POTTSTOWN LANDFILL AND RECYCLING CENTER ANNUAL

Transcription

POTTSTOWN LANDFILL AND RECYCLING CENTER
ANNUAL MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY REPORT
WASTE MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
July 2014
Prepared for:
Waste Management Disposal Services of Pennsylvania
Pottstown Landfill and Recycling Center
1425 Sell Road
Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464
Prepared by:
STV Energy Services, Inc.
205 West Welsh Drive
Douglassville, Pennsylvania 19518
(610) 385-8200
STV Project No. 04-11993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................................1
2.0
METHODS .......................................................................................................................................................1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.0
MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLES ........................................................................................................1
ABIOTIC PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................................2
DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................3
WATER QUALITY.......................................................................................................................................4
STUDY AREA AND SAMPLE STATION DESCRIPTIONS.....................................................................4
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.0
STUDY AREA ..............................................................................................................................................4
SAMPLE STATION 0 ...................................................................................................................................4
SAMPLE STATION 1 (BRIDGE) .................................................................................................................5
STATION 4 (LEVENGOOD ROAD) ...........................................................................................................6
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 – 2014 Data Evaluation and Comparison ....................................................................................8
5.0
SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................9
6.0
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 13
Figures
1
Project Location Map
Appendices
A
B
C
D
E
Data Field Sheets for Stream Macroinvertebrates and Characterization
Photograph Log
Station 0 Macroinvertebrate Sample Results
Tables
1
Water Quality Results for Stations 1 and 4 (1988 - 2014)
2
Pollution Tolerance Indices
3
Station 1 Sample Results
4
Resumes of STV Personnel
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In May 2014, STV Energy Services, 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. Pre1998 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 2014 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 were lower than previous years; however this
is a result of recent storm events that resulted in a flushing of the communities.
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.
ii
Evaluations of abiotic and biological data collected and analyzed over the past 26 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 disturbances within the
benthic habitat. These variations are likely the result of weather extremes (e.g., drought,
hurricanes, periodic thunderstorms with heavy discharge rates) 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 can be 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.
iii
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 twenty six years for ease of comparison.
Macroinvertebrate collections, habitat descriptions, and water quality measurements were
performed by Amanda Schellhamer and Laura Rowlands, STV Environmental Scientists with
experience in aquatic sampling procedures. Samples were sorted and specimens identified by
Normandeau Associates, Inc. This report was prepared by Amanda Schellhamer 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 postprocessing of quantitative data, which included some statistical evaluations of data from 1998,
and 2000 through 2013 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 2014 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
1
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:
2.2
•
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.
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).
2
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); and
A ratio between sensitive and tolerant taxa (Ratio of EPT and Chironomidae
abundances, respectively)
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.
3
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 556 MPS muli-meter 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. During the 2014 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.
On May 23, 2014, 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
4
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 1 to 3 inches (riffle/run) and 20 to 25 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 the riffle and the run areas consisted primarily of
boulders and gravel. Stream depths at sampling points ranged from 2 to 6 inches in the riffle/run
area and up to 12 inches in the pool area. 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.
5
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 20 inches (pool) and 3 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 most compelling
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 26 years of water quality field data from Goose Run (1988 through 1998, and
2000 – 2014). In 2014, 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 (11.4 ppm) and Station 4 (11.2 ppm)
are within the optimal range for a healthy and stable aquatic ecosystem (6 to 14 ppm).
The Station 1 pH level (8.2) was slightly higher than the previous year and was within the
optimal range for a healthy and stable aquatic ecosystem (6.5 to 8.5). The Station 4 pH level
6
(7.1) was within the optimal range and slightly below the average over the last 26 years of data
collection (7.4).
The stream temperature at Station 1was 17.6°C and Station 4 was 16.9°C and were slightly lower
than the previous year (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 preceding
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
embankment, 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 2014, 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 2014, a total of 11 taxa and 1,130 specimens were collected from Station 1
(Table 3 in Appendix D). A total of 22 taxa and 826 specimens were collected from Station 4
(Table 4 in Appendix D).
4.2.1
Sample Station 1 - Levengood Road
In 2014, 1,130 specimens representing 11 taxa were collected from Station 1, which is 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
Chironomidae
Caenis
Stenacron
Eurylophella
Psephenus
Common Name
Midges
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Water Penny
Number
Collected
880
160
48
24
9
Percent
Abundance
77.9
14.2
4.2
2.1
0.8
7
Tolerance
Values
6.0-8.0
7.6
1.7-7.1
0.3-5.1
2.5
Biotic Index
6
7
4
4
4
The number of specimens captured from EPT and Chironomidae taxa produced an
EPT/Chironomidae ratio of .26, 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 2014 sampling program. This below average ratio is most likely the result of recent heavy
rains in the previous days and weeks (i.e., rainfall totals for the Reading area are running 15%
above average since the beginning of the year).
4.2.2
Sample Station 4 - Downstream of Permit Area
In 2014, 826 specimens representing 22 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
Chironomidae
Caenis
Eurylophella
Stenacron
Neoporus
Common Name
Midges
Mayfly
Mayfly
Mayfly
Diving Beetle
Number
Collected
662
52
28
16
10
Percent Abundance
80.1
6.3
3.4
1.9
1.2
Tolerance
Values
6.0-8.0
7.6
0.3-5.1
1.7-7.1
--
Biotic
Index
6
7
4
4
5
The number of specimens captured from EPT and Chironomidae taxa produced an EPT/
