
5/2
01
2
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IST
ICS
RIP
AR
IAN
ZO
NE
/IN
ST
RE
AM
FE
AT
UR
ES
Pre
do
min
ant
Su
rrou
nd
ing L
and
Use
:
Fo
rest
F
ield
/Pas
ture
A
gri
cult
ura
l R
esid
enti
al
Co
mm
erci
al
Indu
stri
al
Oth
er
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed E
rosi
on
: N
on
e M
od
erat
e H
eav
y
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed N
PS
Po
llu
tion
: N
o E
vid
ence
S
om
e P
ote
nti
al S
ou
rce
Ob
vio
us
So
urc
es
Est
imat
es S
trea
m W
idth
2
-15
fee
t
E
stim
ated
Str
eam
Dep
th:
20
-30
”
R
iffl
e
1-2
”
Ru
n
2-3
”
Hig
h W
ater
Mar
k
"
Vel
oci
ty
Rif
fle –
0.0
1 c
fs,
Ru
n –
0.0
1 c
fs,
Pool –
0.0
1 c
fs
D
am P
rese
nt:
Y
es
No
X
__
_
Ch
ann
eliz
ed:
Yes
__
_X
_
No _
_
Can
op
y C
over
: O
pen
P
artl
y O
pen
P
artl
y S
had
ed
Sh
aded
SE
DIM
EN
T/S
UB
ST
RA
TE
:
Sed
imen
t O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
A
nae
rob
ic
No
ne
Oth
er
Sed
imen
t O
ils:
A
bse
nt
Sli
gh
t M
od
erat
e P
rofu
se
Sed
imen
t D
epo
sits
: S
lud
ge
Saw
du
st
Pap
er F
iber
S
and
Rel
ict
Sh
ells
O
ther
Are
th
e u
nd
ersi
des
of
ston
es w
hic
h a
re n
ot
dee
ply
em
bed
ded
bla
ck?
Yes
N
o
Ino
rgan
ic S
ub
stra
te C
om
pon
ents
Org
anic
Su
bst
rate
Co
mp
on
ents
Su
bst
rate
Typ
e
Dia
met
er
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
S
ub
stra
te T
yp
e
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
Bed
rock
Det
ritu
s S
tick
s, W
oo
d,
Co
arse
Pla
nt
Bo
uld
er
>2
56
-mm
(1
0 i
n.)
5
0
Mat
eria
ls (
CP
ON
)
Co
bble
6
4-2
56
-mm
(2
.5-1
0 i
n.)
Gra
vel
2
-64
-mm
(0
.1-2
.5 i
n.)
5
0
M
uck
-Mu
d
Bla
ck,
Ver
y F
ine
Org
anic
San
d
0.0
6-2
.00
-mm
(gri
tty)
(F
PO
N)
Sil
t .0
04
-.0
6-m
m
Cla
y
<.0
04
-mm
(sl
ick)
Mar
l G
rey,
Sh
ell
Fra
gm
ents
WA
TE
R Q
UA
LIT
Y
Tem
per
atu
re 2
2.3
C
D
isso
lved
Ox
yg
en
pH
6
.41
C
on
du
ctiv
ity
20
1.3
Oth
er
Inst
rum
ent(
s) U
sed
Y
SI-
63
Str
eam
Typ
e:
Co
ld w
ater
W
arm
wat
er
Wat
er O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
N
on
e O
ther
Wat
er S
urf
ace
Oil
s:
Sli
ck
Sh
een
Glo
be
Fle
cks
No
ne
Tu
rbid
ity:
Cle
ar
Sli
gh
tly T
urb
id
Tu
rbid
O
paq
ue
Wat
er C
olo
r
WE
AT
HE
R C
ON
DIT
ION
S S
un
ny,
Hig
h 7
0’s
/Lo
w 8
0’s
PH
OT
OG
RA
PH
NU
MB
ER
1
an
d 2
OB
SE
RV
AT
ION
S A
ND
/OR
SK
ET
CH
Hea
vy v
eget
atio
n a
dja
cen
t to
and
wit
hin
th
e st
ream
co
rrid
or
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IZA
TIO
N/W
AT
ER
QU
AL
ITY
FIE
LD
DA
TA
SH
EE
T
ST
AT
ION
4
DA
TE
6/1
5/2
012
PH
YS
ICA
L C
HA
RA
CT
ER
IST
ICS
RIP
AR
IAN
ZO
NE
/IN
ST
RE
AM
FE
AT
UR
ES
Pre
do
min
ant
Su
rrou
nd
ing L
and
Use
:
Fo
rest
F
ield
/Pas
ture
A
gri
cult
ura
l R
esid
enti
al
Co
mm
erci
al
Indu
stri
al
Oth
er
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed E
rosi
on
: N
on
e M
od
erat
e H
eav
y
Lo
cal
Wat
ersh
ed N
PS
Po
llu
tion
: N
o E
vid
ence
S
om
e P
ote
nti
al S
ou
rce
Ob
vio
us
So
urc
es
Est
imat
es S
trea
m W
idth
2
-10
fee
t
Est
imat
ed S
trea
m D
epth
: 1
2-2
4”
R
iffl
e
1
-3”
Ru
n
3-8
”
Hig
h W
ater
Mar
k
"
Vel
oci
ty
Rif
fle –
0.0
1 c
fs,
Ru
n –
0.0
1 c
fs,
Pool –
0.0
1 c
fs
D
am P
rese
nt:
Y
es
No
X
Ch
ann
eliz
ed:Y
es _
__
__
__
No
__
Can
op
y C
over
: O
pen
P
artl
y O
pen
P
artl
y S
had
ed
Sh
aded
SE
DIM
EN
T/S
UB
ST
RA
TE
:
Sed
imen
t O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
A
nae
rob
ic
No
ne
Oth
er
Sed
imen
t O
ils:
A
bse
nt
Sli
gh
t M
od
erat
e P
rofu
se
Sed
imen
t D
epo
sits
: S
lud
ge
Saw
du
st
Pap
er F
iber
S
and
Rel
ict
Sh
ells
O
ther
Are
th
e u
nd
ersi
des
of
ston
es w
hic
h a
re n
ot
dee
ply
em
bed
ded
bla
ck?
Yes
N
o
Ino
rgan
ic S
ub
stra
te C
om
pon
ents
Org
anic
Su
bst
rate
Co
mp
on
ents
Su
bst
rate
Typ
e
Dia
met
er
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
S
ub
stra
te T
yp
e
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s
Per
cen
t
Co
mp
osi
tio
n
in S
amp
lin
g A
rea
Bed
rock
Det
ritu
s S
tick
s, W
oo
d,
Co
arse
Pla
nt
Bo
uld
er
>2
56
-mm
(1
0 i
n.)
Mat
eria
ls (
CP
ON
)
Co
bble
6
4-2
56
-mm
(2
.5-1
0 i
n.)
5
0
Gra
vel
2
-64
-mm
(0
.1-2
.5 i
n.)
