DOCSLIB.ORG

For the Former Hellertown Manufacturing Company Site Hellertown, Pennsylvania

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For the Former Hellertown Manufacturing Company Site Hellertown, Pennsylvania ENVIRONMENTAL. STRATEGIES CORPORATION 8521 LEESBURG PIKE, SUITE 650 VIENNA, VIRGINIA 22182 703-821-3700 ESC FAX-703-821-3734 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR THE FORMER HELLERTOWN MANUFACTURING COMPANY SITE HELLERTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA DRAFT REPORT VOLUME I PREPARED BY ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGIES CORPORATION JUNE 17, 1991 San Jose, California • Boxborough, Massachusetts • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania!! fl O U t) 0 / U London and Chester, England Contents Page 1.0 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Objectives 1-1 1.2 Site Background 1-2 1.2.1 Site Description 1-2 1.2.2 Site History 1-7 1.2.3 Previous Investigation 1-27 1.2.3.1 Soils Investigation 1-29 1.2.3.2 Groundwater Investigation 1-29 1.2.3.3 Domestic Well Sampling 1-36 1.2.3.4 Surface Water Sampling ' 1-40 1.3 Report Organization 1-42 References 1-44 2.0 Physical Characteristics of the Study Area 2-1 2.1 Meteorology and Climatology 2-1 2.2 Surface Features 2-6 2.3 Surface Water Hydrology 2-8 2.4 Geology 2-10 2.4.1 Physiographic Setting 2-10" 2.4.2 Stratigraphy 2-13 2.4.2.1 Regional Stratigraphy 2-13 2.4.2.2 Local Stratigraphy 2-15 2.4.3 Structure 2-17 2.4.3.1 Regional Structure 2-17 2.4.3.2 Local Structure 2-18 2.5 Soils 2-20 2.6 Hydrogeology 2-22 2.6.1 Regional 2-22 2.7 Demography and Land Use 2-27 2.7.1 Regional Setting 2-27 2.7.2 Demographics 2-28 2.7.3 Land Use 2-28 2.7.4 Economy and Employment 2-31 2.7.5 Waste Disposal and Wastewater Treatment 2-31 2.7.6 Natural Resources 2-34 2.8 Ecology 2-35 References 2-39 3.0 Study Are* Investigations 3-1 3.1 Topography and Surface Features 3-1 3.2 Contaminant Source Investigations • 3-3 3.3 Geological Investigations 3-8 3.4 Soil Investigation Program 3-17 3.4.1 Background Soil Sample 3-28 3.4.2 Lagoon 1 3-33 3.4.3 Lagoon 2 3-40 3.4.4 Lagoon 3 3-50 - i - &R3Q557I Contents (continued) Page 3.4.5 Lagoon 4 3-60 3.4.6 Lagoon 5 3-70 3.4.7 Summary of Lagoon Soil Sampling Results 3-80 3.4.8 Underground Storage Tank Borings 3-84 3.4.9 Other Soil Samples 3-89 3.5 Surface Water and Stream Sediment Investigation 3-101 3.5.1 Surface Water Characteristics 3-107 3.5.2 Stream Sediment Characteristics 3-110 3.5.3 Surface Water Analyses . 3-110 3.5.4 Stream Sediment Analyses • 3-115 3.6 Groundwater Investigations 3-118 3.6.1 Groundwater Sampling and Analysis 3-146 3.6.2 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Results 3-174 3.6.3 Domestic Wells Sampling 3-179 3.7 Ecological Investigation 3-185 3.7.1 Ecological Study Area 3-186 3.7.2 Ecological and Wetland Assessment 3-186 3.7.2.1 Characteristics of the Study Area 3-186 3.7.2.2 Surface Water Quality 3-193 3.7.2.3 Vegetation and Land Cover 3-193" 3.7.2.4 Wildlife 3-200 3.7.2.5 Wetland Delineation 3-200 3.7.2.6 Other Wetlands Soil and Water Sampling 3-203 References 3-209 4.0 Nature and Extent of Contamination 4-1 4.1 Sources 4-1 4.2 Soils 4-2 4.2.1 Halogenated Organic Compounds 4-3 4.2.2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 4-12 4.2.3 Inorganic Constituents 4-13 4.3 Groundwater 4-15 4.3.1 Halogenated Organic Compounds 4-16 4.3.2 Inorganic Compounds 4-21 4.4 Surface Water and Stream Sediment Sampling 4-24 4.4.1 Surface Water 4-25 4.4.1.1 Physical Characteristics and Inorganics 4-25 4.4.2 Stream Sediment 4-26 4.4.2.1 Physical Characteristics and Inorganics 4-26 