Chironomidae ratio of .19, which is below the median value recorded for Station 4 since the
study began in 1988. It is anticipated that this below average ratio is likely the result of recent
heavy rains in the previous days and weeks. (i.e., rainfall totals for the Reading area are running
15% above average since the beginning of the year).
4.2.3
1998 – 2014 Data Evaluation and Comparison
Station 1
The following section details individual metrics utilized to describe community health from year
to year at Station 1.
1. Taxa/Species Richness Indices (1998 - 2013)
Total number of taxa (range):
- from 10 (2000) to 38 (2001)
- mean = 27.5; std. dev. = 10.2
- 2014 taxa value - 11
Total number of specimens (range):
- from 108 (2000) to 6875 (2003)
- mean = 1378.8; std. dev. = 1809.9
- 2014 specimen value - 1130
2. EPT Index (1998 - 2013)
Total number of EPT taxa (range):
- from 1 (2000) to 15 (2001)
- mean = 7.3; std. dev. = 3.7
8
- 2014 EPT value - 3
3. EPT/Chironomidae Ratio (1998 - 2013)
Ratio of EPT to Chironomidae taxa (range):
- from 0.02 (2000) to 42 (2004)
- mean = 2; std. dev. = 8.3
- 2014 EPT/Chironomidae value – .26
In comparison with data from the previous 16 sampling years, 2014 data represent values for
taxa/species richness (density) and number of EPT taxa within the previous sampling years’
average.
Station 4
The following section details individual metrics utilized to describe community health from year
to year at Station 4.
Taxa/Species Richness Indices (1998 - 2013)
Total number of taxa (range):
- from 10 (2000) to 37 (2005)
- mean = 30; std. dev. = 10.7
- 2014 taxa value - 22
Total number of specimens (range):
- from 118 (1998) to 2781 (2003)
- mean = 1000; std. dev. = 795.8
- 2014 specimen value – 826
EPT Index (1998 - 2013)
Total number of EPT taxa (range):
- from 2 (2000) to 15 (2003)
- mean = 9; std. dev. = 4.2
- 2014 EPT value – 9
EPT/Chironomidae Ratio (1998 - 2013)
Ratio of EPT to Chironomidae taxa (range):
- from 0.08 (2000) to 2.69 (2004)
- mean = 0.76; std. dev. =0.74
- 2014 EPT/Chironomidae value – .19
In comparison with data from the previous 16 sampling years, 2014 data represent lower
taxa/species richness (density) values and number of EPT taxa, and a lower EPT/Chironomidae
ratio.
5.0
SUMMARY
In late May 2014, 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
9
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; post1998 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 that were collected as part of the stream
survey indicate that post-1998 Goose Run has recovered from stressed conditions that resulted
from extreme climatological and the resultant environmental stresses (i.e., significant drought
and flooding events). An evaluation of all 2014 sampling data presented herein does not indicate
adverse impacts (i.e., pollution) to water quality within Goose Run that can be attributed to the
permit area. Comparisons of water quality data over twenty four years of sampling reveal
normal fluctuations in the stream’s abiotic and biotic characteristics, which 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 and increased discharge rates) the weeks prior to the
collection date, sampling for the year 2014 report occurred during a period of relatively normal
stream flow volumes in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
An outcome of the 2014 survey was an overall reduction in species diversity from year 2013.
Sampling at Station 1 resulted in the collection of a total of 232 EPT specimens (representing 3
taxa) and 880 Chironomidae specimens, resulting in an EPT/Chironomidae ratio of 0.26, which
is below the average ratio of 2 (averaged since 1998). While a ratio of 0.26 represents a
relatively unbalanced EPT versus Chironomidae community within Goose Run for the year 2014
(as compared to a balanced community with a value of 1), there have been a total of 9 years
where EPT/Chironomidae values have been lower. A general trend has been that when the ratios
have been lower than normal, the following year they show signs of recovery resulting in a
higher value (with the exception of a couple of recent years). It should also be noted that the
Year 2004 EPT/Chironomidae value of 42 has skewed the average ratio value upward. If this
value were to be discounted as an outlier, the average ratio value for the remaining 24 years is
0.35.
Station 4 collections netted 124 EPT specimens and 662 Chironomids, resulting in an
EPT/Chironomidae ratio of 0.19, which is below the average EPT/Chironomidae ratio of 0.76
(averaged over the same span). Though the previous two years of sampling have shown a steady
increase in the EPT/Chironomidae ratio, year 2014 displays a considerable drop from year 2013
(0.33) (see Appendix D). Although this is a decrease from the 2013 sampling, the cause is more
likely due to recent weather events than adverse reactions from the landfill, which would result
in an even more dramatic decline, or disappearance, in EPT specimens. The sampling area
experienced 1.7 inches of rain in the week leading up to the sampling event. Stream flow
10
conditions were consistent with previous years’ sampling efforts but the flushing event that
resulted for the week’s rain is likely the cause of disproportionate EPT/Chironomidae ratios.
This is consistent with previous years where significant rains were recorded prior to sampling
efforts. In 2000, 2.52 inches of rain were recorded in the week leading up to sampling and an
EPT/Chionomidae ration of 0.02 was recorded, while a total of 10 taxa and 108 specimens were
collected; the lowest in the last fourteen years. This demonstrates 2014 conditions are consistent
with a flushing event occurring in the week prior to. Also, similar to Station 1 metrics, if the
Year 2004 value (2.69) were to be discounted as an anomaly, then the average ratio value would
be 0.26, not 0.76.
Station 1(2014) species diversity (1130) was below the 1998–2013 average of 1378.8 specimens
per year. Taxa richness (11) was below the 27.5 average for the same span, and the 2014
diversity index (.78) was below the average of 1.67 for the years 1998-2013 and displays a drop
from year 2013 (1.98). Using conventional values of 1.50 as a measure of a diverse community
structure and 1.25 as a community less diverse, 2014 data exhibits low overall diversity of
species and specimens at Station 1, differing from year 2013 data.
Station 4 (2014) species density (826) was below the 1998-2013 average of 1000 specimens per
year. Taxa richness (22) was slightly below the average of 30 for the same span, and the 2014
diversity index (0.96) was below the average of 2.06 for the years 1998-2013. Using
conventional values of 1.50 as a measure of a diverse community structure and 1.25 as a
community less diverse, 2014 data exhibit lower overall diversity of species and specimens at
Station 4.
As the trend toward greater community balance at Station 4 continues, the lower than average
ratio may have resulted from a shift in stream structure (i.e., disturbance), possibly resulting from
the number of flooding events that preceded the 2014 sampling event. Flooding and the resulting
disturbance are important regulators of diversity and biotic composition in streams. Sampling
data have shown that benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages in Goose Run have been found to
be fairly well adapted to predictable physical disturbances, but unpredictable or severe
disturbances may have negatively affected populations of macroinvertebrates in the stream.
Higher than normal flow events caused by recent storms have affected Goose Run by physically
scouring and altering riverbed structure and water velocity. If stream velocity is high enough, an
effect can be that macroinvertebrates may be dislodged from rock surfaces; they may be crushed
or enter into the drift of the river. Movement of bed material disturbs the organic layers on rock
surfaces, affecting gross primary production, community respiration and net community
production. Species with streamlined or flexible bodies (e.g., worms, midges), and some with