5
0
M
uck
-Mu
d
Bla
ck,
Ver
y F
ine
Org
anic
San
d
0.0
6-2
.00
-mm
(gri
tty)
(F
PO
N)
Sil
t .0
04
-.0
6-m
m
Cla
y
<.0
04
-mm
(sl
ick)
Mar
l G
rey,
Sh
ell
Fra
gm
ents
WA
TE
R Q
UA
LIT
Y
Tem
per
atu
re
22
.3 C
D
isso
lved
Oxygen
__
___
__
_
pH
7
.04
C
on
du
ctiv
ity
3
05
.2
Oth
er
Inst
rum
ent(
s) U
sed
Y
SI-
63
Str
eam
Typ
e:
Co
ld w
ater
W
arm
wat
er
Wat
er O
do
rs:
No
rmal
S
ewag
e
Pet
role
um
C
hem
ical
N
on
e O
ther
Wat
er S
urf
ace
Oil
s:
Sli
ck
Sh
een
Glo
be
Fle
cks
No
ne
Tu
rbid
ity:
Cle
ar
Sli
gh
tly T
urb
id
Tu
rbid
O
paq
ue
Wat
er C
olo
r
WE
AT
HE
R C
ON
DIT
ION
S S
un
ny,
Hig
h 7
0’s
/ L
ow
80
’s
PH
OT
OG
RA
PH
NU
MB
ER
5
and
6
OB
SE
RV
AT
ION
S A
ND
/OR
SK
ET
CH
Str
eam
co
nd
itio
ns
con
sist
ent
wit
h p
revio
us
yea
r’s
stu
die
s
APPENDIX B Photograph Log
APPENDIX B
Photo 1: Station 1 facing downstream from the Levengood Road Bridge
Photo 2: Station 1 facing upstream towards the Levengood Road Bridge
Photo 3: Station 0 facing upstream
Photo 4: Station 0 facing downstream
Photo 5: Station 4 facing downstream
Photo 6: Station 4 facing upstream
APPENDIX C Station 0 Macroinvertebrate Sample Results
APPENDIX C
APP
END
IX C
MA
CR
OIN
VER
TEB
RA
TES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STA
TIO
N 0
FR
OM
GO
OSE
RU
N IN
TH
E VI
CIN
ITY
OF
POTT
STO
WN
LA
ND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
AN
IA
Mac
roin
verte
brat
e Ta
xa19
96
6/27
1997
8/
719
98
8/13
1999
N
/A20
00
6/22
2001
5/
2420
02
6/19
2003
5/
1520
04
7/
1420
05
6/
220
06
5/
2320
07
5/
1620
08
5/
3020
09
5/
220
10
5/
2520
11
6/
27A
nnel
ida
Olig
ocha
eta
2819
7842
315
07
Lum
bric
ida
L
umbr
icid
ae14
517
214
64
M
egad
rilli
271
Nai
dida
eTu
bific
inae
Tub
ifici
da
Enc
hytra
eida
e1
T
ubifi
cida
e19
231
1 R
hync
hobd
ellid
a
G
loss
ipho
niid
ae1
G
loio
bdel
la1
H
elob
della
e2
1010
Arth
ropo
da C
rust
acea
Am
phip
oda
G
amm
arid
ae
C
rang
onyx
860
224
3442
411
041
616
016
Gam
mar
us16
929
157
123
T
alitr
idae
Dec
opod
a
Cam
barid
ae
C
amba
rus
34
38
413
Ins
ecta
Col
eopt
era
C
urcu
lioni
dae
1
Dyt
isci
dae
Aga
bus
1337
121
101
1116
1
D
ytis
cus
417
Hyd
ropo
rus
81
211
035
371
519
3428
160
33
Elm
idae
Dub
iraph
ia2
1
O
ptio
serv
us1
23
Mac
rony
chus
1
S
tene
lmis
231
191
22
41
H
alip
lidae
Ple
tody
tes
26
12
12
H
ydro
phili
dae
Ber
osus
1
3
E
noch
rus
1
H
ydro
bius
12
3
H
ydro
philu
s1
Par
acym
us1
APP
END
IX C
MA
CR
OIN
VER
TEB
RA
TES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STA
TIO
N 0
FR
OM
GO
OSE
RU
N IN
TH
E VI
CIN
ITY
OF
POTT
STO
WN
LA
ND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
AN
IA
Mac
roin
verte
brat
e Ta
xa19
96
6/27
1997
8/
719
98
8/13
1999
N
/A20
00
6/22
2001
5/
2420
02
6/19
2003
5/
1520
04
7/
1420
05
6/
220
06
5/
2320
07
5/
1620
08
5/
3020
09
5/
220
10
5/
2520
11
6/
27
Pse
phen
idae
Pse
phen
us5
18
32
1446
Col
lem
bola
1
Ent
omob
ryid
ae
D
ipte
ra
Cer
atop
ogon
idae
211
Atri
chop
ogon
2
C
ulic
oide
s1
Pro
bezz
ia2
Bez
zial
Pal
pom
yia
106
C
hiro
nom
idae
1333
167
201
3423
3587
136
922
360
9824
373
642
432
422
8
Cul
icid
ae
C
ulex
7
Eph
ydrid
ae3
P
sych
odid
ae
P
eric
oma
5
Sim
uliid
ae1
1
S
imul
ium
2
Stra
tiom
yida
e
S
tratio
mys
1
Tip
ulid
ae1
Ant
ocha
12
3
P
olym
era
1
T
ipul
a3
23
16
Eph
emer
opte
ra
Bae
tidae
Bae
tis7
23
8919
482
2C
entro
ptilu
m
C
allib
aetis
231
C
aeni
dae
Cae
nis
1518
16
2822
32
E
phem
erel
lidae
1
E
uryl
ophe
lla6
112
74
811
H
epta
geni
idae
Ste
nacr
on1
126
192
13
Lep
toph
lebi
idae
Lep
toph
lebi
a1
1416
6
P
aral
epto
phle
bia
23
24
2
H
abro
phle
boid
es7
S
iphl
onur
idae
Sip
hlon
urus
31
O
ligon
eurii
dae
Ison
ychi
a3
Hem
ipte
ra6
B
elos
tom
idae
APP
END
IX C
MA
CR
OIN
VER
TEB
RA
TES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STA
TIO
N 0
FR
OM
GO
OSE
RU
N IN
TH
E VI
CIN
ITY
OF
POTT
STO
WN
LA
ND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
AN
IA
Mac
roin
verte
brat
e Ta
xa19
96
6/27
1997
8/
719
98
8/13
1999
N
/A20
00
6/22
2001
5/
2420
02
6/19
2003
5/
1520
04
7/
1420
05
6/
220
06
5/
2320
07
5/
1620
08
5/
3020
09
5/
220
10
5/
2520
11
6/
27
B
elos
tom
a1
C
orix
idae
Sig
ara
82
Hes
pero
corix
a16
127
1
T
richo
corix
a27
G
errid
ae
A
quar
ius
1
G
erris
54
113
Tre
poba
tes
18
V
eliid
ae
M
icro
velia
11
Lep
idop
tera
N
octu
idae
1
M
egal
opte
ra
Sia
lidae
Sia
lis4
72
1
O
dona
ta
Aes
chni
dae
Aes
chna
12
2
B
oyen
ia1
1
Coe
nagr
ioni
dae
Isch
nura
2
C
alop
tery
x1
1
Cor
dulii
dae
Neu
roco
rdul
ia1
G
omph
idae
Sty
logo
mph
us2
71
86
91
Lan
thus
43
Ple
copt
era
N
emou
ridae
Am
phin
emur
a14
51
P
erlid
ae
A
cron
euria
151
Ecc
optu
ra1
Per
lest
a12
2211
P
erlo
dida
e
I
sope
rla52
2
Tr
icop
tera
H
ydro
psyc
hida
e2
Cer
atop
sych
e28
Che
umat
opsy
che
3245
64
4
H
ydro
psyc
he2
526
Dip
lect
ona
41
Hyd
ropt
ilida
eH
ydro
ptila
21
APP
END
IX C
MA
CR
OIN
VER
TEB
RA
TES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STA
TIO
N 0
FR
OM
GO
OSE
RU
N IN
TH
E VI
CIN
ITY
OF
POTT
STO
WN
LA
ND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
AN
IA
Mac
roin
verte
brat
e Ta
xa19
96
6/27
1997
8/
719
98
8/13
1999
N
/A20
00
6/22
2001
5/
2420
02
6/19
2003
5/
1520
04
7/
1420
05
6/
220
06
5/
2320
07
5/
1620
08
5/
3020
09
5/
220
10
5/
2520
11
6/
27Le
ptoc
erid
aeM
ysta
cide
s 4
11
L
imne
phili
dae
1
Phi
lopo
tom
idae
Chi
mar
ra1
11
P
olyc
entro
podi
dae
Pol
ycen
tropu
s1
Zygo
pter
a
Les
tidae
Lest
es1
Mol
lusc
a G
astro
poda
Anc
ylid
ae2
1
L
ymna
eida
e
Fos
saria
16
Phy
sida
e2
6422
642
P
hysa
/Phy
sella
27
151
3470
292
Pla
norb
idae
11
Biv
alvi
a
Ven
eroi
da
S
phae
riida
e6
P
isid
ium
21
21
61
Pla
tyhe
lmin
thes
Tur
bella
ria2
T
ricla
dida
Pla
narii
dae
7
Dug
esia
6037
1To
tal S
peci
men
s15
0877
229
60
141
2618
1737
1420
826
400
216
785
1022
1282
731
255
Tota
l Tax
a22
2710
08
2316
2318
1017
2525
2630
11EP
T Ta
xa3
33
00
72
87
34
84
911
3EP
T/C
hiro
nom
idae
Rat
io0.
