903R86001
AN INVESTIGATION OF
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
AT
TIN I CUM NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
rrenta! Protection A
.-(,«<* 19107 ,•' "j>
U.S.
FISH & WILDLIFE
SERVICE
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
-------
AN INVESTIGATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
AT TINICUM NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
PHILADELPHIA AND DELAWARE COUNTIES, PA
Protection Agency
-.'--rnfiation Resource -
,-A 19107 /'
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Services Division
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
September 1986
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Suite 322
315 S. Allen Street
State College, PA 16801
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Tinicum National Environmental Center (the Center) was added to
the National Wildlife Refuge system by Act of Congress in 1972 to preserve
and manage the largest remaining freshwater tidal marsh in Pennsylvainia.
In 1980, Congress authorized the purchase of additional land containing
the Folcroft Landfill. Because the landfill was alledged to have accepted
hazardous wastes, Congress directed "... the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, in consultation and cooperation with the Fish
and Wildlife Service...to investigate potential environmental health
hazards from the Folcroft Landfill . . . and to develop alternative
recommendations as to how such hazards, if any, might best be addressed
in order to protect the refuge and general public " (Public Law 96-315).
A 1983 EPA study of Folcroft Landfill concluded that "no direct hazards
to human health are apparent based on available data." The study was
limited in scope and did not address hazards to fish and wildlife.
The purpose of this report is to identify whether Folcroft Landfill
poses an environmental threat to the Tinicum National Environmental
Center. This report also identifies sampling and analytical needs which
would be required to develop alternative recommendations to address haz-
ards from Folcroft Landfill.
Because Folcroft Landfill is not the only source of contamination
to the Center, other sources in the watershed were also investigated.
Contaminants in so LI, water, sediments, and biota were identified based
on existing data. The contaminants' potential to impact aquatic life
and wildlife at Tinicum were then evaluated.
Available contaminant data at Tinicum is restricted in quantity and
extent; the greatest data gap identified was a lack of information on
organic contaminants. Even with limited data, however, a pattern of
overall degradation of Tinicum's natural resources is clear. Water
quality in Darby Creek in the Tinicum area is degraded, as evidenced by
water column, sediment, and invertebrate data. Levels of copper, iron,
ammonia, lead, and zinc in Darby Creek seriously exceed EPA water quality
criteria. Creek sediments are contaminated by cyanide, chromium, chlor-
dane, nickel, and PCBs. Benthic invertebrate populations in Darby Creek
are limited to pollution-tolerant species. Chemical contamination dis-
covered in fish and turtles collected from the Center has led to a fishing
.advisory and ban on commercial turtle harvesting.
Possible sources of the identified contamination at Tinicum were
evaluated. Because of tidal influence, the Delaware River may be cont-
ributing to the high levels of chromium, lead, and zinc in Darby Creek.
Data are generally inadequate to determine how much upstream sources
contribute to contamination at the Center; however Clearview Landfill
has been identified as a potential source of PCBs in Darby Creek and may
also be contributing polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and heavy metals.
The Folcroft Landfill may be a notable source of aluminum, cyanide,
copper, lead, and zinc to the Center. Leachate from Folcroft Landfill,
containing high levels of copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and
-------
zinc, was found to be toxic to laboratory organisims in bioassay tests
conducted during the evaluation.
An evaluation of the contaminant data for possible toxicological
impacts to fish and wildlife resources at Tinicum indicates that the
identified heavy metal contamination of Darby Creek could pose acute and
chronic threats to a variety of flora and fauna. Furthermore, chemical
analyses of fish and turtles indicate that contaminants such as chlordane
and PCBs are entering the food chain at levels that are expected to harm
wildlife at higher trophic levels.
Based on the extensive evaluation conducted for this report, it
seems likely that the goals and functions of the Tinicum National Environ-
mental Center, in terms of preserving a quality fish and wildlife habitat
with maximum educational and recreational opportunities, are being imp-
aired by the contaminant burdens from upstream sources and the Folcroft
Landfill.