4.4.2.2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 4-27 References 4-30 5.0 Contaminant Fate and Transport 5-1 5.1 Overview 5-1 5.2 Mobilization of Contaminants in Media 5-1 5.2.1 Volatile Organic Compounds 5-2, 5.2.2 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 5-11 - n - Aft305572 Contents (continued) Page 5.2.3 Inorganic Contaminants 5-12 5;2.3.1 Chromium 5-12 5.2.3.2 Cadmium 5-13 5.2.3.3 Cyanide 5-15 5.2.4 Summary of Potential Migration Pathways 5-15 5.3 Physical Characteristics of the Site 5-16 5.4 Potential for TCE migration 5-17 .5.5 Contaminant Fate 5-20 5.5.1 TCE and Associated Compounds 5-20 5.5.2 Inorganic Compounds 5-21 5.6 Summary of Fate and Transport 5-22 References 5-24 6.0 Human Health Evaluation 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.1.1 Overview 6-1 6.1.2 Organization 6-1 6.2 Identification of Contaminants of Potential Concern 6-2, 6.2.1 Historical Chemical Use and Disposal 6-2 6.2.2 Data Evaluation Considerations 6-3 6.2.2.1 Methodology for Quantifying Data 6-3 6.2.2.2 Methodology for Selecting Contaminants of Concern 6-4 6.2.3 Contaminants of Concern in Soils 6-6 6.2.3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Soils 6-7 6.2.3.2 Base-Neutral and Acid Extractables Detected in Soils 6-7 6.2.3.3 Inorganic Compounds Detected in Soils 6-7 6.2.4 Groundwater 6-13 6.2.4.1 Volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Groundwater 6-14 6.2.4.2 Base-Neutral and Acid Extractables Detected in Groundwater 6-14 6.2.4.3 Inorganic Compounds Detected in Groundwater 6-17 6.2.5 Surface Water and Sediments 6-20 6.2.5.1 Compounds Detected in Surface Water 6-21 6.2.5.2 Compounds Detected in Sediments 6-21 6.2.6 Domestic Wells 6-22 6.2.7 Summary of Compounds of Potential Concern 6-23 6.3 Toxicity Assessment 6-23 6.3.1 Toxicity Information for Noncarcinogenic Effects 6-25 6.3.2 Toxicity Information for Carcinogenic Effects 6-32 6.3.3 Compounds for Which No EPA Toxicity Values Are Available 6-33 6.4 Exposure Assessment 6-39 6.4.1 Characterization of Exposure Setting 6-40 6.4.1.1 Physical Setting 6-40 6.4.1.2 Potentially Exposed Populations - Current Uses of the Site 6-41 6.4.1.3 Potentially Exposed Populations - Hypothetical Uses of the Site 6-42 - HI - Aft305573 Contents (continued) Page 6.4.2 Identification of Exposure Pathways 6-42 6.4.2.1 Soils 6-42 6.4.2.2 Groundwater 6-43 6.4.2.3 Summary of Exposure Pathways 6-44 6.4.3 Quantification of Exposure 6-44 6.4.3.1 Soil - Inadvertent Ingestion 6-44 6.4.3.2 Soil - Dermal Absorption , 6-50 6.4.3.3 Groundwater - Ingestion 6-51 6.4.3.4 Groundwater - Dermal Absorption 6-54 6.4.3.5 Groundwater - Inhalation 6-60 6.4.4 Summary of Exposure Assessment 6-65 6.5 Risk Characterization 6-65 6.5.1 Methodology - Noncarcinogenic Effects 6-65 6.5.2 Methodology - Carcinogens 6-66 6.5.3 Potential Risks Presented by Soil 6-68 6.5.4 Potential Risks Presented by Groundwater 6-68 6.5.5 Summary of Risk Characterization 6-71 6.6 Sensitivity Analysis 6-73 6.6.1 Conservatism in Exposure Estimates 6-73 6.6.2 Ingestion of Groundwater - Average Exposure 6-74• 6.7 Summary of the Human Health Evaluation 6-78 References 6-81 7.0 Environmental Evaluation 7-1 7.1 Overview 7-1 7.2 Scope of Investigation 7-1 7.3 Site and Study Area Description 7-2 7.3.1 Saucon Creek 7-4 7.3.2 Wetlands 7-6 7.4 Contaminants of Concern 7-8 7.4.1 Site-related Contaminants 7-12 7.4.2 Background Levels 7-12 7.4.3 Potential Migration Pathways 7-16 7.5 Saucon Creek and Wetlands 7-16 7.5.1 Surface Water in Saucon Creek 7-16 7.5.2 Sediments in Saucon Creek 7-18 7.5.3 Wetlands 7-23 7.6 Summary of the Environmental Evaluation 7-29 References 7-32 8.0 Summary and Conclusions 8-1 8.1 Summary 8-1 8.1.