030.
240.
10
00.
006
0.11
81.
0926
.70.
0417
0.28
60.
144
0.06
250.
1650
90.
1697
50.
0175
439
APPENDIX D Tables
1. Water Quality Results for Station 1 and 4 (1988-2010)
2. Pollution Tolerance Indices
3. Station 1 Sample Results
4. Station 4 Sample Results
APPENDIX
D
Tabl
e I
Wat
er Q
ualit
y R
esul
ts fo
r Sta
tions
1 a
nd 4
(198
8 - 2
012)
NA
- N
o sa
mpl
es w
ere
colle
cted
in 1
999
beca
use
of d
roug
ht c
ondi
tions
. S
ubm
itted
11-
year
sum
mar
y re
port
to P
AD
EP
.
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Med
ian
Stat
ion
1Te
mp.
(oC
)21
1920
2020
.522
.520
2116
1925
NA
2313
.620
.63
14.7
19.6
21.1
12.8
22.4
619
.66
17.4
20.2
1922
.320
Dis
solv
ed O
27.
99.
28.
27.
78.
610
.69.
410
8.5
6.7
8.3
11.7
9.94
8.73
12.0
58.
559.
939.
179.
579.
348.
759.
99.
8N
A9.
2S
pec.
Con
d.(u
mho
s/cm
@ K
25)
pH (s
tand
. uni
ts)
7.5
7.8
7.3
7.2
7.6
7.5
7.2
7.3
7.2
6.7
7.1
5.4
7.78
7.2
7.1
7.49
6.93
9.42
7.9
7.3
6.98
7.05
7.9
6.41
7.25
Stre
am V
eloc
ity (f
t/sec
)0.
042.
450.
060.
070.
010.
080.
020.
010.
130.
010.
010.
250.
230.
223
0.29
0.82
0.01
0.01
0.01
3.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
Stat
ion
4Te
mp.
(oC
)17
.519
1922
.525
28.5
26.5
2122
2624
NA
2315
.85
19.5
313
.519
.318
.111
.820
.618
.520
.03
21.5
23.1
22.3
20.8
Dis
solv
ed O
29.
69.
410
.96.
97.
615
12.3
10.5
12.4
6.6
5.9
1210
.48
7.15
11.0
38.
558.
929.
719.
329.
379.
39.
39.
2N
A9.
37S
pec.
Con
d.(u
mho
s/cm
@ K
25)
pH (s
tand
. uni
ts)
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.6
8.6
7.5
7.8
7.5
6.6
76.
87.
547.
327.
677.
517.
198.
127.
417.
37.
076.
977.
37.
047.
405
Stre
am V
eloc
ity (f
t/sec
)0.
053.
50.
120.
290.
040.
130.
030.
030.
260.
010.
010.
890.
40.
763
0.23
1.35
0.01
0.01
0.01
2.17
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.04
5
272.
8
247.
2
309.
6
247.
620
1.3
305.
2
162.
2
303.
123
9.1
266
221.
3519
6.03
238.
15
267.
2321
120
939
031
434
035
818
235
30.
542
439
238
054
072
128
7
208
170
270
319
295
319
311
383
362
375
341
372.
5
192
230
0.57
263
266
248
233.
5
317.
726
2.7
TABLE 2ALPHABETIC LIST, POLLUTION TOLERANCE INDICES (LENAT 1993 AND KLEMM 1990), AND HILSENHOFF
BIOTIC INDICES (HILSENHOFF 1988 AND BODE 1988) FOR ALL MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED IN GOOSE RUN DURING 1988 THROUGH 2012.
Scientific Name Common NamePollution
Tolerance IndexHilsenhoff
Biotic IndexAcroneuria stonefly 0.0 - 2.2 0
Aeshna dragonfly 4 5Agabus predaceous diving beetle - 5Agnetina stonefly 0 2
Americanus mayfly 7.6 -Amphinemura stonefly 3.4 3
Anacaena water scavenger beetle - -Ancylidae snail 7
Anopheles mosquito 9.1 -Antocha crane fly 4.6 3Aquarius water strider NA
Argia blue damselfly 8.7 6Atherix snipe fly 2.1 2
Atrichopogon biting midge 6.8 2Attaneuria stonefly 3
Baetis mayfly 1.8-7.2 6Berosus water scavenger beetle 8.6 5Bezzia true fly 6Boyeria dragonfly 6.3 2Caenis square-gill mayfly 7.6 7
Callibaetis mayfly 9.3 9Cambarus crayfish 8.1 6
Centroptilum mayfly 2 0Ceratopogonidae biting midge 6 6
Ceratopsyche caddisfly 4 5Chaoboridae phantom midge 8.5 8Chaoborus phantom midge 8
Cheumatopsyche net-spinning caddisfly 6.6 6Chimarra caddisfly 2.8 4
Chironomidae midge 6.0 – 8.0 6Chrysops deer fly 7.3 7Cloeon mayfly 7.4 4
Coenagrionidae damselfly 9 8Collembola springtail 9Copelatus diving beetle 5 -Crangonyx scud 8 6
Culex mosquitoCulicidae mosquito - -Derallus water scavenger beetle 4 -
Dicronota crane fly 0 3Diptera true flies NA
Dolichopodidae long-legged fly 9.7 4Drunella mayfly 0.0-1.3 1
Dubiraphia riffle beetle 6.4 6Dugesia flat worm 7.5 7
Dytiscidae predaceous diving beetle 5Eccoptura stonefly 2
TABLE 2ALPHABETIC LIST, POLLUTION TOLERANCE INDICES (LENAT 1993 AND KLEMM 1990), AND HILSENHOFF
BIOTIC INDICES (HILSENHOFF 1988 AND BODE 1988) FOR ALL MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED IN GOOSE RUN DURING 1988 THROUGH 2012.
Scientific Name Common NamePollution
Tolerance IndexHilsenhoff
Biotic IndexEmpididae true fly 6Enallagma damselfly 9 8Enochrus water scavenger beetle 8.5 5
Ephemerella mayfly 1Ephydridae mayfly 6Erpobdella red leech 10 8
Eurylophella mayfly 0.3-5.1 4Ferrissia limpet snail 6.9 7Fossaria pond snail 6 7
Gammarus scud 6.9 6Gerridae water strider 9Gerris water strider - -
Glossosoma caddisfly 0G omphidae dragonfly 4Gomphus dragonfly 6.2 5Haeterina damselfly 6.2 -Haliplidae water beetle 5Helichus riffle beetle 5.4 5Helisoma planorbid snail 7
Helochares water scavenger beetle 4 5Helophorus water scavenger beetle 7.9 5
Hemerodromia dance fly 8.1 6Heptageniidae flathead mayfly 3Hesperocorixa true bug NA
Hexagenia burrowing mayfly 4.7 6Hirudinea leech 6 8Hyalella scud (digger amphipod) 7.9 8
Hydatophylax caddisfly 2.3 2Hydrobius water scavenger beetle - 5
Hydrophilidae water scavenger beetle - 5Hydrophilus water scavenger beetle 5 5Hydroporus predaceous diving beetle 8.9 5
Hydropsyche net-spinning caddisfly 1.8-8.1 5Hydroptila micro-caddisfly 6.2 6Ischnura damselfly 9.4 9Isonychia mayfly 3.8 3Isoperla stonefly 2
Laccophilus water scavenger beetle 10 5Lanthus dragonfly 2.7 5
Lepidostoma caddisfly 1 1Leptophlebia mayfly 4
Lestes damselfly 6 9Libellulidae dragonfly 9 9
Limnephilidae caddisfly 4Limnophora house fly - 6Lumbricidae semi aquatic earthworm - 8
Lumbriculidae aquatic earthworm 7.3 8
TABLE 2ALPHABETIC LIST, POLLUTION TOLERANCE INDICES (LENAT 1993 AND KLEMM 1990), AND HILSENHOFF
BIOTIC INDICES (HILSENHOFF 1988 AND BODE 1988) FOR ALL MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED IN GOOSE RUN DURING 1988 THROUGH 2012.