As a result of the findings of this report, a full scale site assess-
ment of Folcroft Landfill is recommended to determine the extent and
degree of contamination at Tinicum. The data gathered during the site
assessment should be used to develop and analyze a set of remedial alter-
natives to reduce contaminants migrating from Folcroft Landfill. The
DOI, in conjunction with EPA, should investigate potential enforcement
measures which could be taken against parties responsible for dumping
hazardous wastes at Folcroft Landfill and pursue efforts to obtain funds
necessary for investigation, remediation, and restoration. Federal and
State Agencies should also increase their efforts to reduce other pollu-
tant sources in the Darby Creek watershed.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was authored by an interagency group consisting of the
following individuals:
Diana Escher (U.S. EPA, ARA)
Alyce Fritz (NOAA, EPA CRC)
Kim Hummel (U.S. EPA, Environmental Services Division)
Charles Kanetsky (U.S. EPA, Environmental Services Division)
Elizabeth Rhoads - editor (U.S. EPA, Environmental Services Division)
Cindy Rice (U.S. FWS, Ecological Services)
John Ruggero (U.S. EPA, Environmental Services Division)
Roy Smith (U.S. EPA, Environmental Services Division)
The efforts of the group were coordinated with Tim Alexander (Penn-
sylvania Department of Environmental Resources), John Arway (Pennsylvania
Fish Commission), and Greg Grabowicz (Pennsylvania Game Commission).
The Tinicum Work Group would like to thank the following individuals
for their assistance:
EPA - Richard Pepino, Randy Pomponio, Jim Newsom, Joe Kunz, Ester Steinberg,
Vic Janosik, Mike Zickler, Bruce Molholt, Mary Ann Donnelly, Michelle
Hankin, Bill Hag el, Ron Preston and the staff of the Wheeling Field
Office, the Annapolis Central Regional Laboratory, and the Environmental
Impact and Marine Policy Branch.
DOI - Anita Miller (Office of the Secretary, Mid-Atlantic Region)
FWS - Richard Nugent, Gerry Franz, Bob Stovall, and Greg Breese of the
Tinicum National Environmental Center; Charles Kulp, Carol Taylor,
and Kathy Walker of Ecological Services, State College, Pa.; Arnold
Julin, Donald Woodard, George Gavutis, and Don Tiller, Northeast
Regional Office; Sarah Gerould and John Blankenship, Division of
Resource Contaminant Assessment, Washington, DC; Joe Miller, DE River
Basin Anadromous Fishery Project; Bob Carline, PA Cooperative Fish
and Wildlife Unit; Ron Eisler and Nelson Beyer, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center; Chris Schmitt, Columbia National Fishery Research
Center.
PA DER - Bruce Beitler, Georgia Kagle, Frank Holmes
Tom Lloyd Associates - Tom Lloyd
Nature Conservancy - Sarah Davison
Morris Arboretum - Ann Rhoads
National Marine Fisheries Service - Tim Goodger
PA Fish Commission - Mike Kaufman, Lee Tilton, Dave Spotts
PA Game Commission - John Miller
PA Natural Diversity Index - Kathleen McKenna
-------
SCALE I = 4000
Tinicuin National Environmental
-------
AN INVESTIGATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
AT TINICUM NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
List of Tables
List of Figures
I. Introduction
II. Goals, Functions, and Values of the NEC
A. Goals
B. Functions and Values
III. Site Description
A. Physical Characterization
B. Biological Characterization
1. Flora
2. Macroinvertebrates
3. Fish
4. Amphibians and Reptiles
5. Birds
6. Mammals
C. Species of Concern
D. Ecological Relationships
IV. Environmental Quality
A. Contaminant Sources
B. Air Quality
C. Soil Quality
D. Water and Sediment Quality
E. Groundwater Quality
F. Biota
V. Environmental Assessment
A. Contaminants of Concern
B. Fate and Transport
1. General processes
2. Specific transport processes
a. Soil and groundwater
b. Water and sediments
1. Flow characteristics
2. Flushing times
3. Settling and resuspension of adsorbed materials
4. Desorption of organic toxicants
5. Source identification
c. Food chain
-------
C. Effects
1. Observed
2. Predicted
VI. Summary and Conclusions
VII. Recommendations
List of References
Appendix
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Average Activity Hours per Visit to Tinicum.
Table 2. Hydrologic Data for Streams in the Tinicum Watershed.
Table 3. Estimates of Soil Characteristics Found Within Tinicum
and in Adjacent Areas.
Table 4. Priority Pollutant Samples Taken from Folcroft Landfill
Annex, July 16 and 18, 1983.
Table 5. Priority Pollutant Samples Taken from Folcroft Landfill
and Folcroft Landfill Annex.
Table 6a. Chronic Toxicity Data Summary from Folcroft Landfill and
Folcroft Landfill Annex Leachate Samples.
6b. Analytical Results from Sampling of Folcroft Leachate.
Table 7. On-Site Samples Taken From the Clearview Landfill Area.
Table 8. Ambient Water and Sediment Sampling Locations.
Table 9. Threshold Contaminant Concentrations for Sediments.
Table 10. Water Quality Criteria Used for Comparison to Ambient
Observations.