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination 8-1 8.1.1.1 Soils 8-2 8.1.1.2 Groundwater 8-3 8.1.2 Fate and Transport 8-3 8.1.3 Risk Assessment and Environmental Evaluation 8-4 - iv - fl.R30557i» Contents (continued) Page 8.2 Conclusions 8-6 8.2.1 Data Limitations and Recommendations for Future Work 8-6 8.2.1.1 Data Limitations 8-6 8.2.1.2 Recommendations 8-7 8.2.2 Recommended Remedial Action Objectives 8-9 List of Figures: Figure 1-1 - Site location map 1-4 Figure 1-2 - Plant layout 1-5 Figure 1-3 - Location of neighboring residences and businesses 1-6 Figure 1-4 - Chemical storage areas 1-10 Figure 1-5 - Aerial photograph of site in 1947 1-12 Figure 1-6 - Aerial photograph of site in 1958 1-13 Figure 1-7 - Aerial photograph of site in 1971 1-14 Figure 1-8 - Aerial photograph of site in 1981 1-15 Figure 1-9 - Underground storage tank locations 1-26 Figure 1-10 - 1986 soil borings 1-30 Figure 1-11 - 1987 soil borings 1-31 Figure 1-12 - Groundwater well locations - December 1984 and January 1985 1-32 Figure 1-13 - Groundwater well locations - January and February 1987 1-34 Figure 1-14 - Kniha & Sheesley well locations 1-37 Figure 1-15 - Preliminary well survey 1-38 Figure 1-16 - Reichard & Kniba well locations 1-39 Figure 1-17 - Saucon Creek sample locations 1-41 Figure 2-1 - Tributaries to Saucon Creek near the former HMC site 2-9 Figure 2-2 - Water level elevations in Saucon Creek from February 1989 to July 1990 2-11 Figure 2-3 - Physiographic map of the former HMC site 2-12 Figure 2-4 - Geological map of the former HMC site 2-16 Figure 2-5 - Location of the outcrop north of the former HMC site 2-19 Figure 2-6 - Soils map of the former HMC site 2-21 Figure 2-7 - Location of the New Jersey zinc mine company 2-24 Figure 3-1 - Surface features at the former HMC site 3-2 Figure 3-2 - Location of underground storage tanks and former equipment wash area at the former HMC site 3-7 Figure 3-3 - Location of gioundwater monitoring wells and geologic cross-section E-E' at the former HMC site ' 3-10 Figure 3-4 - West-east geologic cross-section E-E' 3-14 Figure 3-5 - Location of all soil borings drilled at the former HMC site 3-19 Figure 3-6 - Soil borings completed during the remedial investigation - 1990 3-20 Figure 3-7 - West-east cross-section A-A' through lagoons no.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Conservation Plan
    ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION PLAN Salisbury Township includes extremely important natural resources, including the mostly wooded Lehigh and South Mountains. The hydrology and other natural resources of Salisbury have great impacts upon the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface waters in the region. In particular, where groundwater reaches the surface at springs and seeps, it greatly impacts creeks and rivers and feeds into wetlands and other habitats. Salisbury Township is a stopping point for a wide variety of migratory birds, and a home and breeding grounds for many other species of birds and wildlife. Salisbury Township includes the headwaters of the Saucon and Trout Creeks. The Trout Creek and many other areas drain to the Little Lehigh Creek, which is a major drinking water source for Salisbury and Allentown. Other areas in drain directly to the Lehigh River. The mountains and areas at the base of the mountains are particularly critical for recharge of the groundwater supplies. The Lehigh County Conservation District in 2011 completed a Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) for Salisbury Township. That effort