Scientific Name Common NamePollution
Tolerance IndexHilsenhoff
Biotic IndexMegadrili earthworm 8 -
Metrobates water strider - 9Microvelia broad-shouldered water strider - 9
Mooreobdella leech 8 0Mystacides caddisfly - 4
Naididae naiad worm 8 -Nematoda roundworm 9Neoperla stonefly 1.6 3
Neureclipsis caddisfly 4.4 7Nigronia alderfly 5.5 2
Notonecta back swimmer - -Oecetis caddisfly 5.7 8
Oligochaeta aquatic worm 10Optioservus riffle beetle 2.7 4Oulimnius riffle beetle 5.4 5Palpomyia true fly NA
Paraleptophlebia mayfly 1Parcymus water scavenger beetle - -Pericoma true fly 4Perlesta stonefly 4.9 4Physa pouch snail 9.1 8
Physidae snail 8 8Pisidium pill clam 6.8 8
Planaridae flatworm 9Planorbella snail (ram’s horn) 6.5 -Planorbidae planorbid snail 6Pletodytes crawling water beetle 8.5 5
Polycentropus caddisfly 3.5 6Prostoma proboscis worm 6 -
Prostomosa flatworm NAPsephenidae water penny 4Psephenus water penny 2.5 4Psychodidae moth fly 9.9 10Rhagovelia broad shouldered water strider 6 9
Rheumatobates water strider - -Serratella mayfly 0.0-2.7 2
Sialis alderfly 7.5 6Sigara water boatmen - 8
Simuliidae black fly 6 6Simulium black fly 4.4 6Stenacron mayfly 1.7-7.1 4Stenelmis riffle beetle 5.4 5
Stenonema mayfly 2.1-5.8 3Stratiomyiidae soldierfly - 8
Stratiomys soldierfly 8 -Stygobromis scud - -
Stylogomphus dragonfly 4.8 -
TABLE 2ALPHABETIC LIST, POLLUTION TOLERANCE INDICES (LENAT 1993 AND KLEMM 1990), AND HILSENHOFF
BIOTIC INDICES (HILSENHOFF 1988 AND BODE 1988) FOR ALL MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA COLLECTED IN GOOSE RUN DURING 1988 THROUGH 2012.
Scientific Name Common NamePollution
Tolerance IndexHilsenhoff
Biotic IndexTabanidae horse fly - 6
Tipula crane fly 7.7 4Tipulidae crane fly 4
Trepobates water strider - -Trichocorixa water boatmen 8 8
Tricorythodes mayfly 5.4 4Tropisternus water scavenger beetle 9.8 5Tubificidae tube worm 8.0-10.0 10Turbellaria flat worm 6 7
TAB
LE 3
MA
CR
OIN
VER
TEB
RA
TES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STA
TIO
N 1
FR
OM
GO
OSE
RU
N IN
TH
E VI
CIN
ITY
OF
POTT
STO
WN
LA
ND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
AN
IA
1988
5/
2319
89
7/17
1990
7/
1019
91
7/8
1992
7/
2019
93
7/
2719
94
7/
1319
95
7/
1019
96
6/
2719
97
8/
719
98
8/
1319
99
N
/A20
00
6/
2220
01
5/
2420
02
6/
1920
03
5/
1520
04
7/14
2005
6/
220
06
5/23
2007
5/
1620
08
5/30
2009
5/
220
10
5/25
2011
6/27
20
12
6/
15An
nelid
a3
Olig
ocha
eta
26/1
071
/10
473/
1063
/10
Lum
bric
ida
L
umbr
icid
ae13
1315
14
43
13
212
Lum
bric
ulid
a
Lum
bric
ulid
ae14
8
T
ubifi
cida
T
ubifi
cida
e 1
912
3
Nai
dida
e2
1 N
emat
oda
1 M
egad
rilli
165
Olig
ocha
eta
Rhy
ncho
bdel
lida
Glo
ssip
honi
idae
H
elob
della
e1
6 H
irudi
nea
1/8
2/8
Glo
ssip
honi
idae
H
elob
della
e1
G
loio
bdel
la1
Arth
ropo
da C
rust
acea
Dec
apod
a
Cam
barid
ae
C
amba
rus
22
41
3/6
3/6
4/6
47
32
12
Am
phip
oda
G
amm
arid
ae
C
rang
onyx
761
423
32
833
/66
4248
106
76
Sty
gobr
omus
1
G
amm
arus
73
1910
/63/
679
/6
Hya
lellid
ae
H
yale
lla4
31
21
Ins
ecta
Col
eopt
era
D
ryop
idae
Hel
ichu
s1
1
Dyt
isci
dae
31/
5
A
gabu
s3
32
31
212
73/5
4/5
77/5
35
103
1C
opel
atus
1
D
ytis
cus
1426
Hyd
ropo
rus
813
3417
156
626
104
287
/52/
585
/52/
57
736
2932
141
17
L
acco
philu
s9
11
E
lmid
ae
D
ubira
phia
43
3843
716
815
21/
65/
61
81
Mac
rony
chus
1
O
ulim
nius
1/5
Opt
iose
rvus
33
3945
9914
350
211
2/5
12
1
S
tene
lmis
3836
7484
447
5150
6637
1528
/52/
59/
52
110
810
15
H
alip
lidae
6/5
Ple
tody
tes
13
13
31
919
2213
12
5/5
6/5
5/5
35
621
142
11
H
ydro
philid
ae1
15
1
A
naca
ena
2
B
eros
us
21
11
Der
allu
s3
Eno
chru
s2
14
12
Hel
ocha
res
11
1
H
ydro
bius
11
43
52
1/5
21
Par
acym
us24
62
41
11
Tro
pist
ernu
s2
24
71
H
elop
horid
ae
H
elop
horu
s1
TAB
LE 3
MA
CR
OIN
VER
TEB
RA
TES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STA
TIO
N 1
FR
OM
GO
OSE
RU
N IN
TH
E VI
CIN
ITY
OF
POTT
STO
WN
LA
ND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
AN
IA
1988
5/
2319
89
7/17
1990
7/
1019
91
7/8
1992
7/
2019
93
7/
2719
94
7/
1319
95
7/
1019
96
6/
2719
97
8/
719
98
8/
1319
99
N
/A20
00
6/
2220
01
5/
2420
02
6/
1920
03
5/
1520
04
7/14
2005
6/
220
06
5/23
2007
5/
1620
08
5/30
2009
5/
220
10
5/25
2011
6/27
20
12
6/
15
Pse
phen
idae
Pse
phen
us13
1147
9320
740
225
104/
46/
47/
42
101
2226
1
C
olle
mbo
la
Ent
omob
ryid
ae1/
9
D
ipte
ra
Cer
atop
ogon
idae
11/
630
/6
A
trich
opog
on1
11
Bez
zial
Pal
pom
yia
210
13
13
375
C
haob