Table 11. Proportion of Measured Ambient Concentrations of Toxic
Pollutants Exceeding EPA Water Quality Criteria.
Table 12. Correlation Analysis of Mean concentrations of Toxic
Pollutants and Other Substances in Ambient Water with
Order, Year, and Temperature.
Table 13. Correlation Analysis of Mean Proportion of Observations in
Ambient Water Exceeding EPA Water Quality Criteria.
Table 14. Summary of Exceedances of EPA Sediment Threshold Contaminant
Criteria.
Table 15. Summary of Exceedances of EPA Water Quality Criteria.
Table 16. Results of Heavy Metals/Organochlorine Analysis of Fish from
Two Locations within Tinicum N.E.C.
Table 17. Organochlorines in Whole Fish Samples Collected by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service from Darby Creek near Clearview
-------
and Folcroft Landfills, August 7-8, 1984 and in Snapping Turtle
Leg Meat and Fat.
Table 18. Residues of Metals in Five Snapping Turtle Liver Samples from
the Tinicum N.E.C.
Table 19. Summary of Contaminant Sampling by Environmental Medium.
Table 20. Flushing Time on Darby Creek during low flow.
Table 21. Mass of Contaminated Sediments and Equivalent Water Depth as a
Function of Depth of Contamination.
Table 22. Water Column Concentrations and Required Desorption Times.
Table 23. Relative Proportion of Organic Compounds in Naylors Run and
Darby Creek Sediments.
Table 24. Water Column Concentrations and Required Desorption Time for
Organic Toxicants in Naylors Run.
Table 25. Comparison of Water Quality Criteria in Delaware River and Darby
Creek.
Table 26. Water Quality Parameters Exceeding Applicable Criteria in
Darby Creek.
Table 27. Predicted Effects of Contaminants on Indicator Species in
Tinicum N. E.G.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Land use goals of the Tinicum National Environmental Center.
Figure 2. Number of visitors to Tinicum.
Figure 3. Environmental education at Tinicum.
Figure 4. Recreational activities at Tinicum.
Figure 5. Test borings in the Folcroft Landfill.
Figure 6. Simplified diagram of possible food web at Tinicum marsh.
Figure 7. Potential contaminant source locations in the Tinicum watershed.
Figure 8. Ambient water and sediment sampling locations.
Figure 9. Concentrations of PCBs in Sediments.
Figure 10. Concentrations of Chlordane in Sediments.
Figure 11. Concentrations of Lead in Sediments.
Figure 12. Concentrations of Cyanide in Sediments.
Figure 13. Concentrations of Aluminum in Sediments.
Figure 14. Concentrations of Copper in Sediments.
Figure 15. Concentrations of Iron in Sediments.
Figure 16. Concentrations of Nickel in Sediments.
Figure 17. Concentrations of Chromium in Sediments.
Figure 18. Relationship between Stream Velocity, Particle Size, and the
Regimes of Sediment Erosion, Transport, and Deposition.
Figure 19. Stream Gradients in Cobbs and Darby Creeks.
Figure 20. Stream Gradients in Cobbs Creek, Darby Creek, and Naylors Run.
Figure 21. Flushing Time Segments on Darby Creek for Low Flow Conditions.
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLES
Table A. Discharge data for Cobbs and Darby Creeks.
Table B. Common and scientific names of plant species mentioned in
this report.
Table C. Species of fish known to occur in the Tinicum area, their
general food habits and brief life history description.
Table D. Reptiles and amphibians known to occur in the Tinicum region.
Table E. Species of birds known to nest in Tinicum.
Table F. Mammals known to occur in the Tinicum area.
Table G. Potential point sources of pollutants in the Tinicum area.
Table H. Sediment data collected in the Tinicum area.
Table I. Water quality data, Cobbs and Hermesprota Creeks.
Table J. Water quality data, Darby Creek.
Table K. Calculation of tidal prism on Darby Creek.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Tinicum Marsh is the largest freshwater tidal marsh remaining in Penn-
sylvania. The value of this ecosystem was recognized when the 1200 acre
Tinicum National Environmental Center was established by Congress in 1972.
The Center is a managed wildlife refuge and provides unique educational and
recreational opportunities in the midst of the heavily urbanized Philadel-
phia area.
In 1980, Congress authorized the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) to
purchase additional land to increase the size of the refuge. Included in
this land acquisition was the 62-acre Folcroft Landfill and Folcroft Landfill
Annex. Because there were allegations that hazardous wastes were dumped at
these landfills, Congress directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) , in coordination and consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to "investigate potential environmental health hazards resulting
from the Folcroft landfill... and to develop alternative recommendations as
to how such hazards, if any, might best be addressed in order to protect the
refuge and the general public" (Public Law 96-315).