multivoltine life cycles (species that has two or more broods of offspring per year) have been
found to be more adept at surviving in streams with frequent intense floods. Benthic
macroinvertebrates are resilient in that they have the capacity to return to some previous state
following a perturbation as evidenced by community balance ratios trending upward once again.
Acute effects from flooding can be large but have been found to be generally short lived.
Representative EPT numbers in 2014 continue to support the assessment that Goose Run is not
subjected to long-term environmental stress (in particular, chemical stress) from the adjacent
landfill activities. Significant adverse impacts from the landfill would likely have been
accompanied by a significant reduction in or disappearance of pollution-sensitive EPT taxa,
11
particularly at Station 4. This has not been supported by data collected to date from either of the
two Stations.
Evaluations of abiotic and biological data collected and analyzed over the past 26 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 disturbances within the
benthic habitat. These variations are likely the result of weather extremes (e.g., drought,
hurricanes, periodic thunderstorms with heavy discharge rates) 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 can be 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 279290.
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.
13
FIGURES
FIGURES
075° 40' 00.00" W
075° 39' 00.00" W
5 Sample Station 0
5 Sample Station 1
040° 17' 00.00" N
040° 17' 00.00" N
040° 18' 00.00" N
040° 18' 00.00" N
075° 41' 00.00" W
040° 16' 00.00" N
040° 16' 00.00" N
5 Sample Station 4
Magnetic Declination
12° W
075° 41' 00.00" W
075° 40' 00.00" W
Copyright (C) 1997, Maptech, Inc.
075° 39' 00.00" W
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
Data Field Sheets for
Stream Macroinvertebrates
and Characterization
0
Field/Pasture
Open
Absent
Sludge
Sediment Oils:
Sediment Deposits:
Sawdust
Slight
Sewage
15.75 C
Clear
Sheen
Slightly Turbid
Sewage
pH:
Chemical
Globe
Turbid
Petroleum
Flecks
None
None
X No
Other
Black, Very Fine Organic
(FPON)
Grey, Shell Fragments
Muck-Mud
Marl
Water Color
None
Other
Other:_________
Characteristics
Sticks, Wood, Coarse Plant
Materials (CPON)
.438 mS/cm___
DATE
No __
5/23/2014
Percent
Composition
in Sampling Area
Channelized: Yes _______
Organic Substrate Components
Other
Yes
2-6”
Substrate Type
Detritus
Relict Shells
Anaerobic
Dam Present:
Run
Other
OBSERVATIONS AND/OR SKETCH: Heavy vegetation growth within the stream corridor. Stream conditions consistent with previous year’s conditions
PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER: 3 and 4
No
Sand
Profuse
Chemical
Shaded
Conductivity:
Opaque
7.79 _
WEATHER CONDITIONS: Sunny, High 70’s. Heavy rainfall in the last 24 hours.
Turbidity:
Slick
Normal
Water Odors:
11.3
50
25
25
Percent
Composition
in Sampling Area
YSI 556 MPS muli-meter
Warm water
Dissolved Oxygen:
Cold water
Water Surface Oils:
Diameter
>256-mm (10 in.)
64-256-mm (2.5-10 in.)
2-64-mm (0.1-2.5 in.)
0.06-2.00-mm (gritty)
.004-.06-mm
<.004-mm (slick)
Stream Type:
Instrument(s) Used
Temperature:
WATER QUALITY
Substrate Type
Bedrock
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Inorganic Substrate Components
Yes
Paper Fiber
Moderate
Petroleum
Partly Shaded
Industrial
Riffle 2-6”
Obvious Sources
Commercial
Riffle – 0.01 cfs, Run- 0.01 cfs, pool - 0.01 cfs
Partly Open
Velocity
20-30”
Some Potential Source
Heavy
Residential
Estimated Stream Depth:
No Evidence
Moderate
Agricultural
Are the undersides of stones which are not deeply embedded black?
Normal
"
2-15 feet
None
Sediment Odors:
SEDIMENT/SUBSTRATE:
Canopy Cover:
High Water Mark
Estimates Stream Width
Local Watershed NPS Pollution:
Local Watershed Erosion:
Forest
Predominant Surrounding Land Use:
RIPARIAN ZONE/INSTREAM FEATURES
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
STATION
PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION/WATER QUALITY
FIELD DATA SHEET
1
Field/Pasture
Open
Absent
Sludge
Sediment Oils:
Sediment Deposits:
Sawdust
Slight
Sewage
Clear
Sheen
Slightly Turbid
Sewage
Warm water
Turbid
Globe
Chemical
__
None
Opaque
Anaerobic
None
No
2-6”
X___
Other
(FPON)
Marl
Characteristics
Materials (CPON)
None
Other
Other: _________
DATE
No __
5/23/2014
Percent
Composition
in Sampling Area
Channelized: Yes ___X_
Other
Run
Other
Muck-Mud
Substrate Type
Detritus
Relict Shells
Water Color
OBSERVATIONS AND/OR SKETCH: Heavy vegetation adjacent to and within the stream corridor
No
Sand
Profuse
Chemical
Shaded
Dam Present: Yes
Conductivity: .272mS/cm__
Flecks
WEATHER CONDITIONS: Sunny, High 70’s. Heavy Rainfall in the past 24 hours.
Turbidity:
Slick
Normal
Water Odors:
Water Surface Oils:
Cold water
Stream Type:
Instrument(s) Used
pH: 8.2
50
50
Percent
Composition
in Sampling Area
Petroleum
>256-mm (10 in.)
64-256-mm (2.5-10 in.)
2-64-mm (0.1-2.5 in.)
0.06-2.00-mm (gritty)
.004-.06-mm
<.004-mm (slick)
Diameter
Temperature: 17.6 C Dissolved Oxygen: 11.4__
WATER QUALITY
Substrate Type
Bedrock
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Yes
Paper Fiber
Moderate
Petroleum
Partly Shaded
Industrial
Riffle 2-6”
Obvious Sources
Commercial
Riffle – 0.01 cfs, Run – 0.01 cfs, Pool – 0.01 cfs
Partly Open
Velocity
10-20”
Heavy
Residential
No Evidence
Moderate
Agricultural
Normal
"
2-15 feet
None
Sediment Odors:
SEDIMENT/SUBSTRATE:
Canopy Cover:
High Water Mark
Forest
STATION
FIELD DATA SHEET
4
Field/Pasture
Open
Absent
Sludge
Sediment Oils:
Sediment Deposits:
16.9 C
Sawdust
Slight
Sewage
Clear
Sheen
Slightly Turbid
Sewage
Warm water
Turbid
Globe
Opaque
Flecks
None
Industrial
None
2-6”
No X
Other
(FPON)
Muck-Mud
Marl
None
Other
Characteristics
Materials (CPON)
Other:
DATE
No __
5/23/2014
Percent
Composition
in Sampling Area
Channelized:Yes _______
Other
Yes
Run
Other
Substrate Type
Detritus
Relict Shells
Anaerobic
Dam Present:
1-5”
Water Color
OBSERVATIONS AND/OR SKETCH: Stream conditions consistent with previous year’s studies
No
Sand
Profuse
Chemical
Shaded
Conductivity: .245 mS/cm
Chemical
7.1 __
Petroleum
pH:
50
50
Percent
Composition
in Sampling Area
Yes
Paper Fiber
Moderate
Petroleum
Partly Shaded
WEATHER CONDITIONS: Sunny, High 70’s . Heavy rainfall within 24 hours.
Turbidity:
Slick
Normal
Water Odors:
Water Surface Oils:
Cold water
Dissolved Oxygen: 11.2
>256-mm (10 in.)
64-256-mm (2.5-10 in.)
2-64-mm (0.1-2.5 in.)
0.06-2.00-mm (gritty)
.004-.06-mm
<.004-mm (slick)
Diameter
Stream Type:
Instrument(s) Used
Temperature:
WATER QUALITY
Substrate Type
Bedrock
Boulder
Cobble
Gravel
Sand
Silt
Clay
Riffle
Obvious Sources
Commercial
Riffle – 0.01 cfs, Run – 0.01 cfs, Pool – 0.01 cfs
Partly Open
Velocity
10-20”
Heavy
Residential
No Evidence
Moderate
Agricultural
Normal
"
2-10 feet
None
Sediment Odors:
SEDIMENT/SUBSTRATE:
Canopy Cover:
High Water Mark
Forest
STATION
FIELD DATA SHEET
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
Photograph Log
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
APPENDIX C
Station 0
Macroinvertebrate Sample Results
Macroinvertebrate Taxa
Annelida
Nematoda
Oligochaeta
Lumbricida
Lumbricidae
Lumbriculidae
Megadrilli
Naididae
Tubificinae
Tubificida
Enchytraeidae
Tubificidae
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae
Gloiobdella
Helobdellae
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Gammaridae
Crangonyx
Gammarus
Talitridae
Decopoda
Cambaridae
Cambarus
Insecta
Coleoptera
Curculionidae
Dytiscidae
Agabus
Dytiscus
Hydroporus
Neoporus
Elmidae
Dubiraphia
Optioservus
Macronychus
Stenelmis
Haliplidae
Pletodytes
Hydrophilidae
Berosus
Enochrus
Hydrobius
Hydrophilus
2
2
6
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
23
110
2
1
29
19
28
9
2001
5/24
2000
6/22
8
16
1999
N/A
37
60
23
1998
8/13
13
8
51
14
19
1997
8/7
1996
6/27
35
121
157
78
2002
6/19
1
37
10
1
123
423
2003
5/15
1
1
19
1
3
22
150
2004
7/14
5
1
4
4
7
2005
6/2
2
1
19
11
3
34
7
2006
5/23
4
34
424
2
1
1
21
2007
5/16
3
1
1
2
17
28
8
110
10
4
2008
5/30
2
2
160
16
4
416
10
64
2009
5/2
4