orid
ae
C
haob
orus
1/8
C
hiro
nom
idae
148
275
956
2849
636
147
928
615
963
647
5558
4461
/631
6/6
4566
/65/
613
0090
578
1288
262
471
436
380
C
ulic
idae
2
A
noph
eles
412
5
C
ulex
4/N
A
Dol
icho
podi
dae
1
Em
pidi
dae
Hem
erod
rom
ia2
35
19
16/
6
Eph
ydrid
ae
Mus
cida
e
L
imno
phor
a1
P
sych
odid
ae1
Per
icom
a1
S
ciom
yzid
ae
S
eped
on1
S
imul
iidae
8/6
6/6
Sim
uliu
m13
121
22/
6
Stra
tiom
yida
e1
1/8
T
aban
idae
1
Tip
ulid
ae
A
ntoc
ha26
1
D
icra
nota
2
T
ipul
a8
112
71
54
1/4
2/4
12
21
Ep
hem
erop
tera
B
aetid
ae
B
aetis
875
126
2530
543
101
28/6
9/6
41/6
3/6
1
C
allib
aetis
563
11
3/9
Clo
eon
151
Pro
cloe
on1
Cen
tropt
ilum
16
92
C
aeni
dae
Cae
nis
42
1410
022
621
946
20/7
2/7
86/7
1/7
14
6432
6419
25
Eph
emer
ellid
ae
E
phem
erel
la29
/16/
117
Eur
ylop
hella
321
7/4
1/4
233
2
S
erra
tella
36
Hep
tage
niid
ae
S
tena
cron
237
432
15
101/
316
2043
610
431
3
S
teno
nem
a24
5/3
L
epto
phyp
hida
e1
L
epto
phle
biid
ae
L
epto
phle
bia
11/4
1/4
1025
/4
P
aral
epto
phle
bia
416
1811
Hab
roph
lebo
ides
1
Siph
lonu
ridae
Sip
hlon
urus
11
O
ligon
eurii
dae
Ison
ychi
a1
42/
NA
T
ricor
ythi
dae
Tric
oryt
hode
s3
8263
162
156
830
35
Hem
ipte
ra
TAB
LE 3
MA
CR
OIN
VER
TEB
RA
TES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STA
TIO
N 1
FR
OM
GO
OSE
RU
N IN
TH
E VI
CIN
ITY
OF
POTT
STO
WN
LA
ND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
AN
IA
1988
5/
2319
89
7/17
1990
7/
1019
91
7/8
1992
7/
2019
93
7/
2719
94
7/
1319
95
7/
1019
96
6/
2719
97
8/
719
98
8/
1319
99
N
/A20
00
6/
2220
01
5/
2420
02
6/
1920
03
5/
1520
04
7/14
2005
6/
220
06
5/23
2007
5/
1620
08
5/30
2009
5/
220
10
5/25
2011
6/27
20
12
6/
15
Cor
ixid
ae
S
igar
a10
292
1811
35
776
120
1
H
espe
roco
rixa
1024
/NA
17/N
A9/
NA
Tric
hoco
rixa
5
Ger
ridae
2/9
Aqu
ariu
s1/
NA
367
Ger
ris6
37
25
23
313
Lim
nopo
rous
3
M
etro
bate
s4
2
T
repo
bate
s18
1
Vel
iidae
Mic
rove
lia12
2515
31
151
Rha
gove
lia1
1
M
egal
opte
ra
Sia
lidae
Sia
lis1
939
513
1147
424
321
Odo
nata
A
eshn
idae
Aes
hna
12
11
105
Boy
eria
2/2
1
Coe
nagr
ioni
dae
1
A
rgia
12
12
1/6
2
E
nalla
gma
1
Gom
phid
ae
G
omph
us1
21
1/5
1
L
anth
us14
2435
4/4
3
S
tylo
gom
phus
119
518
211
28
192
2
Les
tidae
Les
tes
2
Lib
ellu
lidae
1
Cal
opte
rygi
dae
Cal
opte
ryx
21
Plec
opte
ra2/
3
Nem
ourid
ae
A
mph
inem
ura
12/3
55/3
P
erlid
ae
A
cron
euria
5/0
70/0
Agn
etin
a1
Atta
neur
ia11
/3
E
ccop
tura
Neo
peria
21
Per
lest
a4
1/3
104
1420
111
P
erlo
dida
e
Is
oper
la68
/NA
11
Tric
opte
ra
Hyd
rops
ychi
dae
1/5
5/5
Che
umat
opsy
che
119
179
114
140
673
706/
617
3/6
11
Cer
atop
sych
e8/
5
H
ydro
psyc
he17
112
5115
119
4214
/511
/53
H
ydro
ptilid
ae
H
ydro
ptila
25
288
50/6
1/6
109/
61
L
epto
cerid
ae
M
ysta
cide
s10
1713
7
O
ecet
is1
L
imne
philid
ae2/
42/
4
Phi
lopt
omid
ae
C
him
arra
3358
130
61
1410
1/4
9/4
P
olyc
entro
podi
dae
Neu
recl
ipsi
s1
11
Pol
ycen
tropu
s3
145
11/
61
5
TAB
LE 3
MA
CR
OIN
VER
TEB
RA
TES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STA
TIO
N 1
FR
OM
GO
OSE
RU
N IN
TH
E VI
CIN
ITY
OF
POTT
STO
WN
LA
ND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
AN
IA
1988
5/
2319
89
7/17
1990
7/
1019
91
7/8
1992
7/
2019
93
7/
2719
94
7/
1319
95
7/
1019
96
6/
2719
97
8/
719
98
8/
1319
99
N
/A20
00
6/
2220
01
5/
2420
02
6/
1920
03
5/
1520
04
7/14
2005
6/
220
06
5/23
2007
5/
1620
08
5/30
2009
5/
220
10
5/25
2011
6/27
20
12
6/
15M
ollu
sca
Gas
tropo
da
A
ncyl
idae
F
erris
sia
318
11
Lym
naei
dae
F
ossa
ria2
324
3
P
hysi
dae
9/8
30/8
P
hysa
/Phy
sella
21
219
35
25/8
11
560
2620
201
Pla
norb
idae
4/6
5/6
Biv
alvi
a
Ven
eroi
da
Sp
haer
iidae
9/8
P
isid
ium
163
502
11/
81
Nem
atod
a1/
92/
9Pl
atyh
elm
inth
es T
urbe
llaria
T
ricla
dida
Plan
arid
ae4/
9
Pl
ariid
ae
Dug
esia
112
7023
145
425
646
154
76
7
Hop
lone
mer
tini
Tetra
stem
mat
idae
P
rost
omos
a2
2To
tal S
peci
men
s36
164
420
9841
9722
9557
912
3317
3313
1910
7019
710
849
5045
868
7536
413
7816
486
421
2669
574
557
044
7To
tal T
axa
2626
4649
3928
2646
3124
1110
3624
3320
1817
2130
2438
2122
EPT
Taxa
79
1410
93
311
76
31
155
1210
77
78
412
33
EPT/
Chi
rono
mid
ae R
atio
0.58
0.56
0.66
0.18
0.36
0.05
0.12
0.86
0.19
0.38
1.35
0.02
0.04
50.
047
0.32
420.
0416
670.
489
0.26
10.
070.
790.
2186
837
0.06
1926
60.
013
Div
ersi
ty In
dex
2.12
1.99
2.26
1.6
2.16
1.72
1.1
2.4
1.23
1.34
2.57
1.35
0.85
1.68
1.88
1.77
1.76
71.
621.
31.
252.
241.
781.
050.
81Ev
enne
ss0.
660.
60.
590.
410.
590.
520.
340.
620.
370.
420.
820.
630.
170.