An investigation of the Folcroft Landfill conducted in 1983 under the
auspices of the Superfund program concluded that "no direct hazards to human
health are apparent based on available data" (U.S. EPA, 1985). Concerns
over the impacts of Folcroft Landfill to aquatic life and wildlife were not
addressed in the 1983 effort.
The purpose of this report is to identify whether Folcroft Landfill
poses an environmental threat to the Center. Because this investigation is
based on existing data, this report also identifies sampling and analytical
needs which would be required to develop alternative recommendations to
address hazards from Folcroft Landfill. Because Folcroft Landfill is not
the only contaminant source to the Center, other potential sources in the
watershed were also determined. Contaminants in soil, water, sediment, and
biota were identified based solely on existing data. Potential impacts to
aquatic life and wildlife at the Center were then evaluated. These impacts
to individual species were then discussed in terms of their potential to
impair ecosystem processes and, in turn, the goals and functions of the
Center.
Chapter 2 of the report describes the goals of the Tinicum National
Environmental Center as established by Public Laws 92-326, 94-548, and 95-152.
The natural functions and ecological values of the marsh are also described.
An overview of the physical and biological characteristics of the Center
is presented in Chapter 3. Species of special importance are highlighted,
and the final section of Chapter 3 summarizes the physical, chemical, and
biological information in a brief discussion of ecological relationships.
Chapter 4 contains an enumeration and description of potential contam-
inant sources to the marsh. The level and extent of contamination in soil,
water, sediment, and biota are presented based on a review of historical
d ata.
1-1
-------
The contaminants of concern identified in Chapter 4 are evaluated
in Chapter 5 with respect to their ability to induce toxicological effects
to the biota described in Chapter 3. The potential fate and transport of
these contaminants in the ecosystem are evaluated based on surface
water estimates of flushing rates, modeling of sediment desorption, and
the contaminants' ability to bioaccumulate in the food chain.
Chapter 6 includes a summary of the major findings of this report.
Conclusions regarding contaminant sources and impacts are presented.
Based on these findings, recommendations for future action have been
developed and are discussed in Chapter 7.
1-2
-------
II. GOALS AND FUNCTIONS OF TEE TINICUM NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
II. A. Goals
The Tinicum National Environmental Center was established by Public
Law 92-326, as amended by Public Laws 94-548, 95-152, and 96-315. These
laws provide for the establishment of the Tinicum National Environmental
Center to be administered as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System
of the FWS. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to
(a) acquire lands for the purpose of preserving, restoring and developing
the natural area known as Tinicum Marsh, (b) construct, administer, and
maintain a wildlife interpretive center for the purpose of promoting envi-
ronmental education, and (c) afford visitors an opportunity for the study
of wildlife in its natural habitat.
The FWS, to fulfill the intent of Congress and in keeping with its
overall mission tor the National Wildlife Refuge System, has recognized
three major goals of the Tinicum National Environmental Center:
1) To preserve the natural resources of the Tinicum Marsh which
represents the largest freshwater tidal marsh that remains in
Pennsylvania.
2) To provide environmental education opportunities for the schools
and residents of the surrounding region.
3) To provide quality wildlife-oriented recreation opportunities for
the enjoyment of people in the surrounding region when it will
not interfere with the primary purpose for which the area was
established.
In 1983, the FWS completed a master planning document to outline the
most efficient ways to meet the goals of the Center. Habitat management
strategies were seen as an important step in meeting the Center's purposes.
Public Law 92-326, as amended, mandates the preservation of the exis-
ting wetlands and the restoration of former wetlands. Much of the land
that is recommended for inclusion in Tinicum formerly was tidal wetland,
but has been altered by diking, dredging, or filling. In total, the Center
will contain approximately 1,200 acres of land that ranges from viable
tidal wetland to nearly barren areas. The highly disturbed condition of
much of these lands presents an unusual opportunity, as well as a challenge,
to recreate the environments that formerly existed. To respond to the
mandate of P.L. 92-326, the four following guidelines were formulated:
1. The existing tidal wetlands will be managed to maintain their integrity
and to enhance productivity.
2. Areas that formerly were tidal wetlands, but which now are isolated
from the tides by embankments, will be restored and managed as tidal wet-
lands wherever this restoration is considered to be the most environmentally
Suitable measure. Areas that were formerly tidal wetlands, but have since
been excavated, forming tidal lagoons, will be filled and subsequently
managed as tidal wetlands, unless they currently provide a valuable habitat
II-l
-------
valuable habitat type for waterfowl that would otherwise not use the Center.