provided detailed mapping and analysis of many natural resources, including water resources, water quality, birds and habitats. A full copy of that report is available on the Township’s website. Prime Agricultural Soils The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) rates soil types for their ability to support crop farming. Soils most conducive to producing food and sustaining high crop yields are given the designation of “prime” and are rich in nutrients, well drained and permeable, as well as resistant to erosion. Prime agricultural soils typically have gently rolling to flat topography.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - September 2021 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters to Mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hayes Run East Branch Antietam Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.815808 -77.458243 2.18 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Knob Run Birch Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.950970 -77.444183 1.82 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters to Mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Long Pine Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Long Pine Run Reservoir 39.942501 -77.455559 2.13 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams McDowells Run Carbaugh Run Headwaters to Mouth 39.876610 -77.448990 1.03 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters to Mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Adams Toms Creek Out of State Headwaters to Miney Branch 39.736532 -77.369041 8.95 Adams UNT to Little Marsh Creek (RM 4.86) Little Marsh Creek Headwaters to Orchard Road 39.876125 -77.384117 1.31 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters to Mouth 40.554253 -80.206802
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resources Plan
    NATURAL RESOURCES PLAN This plan begins with an evaluation of important boroughs grew along the banks of the Lehigh or natural resources in the Lehigh Valley and what Delaware rivers. The Lehigh and Delaware Naviga- should be done to protect them. Before a plan for tion Canals owed their existence to these rivers. development is proposed it is first necessary to de- Many streams served as the sites for early mills termine what needs to be preserved. Voters have that were dependent on a supply of running water. spoken very clearly on the subject in public opinion Most major industries also were located along the surveys conducted over the past 30 years. They banks of rivers or streams. want to preserve important natural resources. Visually, rivers and streams provide some of Map 2 shows surface terrain features and streams the most scenic settings in the region. The top in the 730 square mile Lehigh Valley area. The Le- example of this is the Delaware River Scenic high River flows through Lehigh Gap at the north- Drive that follows Route 611. The multitude of ern boundary of Lehigh and Northampton counties recreation activities associated with waterways southbound to Allentown where it makes an abrupt is high on the list of important regional assets. turn eastward. From Allentown the Lehigh flows The Lehigh and Delaware are large enough to eastward to its confluence with the Delaware River provide boating opportunities, including some at Easton. Major tributary streams flowing into fine canoeing and good fishing. The Forks of the the Lehigh River are Jordan Creek, Little Lehigh Delaware Shad Fishing Tournament and Festival, Creek, Hokendauqua Creek, Monocacy Creek and held in late April each year in Easton, is a locally Saucon Creek.