381
0.37
0.11
TAB
LE 4
MAC
RO
INVE
RTE
BR
ATES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STAT
ION
4 F
RO
M G
OO
SE R
UN
IN T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F PO
TTST
OW
N L
AND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
ANIA
1988
5/
2319
89
7/17
1990
7/
1019
91
7/8
1992
7/
2019
93
7/27
1994
7/
1319
95
7/10
1996
6/
2719
97
8/7
1998
8/
1320
00 6
/22
2001
5/
2420
02
6/19
2003
5/15
2004
7/
1420
05
6/2
2006
5/23
2007
5/16
2008
5/30
2009
5
/220
10
5/
2520
11
Anne
lida
Hiru
dini
da
E
rpob
delli
dae
E
rpob
della
10
Moo
reob
della
2 O
ligoc
haet
a2
11/1
015
1/10
767/
1039
/10
1
L
umbr
icid
a
Lum
bric
idae
34
82
210
1077
916
2
L
umbr
icul
ida
L
umbr
icul
idae
68
1
T
ubifi
cida
T
ubifi
cida
e 12
102
1 H
irudi
nea
1/8
6/8
Meg
adril
li64
2Ar
hync
hobd
ellid
a E
rpob
delli
dae
Erp
obde
lla1/
8Ar
thro
poda
Cru
stac
ea
D
ecap
oda
C
amba
ridae
Cam
baru
s3
513
21
11
5/6
52
26
31
Am
phip
oda
G
amm
arid
ae
C
rang
onyx
35
309
31
226
44/6
1310
871
6626
28
G
amm
arus
101
1848
/626
/611
7/6
Sty
gobr
omis
19
T
alitr
idae
Hya
lella
1
Hya
lelli
dae
Hya
lella
113
92
2 I
NSE
CTA
Col
eopt
era
D
ryop
idae
Hel
ichu
s1
23
D
ytis
cida
e1
1/5
Aga
bus
14
153
/56/
513
3/5
1118
481
Dyt
iscu
s5
55
H
ydro
poru
s11
422
46
417
249
83/5
17/5
168/
530
1453
4519
235
16
L
acco
philu
s7
11
E
lmid
ae
A
ncyr
onx
1
D
ubira
phia
11
94
85
61
21
26
Opt
iose
rvus
339
3710
024
61
21
14
Oul
imni
us6/
5
M
acro
nych
us1
Ste
nelm
is3
1249
150
8212
127
1318
13
31/5
13/5
24/5
13/5
14
3820
1712
H
alip
lidae
Ple
tody
tes
91
214
39
124
2/5
1015
218
904
4
Hyd
roph
ilida
e1
2
A
naca
ena
Ber
osus
2
63
72
12
132
Der
allu
s1
Eno
chru
s5
1
H
eloc
hare
s1/
NA
Hyd
robi
us2
1
H
ydro
char
a2
Par
acym
us1
31
Tro
pist
ernu
s2
21
H
elop
horid
ae
TAB
LE 4
MAC
RO
INVE
RTE
BR
ATES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STAT
ION
4 F
RO
M G
OO
SE R
UN
IN T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F PO
TTST
OW
N L
AND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
ANIA
1988
5/
2319
89
7/17
1990
7/
1019
91
7/8
1992
7/
2019
93
7/27
1994
7/
1319
95
7/10
1996
6/
2719
97
8/7
1998
8/
1320
00 6
/22
2001
5/
2420
02
6/19
2003
5/15
2004
7/
1420
05
6/2
2006
5/23
2007
5/16
2008
5/30
2009
5
/220
10
5/
2520
11
Hel
opho
rus
1
Pse
phen
idae
1
P
seph
enus
2927
2828
224
639
527
1421
/418
/48/
44
213
222
311
Dip
tera
2/N
A
Ath
eric
idae
Ath
enix
11
C
erat
opog
onid
ae7/
6
A
trich
opog
on27
21
Bez
zial
Pal
pom
yia
122
31
161
1
P
robe
zzia
4
Cha
obor
idae
1
Chi
rono
mid
ae44
977
1280
1306
380
345
910
412
1134
332
7913
231
1/6
221/
611
54/6
29/6
808
4934
323
625
231
632
8
Cul
icid
ae1
1
A
noph
eles
1
Dol
icho
podi
dae
1
Em
pidi
dae
9/6
Hem
erod
rom
ia4
162
24/
6
Eph
ydrid
ae1/
6
Mus
cida
e
L
imno
phor
a1/
6
Psy
chod
idae
Per
icom
a
Sim
uliid
ae12
/614
/6
S
imul
ium
818
313
12
405/
6
Stra
tiom
yida
e1
1
S
tratio
mys
1
Tab
anid
ae1/
6
T
aban
us2/
61
2
C
hrys
ops
21
1
1
S
ciom
yzid
ae1/
NA
1
S
eped
on1
T
ipul
idae
1
A
ntoc
ha1
23
61
Dic
rano
ta4
Tip
ula
44
108
18
2/4
2/4
2/4
1/4
13
210
Ephe
mer
opte
ra
Bae
tidae
Bae
tis80
9147
217
797
1127
912
3/6
263/
611
3/6
3/6
72
364
Cal
libae
tis57
1616
/
C
loeo
n3
Cen
tropt
ilum
176
72
244
C
aeni
dae
Cae
nis
403
629
2646
78
991
/73/
724
/75/
740
435
4830
33
Eph
emer
ellid
ae
D
rune
lla4
6
E
phem
erel
la31
/11/
120
/13
Eur
ylop
hella
112
14/4
23/4
45
210
1216
Ser
rate
lla68
13
25
Eph
emer
idae
2
H
exag
enia
H
epta
geni
idae
2
E
peor
us7/
Mac
caffe
rtium
1
S
tena
cron
164
1125
42
13
2/3
3/3
100
1844
518
015
12
Ste
none
ma
22
20/3
3/3
2/3
Is
onyc
hiid
ae
Is
onyc
hia
1
Lep
toph
lebi
idae
Lep
toph
lebi
a51
/459
/4
P
aral
epto
phle
bia
161
112
214
108
24
TAB
LE 4
MAC
RO
INVE
RTE
BR
ATES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STAT
ION
4 F
RO
M G
OO
SE R
UN
IN T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F PO
TTST
OW
N L
AND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
ANIA
1988
5/
2319
89
7/17
1990
7/
1019
91
7/8
1992
7/
2019
93
7/27
1994
7/
1319
95
7/10
1996
6/
2719
97
8/7
1998
8/
1320
00 6
/22
2001
5/
2420
02
6/19
2003
5/15
2004
7/
1420
05
6/2
2006
5/23
2007
5/16
2008
5/30
2009
5
/220
10
5/
2520
11
Hab
roph
lebo
ides
6
Sip
hlon
urid
ae
S
iphl
onur
us2
O
ligon
eurii
dae
Ison
ychi
a1
56
1
Tric
oryt
hida
e
Tr
icor
ytho
des
6512
150
14
31
H
emip
tera
C
orix
idae
Sig
ara
75
61
1459
118
102
322
444
Hes
pero
corix
a1
55/
NA
5/N
A1/
NA
Tric
hoco
rixa
G
errid
ae
A
quar
ius
1/N
A1
Ger
ris1
61
41
Met
roba
tes
9
R
heum
atob
ates
1
T
repo
bate
s1
11
12
N
oton
ectid
ae
N
oton
ecta
13
V
eliid
ae
M
icro
velia
68
1616
51
3
Le
pido
pter
a
Noc
tuid
ae6/
NA
Rha
gove
lia3
12
13
64
Meg
alop
tera
C
oryd
alid
ae
N
igro
nia
3
Sia
lidae
Sia
lis3
2614
134
3023
164
22/
62/
620
/61
1
O
dona
ta
Aes
hnid
ae
A
eshn
a1
63
3
B
oyen
ia3
11/
22
1
Coe
nagr
ioni
dae
15
A
rgia
11
14
3/N
A2
Ena
llagm
a3
12
Is
chnu
ra4
2
Gom
phid
ae4/
4
G
omph
us1
72
11
1/N
A
L
anth
us32
4657
31
2/4
1
S
tylo
gom
phus
3115
104
525
/41
18
3837
4
Les
tidae
Les
tes
L
ibel
lulid
ae
L
ibel
lula
1
Cal
opte
rygi
dae
C
alop
tery
x1
11
2
Pl
ecop
tera
N
emou
ridae
Am
phin
emur
a36
45/3
3/3
16/3
44
P
erlid
ae
A
cron
euria
11
142/
08/
115
/02
Agn
etin
a2
22
4
E
ccop
tura
11
1
N
eope
rla3
244
7
P
erle
sta
322
50/4
15
4948
60
Per
lodi
dae
Isop
erla
83/2
17/2
14
1
Tr
icop
tera
TAB
LE 4
MAC
RO
INVE
RTE
BR
ATES
CO
LLEC
TED
YEA
RLY
AT
STAT
ION
4 F
RO
M G
OO
SE R
UN
IN T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F PO
TTST
OW
N L
AND
FILL
, MO
NTG
OM
ERY
CO
UN
TY, P
ENN
SYLV
ANIA
1988
5/
2319
89
7/17
1990
7/
1019
91
7/8
1992
7/
2019
93
7/27
1994
7/
1319
95
7/10
1996
6/
2719
97
8/7
1998
8/
1320
00 6
/22
2001
5/
2420
02
6/19
2003
5/15
2004
7/
1420
05
6/2
2006
5/23
2007
5/16
2008
5/30
2009
5
/220
10
5/
2520
11
G
loss
osom
atid
ae
G
loss
osom
a1/
1
Hyd
rops
ychi
dae
1/5
Che
umat
opsy
che
224
184
219
447
822
9213
/640
/661
/61
2
C
erat
opsy
che
2/5
Hyd
rops
yche
1214
365
67
535
111
151
/51/
52
H
ydro
ptili
dae
Hyd
ropt