Figure 1 depicts the planned vegetation types which will form the
core of the habitat management program. Approximately 221 acres of new
tidal wetland are proposed, supplementing the existing 275 acres of tidal
wetlands. These new wetlands are located primarily in the western portions
of the center.
3. Areas of open non-tidal water will be retained or established at appro-
priate locations to provide habitats for migratory and resident waterfowl
and for fish, and to provide areas for educational wildlife oriented
recreation activities or scientific research.
4. At appropriate locations, areas will be developed and managed to facil-
itate scientific research on habitat restoration and/or wildlife management,
and to provide educational demonstration of these techniques. The plan
calls for construction of an "Environmental Education Building," to be the
largest facility at the Center. The "EEB" will be located on the northeast
side of the large existing impoundment. From this location, visitors will
be able to follow a trail around the dike to an observation platform on
top of the Folcroft Landfill that will overlook the tidal marsh area. The
visitor can then continue south and west into the center of the site (where
an observation tower provides views of the upland forest, ponds and tidal
marsh), circle the impoundment and arrive back at the point of departure.
Upland field and forest is proposed for the extreme eastern and central
sections of the site and for the Folcroft Landfill area.
Various "contact stations" (an orientation center consisting of a
small office, a small display area, and a lab to accommodate groups making
studies) and parking areas are planned. In addition, a canoe launch will
be provided. The trail system will provide rest areas, observation blinds,
and interpretive materials.
II. B. Functions and Values
The habitat management strategies outlined above will increase the
existing values of Tinicum Marsh as a functioning wetland ecosystem.
Wetlands serve many functions important not only to fish and wildlife but
also to man. For example, the tremendous amount of plant material present
in the wetlands helps improve water quality by removing sediments and
nutrients from the water column. The vegetative structure of wetlands
also serves to retain and store flood waters, reducing the extent of down-
stream flooding. The unique habitat at Tinicum supports a diverse assem-
blage of plants and animals. The recreational, educational, economic, and
aesthetic values of Tinicum are also enormous.
One of the major legislated purposes of the Center is to serve as a
wildlife interpretive center to promote environmental education and to
give visitors an opportunity to study wildlife in its natural habitat. As
displayed in Figure 2, the number of visitors to Tinicum, as recorded by
the Visitor Contact Station, has greatly increased since 1978. In 1984,
II-2
-------
C
0)
o
CO
4J
0)
o
(-1
w
C
o
•H
u
CO
z
C
•r-l
H
cu
CO
o
M
0)
CO
3
"3
CO
0)
tj
•s
-------
the Center experienced a 15% drop from the previous year in the number of
visitors, but this was attributed in part to the many rainy weekends during
the warmer months (Tinicum N.E.C., 1985). Over 37,000 people visited the
Center in 1984.
Figure 2. Number of visitors to Tinicum.
60 •
r
5O
30
20 -!
4 r
1978 1979 198O
1981
YEAR
1982
1983
~ "T
1984
Environmental education accounted for 5.6% of the visitors in 1984 as
represented by the number of teachers and students coming to the Center.
As shown on Figure 3, these visitors almost tripled in number from 1978 to
1983 with a slight decrease in 1984. Approximately 2,084 people used the
Center in 1984 for educational purposes.
Figure 3. Environmental education at Tinicum.
2.S
2.4 -
2.3 -
2.2 -
2.1 -
2 -
1.9 -
1.8
1.7 -
1.6 -,
1.5-)
1.4^
1.3 ^
1.2 -
1.1 -
1 -
0.9 -
O.8 -
O.7
1978 1979
198O
1981
YEAR
1962 1983
1984
11-4
-------
Visitors participate in many types of recreational activities ranging
from bicycling to fishing to landscape painting. The activity hours vary
widely, with the averages as follows on Table 1.
Table 1. Average Activity Hours per Visit to Tinicum.
Recreational Activity
Wildlife Observation
By Foot
By Bicycle
By Cano e
Fishing
Average No. of Hours
1 1/2
1
4
3
Approximately 75% of the people engage in wildlife observation through
walking, bicycling, canoeing, or photography. Fishing is also a popular
activity. An estimated 20% of the 1984 visitors came to the Center to
fish for carp, catfish, crappies, sunfish, and eels. Figure 4 displays
the percentage of participants in each activity as estimated by the Visitor
Contact Station.
Figure 4. Recreational activities at Tinicum.