    [Show full text]
  • Lehigh Valley Hazard Mitigation Plan
    RADONPANDEMIC EXPOSURELANDSLIDE AND INFECTIOUS FLOODDROUGHT FLASH FLOODFLASHDROUGHT FLOODTERRORISMLEVEEENVIRONMENTAL FAILUREDAM FAILURE HAZARDSDAM FAILUREWINTERWILDFIRE STORM INVASIVE SPECIES PANDEMIC AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE SUBSIDENCE/SINKHOLEEARTHQUAKE EARTHQUAKE WINDSTORM/TORNADOLIGHTNING TRANSPORTATION CRASH ICE JAM DRUG OVERDOSE CRISISDRUG OVERDOSE CRISIS NUCLEAR INCIDENT WINTER STORM CIVIL DISTURBANCE/MASS SUBSIDENCE LANDSLIDE ICE JAM HAILSTORM EXTREME TEMPERATUREEXTREME WEATHERFIRE AND EXPLOSIONS LIGHTNING STRIKES LEHIGH VALLEYCIVIL HAILSTORM WILDFIRE INVA STRUCTURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN WIN HAIL HAIL LIGHT LIGHT TERROR EXTREME EXTREME NUCLEAR IUTILITY INTER ICE JAM ICE JAM ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSLIDE SUBSIDENCE/SINK LANDSLIDE SUBSIDENCE CIV FIRE AND EXPLOSION EARTHQUAKE WINDSTORM/TORNADOEARTHQUAKE WINDSTORM LEVEE FAILURE FLASH FLOOD FLASH FLOOD STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE DROUGHT INVASIVEPANDEMIC SPECIESRADON ANDWILDFIRE EXPOSURE INFECTIOUSDROUGHT DISEASE FLOODINVASIVEPANDEMIC SPECIESRADON ANDWILDFIRE EXPOSURE INFECTIOUSWINTER STORM DISEASE TRANSPORTATION CRASHFLOOD The Lehigh Valley Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan update has been financed through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program, under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Assistance and Emergency Relief Act. This program funds governments and communities for hazard mitigation planning prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT MS4 Requirements Table
    DRAFT MS4 Requirements Table Anticipated Obligations for Subsequent NPDES Permit Term MS4 Name NPDES ID Individual Permit Impaired Downstream Waters or Requirement(s) Other Cause(s) of Required? Applicable TMDL Name Impairment Adams County ABBOTTSTOWN BORO No Beaver Creek Appendix E-Siltation (5) Chesapeake Bay Nutrients/Sediment Appendix D-Nutrients, Siltation (4a) BERWICK TWP No Chesapeake Bay Nutrients/Sediment Appendix D-Nutrients, Siltation (4a) Beaver Creek Appendix E-Siltation (5) BUTLER TWP No Chesapeake Bay Nutrients/Sediment Appendix D-Nutrients, Siltation (4a) CONEWAGO TWP No South Branch Conewago Creek Appendix E-Siltation (5) Plum Creek Appendix E-Siltation (5) Chesapeake Bay Nutrients/Sediment Appendix D-Nutrients, Siltation (4a) CUMBERLAND TWP No Willoughby Run Appendix E-Organic Enrichment/Low D.O., Siltation (5) Rock Creek Appendix E-Nutrients (5) Chesapeake Bay Nutrients/Sediment Appendix D-Nutrients, Siltation (4a) GETTYSBURG BORO No Stevens Run Appendix E-Nutrients, Siltation (5) Unknown Toxicity (5) Rock Creek Appendix E-Nutrients (5) Chesapeake Bay Nutrients/Sediment Appendix D-Nutrients, Siltation (4a) HAMILTON TWP No Beaver Creek Appendix E-Siltation (5) Chesapeake Bay Nutrients/Sediment Appendix D-Nutrients, Siltation (4a) MCSHERRYSTOWN BORO No Chesapeake Bay Nutrients/Sediment Appendix D-Nutrients, Siltation (4a) Plum Creek Appendix E-Siltation (5) South Branch Conewago Creek Appendix E-Siltation (5) MOUNT PLEASANT TWP No Chesapeake Bay Nutrients/Sediment Appendix D-Nutrients, Siltation (4a) NEW OXFORD BORO No
    [Show full text]
  • Meet Your Watershed
    Point Source Pollution is water pollution that typically comes from wastewater discharge pipes at factories, power plants and sewage treatment plants. Point Source Pollution is regulated by state and federal laws and agencies. Non Point Source Pollution (NPS) is water pollution that comes Adopt a 30-day trial of green habits that help protect your drinking from many different sources—like roads, highways, side- water. Select some habits from this list. You’ll find that in addition to walks, parking lots, lawns, gardens, farm fields and leaking protecting your drinking water, they also save you time and money. septic systems. NPS is triggered when rainwater washes Inside your home road salts, vehicle fluids, fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, manure, litter and soil off the land and into waterways. As 1. Avoid using your garbage disposal. It adds potentially dam- surface runoff moves over land, it picks up and moves these aging grease and solids to your plumbing and septic system. In- stead, make or buy a compost bin to dispose of food scraps and let pollutants into our streams, rivers, lakes and wetlands— nature recycle it into soil for you. and even into our reservoirs and groundwater drinking supplies. NPS is the biggest source of pollution to Lehigh 2. Avoid using chemical-based cleaning products. They can kill Valley streams and rivers. essential bacteria in your septic system and are difficult to remove we all know what a river is, but Because there are so many sources of NPS, it’s difficult in wastewater treatment plants. Instead, consider using chemical- to regulate.