ila2
3/6
1/6
L
epid
osto
mat
idae
Lep
idos
tom
a3
8
Lep
toce
ridae
Mys
taci
des
11
181
31
28
1
O
ecet
is
Lim
neph
ilida
e3/
4
H
ydat
ophy
lax
7
P
ycno
psyc
he3
P
hilo
ptom
idae
Chi
mar
ra6
1455
233
241
16
817
/42/
42
P
olyc
entro
podi
dae
Neu
recl
ipsi
s
N
yctio
phyl
ax1
Pol
ycen
tropu
s5
171
41
14/
61/
61/
62
83
Mol
lusc
a G
astro
poda
Anc
ylid
ae
Fer
rissi
a7
211
11
Lym
naei
dae
F
ossa
ria2
12
11
Phy
sida
e8
12/8
30/8
P
hysa
/Phy
sella
13
721
354
3014
5/8
4414
1442
1271
Pla
norb
idae
2/6
7/6
24/6
P
lano
rbel
la/H
elis
oma
11
523
/61
G
yrau
lus
3 B
ival
via
V
ener
oida
Spha
eriid
ae
2/8
P
isid
ium
112
185
13
1/8
2Pl
atyh
elm
inth
es T
urbe
llaria
T
ricla
dida
Plan
ariid
ae23
/9
Dug
esia
4721
872
361
810
1
Hop
lone
mer
tini
Tetra
stem
mat
idae
P
rost
omos
a3
Tota
l Spe
cim
ens
966
303
2501
3015
1576
810
1244
716
1570
568
118
182
1235
950
2781
432
1304
181
572
643
1276
927
546
Tota
l Tax
a30
2038
5650
4236
3332
2111
1031
3035
2337
2127
3331
3428
EPT
Taxa
126
1115
1611
99
62
32
1311
158
98
1510
1114
5EP
T/C
hiro
nom
idae
Rat
io0.
931.
910.
730.
680.
830.
290.
140.
220.
210.
030.
140.
082.
051.
930.
272.
690.
421.
100.
350.
567
1.74
1.13
0.02
7439
Div
ersi
ty In
dex
2.01
2.07
1.76
2.26
2.61
2.15
1.31
1.75
1.25
1.57
1.71
1.01
3.72
3.15
2.69
2.13
2.13
32.
291.
62.
212.
582.
411.
58Ev
enne
ss0.
60.
70.
480.
560.
670.
590.
370.
50.
370.
530.
540.
460.
770.
660.
530.
41
Not
e: C
ells
for y
ears
200
1thr
ough
200
4 in
clud
e tw
o nu
mbe
rs.
The
first
num
ber r
epre
sent
s th
e nu
mbe
r of s
peci
men
s co
llect
ed
at th
e st
atio
n. T
he s
econ
d nu
mbe
r rep
rese
nts
the
Hils
enho
ff Bi
otic
Inde
x (s
ensi
tivity
enu
mer
atio
n) fo
r tha
t par
ticul
ar g
enus
and
sp
ecie
s.
APPENDIX E
Resumes of STV Personnel
APPENDIX E
SERVING THE OIL, GAS, AND PIPELINE INDUSTRIES
R ESU M ES 1
Steven Sottung, LEED®APEnvironmental
Mr. Sottung is an environmental scientist and project manager with more than 20 years of diversified environmental experience. He has had extensive involvement in media characterization for hazardous waste constituents, soil remediation design, detailed site investigations, ecological risk assessment, and benthic macroinvertebrate, and fish sam-pling methods for private and government clients. He also coordinates efforts with lo-cal, state, and federal environmental regulatory agencies and is experienced in client management, project scoping, conflict resolution, cost tracking, project budgets, man-power scheduling and tracking, administration, and management of various subcon-tractor agreements for each project.
Project ExperienceSunoco Pipeline Phase I Environmental Property Audit for the Midpoint Booster Station - Project Environmental ScientistConducted a Phase I environmental property audit at the site in Gloucester County, NJ, in accordance with the most recent ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessment: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (E1527-93). The audit consisted of a site reconnaissance, review of aerial photographs and pertinent maps, and an environmental database and regulatory records review. Mr. Sottung conducted inter-views with NJDEP and USEPA personnel familiar with the site, performed a review of past and present site use activities, and prepared a detailed technical report. The audit used historical documents, aerial photographs, visual observations, public records, and regulatory databases in order to characterize recognized environmental conditions at the site.
USDA Poultry Research Station - Project Environmental ScientistConducted a Phase I environmental audit at the facility in Georgetown, DE. The audit consisted of a complete site reconnaissance, an environmental database and regula-tory records review, interviews with site representatives, reviews of past and present site use activities, and preparation of a detailed technical report. Mr. Sottung used histori-cal documents, aerial photographs, visual observations, public records, and regulatory databases in order to characterize recognized environmental conditions at the Poultry Research Laboratory.
UGI Energy Systems ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Project ManagerManaged an ASTM Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted on a 20-acre site in Temple, PA. UGI Energy Systems was considering acquisition of the parcel for the construction of an aboveground storage tank for the expansion of its plant. Mr. Sottung was responsible for ensuring the delivery of the draft and final ESA reports on time for client review and approval.
FirmSTV
EducationBachelor of Science, Marine Biology; St. Francis College of the University of New England
Training/Certifica-tionsLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design; U.S. Green Building Council
Basic 40-Hour OSHA Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Re-sponse Certification and 8-Hour Refresh-ers (annually)
Project Management Training; Pennsylva-nia State University
Site Supervisors Training
Publications“Changing Chan-nels” published in Civil Engineering, July 2002. By Thomas Rados, Steven Sottung, Deborah Descaro, and Roger Zyma
MembershipsPennsylvania Associ-ation of Environmen-tal Professionals
SERVING THE OIL, GAS, AND PIPELINE INDUSTRIES
R ESU M ES 2
PADGS SCI Laurel Highlands - Project Environmental SpecialistConducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the prison site in Som-erset, PA. The assessment consisted of a complete site reconnaissance, an environmen-tal database and regulatory records review, interviews with site representatives, reviews of past and present site use activities, review and interpretation of aerial photographs, and preparation of a Phase I ESA Report. The assessment utilized historical documents, aerial photographs, visual observations, public records, and regulatory databases in or-der to characterize environmental conditions.