FISHING (22.0*)
PHOTOGRAPHY (6.4X)
CANOQNG (O.SX)
BICYCLING («.8X)
ON FOOT (64.3X)
Quantitative fishery catches for the marsh are not available, however
the value of this resource is expected to be significant based on the
amount of use. Additional economic values of the Center include the commer-
cial harvesting of snapping turtles and the potential use of the marsh as
a spawning area for anadromous fish.
11-5
-------
III. SITE DESCRIPTION
III. A. Physical Characterization
Tinicum National Environmental Center is in Philadelphia and Delaware
Counties in southeastern Pennsylvania. The Center is located near the
confluence of Darby Creek and the Delaware River and will eventually comprise
over 1,200 acres of tidal marsh and upland habitats. Areas surrounding
the Center are highly urbanized and include an airport, and industrial,
residential, and commercial areas. Darby Creek, Cobbs Creek, Muckinipattis
Creek, and Hermesprota Creek are the major streams which form the Tinicum
watershed.
The climate in Delaware County is best described as a humid, temperate
climate with mean yearly temperatures of 52°F. Precipitation is fairly
evenly distributed throughout the year, and averages 44 inches per year.
Annual mean evapotranspiration is 34 inches. Prevailing wind directions
during the summer are from the southwest, while prevailing winds during the
winter months are from the northwest. The annual prevailing wind direction
is from the west-southwest. Flooding rarely occurs in the Delaware River
(NOAA, 1979).
The Center has a very low elevation. Marsh areas vary from 2.0 feet
below mean sea level to 7.0 feet above mean sea level. In dry areas located
in the western portion of the Center, the elevation ranges from 7.0 feet
below mean sea level to 11.0 feet above mean sea level. Dry areas in the
eastern half rise from 7.0 to 46.8 feet above sea level (Soil Exploration,
1977).
Located directly on Thoroughfare Creek at approximately 50 feet above
sea level, the Folcroft Landfill is the highest area in Tinicum. The
landfill remains unaffected by tidal fluctuations except for the base of
the landfill bordering the marsh and creeks. For the most part, Folcroft
has moderate slopes of about 10% which form a rounded summit. However on
the Darby Creek side, the highly erodible banks rise steeply to 20 feet.
Under the Clean Water Act, Pennsylvania DER designates water quality
standards for State waters. DER bases its standards upon protected water
uses. DER has not designated protected water uses specifically for Tinicum.
Consequently, the protected uses which apply to Tinicum fall under several
stream listings. Darby, Hermesprota, Cobbs, and Muckinipattis Creeks are
protected for use as warm water fisheries, industrial water supply, live-
stock water supply, wildlife water supply, irrigation, boating, fishing,
water contact sports, and aesthetics. The upper reaches of Darby Creek
are stocked with trout by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission.
The hydrologic characteristics of most freshwater tidal systems are
poorly studied. The wetlands within Tinicum further complicate the picture
III-l
-------
. 1
4
-------
because of their ability to attenuate storm flows by storing surface water
and releasing it during dry periods to maintain base flows (Wang, 1981).
The hydrologic regime of freshwater wetlands strongly influences the
chemical and physical properties of the marsh, including water exchange,
nutrient exchange, toxicant transport, and oxygen availability. In turn,
these chemical and physical properties play a major role in modifying
ecosystem characteristics such as productivity, species heterogeneity, and
nutrient cycling (Gosselink, 1978; Simpson, 1983).
Tinicum is located near the mouth of Darby Creek where it joins the
Delaware River, and consequently may play a major role in attenuating
storm flows for the entire Darby Creek basin. Average surface runoff in the
Darby Creek watershed averages 15 to 28 inches per year. In the Tinicum
area, runoff more closely ranges between 17 to 20 inches per year. The
Darby Creek watershed drains 78.6 square miles of Philadelphia, Chester,
Delaware and Montgomery Counties. Cobbs Creek, a major tributary to Darby
Creek, originates in Delaware and Montgomery Counties. The confluence of
Darby and Cobbs Creek is 0.75 miles north of Tinicum, and approximately
coincides with the head of tide in Darby Creek. Within the Environmental
Center, Darby Creek averages 220 to 250 feet wide with an average depth of
6 feet at mean low tide. Water levels remain within 2 feet of the maximum
height for about 5 hours during each 12.4 hour tidal cycle (U.S. FWS,
1983a). Hermesprota Creek also flows into the marsh and drains approx-
imately 1 square mile of industrial area in Delaware County. Muckinipattis
Creek (drainage area 3.5 square miles) enters the marsh approximately 1/2
mile below Folcroft Landfill.