3
33
1
13
160
1
1
27
2010
5/25
1
1
16
1
1
2011
6/27
3
1
2
1
2
2
5
2012
6/15
6
1
2
2
2
2013
6/21
APPENDIX C
MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED YEARLY AT STATION 0 FROM GOOSE RUN IN THE VICINITY OF POTTSTOWN LANDFILL, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
9
1
1
2
7
3
2014
5/23
Paracymus
Psephenidae
Psephenus
Collembola
Entomobryidae
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
Atrichopogon
Culicoides
Probezzia
BezzialPalpomyia
Chironomidae
Culicidae
Culex
Ephydridae
Psychodidae
Pericoma
Simuliidae
Simulium
Stratiomyidae
Stratiomys
Tipulidae
Antocha
Polymera
Tipula
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis
Centroptilum
Callibaetis
Caenidae
Caenis
Ephemerellidae
Eurylophella
Heptageniidae
Stenacron
Leptophlebiidae
Leptophlebia
Paraleptophlebia
Habrophleboides
Siphlonuridae
Siphlonurus
Oligoneuriidae
Isonychia
Hemiptera
Belostomidae
1
34
2000
6/22
3
5
3
2335
11
8
2001
5/24
89
1
7
871
2002
6/19
1
369
1
2003
5/15
15
23
3
1
1
1
6
14
166
1
19
1999
N/A
7
18
201
2
1998
8/13
2
2
1
10
167
2
1
1997
8/7
3
1
2
1333
5
1996
6/27
1
48
22
2004
7/14
2
12
1
360
2005
6/2
6
3
7
6
12
98
2006
5/23
1
3
19
7
6
3
243
3
1
2007
5/16
2
4
28
1
1
2
6
736
2
2008
5/30
4
2
8
22
2
2
424
14
2009
5/2
2
13
11
3
2
3
1
6
324
46
2010
5/25
2
228
2011
6/27
1
78
3
2012
6/15
4
1
401
8
2013
6/21
APPENDIX C
4
4
16
60
12
3
1
824
11
2014
5/23
Belostoma
Corixidae
Sigara
Hesperocorixa
Trichocorixa
Gerridae
Aquarius
Gerris
Limnoporus
Trepobates
Veliidae
Microvelia
Lepidoptera
Noctuidae
Megaloptera
Sialidae
Sialis
Odonata
Aeschnidae
Aeschna
Boyenia
Coenagrionidae
Ischnura
Calopteryx
Corduliidae
Neurocordulia
Gomphidae
Stylogomphus
Lanthus
Plecoptera
Nemouridae
Amphinemura
Perlidae
Acroneuria
Eccoptura
Perlesta
Perlodidae
Isoperla
Tricoptera
Hydropsychidae
Ceratopsyche
Cheumatopsyche
Hydropsyche
Diplectona
Hydroptilidae
Hydroptila
32
2
2
1
4
5
1996
6/27
7
2
1
7
1
8
1997
8/7
2
27
1998
8/13
1999
N/A
2
1
2000
6/22
1
1
16
2001
5/24
127
2002
6/19
2
52
15
145
1
1
1
2003
5/15
28
456
52
1
4
1
2004
7/14
4
2005
6/2
3
1
2
1
2006
5/23
4
2
1
1
1
1
2007
5/16
12
8
1
2008
5/30
2
4
22
6
8
2
2009
5/2
4
6
1
11
9
13
1
2010
5/25
1
1
2011
6/27
1
1
1
1
2012
6/15
3
1
3
1
2013
6/21
APPENDIX C
2
2
1
1
2014
5/23
Leptoceridae
Mystacides
Limnephilidae
Philopotomidae
Chimarra
Polycentropodidae
Polycentropus
Zygoptera
Lestidae
Lestes
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Ancylidae
Lymnaeidae
Fossaria
Physidae
Physa/Physella
Planorbidae
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium
Platyhelminthes
Turbellaria
Tricladida
Planariidae
Dugesia
Total Specimens
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
EPT/Chironomidae Ratio
7
1
371
772
27
3
0.24
2
60
1508
22
3
0.03
1997
8/7
2
1996
6/27
296
10
3
0.1
2
2
1998
8/13
0
0
0
0
1999
N/A
141
8
0
0
64
2000
6/22
2618
23
7
0.006
2
1
2
1
2001
5/24
1737
16
2
0.118
7
1
1
226
1
1
2002
6/19
1420
23
8
1.09
6
42
1
2003
5/15
826
18
7
26.7
15
1
2004
7/14
400
10
3
0.0417
2005
6/2
216
17
4
0.286
2006
5/23
785
25
8
0.144
1
1
2007
5/16
6
70
6
4
2009
5/2
1022
1282
25
26
4
9
0.0625 0.16509
34
1
2008
5/30
731
30
11
0.16975
1
29
1
1
2010
5/25
255
11
3
0.0175439
2
1
2011
6/27
3
106
16
2
0.026
1
2012
6/15
442
15
4
0.0224
4
1
2013
6/21
APPENDIX C
968
21
8
0.12
2
2
2014
5/23
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D
Tables
TABLE 1
Water Quality Results
for Stations 1 and 4
(1988-2014)
Station 1
Temp. (oC)
Dissolved O2
Spec. Cond.
(umhos/cm @ K25)
pH (stand. units)
Stream Velocity (ft/sec)
Station 4
Temp. (oC)
Dissolved O2
Spec. Cond.
(umhos/cm @ K25)
pH (stand. units)
Stream Velocity (ft/sec)
19
9.2
170
7.8
2.45
19
9.4
209
7.5
3.5
208
7.5
0.04
17.5
9.6
211
7.4
0.05
1989
21
7.9
1988
7.5
0.12
390
19
10.9
7.3
0.06
270
20
8.2
1990
7.4
0.29
314
22.5
6.9
7.2
0.07
319
20
7.7
1991
7.6
0.04
340
25
7.6
7.6
0.01
295
20.5
8.6
1992
8.6
0.13
358
28.5
15
7.5
0.08
319
22.5
10.6
1993
7.5
0.03
424
26.5
12.3
7.2
0.02
311
20
9.4
1994
7.5
0.26
721
22
12.4
7.2
0.13
362
16
8.5
1996
6.6
0.01
540
26
6.6
6.7
0.01
375
19
6.7
7
0.01
380
24
5.9
7.1
0.01
341
25
8.3
NA
NA
6.8
0.89
287
23
12
5.4
0.25
263
23
11.7
1997 1998 1999 2000
7.54
0.4
372.5
15.85
10.48
7.78
0.23
266
13.6
9.94
2001
7.32
0.763
317.7
19.53
7.15
7.2
0.223
248
20.63
8.73
2002
7.67
0.23
262.7
13.5
11.03
7.1
0.29
233.5
14.7
12.05
2003
7.51
1.35
182
19.3
8.55
7.49
0.82
192
19.6
8.55
2004
7.19
0.01
353
18.1
8.92
6.93
0.01
230
21.1
9.93
2005
8.12
0.01
0.5
11.8
9.71
9.42
0.01
0.57
12.8
9.17
2006
7.41
0.01
239.1
20.6
9.32
7.9
0.01
196.03
22.46
9.57
2007
7.3
2.17
266
18.5
9.37
7.3
3.02
221.35
19.66
9.34
2008
NA - No samples were collected in 1999 because of drought conditions. Submitted 11-year summary report to PADEP.
7.8
0.03
392
21
10.5
7.3
0.01
383
21
10
1995
Table I
Water Quality Results for Stations 1 and 4 (1988 - 2014)
7.07
0.01
267.23
20.03
9.3
6.98
0.01
238.15
17.4
8.75
2009
6.97
0.01
303.1
21.5
9.3
7.05
0.01
162.2
20.2
9.9
2010
7.3
0.01
272.8
23.1
9.2
7.9
0.01
247.2
19
9.8
2011
7.04
0.01
305.2
22.3
9.3
6.41
0.01
201.3
22.3
9.5
2012
8.11
0.01
292
20.6
9.23
7.96
0.01
294
20
8.88
2013
7.1
0.01
245
16.9
11.2
8.2
0.01
272
17.6
11.4
2014
7.405
0.035
304.15
20.6
9.345
7.3
0.015
255.5
20
9.27
Median
TABLE 2
Pollution Tolerance Indices
TABLE 2
ALPHABETIC 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 2014.
Scientific Name
Acroneuria
Aeshna
Agabus
Agnetina
Americanus
Amphinemura
Anacaena
Ancylidae
Anopheles
Antocha
Aquarius
Argia
Atherix
Atrichopogon
Attaneuria
Baetis
Berosus
Bezzia
Boyeria
Caenis
Callibaetis
Cambarus
Centroptilum
Ceratopogonidae
Ceratopsyche
Chaoboridae
Chaoborus
Cheumatopsyche
Chimarra
Chironomidae
Chrysops
Cloeon
Coenagrionidae
Collembola
Copelatus
Crangonyx
Culex
Culicidae
Derallus
Dicronota
Diptera
Dolichopodidae
Drunella
Dubiraphia
Dugesia
Dytiscidae
Eccoptura
Common Name
stonefly
dragonfly
predaceous diving beetle
stonefly
mayfly
stonefly
water scavenger beetle
snail
mosquito
crane fly
water strider
blue damselfly
snipe fly
biting midge
stonefly
mayfly
true fly
dragonfly
square-gill mayfly
mayfly
crayfish
mayfly
biting midge
caddisfly
phantom midge
phantom midge
net-spinning caddisfly
caddisfly
midge
deer fly
mayfly
damselfly
springtail
diving beetle
scud
mosquito
mosquito
crane fly
true flies
long-legged fly
mayfly
riffle beetle
flat worm
stonefly
Pollution
Tolerance Index
Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index
0.0 - 2.2
4
0
7.6
3.4
-
0
5
5
2
3
7
3
NA
6
2
2
3
6
5
6
2
7
9
6
0
6
5
8
8
6
4
6
7
4
8
9
6
9.1
4.6
8.7
2.1
6.8
1.8-7.2
8.6
6.3
7.6
9.3
8.1
2
6
4
8.5
6.6
2.8
6.0 – 8.0
7.3
7.4
9
5
8
4
0
9.7
0.0-1.3
6.4
7.5
3
NA
4
1
6
7
5
2
TABLE 2
Scientific Name
Empididae
Enallagma
Enochrus
Ephemerella
Ephydridae
Erpobdella
Eurylophella
Ferrissia
Fossaria
Gammarus
Gerridae
Gerris
Glossosoma
G omphidae
Gomphus
Haeterina
Haliplidae
Helichus
Helisoma
Helochares
Helophorus
Hemerodromia
Heptageniidae
Hesperocorixa
Hexagenia
Hirudinea
Hyalella
Hydatophylax
Hydrobius
Hydrophilidae
Hydrophilus
Hydroporus
Hydropsyche
Hydroptila
Ischnura
Isonychia
Isoperla
Laccophilus
Lanthus
Lepidostoma
Leptophlebia
Lestes
Libellulidae
Limnephilidae
Limnophora
Lumbricidae
Lumbriculidae
Common Name
true fly
damselfly
mayfly
mayfly
red leech
mayfly
limpet snail
pond snail
scud
water strider
water strider
caddisfly
dragonfly
dragonfly
damselfly
water beetle
riffle beetle
planorbid snail
dance fly
flathead mayfly
true bug
burrowing mayfly
leech
scud (digger amphipod)
caddisfly
net-spinning caddisfly
micro-caddisfly
damselfly
mayfly
stonefly
dragonfly
caddisfly
mayfly
damselfly
dragonfly
caddisfly
house fly
semi aquatic earthworm
aquatic earthworm
Pollution
Tolerance Index
9
8.5
10
0.3-5.1
6.9
6
6.9
-
6.2
6.2
5.4
4
7.9
8.1
4.7
6
7.9
2.3
5
8.9
1.8-8.1
6.2
9.4
3.8
10
2.7
1
6
9
7.3
Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index
6
8
5
1
6
8
4
7
7
6
9
0
4
5
5
5
7
5
5
6
3
NA
6
8
8
2
5
5
5
5
5
6
9
3
2
5
5
1
4
9
9
4
6
8
8
TABLE 2
Scientific Name
Megadrili
Metrobates
Microvelia
Mooreobdella
Mystacides
Naididae
Nematoda
Neoperla
Neureclipsis
Nigronia
Notonecta
Oecetis
Oligochaeta
Optioservus
Oulimnius
Palpomyia
Paraleptophlebia
Parcymus
Pericoma