    [Show full text]
  • Travels in Canada, and the United States, in 1816 and 1817 / by Lieut
    Library of Congress Travels in Canada, and the United States, in 1816 and 1817 / by Lieut. Francis Hall. TRAVELS IN CANADA, AND THE UNITED STATES, IN 1816 AND 1817. BY LIEUT. FRANCIS HALL, 14TH LIGHT DRAGOONS, H. P. LONDON PRINTED FOR LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME, & BROW, PATERNOSTER-ROW. 1818. LC E 165 H19 TO WILLIAM BATTIE WRIGHTSON, WILLIAM EMPSON, AND ROBERT MONSEY ROLFE, BROTHER WYKEHAMISTS, THESE TRAVELS ARE DEDICATED, BY THEIR OLD SCHOOL-FELLOW AND AFFECTIONATE FRIEND, FRANCIS HALL. TRAVELS IN CANADA, &c. &c. CHAPTER I. VOYAGE. January, 1816. I sailed from Liverpool on the 20th of January, after having been detained several weeks by a continuance of west winds, which usually prevail through the greater part of the winter. Indeed, they have become so prevalent of late years, as to approach very nearly to the nature of a trade wind. They forced us to lie to twelve, out of the forty-four days we spent on our passage. Our vessel was an American, excellently built and commanded. The American Captains are supposed, with B 2 some reason, to make quicker voyages Travels in Canada, and the United States, in 1816 and 1817 / by Lieut. Francis Hall. http://www.loc.gov/resource/lhbtn.26822 Library of Congress than the English, with whom celerity was, during the war, a less essential object. They pride themselves on the speed of their ships, as sportsmen do on that of their horses. Our Minerva was one of the first class of these “Horses of the Main.” They prefer standing across the Atlantic in the direct line of their port, to the easier but more tedious route of the trades.
    [Show full text]
  • Saucon Creek Tmdl Alternatives Report
    SAUCON CREEK TMDL ALTERNATIVES REPORT Lehigh Valley Planning Commission February 2011 -1- -2- SAUCON CREEK TMDL ALTERNATIVES REPORT Lehigh Valley Planning Commission in cooperation with Lehigh County Conservation District February 2011 The preparation of this report was financed through a grant agreement with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. -3- LEHIGH VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION Steven L. Glickman, Chair Robert A. Lammi, Vice Chair Kent H. Herman, Treasurer Ron Angle Benjamin F. Howells, Jr. Norman E. Blatt, Jr., Esq. Edward D. Hozza, Jr. Becky Bradley (Alternate) Terry J. Lee Dean N. Browning Ronald W. Lutes John B. Callahan Earl B. Lynn Donald Cunningham Jeffrey D. Manzi John N. Diacogiannis Ross Marcus (Alternate) Percy H. Dougherty Kenneth M. McClain Liesel Dreisbach Thomas J. Nolan Karen Duerholz Ray O’Connell Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Salvatore J. Panto, Jr. Cindy Feinberg (Alternate) Edward Pawlowski Charles L. Fraust Stephen Repasch George F. Gemmel Michael Reph Matthew Glennon Ronald E. Stahley Armand V. Greco John Stoffa Michael C. Hefele (Alternate) Donna Wright Darlene Heller (Alternate) LEHIGH VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF Michael N. Kaiser, AICP Executive Director ** Geoffrey A. Reese, P.E. Assistant Director Olev Taremäe Chief Planner Joseph L. Gurinko, AICP Chief Transportation Planner Thomas K. Edinger, AICP GIS Manager/Transportation Planner * Lynette E. Romig Senior GIS Analyst * Susan L. Rockwell Senior Environmental Planner Michael S. Donchez Senior Transportation Planner David P. Berryman Senior Planner Teresa Mackey Senior Planner * Travis I. Bartholomew, EIT Stormwater Planner Wilmer R. Hunsicker, Jr. Senior Planning Technician Bonnie D. Sankovsky GIS Technician Anne L. Esser, MBA Administrative Assistant * Alice J. Lipe Senior Planning Technician Kathleen M.