Gage data for these streams are listed in Table 2. Continuous flow
data were collected at three USGS gaging stations on Cobbs Creek and one
gaging station on Darby Creek between 1966 and 1972. Monthly discharge
data are further detailed in Appendix Table A. The Cobbs Creek gaging
station at Darby has a drainage area of 22 mi 2 which constitutes 29% of
the total Darby Creek watershed. The Darby Creek gaging station at Darby
represents 47% of the drainage basin.
Table 2. Hydrologic data for streams in the Tinicum watershed. Mean low
flow, (7Q10), drainage area (DA), maximum discharge (Max), and date and
mean discharge are listed for the most recent period of record.
Gage No. Location
01475300 Darby Creek, Waterloo Mills, PA
01475510 Darby Creek, near Darby, PA
01475530 Cobbs Creek, U. S. Rte 1
01475550 Cobbs Creek at Darby, PA
01475550 Hermesprota Creek, Darby, PA
01475600 Muckinpattis Creek
7Q10
(cfs)
1.4
10
0.95
-
0.35
0.92
DA
(mi2)
5.15
37.4
4.8
22
1.01
3.5
Max.
(cfs)
1800(9/79)
5920(8/74)
3480(8/74)
4490(6/73)
—
1160(7/83)
Mean
(cfs)
10.9
71
7.4
31.1
-
-
III-2
-------
Within Che southwestern portion of the Center are three lagoons,
approximately 0.7 miles above the confluence of Darby Creek and the Delaware
River. The tidal amplitude at this point is approximately 4 1/2 ft (Eco-
logical Studies, 1977). All lagoons have free interchange with water
from Darby Creek, however, interchange between the lagoons is limited to
high tides. Depths up to 40 feet are encountered in the lagoons. Sediment
exchange between Darby Creek and the lagoons is expected to be minimal
because dike remnants between the lagoons and Darby Creek inhibit exchange
(Lloyd, 1986). A 145 acre impoundment is located in the eastern section
of the Center; however exchange between Darby Creek and the impoundment
is minimal because of the presence of dikes and flood gates.
Numerous dikes throughout the Center inhibit the exchange of water in
several areas. In the Folcroft area, overland flow follows the topographic
contours and runoff enters Darby Creek, Hermesprota Creek, and the adjacent
tidal marsh.
A large area of the Center is covered by relatively sandy dredged
materials. The materials in the Darby Creek disposal area north of 1-95
originated from dredging during 1956 to 1958 when the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers excavated an anchorage and turning basin in the Delaware River.
The thickness of the dredged material ranges from less than 1 inch to 9.9
feet. The exact composition of the material is unknown, but generally
has a sandy silt texture. Dredged material placed in the cooperative
management area during 1965 for the now defunct Cobbs Creek Expressway is
similar, but ranges from 11 to 13 feet in thickness (U.S. FWS, 1981).
The most recent soil surveys which include Tinicum were conducted by
the Soil Conservation Service in May 1963 for Delaware County and in July
1975 for Philadelphia County. Table 3 provides a summary of these soils'
properties.
Table 3. Estimates of soil properties found in Tinicum and adjacent
areas. Permeability is in inches per hour, depth to water table is in
feet, and depth to bedrock is in feet. An asterisk indicates that the
properties vary too much to estimate.
Depth Permea- Depth to Depth to
Soil Series (cm) bility water table bedrock
BeA - Beltsville silt loam, 0 to 0-7 0.63-2.0 1-2 6+
3 percent slopes 7-48 <0.2
ByA - Butlertown silt loam, 0 to 0-8 0.2-6.3 2-2.5 6+
3 percent slopes 8-48 <0.2
ByB2- Butlertown silt loam, 0 to 48 0.63-2.0 2-2.5 6+
3 percent slopes
Ma - Made land, gravelly mat. varies varies 3+ 4+
Ml - Made land, sanitary landfill varies varies 3+ 4+
OtA - Othello silt loam 0-12 0.63-2.0 0-1 4+
We - Wehadkee silt loam 0-70 0.63-2.0 0-1 5-8
WnA - Woodstown loam 0-10 2.0-6.3 2-3 10+
Tm - Tidal marsh* 0
Mh - Marsh* 0
Ub - Urban land*
III-3
-------
Most of Tinicum is covered by Tidal Marsh or Marsh soils. Generally,
the soil material consists of loamy to clayey marine and alluvial deposits
and dark-gray, gray, or black smooth silty clay. Approximately 1 to 2
miles upstream from the mouth of Darby Creek, coarse-textured material
washed from coastal plain sediments has capped the silty deposits of the
tidal marsh. Folcroft Landfill is typed as made land, sanitary landfill
comprised of alternate layers of soil and trash which have been compacted
by heavy equipment.