Perlesta
Physa
Physidae
Pisidium
Planaridae
Planorbella
Planorbidae
Pletodytes
Polycentropus
Prostoma
Prostomosa
Psephenidae
Psephenus
Psychodidae
Rhagovelia
Rheumatobates
Serratella
Sialis
Sigara
Simuliidae
Simulium
Stenacron
Stenelmis
Stenonema
Stratiomyiidae
Stratiomys
Stygobromis
Stylogomphus
Common Name
earthworm
water strider
broad-shouldered water strider
leech
caddisfly
naiad worm
roundworm
stonefly
caddisfly
alderfly
back swimmer
caddisfly
aquatic worm
riffle beetle
riffle beetle
true fly
mayfly
true fly
stonefly
pouch snail
snail
pill clam
flatworm
snail (ram’s horn)
planorbid snail
crawling water beetle
caddisfly
proboscis worm
flatworm
water penny
water penny
moth fly
broad shouldered water strider
water strider
mayfly
alderfly
water boatmen
black fly
black fly
mayfly
riffle beetle
mayfly
soldierfly
soldierfly
scud
dragonfly
Pollution
Tolerance Index
Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index
8
8
8
9
9
0
4
9
3
7
2
8
10
4
5
NA
1
4
4
8
8
8
9
6
5
6
NA
4
4
10
9
2
6
8
6
6
4
5
3
8
-
1.6
4.4
5.5
5.7
2.7
5.4
4.9
9.1
8
6.8
6.5
8.5
3.5
6
2.5
9.9
6
0.0-2.7
7.5
6
4.4
1.7-7.1
5.4
2.1-5.8
8
4.8
TABLE 2
Scientific Name
Tabanidae
Tipula
Tipulidae
Trepobates
Trichocorixa
Tricorythodes
Tropisternus
Tubificidae
Turbellaria
Common Name
horse fly
crane fly
crane fly
water strider
water boatmen
mayfly
tube worm
flat worm
Pollution
Tolerance Index
Hilsenhoff
Biotic Index
7.7
6
4
4
8
4
5
10
7
8
5.4
9.8
8.0-10.0
6
TABLE 3
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Cambarus
Amphipoda
Gammaridae
Crangonyx
Stygobromus
Gammarus
Hyalellidae
Hyalella
Insecta
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus
Dytiscidae
Agabus
Copelatus
Dytiscus
Hydroporus
Laccophilus
Neoporus
Elmidae
Dubiraphia
Macronychus
Oulimnius
Optioservus
Stenelmis
Haliplidae
Pletodytes
Hydrophilidae
Anacaena
Berosus
Derallus
Enochrus
Helochares
Hydrobius
Paracymus
Tropisternus
Helophoridae
Helophorus
Psephenidae
Psephenus
Collembola
Entomobryidae
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae
Atrichopogon
BezzialPalpomyia
Probezzia
Chaoboridae
Chaoborus
Chironomidae
Culicidae
Anopheles
Culex
Dolichopodidae
Empididae
Hemerodromia
Ephydridae
Muscidae
Limnophora
Psychodidae
Pericoma
Sciomyzidae
Sepedon
Simuliidae
Simulium
Stratiomyidae
Tabanidae
Tipulidae
Antocha
Dicranota
Tipula
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis
Callibaetis
Cloeon
Procloeon
Centroptilum
Caenidae
Caenis
Ephemerellidae
Ephemerella
Eurylophella
Serratella
Heptageniidae
Glossiphoniidae
Helobdellae
Gloiobdella
Hirudinea
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae
Helobdellae
Nematoda
Megadrilli
Oligochaeta
Naididae
Annelida
Oligochaeta
Lumbricida
Lumbricidae
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
Tubificida
Tubificidae
3
36
3
3
38
1
1
1
32
36
15
14
25
126
2
75
8
7
26
1
1
12
1
5
4
1
12
8
1
13
1
3
2
1
4
2849
956
2
275
93
148
47
6
2
3
1
45
84
43
10
11
1
24
1
39
74
38
17
3
2
3
34
1
42
3
61
2
13
1
3
4
2
13
3
8
9
4
7
9
1
2
8
14
2
13
13
30
2
1
9
636
207
2
4
3
3
99
447
7
15
3
1
3
12
15
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
5/23 7/17 7/10 7/8 7/20
147
1
40
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
14
51
16
6
1
3
4
3
1993
7/27
100
5
1
12
928
3
2
5
4
9
5
3
50
8
6
1
1994
7/13
226
5
63
1
5
1
1
5
615
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
19
50
66
15
26
1
2
7
1
4
1995
7/10
43
1
4
2
963
1
3
25
4
1
22
21
37
2
10
12
2
4
1996
6/27
219
10
1
647
1
10
13
1
15
4
8
3
1997
8/7
46
55
1
3
1998
8/13
1999
N/A
1
1
58
1
2
2
19
2000
6/22
3
29/1
7/4
20/7
2/7
6/1
1/4
86/7
41/6
3/9
28/6
6/6
4566/6
30/6
6/4
2/4
9/6
4/NA
1/8
316/6
1/6
1/5
6/5
2/5
6/5
5/5
1/5
5/6
85/5
77/5
79/6
2/8
473/10
2003
5/15
1/4
8/6
2/6
1/8
6/6
4461/6
1/9
4/4
5/5
28/5
2/5
87/5
1/6
1/5
4/5
3/6
3/6
1/8
71/10
2002
6/19
73/5
10/6
3/6
26/10
2001
5/24
1/7
3/6
5/6
7/4
2/5
9/5
2/5
33/6
4/6
63/10
2004
7/14
1
1
1
1
1300
1
3
1
1
1
7
4
2005
6/2
2
4
6
90
2
5
2
7
3
6
1
2006
5/23
33
64
1
578
10
1
6
1
1
14
36
2
42
7
3
2007
5/16
2
32
9
2
1
1288
1
4
2
21
10
26
29
1
5
1
48
3
1
2
2008
5/30
64
262
37
22
14
2
8
8
32
10
10
2
6
12
2009
5/2
TABLE 3
17
19
2
21
471
5
26
1
2
10
14
3
1
6
1
1
1
1
2
1
16
2010
5/25
25
436
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
2011
6/27
380
1
1
2
1
5
17
1
1
6
2
5
1
2012
6/15
7
2
2
111
1
1
1
12
4
9
11
1
1
2013
6/21
24
160
1
880
1
9
1
2
3
1
2014 5/23
361
26
7
0.58
2.12
0.66
16
1
1
4
1
1
3
6
10
256
579
28
3
0.05
1.72
0.52
2
2
644 2098 4197 2295
26
46
49
39
9
14
10
9
0.56 0.66 0.18 0.36
1.99 2.26 1.6 2.16
0.6 0.59 0.41 0.59
1
6
9
2
1
1233
26
3
0.12
1.1
0.34
46
2
5
2
11
1
2
18
2
1994
7/13
3
3
2
454
231
70
112
2
18
3
1
5
6
13
15
140
1
35
11
1
51
15
7
2
16
14
50
2
1
130
3
3
33
58
17
5
2
1
28
112
51
179
114
1
2
24
1
39
25
1
17
2
14
2
9
12
29
10
4
63
82
19
1
3
1
1993
7/27
1
1733
46
11
0.86
2.4
0.62
154
19
1
1
14
7
119
73
18
1
1
1
47
15
1
5
113
15
1995
7/10
5
1319
31
7
0.19
1.23
0.37
7
3
2
10
8
42
70
2
4
1
2
5
6
1996
6/27
1070
24
6
0.38
1.34
0.42
6
1
5
1
1
1
24
3
77
8
1997
8/7
10
Note: Cells depicting data from year 2004 include two numbers. The first number represents the number of specimens
collected at the station. The second number represents the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (sensitivity enumeration) for that particular
genus and species.
Stenacron
Stenonema
Leptophyphidae
Leptophlebiidae
Leptophlebia
Paraleptophlebia
Habrophleboides
Siphlonuridae
Siphlonurus
Oligoneuriidae
Isonychia
Tricorythidae
Tricorythodes
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Sigara
Hesperocorixa
Trichocorixa
Gerridae
Aquarius
Gerris
Limnoporous
Metrobates
Trepobates
Veliidae
Microvelia
Rhagovelia
Megaloptera
Sialidae
Sialis
Odonata
Aeshnidae
Aeshna
Boyeria
Coenagrionidae
Argia
Enallagma
Gomphidae
Gomphus
Lanthus
Stylogomphus
Lestidae
Lestes
Libellulidae
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx
Plecoptera
Nemouridae
Amphinemura
Perlidae
Acroneuria
Agnetina
Attaneuria
Eccoptura
Neoperia
Perlesta
Perlodidae
Isoperla
Tricoptera
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche
Ceratopsyche
Hydropsyche
Hydroptilidae
Hydroptila
Leptoceridae
Mystacides
Oecetis
Limnephilidae
Philoptomidae
Chimarra
Polycentropodidae
Neureclipsis
Polycentropus
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Ancylidae
Ferrissia
Lymnaeidae
Fossaria
Physidae
Physa/Physella
Planorbidae
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium
Nematoda
Platyhelminthes
Turbellaria
Tricladida
Planaridae
Plariidae
Dugesia
Hoplonemertini
Tetrastemmatidae
Prostomosa
Total Specimens
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
Diversity Index
Evenness
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
5/23 7/17 7/10 7/8 7/20
2
37
43
2
197
11
3
1.35
2.57
0.82
10
32
5
4
24
1998
8/13
1999
N/A
108
10
1
0.02
1.35
0.63
10
2000
6/22
4950
36
15
0.045
0.85
0.17
4/9
1/8
1/9
4/6
1/4
2/4
50/6
14/5
1/5
6/6
458
24
5
0.047
1.68
0.381
9/8
2/4
6875
33
12
0.32
1.88
0.37
2/9
9/8
5/6
30/8
109/6
5/5
68/NA
70/0
11/3
5/0
2/9
9/NA
1025/4
5/3
2003
5/15
55/3
1/6
1/5
1/6
2/2
17/NA
1/4
2002
6/19
12/3
2/3
1/NA
24/NA
11/4
2001
5/24
364
20
10
42
1.77
25/8
1/6
9/4
173/6
8/5
11/5
1/3
4/4
2/NA
2004
7/14
1/3
164
17
7
0.489
1.62
0.041667
1.767
0.11
1
1
10
3
1
2006
5/23
20
1378
18
7
1
2
3
30
4
2005
6/2
16
864
21
7
0.261
1.3
5
1
4
11
1
2007
5/16
43
2126
30
8
0.07
1.25
560
32
1
14
2
1
3
3
16
2008
5/30
6
695
24
4
0.79
2.24
26
4
20
8
2
18
6
18
2009
5/2
104
TABLE 3
20
1
2
5
1
1
36
20
1
2011
6/27
745
570
38
21
12
3
0.2186837 0.0619266
1.78
1.05
1
20
3
1
3
1
1
11
2
19
13
1
5
1
11
2010
5/25
31
447
22
3
0.013
0.81
7
1
1
1
2
1
7
1
2012
6/15
3
4
1
247
23
7
0.72
1.98
13
7
6
1
1
1
2
2013
6/21
48
1130
11
3
0.26
0.78
48
2014 5/23
TABLE 4
Annelida
Hirudinida
Erpobdellidae
Erpobdella
Mooreobdella
Oligochaeta
Lumbricida
Lumbricidae
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae
Tubificida
Tubificidae
Hirudinea
Megadrilli
Naididae
Arhynchobdellida
Erpobdellidae
Erpobdella
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Decapoda
Cambaridae
Cambarus
Amphipoda
Gammaridae
Crangonyx
Gammarus
Stygobromis
Talitridae
Hyalella
Hyalellidae
Hyalella
INSECTA