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Provenance and Transport in a Mixed Use, Mid-Sized, Impaired Mid-Atlantic Watershed, Saucon Creek, Pennsylvania Rachel T
    Lehigh University Lehigh Preserve Theses and Dissertations 2012 Sediment provenance and transport in a mixed use, mid-sized, impaired mid-Atlantic watershed, Saucon Creek, Pennsylvania Rachel T. Baxter Lehigh University Follow this and additional works at: http://preserve.lehigh.edu/etd Recommended Citation Baxter, Rachel T., "Sediment provenance and transport in a mixed use, mid-sized, impaired mid-Atlantic watershed, Saucon Creek, Pennsylvania" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1043. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Lehigh Preserve. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Lehigh Preserve. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sediment provenance and transport in a mixed use, mid-sized, impaired mid- Atlantic watershed, Saucon Creek, Pennsylvania By Rachel T. Baxter A Thesis Presented to the Graduate and Research Committee of Lehigh University in Candidacy for the Degree of Master of Sciences in Earth and Environmental Sciences Lehigh University 27 April 2012 © 2012 Copyright Rachel T. Baxter ii This thesis is accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science in Earth and Environmental Sciences. Sediment provenance and transport in a mixed use, mid-sized, impaired mid-Atlantic watershed, Saucon Creek, Pennsylvania Rachel T. Baxter __________________________ Date Approved ___________________________ Dr. Frank J. Pazzaglia Advisor Department Chair ___________________________ Dr. Stephen C. Peters Committee Member ___________________________ Dr. Bruce R. Hargreaves Committee Member iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thank you to my advisor, Frank Pazzaglia, for your guidance, opportunity and learning experience in this project and thank you to my committee members Bruce Hargreaves, and Steve Peters for their time, assistance, and feedback on this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - November 2018
    Pennsylvania Wild Trout Waters (Natural Reproduction) - November 2018 Length County of Mouth Water Trib To Wild Trout Limits Lower Limit Lat Lower Limit Lon (miles) Adams Birch Run Long Pine Run Reservoir Headwaters dnst to mouth 39.950279 -77.444443 3.82 Adams Hosack Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 39.914780 -77.467522 2.90 Adams Latimore Creek Bermudian Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 40.003613 -77.061386 7.00 Adams Little Marsh Creek Marsh Creek Headwaters dnst to T-315 39.842220 -77.372780 3.80 Adams Marsh Creek Out of State Headwaters dnst to SR0030 39.853802 -77.288300 11.12 Adams Opossum Creek Conewago Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 39.931667 -77.185555 12.10 Adams Stillhouse Run Conococheague Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 39.915470 -77.467575 1.28 Allegheny Allegheny River Ohio River Headwater dnst to conf Reed Run 41.751389 -78.107498 21.80 Allegheny Kilbuck Run Ohio River Headwaters to UNT at RM 1.25 40.516388 -80.131668 5.17 Allegheny Little Sewickley Creek Ohio River Headwaters dnst to mouth 40.554253 -80.206802 7.91 Armstrong Birch Run Allegheny River Headwaters dnst to mouth 41.033300 -79.619414 1.10 Armstrong Bullock Run North Fork Pine Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 40.879723 -79.441391 1.81 Armstrong Cornplanter Run Buffalo Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 40.754444 -79.671944 1.76 Armstrong Cove Run Sugar Creek Headwaters dnst to mouth 40.987652 -79.634421 2.59 Armstrong Crooked Creek Allegheny River Headwaters to conf Pine Rn 40.722221 -79.102501 8.18 Armstrong Foundry Run Mahoning Creek Lake Headwaters
    [Show full text]