FBI Academy Range No. 1 NEPA Environmental Assessment - Project ManagerManaged an Environmental Assessment (EA) program in accordance with NEPA re-quirements for the siting and construction of an outdoor small arms training range at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA. Mr. Sottung prepared environmental documents for a 5-acre parcel of land that included an open field and wooded area. The range will be located on land previously occupied by an outdoor firearms training range. The NEPA EA comprised background data collection and review, national resource surveys, wetland delineation, and alternatives analyses. He was also responsible for the project budget and overall schedule.
FBI Academy NEPA Supplemental Environmental Assessment - Project ManagerPerformed a NEPA Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA), using NEPA doc-umentation prepared for previous site development projects, to determine the potential impacts related to the construction and operation of the preferred alternative for a new facility at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA. The alternatives included a 500-yard pre-cision rifle deck with associated facilities (range tech shed with adjacent range training towers, ammunition storage warehouse, target pits, façade); a Tactical Services Branch administration office building; a 3-story parking garage; and an enhanced landing zone. The work included site visits, wetland delineations, agency coordination, evaluation of proposed surface danger zones, review of traffic impacts, noise assessment, and socio-economic impacts. The SEA draft and final documents were prepared in anticipation of the FBI and U.S. Marine Corps review and subsequent approval, and U.S. Marine Corps approval of the SEA was granted in August 2006.
FBI Academy Firearms Range Renovation Range Training Center NEPA Environmental Assessment - Project ManagerManaged an Environmental Assessment (EA) program in accordance with NEPA re-quirements for a new firearms range training center on a 75-acre tract of land at the FBI Academy in Quantico, VA, in support of the client’s wish to modernize portions of the project area to state-of-the-art facilities to perform adequate training. The proposed development included firearms ranges, soil impact berms, a heliport, and paved areas to be constructed in an area of open fields, forested areas, wetlands, and streams. The EA program included background data collection and review, regulatory agency correspon-dence, natural resource surveys, wetland identification and delineation, comprehensive soils investigation, archaeological and cultural resource assessment, topographic and boundary surveys, geotechnical and geophysical investigation, alternatives analysis, and report writing. Mr. Sottung also conducted regular correspondence with client, state and federal regulatory agencies, and natural resource agencies. He successfully managed a multidisciplinary team that included a total of seven subcontractors.
SERVING THE OIL, GAS, AND PIPELINE INDUSTRIES
R ES U M ES 1
Peter M. GaskinsEnvironmental Scientist
Mr. Gaskins is an environmental scientist and task manager with experience in envi-ronmental site investigations, assessments, and soil and groundwater remediation. His project experience includes wetland delineation, habitat evaluation, and threatened and endangered species inventories, as well as Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) in accordance with ASTM E-1527 standards. Mr. Gaskins is also experienced in evaluating permit requirements and preparing and coordinating permit submittal. His environmental testing and remediation experience includes supervising sampling programs and drilling operations, wastewater and soil management planning, and identifying remediation alternatives using conventional and innovative methods.
Project ExperienceBuckeye Partners Susquehanna River Crossing Project - Lead Environmental Scientist Responsible for the preparation and submission of the approved Joint U.S. Army Corps of Engineer/NY State Department of Environmental Conservation permit for activities related to the repair of a feature anomaly on the existing 6-inch Binghamton Termi-nal to Candor (BI751CZ) petroleum products pipeline within the bed and banks of the Susquehanna River, in Broome County, NY. Mr. Gaskins conducted detailed site surveys and prepared a wetland delineation report and environmental assessment for supporting permit documentation. His responsibilities also included federal, state, and local level agency coordination, along with client project manager and right-of-way co-ordination activities, coordinating and managing project pre-application meetings, on-site data collection, sub-contractor coordination, and subsequent reporting and permit development.
Sunoco Partners Tamaqua Pipeline Repairs - Lead Environmental Scientist Responsible for the preparation of applicable permitting requirements for repairs to the Tamaqua Pipeline in Schuylkill County, PA. Mr. Gaskins conducted a site survey and prepared the wetland delineation report and environmental assessment forms for permit submission. He developed a feasibility study for potential relocation options prior to permitting and construction phases. The investigation of wetlands and waterways had returned no findings. Mr. Gaskins was responsible for agency coordination, a permit pre-application meeting, on-site data collection, and subsequent reporting.
Sunoco Pipeline Rahway River Wetland Restoration - Environmental ScientistDeveloped final remediation reports for the restoration of tidal wetlands and the instal-lation of vegetation over two segments of 8-inch pipeline in Linden, NJ. Mr. Gaskins collected soil and water data, oversaw the contractor during site remediation efforts, co-ordinated access issues, coordinated with agency personnel, and managed on-site moni-toring programs. Final remedial reports documenting overall monitoring efforts were submitted and subsequently reviewed and approved by the appropriate agencies.
FirmSTV
EducationBachelor of Sci-ence, Environmental Science; Kutztown University
Training/Certifica-tionsOSHA 40-hour HAZWOPER Certi-fication
Gearing Up For the Next Phase: Vapor Intrusion & Due Diligence Challenges in the Real World; Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
PennDOT Waste Site Evaluation Procedure Training
1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Interagency Wetlands Delineation Method and Wetland Delin-eator Certification Program
OSHA Standard First Aid
OSHA Adult CPR Course
MembershipsPennsylvania Associ-ation of Environmen-tal Professionals
SERVING THE OIL, GAS, AND PIPELINE INDUSTRIES
R ES U M ES 2
Sunoco Partners, L.P. Swatara Creek Pipeline Relocation - Lead Environmental ScientistConducting a site survey and prepared the wetland delineation report and environmen-tal assessment forms for maintenance activities on a portion of the pipeline in Middle-town, PA. The project consists of a feasibility study for potential relocation options that resulted from the exposure of the existing 8-inch pipeline. The investigation of wetlands and waterways had returned no findings. Mr. Gaskins is responsible for agency coordination, a permit pre-application meeting, on-site data collection, and subsequent reporting.
Colonial Pipeline Arthur Kill Dredge Pipeline Relocation - Environmental ScientistCollecting soil and water data to develop final remediation reports for the wetlands restoration phase for the relocation of two existing 12-inch, high-pressure petroleum pipelines in Port Ivory, NY, and Elizabeth, NJ. Mr. Gaskins is overseeing the contractor during site remediation efforts, coordinating access issues, coordinating with agency personnel, and working on a 5-year site monitoring program to verify that the wetlands thrive.
Sunoco Pipeline Motiva Crude Terminaling Project - Lead Environmental Scientist Conducting wetlands delineation and habitat assessment along a proposed 8.3-mile pipeline route of Sunoco’s new crude oil delivery system from their Nederland Ma-rine Terminal (NMT) to Motiva’s Port Arthur Refinery (PAR), as part of Motiva’s planned refinery capacity expansion program in Port Arthur, TX. Mr. Gaskins is also responsible for performing threatened and endangered species surveys, coordinating with environmental agencies, and preparing reports and appropriate permits. The proj-ect includes the construction of two 36-inch tank transfer pipelines (0.7 mile long), a 25,000-bph (5,000-hp) originating pump station, a metering facility, new manifolds, and three 600,000-bbl aboveground crude oil storage tanks at the NMT; an 8.2-mile, 30-inch pipeline between the NMT and the PAR; a delivery/metering station at the PAR; and dredging of a lay berth (by Sunoco) in the Neches River. (8/07 - Present)
Qwest Government Services Environmental Services - Lead Environmental Scientist Responsible for the preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to meet the require-ments of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), for the installation of over 30 miles of fiber optics cable. Mr. Gaskins prepared a wetlands delineation along the entire corridor, and coordinated threatened and endangered species information with regulatory agencies in support of the EA. He is responsible for field activity coordina-tion, reporting, and providing the client with schedules and status reports.
Baltimore Gas & Electric Southern Reinforcement Project - Environmental ScientistConducted site surveys to identify potential wetlands, researching GIS information, and identifying permitting requirements for an approximately 13-mile new pipeline in How-ard County, MD. Mr. Gaskins is developing wetland delineation reports and threatened, coordinating endangered species protection efforts, and assisting in the preparation of a Joint Permit application for wetland, stream, and floodplain impacts.