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus
Dytiscidae
Agabus
Dytiscus
Hydroporus
Laccophilus
Neoporus
Elmidae
Ancyronx
Dubiraphia
Optioservus
Oulimnius
Macronychus
Stenelmis
Haliplidae
Pletodytes
Hydrophilidae
Anacaena
Berosus
Derallus
Enochrus
Helochares
Hydrobius
Hydrochara
Paracymus
Tropisternus
Helophoridae
1
3
12
1
3
1
4
1
3
1
2
49
9
39
22
4
1
5
5
8
6
3
5
3
1
1
9
2
6
82
8
100
6
2
9
2
10
2
1992
7/20
150
4
37
4
1
30
13
12
8
4
1989 1990 1991
7/17 7/10
7/8
11
7
11
3
3
1988
5/23
7
2
121
5
24
4
3
3
1
1
2
1993
7/27
2
2
14
27
6
6
17
9
1
1
2
1994
7/13
2
1
3
13
1
1
2
10
1
10
1
2
9
18
2
24
1
2
1
1
10
13
12
1
2
1
26
77
1995 1996 1997
7/10 6/27
8/7
2
1
4
3
9
18
2
1998 2000
8/13 6/22
13/5
6/5
17/5
83/5
26/6
1/8
53/5
31/5
2003
5/15
24/5
168/5
133/5
117/6
6/8
151/10 767/10
2002
6/19
1/5
6/5
48/6
5/6
11/10
2001
5/24
2
2
10
2/5
1/NA
1
1
1
30
11
2
13
5
1
2005
6/2
13/5
44/6
1/8
39/10
2004
7/14
1
15
1
14
1
18
10
9
2006
5/23
2
4
5
53
8
2
16
2007
5/16
18
38
55
45
1
3
1
71
2
2
2008
5/30
90
20
2
4
192
48
66
6
10
2009
5/2
1
4
17
1
35
1
9
26
3
64
1
4
12
6
16
28
1
2
2
2010 2011
5/25 6/27
3
19
13
2
2
7
2012
6/15
TABLE 4
10
1
13
8
4
1
1
1
2013
6/21
1
2
10
1
3
6
1
8
1
2014
5/23
Helophorus
Psephenidae
Psephenus
Diptera
Athericidae
Athenix
Ceratopogonidae
Atrichopogon
BezzialPalpomyia
Probezzia
Chaoboridae
Chironomidae
Culicidae
Anopheles
Dolichopodidae
Empididae
Hemerodromia
Ephydridae
Muscidae
Limnophora
Psychodidae
Pericoma
Simuliidae
Simulium
Stratiomyidae
Stratiomys
Tabanidae
Tabanus
Chrysops
Sciomyzidae
Sepedon
Tipulidae
Antocha
Dicranota
Tipula
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis
Callibaetis
Cloeon
Centroptilum
Caenidae
Caenis
Ephemerellidae
Drunella
Ephemerella
Eurylophella
Serratella
Ephemeridae
Hexagenia
Heptageniidae
Epeorus
Maccaffertium
Stenacron
Stenonema
Isonychiidae
Isonychia
Leptophlebiidae
Leptophlebia
Paraleptophlebia
Habrophleboides
Siphlonuridae
16
11
16
4
1
3
112
68
4
40
472
1
2
31
1
16
80
91
2
27
1
25
3
6
177
10
1
2
3
1
1
2
4
25
29
97
4
8
1
1
2
380
246
1992
7/20
282
1280 1306
1
1
2
28
4
18
4
77
27
1989 1990 1991
7/17 7/10
7/8
4
8
1
1
449
12
29
1988
5/23
1
2
26
3
11
1
2
345
3
1
39
1993
7/27
1
46
57
3
910
5
1994
7/13
1
2
2
7
16
412
27
3
27
8
1
40
1134
1
1
14
8
332
1
16
1995 1996 1997
7/10 6/27
8/7
2
9
79
1
2
9
132
1998 2000
8/13 6/22
51/4
20/3
31/1
14/4
3/3
1/1
3/7
263/6
123/6
91/7
2/4
12/6
1/6
221/6
18/4
2002
6/19
2/4
1/6
5/6
9/6
4/6
311/6
21/4
2/NA
2001
5/24
59/4
2/3
2/3
7/
20/1
23/4
24/7
113/6
16/
2/4
1/NA
2/6
14/6
1154/6
7/6
2003
5/15
3/3
5/7
3/6
1/4
1/6
29/6
8/4
2004
7/14
12
100
4
40
176
1
1
808
1
4
2005
6/2
6
18
5
4
7
49
2
2006
5/23
2
1
44
3
2
35
7
3
343
13
2007
5/16
14
1
5
10
48
2
2
2
1
1
1
236
2
2008
5/30
108
180
12
6
30
36
10
6
2
252
22
2009
5/2
24
151
16
33
24
4
1
316
1
4
31
2
4
328
1
1
2010 2011
5/25 6/27
6
1
4
78
10
2012
6/15
TABLE 4
39
9
15
1
268
1
4
2013
6/21
8
8
16
4
28
52
4
662
5
2014
5/23
Siphlonurus
Oligoneuriidae
Isonychia
Tricorythidae
Tricorythodes
Hemiptera
Corixidae
Sigara
Hesperocorixa
Trichocorixa
Gerridae
Aquarius
Gerris
Metrobates
Rheumatobates
Trepobates
Notonectidae
Notonecta
Veliidae
Microvelia
Lepidoptera
Noctuidae
Rhagovelia
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
Nigronia
Sialidae
Sialis
Odonata
Aeshnidae
Aeshna
Boyenia
Coenagrionidae
Argia
Enallagma
Ischnura
Gomphidae
Gomphus
Lanthus
Stylogomphus
Lestidae
Lestes
Libellulidae
Libellula
Calopterygidae
Calopteryx
Plecoptera
Nemouridae
Amphinemura
Perlidae
Acroneuria
Agnetina
Eccoptura
Neoperla
Perlesta
Perlodidae
Isoperla
Tricoptera
Glossosomatidae
Glossosoma
Hydropsychidae
Cheumatopsyche
2
32
36
24
2
184
3
32
3
14
1
16
219
24
1
44
4
2
2
2
57
31
7
46
15
26
3
2
8
1
1
6
50
1
3
1
6
5
7
6
9
121
65
6
1992
7/20
1
3
1
1
5
1
1989 1990 1991
7/17 7/10
7/8
1
1988
5/23
7
1
15
1
3
4
13
3
16
1
1993
7/27
8
10
12
4
6
5
1
1
14
1
1994
7/13
22
1
3
4
4
1
30
1
1
59
92
5
23
4
1
11
1
1
16
4
8
1995 1996 1997
7/10 6/27
8/7
6
4
5
1
2
1998 2000
8/13 6/22
13/6
83/2
8/1
142/0
40/6
1/1
50/4
3/3
1/2
2/6
5/NA
2002
6/19
45/3
4/4
1/NA
5/NA
2001
5/24
1/5
17/2
15/0
16/3
1/NA
3/NA
2/6
6/NA
1/NA
2003
5/15
61/6
2/4
25/4
20/6
2004
7/14
1
1
1
4
5
2
1
4
1
1
2007
5/16
1
1
2
2006
5/23
2
1
2
3
1
1
10
4
1
2005
6/2
49
1
2
1
8
2
1
3
2008
5/30
2
48
4
4
2
38
2
22
2009
5/2
1
1
7
60
37
1
4
31
1
4
3
1
3
3
2
1
44
2010 2011
5/25 6/27
11
1
8
3
2012
6/15
TABLE 4
2
14
1
1
3
2013
6/21
1
1
2014
5/23
966
30
12
0.93
2.01
0.6
1
6
7
303
20
6
1.91
2.07
0.7
1
14
12
21
7
218
47
1576
50
16
0.83
2.61
0.67
18
12
3
17
5
2
2
18
8
6
1992
7/20
233
1
3
2
65
2501 3015
38
56
11
15
0.73 0.68
1.76 2.26
0.48 0.56
55
1
143
1989 1990 1991
7/17 7/10
7/8
36
1244
36
9
0.14
1.31
0.37
3
810
42
11
0.29
2.15
0.59
1
21
1
4
1
3
5
1994
7/13
72
5
7
1
1
41
1
7
1993
7/27
716
33
9
0.22
1.75
0.5
1
1
35
1
6
1
35
1570
32
6
0.21
1.25
0.37
8
1
4
8
2
111
568
21
2
0.03
1.57
0.53
10
3
5
30
1
1995 1996 1997
7/10 6/27
8/7
Note: Cells for years 2001through 2004 include two numbers. The first number represents the
number of specimens collected at the station. The second number represents the Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index (sensitivity enumeration) for that particular genus and species.
Ceratopsyche
Hydropsyche
Hydroptilidae
Hydroptila
Lepidostomatidae
Lepidostoma
Leptoceridae
Mystacides
Oecetis
Limnephilidae
Hydatophylax
Pycnopsyche
Philoptomidae
Chimarra
Polycentropodidae
Neureclipsis
Nyctiophylax
Polycentropus
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Ancylidae
Ferrissia
Lymnaeidae
Fossaria
Physidae
Physa/Physella
Planorbidae
Planorbella/Helisoma
Gyraulus
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae
Pisidium
Platyhelminthes
Turbellaria
Tricladida
Planariidae
Dugesia
Hoplonemertini
Tetrastemmatidae
Prostomosa
Total Specimens
Total Taxa
EPT Taxa
Diversity Index
Evenness
1988
5/23
118
11
3
0.14
1.71
0.54
8
1
182
10
2
0.08
1.01
0.46
1998 2000
8/13 6/22
1235
31
13
2.05
3.72
0.77
2/6
950
30
11
1.93
3.15
0.66
23/9
1/8
7/6
2781
35
15
0.27
2.69
0.53
2/8
24/6
30/8
432
23
8
2.69
2.13
23/6
145/8
1/6
2004
7/14
2/5
1/5
4/6
1/6
1/6
2003
5/15
2/4
12/8
3/6
51/5
2002
6/19
17/4
3/4
2001
5/24
1304
37
9
0.42
2.133
0.41
1
3
44
1
2
3
2005
6/2
181
21
8
1.10
2.29
14
2006
5/23
572
27
15
0.35
1.6
8
2
2007
5/16
42
2
8
2009
5/2
643 1276
33
31
10
11
0.567 1.74
2.21 2.58
14
1
2008
5/30
1
2
71
1
1
2
2012
6/15
927
546
170
34
28
16
14
5
4
1.13 0.027 0.244
2.41 1.58 1.98
12
1
1
3
2
2010 2011
5/25 6/27
TABLE 4
426
25
8
0.33
1.62
14
8
4
1
2
2013
6/21
826
22
9
0.19
0.96
3
1
2014
5/23
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX E
Resumes of STV Personnel
Serving the Energy Industry
Laura Rowlands
Environmental Scientist
Ms. Rowlands is an environmental scientist who is adept at conducting wetland delineations,
assisting in the preparation of permits and environmental reports, and corresponding with
environmental agencies. Her work encompasses a wide variety of energy projects including
pipeline relocations, installation of natural gas lines, and the installation and rehabilitation of
electric power transmission lines.
Project Experience
Explorer Pipeline Expansion to Manhattan Terminal - Environmental Scientist
Providing wetlands delineations and preparing the Wetlands Delineation Report for an
approximately 18.6-mile, 24-inch diluent pipeline from Explorer Pipeline’s Peotone Station to
Enbridge Pipeline’s Manhattan Terminal in Will County, IL. Ms. Rowlands is completing wetlands
delineations using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Regional Supplement and a Trimble
GPS system.
Sunoco Logistics Glen Riddle Junction Environmental Support - Environmental Scientist
Assisting in field verifying wetlands delineations for the proposed construction of a junction station
along Chester Creek in Middletown Township, Delaware County, PA. The proposed Glen Riddle
Junction project involves the installation of two new junctions between Sunoco’s 14-inch Twin
Oaks to Newark pipeline, 8-inch Twin Oaks to Icedale pipeline, and 8-inch and 12-inch Point Breeze
to Montello pipelines. Ms. Rowlands is also completing the environmental permit application.
PVR Marcellus Gas Gathering Wellsboro Environmental Support - Environmental Scientist