  • The Most Casual Observer Crossing Lehigh County from North to South
    PHYSIOGRAPHY By BEKJAMIN L. I~ILLER The most casual observer crossing Lehigh County from north to south note’s differe.nces in the topographic features, whereas a person traversin,g the county in a west-east direction notes few changes. It is the function of the geologist (geomorphologist) to differentiate, classify, name and explain these resemblances and differences. Numer- ous investigators have studied these forms in Lehigh C.ounty or in other parts ‘of the Appalachians. Because of the wide extent ‘of each physiographic type represented in the region, studies made in some- what .distant sections are pertinent to this discussion. There is general agreement regarding the m,ain features but not in the minor divisions and in the nomenclature. The classification of Fenneman,* adopted by the U. S. Geological Survey, is mainly fol- lowed in &is report. According to this usage, Lehigh Crounty constitutes a small portion -_ of the Appalachian Highlands which extends from Canada to central Alab’ama and from the Coastal Plain on the east to the Interior Plains on the west. This is divided into provinces and these in turn into secti,ons. Lehigh County contains portions of the following divisions : ‘W/AN PC A TEA PROW/NC,5 PKDNONT PEW Figure 4. Physiographie subdivisions of Pennsylvania. * Fenneman, N. M., Annals Assoc. of Amer. Geographers, vol. 18, pp. 262-353, 192s. 106 PHYSIOGRAPBY 107 Physiograpbic divisioas of the Appalachiun Highlands represented in. Lehigh County Province Bection Distribution Piedmont Triassic Lowlands ?oorly represented in non-char- Lowlands bcteristic form in southeastern Jortion ‘of Lower Milford and >pper S,aucon Townships.
    [Show full text]
  • Lehigh County Has Yielded a Fairly Large Variety of Minerals, Some
    Census of Lehigh Cow@ farms Item 1940 1939 Number of farms ............................. 2,074 2,325 Full owners ...... \ .......................... 1,488 1,731 Part owners ............................... 192 74 Managers ................................. 31 74 All tenants ............................... 363 446 Value of farms (land and buildings) .......... .$13,709,179 $21,81)6,2’91 All land in farms, acres ....................... 152,385 160’,314 Aver,age acre,age per farm ..................... 73.5 69.0 Horses and colts .............................. 3,381 5,O,l6 Cattle ........................................ 9,823 lo,,611 Hogs and pigs ................................. 9,522 12,841 Corn for ,a11 purposes, acres .................... 18,616 18,315 Corn for grain, acres ......................... 17,640’ 17,480 bushels ....................... 543,785 60’7,238 Wheat threshed, acres ........................ 20,128 25,542 bushels ...................... 400’,112 464,416 Oats threshed, acres .......................... 11,031 U&133 bushels ........................ 262,398 271,853 Oats cut ,and fed unthreshed, .acres ............. 419 439 Barley threshed, acres ........................ 2,530 1,276 bushels ...................... 77,531 23,869 Rye threshed, ,acres ........................... 974 2,706 bushels ......................... 13,741 42,635 Mixed grains threshed, ,acres .................. 190 189 bushels ............... 4,673 5@9 Irish potatoes, acres .......................... 12,626 13,560, bushels ........................ 1,483,067 1,681,211 All hay, and sorgums for forage, acres ....... 25,654 24,729 tons ........ 26,0~0’6 331650 MINERALOGY By BENJAI~IN L. MILLER Lehigh County has yielded a fairly large variety of minerals, some- what less than some of the counties of the southeastern portion of the State, but far more than the northern, central and western counties. The variety is due largely to the different types of rock present in the county.
    [Show full text]