Conducting wetlands identification and the preparation of permits for Phase II and Phase III of
approximately 12-mile gas and water pipelines in Tioga County, PA. The project includes a 24-inch
gas line and a 12-inch water line. Ms. Rowlands is also completing the Wetlands Delineation
Report. (1/13 - Present)
PPL Jenkins-Stanton Project Environmental Support - Environmental Scientist
Conducting wetlands delineations and preparing the Wetlands Delineation Report as part of
environmental and civil engineering services in support of the construction of a new 8.5-mile
electric power transmission line between the Jenkins and Stanton substations in Luzerne County,
PA. Ms. Rowlands is also preparing the permit applications.
PPL Lycoming-Lock Haven Rebuild - Environmental Scientist
Revising a permitting needs assessment to accommodate changes to a project proposal for
the 10-mile rebuild and 2-mile installation of a new electric power transmission line between
Lycoming and Lock Haven, PA. Ms. Rowland is also conducting wetlands delineations and
preparing the Wetlands Delineation Report in preparation for the joint permit application. (1/13 Present)
Sunoco Logistics Allegheny Access Project Permitting Assistance - Environmental Scientist
Assisted in the completion of a permit assessment for a Sunoco Logistics project to design and
recommission a 160-mile pipeline in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The project consists of four pipeline
Resumes 1
Firm
STV
Education
Bachelor of Science,
Forensic Science;
Alvernia University
Associate of Arts,
Liberal Arts; Reading
Area Community
College
Training
Wetlands
Delineation Training;
The Swamp School
OSHA 40-Hour
Hazwoper Training
Memberships
Pennsylvania assoc.
of environmental
professionals (2014)
Serving the Energy Industry
Laura Rowlands
Environmental Scientist
segments, and includes the re-commissioning of a pipeline running from Inland Fostoria West
to Mogadore, OH; the installation of a pipeline from Tiffin to Easton, OH; and the installation of
a pipeline from Mogadore, OH, to Vanport, PA. Ms. Rowlands also assisted in preparing wetlands
delineation reports and permit applications. Additionally, she assisted in environmental stakeout
and construction oversight.
Colonial Pipeline ZZ-Line 44-9 Connection to Arbor Street Environmental Support - Environmental Scientist
Prepared a GP-2 application for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for the
proposed connection of Colonial Pipeline’s existing Line 44-9 to the Arbor Street Junction in
Woodbridge Township, Middlesex County, NJ. The 8,000-foot, 12-inch, underground pipeline will
also require a new junction in Woodbridge Township. Mr. Rowlands also conducted a review of the
project area.
PPL Proposed Construction of IPP Transmission Line Environmental Support - Environmental Scientist
Prepared the permitting needs assessment for the proposed construction of an Independent
Power Provider (IPP) 230-kV transmission line within PPL Corporation’s right-of-way in Lackawanna
County, PA. Ms. Rowlands also conducted wetlands delineations and prepared the Wetlands
Delineation Report.
PPL Hosensack-Wescosville Line Rebuilding - Environmental Scientist
Assisted in the identification and preparation of a Wetlands Delineation Report to support the
rebuilding of a 230-kV line between Hosensack and Wescosville, PA. The 9-mile section of the line
will be completely removed and replaced with a new 230-kV line. Ms. Rowlands also prepared the
botanical survey reports. In addition, she researched and prepared FAA permitting and assisted in
the preparation of a joint permit application.
PPL North Lancaster-South Akron - Environmental Scientist
Researched required permits for the installation of a new 8-mile 138/69-kV PPL electric power
transmission line transmission line from North Lancaster to South Akron, PA. Ms. Rowlands also
assisted in the preparation of a permitting need assessment. In addition, she completed FAA filing
requirements for the replacement of poles along the transmission line.
PPL North Lancaster Substation - Environmental Scientist
Prepared the permitting needs assessment for the proposed construction of a new electric power
substation in Lancaster County, PA. Ms. Rowlands also conducted wetlands delineations and
prepared the Wetlands Delineation Report in support of the project.
PPL South Akron-Prince Line Rebuilding - Environmental Scientist
Prepared the permitting needs assessment for the rebuilding and conductor replacement of
a 12-mile transmission line between South Akron and Prince, PA. Ms. Rowlands also prepared,
executed, and closed FAA permitting requirements.
2 Resumes
SERVING THE ENERGY INDUSTRY
Amanda Schellhamer
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
Ms. Schellhamer is an environmental scientist with experience in environmental surveys and
investigation, permitting, and preparation of compliance documentation. Her expertise includes
wetland delineation, forest stand delineation, macroinvertebrate sampling, habitat evaluation,
GPS surveys, data collection, and data analysis for the purpose of obtaining federal, state, and local
permits for water quality, wetland, and forest conservation regulation.
Project Experience
BGE Mt. Airy to Westminster Pipeline Relocation - Environmental Scientist
Conducting forest stand delineations for an 11-mile pipeline construction project for Baltimore Gas
and Electric (BGE) in Carroll County, MD. Ms. Schellhamer is completing forest stand delineations
to determine the amount of forest to be mitigated as a result of the project, and calculating an
exact count of the number of stems to be affected and determining how to mitigate for the forest
impact. She is also assisting in the permitting process.
Sunoco Pipeline L.P. Allegheny Access Project - Environmental Scientist
Conducting environmental investigations of Sunoco’s front-end engineering and design study to
recommission a pipeline stretching from Inland Fostoria West, OH, to Mogadore, OH, as well as
the installation of a new pipeline from Mogadore, OH, to Vanport Junction, PA. Ms. Schellhamer is
identifying wetland, waterways, and other environmentally sensitive resources. Using a GPS Trimble
system, she has performed wetland delineations and picked up survey points. Ms. Schellhamer
has also assisted in the preparation of permits for wetland and waterway impacts and prepared
wetland data sheets and Ohio Rapid Assessment Method forms as part of the permitting process.
PPL Transmission ROW Encroachment - Environmental Scientist
Conducting site assessments to identify environmental constraints in support of PPL’s review and
mitigation of ground clearance discrepancies along its right of way (ROW). The discrepancies that
are outside of design tolerances of transmission lines were identified by PPL’s North American
Electric Reliability Council (NERC) assessment plan. Ms. Schellhamer is also preparing aerial imagery
and creating points for site access.
Sunoco Logistics-SEPTA Wawa Parking Lot - Environmental Intern
Conducted wetland delineation and completed a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection general permit No. 5 Utility Line Stream Crossing Application for the 0.5-mile relocation
of an 8-inch Sunoco petroleum products line in Delaware County, PA. The pipeline relocation was
required to avoid property conflicts with commercial retailer Wawa Dairy Farms and to allow SEPTA
to build a new commuter train station.
PVR Marcellus Gas Gathering Wellsboro - Environmental Scientist
Conducted site assessment to identify wetland, waterways, and other environmentally sensitive
resources for a 22-mile, 24-inch Penn Virginia Resource Partners (PVR) natural gas gathering system
in Tioga County, PA. Ms. Schellhamer also assisted in wetland delineations and marked survey
points with the use of a GPS Trimble system.
Resumes 1
FIRM
STV
EDUCATION
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE,
AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES; MINOR,
WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES
SCIENCE, PENNSYLVANIA
STATE UNIVERSITY
TRAINING
40-HOUR HAZWOPER;
OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION
(OSHA)
Amanda Schellhamer
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
PVR Midstream Gas Gathering Pipeline - Environmental Intern
Assisted in wetland delineations and determined survey points with the use of a GPS Trimble
system for the installation of 9 miles of 16-inch to 24-inch natural gas gathering pipeline in
Wyoming and Susquehanna counties, PA, for Penn Virginia Resource (PVR) Midstream.
Waste Management Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Report - Environmental Intern
Collected macroinvertebrate samples at the Waste Management property in Pottstown, PA. Ms.
Schellhamer performed biological and physiochemical assessments in accordance with applicable
state and federal recommendations and guidelines to satisfy the requirements of Condition 14 of
Waste Management’s operating permit. She also assisted with the completion of the subsequent
annual report.
Warner Company John T. Dyer Quarry Expansion - Environmental Intern
Assisted with well monitoring sampling for submittal to state agencies as part of the permitting
requirements for this facility in Berks County, PA. The project included mine planning, subsurface,
and groundwater investigations, surface mine permitting, and engineering services for the 60-acre
expansion of an existing diabase quarry to allow continued operations.
2 Resumes
Steven Sottung, LEED®AP
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
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 sampling methods for private and
government clients. He also coordinates efforts with local, state, and federal environmental
regulatory agencies and is experienced in client management, project scoping, conflict
resolution, cost tracking, project budgets, manpower scheduling and tracking, administration, and
management of various subcontractor agreements for each project.
Project Experience
Sunoco Pipeline Boot Road Petroleum Product Pipeline Replacement - Environmental
Scientist
Performed environmental permitting tasks for replacement and rerouting of two 4.4-mile
petroleum products pipelines. Work involved the collection and review of relevant siting
information for the entire project area, including wetlands, soils, critical habitats, sensitive
watersheds, floodplain areas, cultural/archeological resources, and active/abandoned waste
disposal areas. The project also included environmental resource base mapping and a regulatory
analysis.
Sunoco Pipeline Point Breeze Pipeline Replacement Study - Environmental Scientist
Performed environmental and permitting needs analysis for a pipeline replacement study at the
site in Philadelphia, PA. Environmental analysis included wetland delineation, WET 2.0, habitat
evaluation, and threatened and endangered species surveys. Mr. Sottung prepared a joint permit
application for PADER and USACE.
Sunoco Pipeline Phase I Environmental Property Audit for the Midpoint Booster Station Project Environmental Scientist
Conducted 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 interviews 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.
ExxonMobil Pipeline Delaware River Crossing - Senior Environmental Scientist
Performed the initial permitting and coordintation efforts for permits in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania for the installation of the Paulsboro to Malvern 12-inch petroleum products pipeline
in Philadelphia, PA. Mr. Sottung contributed to the feasibility study which addressed pipeline
replacement options, permitting requirements, engineering and construction issues, and
budgetary cost estimates. He monitored the environmental aspects as the project proceeded
through design and construction.
Resumes 1
FIRM
STV
EDUCATION
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE,
MARINE BIOLOGY; ST.
FRANCIS COLLEGE OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
ENGLAND
TRAINING/
CERTIFICATIONS
LEADERSHIP IN ENERGY
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGN; U.S. GREEN
BUILDING COUNCIL
BASIC 40-HOUR OSHA
HAZARDOUS WASTE
OPERATIONS AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
CERTIFICATION AND
8-HOUR REFRESHERS
(ANNUALLY)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
TRAINING;
PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
SITE SUPERVISORS
TRAINING
PUBLICATIONS
“CHANGING CHANNELS”
PUBLISHED IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING, JULY
2002. BY THOMAS
RADOS, STEVEN
SOTTUNG, DEBORAH
DESCARO, AND ROGER
ZYMA
MEMBERSHIPS
PENNSYLVANIA
ASSOCIATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROFESSIONALS
Steven Sottung, LEED®AP
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER
DuPage County Division of Transportation Munger Road Study - Project Environmental
Scientist
Performed an assessment of environmental setting conditions along a 4-mile transportation
corridor located in DuPage County, IL. The project area walk included visual evaluations of
environmental factors including wetlands, surface waters, potential hazardous waste areas,
drainage features including natural swales and man-made structures, terrestrial habitat, soils, and
evident cultural resources. Mr. Sottung performed a review of applicable state and federal agency
regulations and requirements relative to foreseeable environmental permits, certifications, and
approvals. He provided a narrative description of environmental conditions that was integrated
into a larger alternatives analysis report.
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Mon/Fayette Transportation Project - Project Environmental Scientist
Performed field/design studies and prepared PS&E package documents for the remediation of 11
sites in the northern section of the Mon/Fayette transportation project in Pennsylvania. Mr. Sottung
reviewed all available data found in previous evaluations and assisted in the implementation of
field site characterizations.
USDA Underground Storage Tank Removal and Closure - Project Environmental Supervisor
Performed planning, field operations (excavation and removal, soil sampling), and closure
reporting for removal of one two underground storage tanks in Wyndmoor, PA. Mr. Sottung
prepared a health and safety plan (HASP) and materials management plan for the project. He
collected confirmation samples in accordance with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) protocols and coordinated the disposal of all contaminated soils and tanks
during removal activities. Mr. Sottung also reviewed and interpreted analytical data and developed
the closure reports for the tank removal.
Pennsylvania Army National Guard Stryker Brigade Readiness Centers - Environmental
Scientist
Providing environmental studies and permitting services for the $200 million transformation of the
56th Brigade program into a Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The supporting program involves the
design and construction of multiple facilities at 21 sites in Pennsylvania. These facilities include new
or renovated Readiness Centers and Field Maintenance Shops.
FLETC Environmental Program – Environmental Program Manager
Managed all aspects of NEPA Environmental Assessments, environmental remediation, and an
Environmental Management System (EMS) for Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers in
Cheltenham, MD; Glynco, GA; Charleston, SC; and Artesia, NM in support of facility expansions and
renovations. The environmental program has been performed as a subconsultant.
2 Resumes

POTTSTOWN LANDFILL AND RECYCLING CENTER ANNUAL

Transcription

Similar documents

THETRIBUNE GUIDE TO

See the PDF of the powerpoint resource that

New Street Ecological Park

www.farhikhtegan.com EPT

Novita Happy Hour

Wild Goose Trailer - Teardrops n Tiny Travel Trailers

HAD Application

Defining Waterbodies: Davidsonville Wildlife Sanctuary

t-rmb er - Eel River Recovery Project

Waraz (S25) - Nature Iraq