Generally, the cover material used during the sealing of the landfill
consists of well-drained sandy loam. More specifically, on the western
half of Folcroft, the cover is approximately 2 feet thick. DER represent-
atives have determined that a portion of this cover material was dredge
spoils and the rest was brought in from the 1-95 construction site and
several other construction projects (Environmental Evaluation, 1979).
On the landfill's eastern half, material obtained from a construction
site at the Sun Oil Refinery in Marcus Hook, PA, forms the main cover.
Soil tests indicate a maximum of 7% oil within this cover material. The
eastern half's cover ranges from an average of 4 feet thick to 10 feet
thick (Environmental Evaluation, 1979). The permeability of the soil at
the landfill varies from unknown to moderate (0.1 to 10 cm/sec) to high
(.10 to 1000 cm/sec) (U. S. EPA, 1980).
Other soils adjacent to the Center include Beltsville silt loam,
Butlertown Series, Othello silt loam, Wehadkee silt loam, Woodstown loam,
and Urban land. The properties of these soils are also listed in Table 3.
Othello Silt Loam and Woodstown Loam are moderately permeable, and all
soils exhibit high water tables.
The typical stratigraphy in mid-Atlantic coastal marshes is a hard
bottom bedrock, varying layers of river, estuarine and marsh sediments,
and a cap of recent freshwater tidal marsh sediments (Odum, 1981). Sub-
surface soils in the Center include silt, peat, sand, and gravel. Fill
materials, described as wood, bricks, cinders, garbage, and paper range
from the top surface to depths of 21 feet in the Folcroft Landfill.
Tinicum lies within two physiographic provinces, the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain. The fall line between these two provinces lies along the
northwestern side of the Center (Graham, 1970). In the Coastal Plain,
deposits of recent alluvium are underlain by unconsolidated clay, sand,
and gravel deposits of the Quarternary age. These deposits are in turn
underlain by Cretaceous sediments which include beds of highly permeable
sand and gravel separated by less permeable clay and silt. The Piedmont
province in Darby and Ridley Townships is primarily composed of the Wissa-
hickon Schist formation underlain by granite gneiss and covered with a
layer of terrace gravel (Hall, 1973). North of the Center and along the
fall line, the Wissahickon schist outcrops and is covered by a thin layer
of the Cape May formation consisting of gravel, sand, and loam.
III-4
-------
Figure 5. Test borings in the Folcroft Landfill. ML = gray silty
sand, SM = fine to coarse brown sand and gravel.
Bedrock floors in both provinces are composed of pre-Cambrian crys-
talline rocks. In the area near the Center, these crystalline rocks are
from the Wissahickon schist. The crystalline bedrock floor dips approx-
imately 60 ft/mile in a southeasterly direction (Graham, 1970) and is a
heterogeneous mix of medium to coarse grained rock composed of quartz,
oligoclase, muscovite, and biotite (Lehigh, 1982). Along Darby Creek just
south of Folcroft Borough, the bedrock floor is approximately 60 feet
below the surface (U.S. FWS, 1983a). At the lower end of Darby Creek, the
depth to bedrock is approximately 40 feet (Soil Exploration, 1977). Along
the Delaware River most of the Cape May deposits have been removed by
erosion and along Long Hook Creek, mica schist is encountered at depths of
10 feet.
Test borings in the Folcroft Landfill are illustrated in the cross-
sectional diagram in Figure 5. Soils directly below the fill material are
gray silty sand, underlain by fine and coarse brown sand and gravel. Mica
schist under Folcroft Landfill is approximately 15 feet below sea level.
Wetlands play distinct roles in the hydrogeology of Tinicum because
of the recharge/discharge relationship between the underlying aquifers and
the overlying organic marsh sediments (Obrien, 1980). Ground water in
Tinicum occurs both in the crystalline bedrock and in the unconsolidated
coastal plain sediments. The recent deposits of organic mud, silt, and
III-5
-------
sand are not expected to be important sources of groundwater because they
are generally much thinner and less permeable. However, these sediments
would constitute a leaky, confining bed (Hall, 1973) and would be classified
as low to moderate water yields for wetlands (Obrien, 1980). Water supplies
in the Wissahickon schist are provided through faults and jointings and
are only important sources along the fall line. However, water in bedrock
may be a very significant source for the wetlands because these zones
constitute a continuous water supply. The fall line joint planes are the
primary source of ground water in the area, especially in the upper layer
of bedrock where weathering has changed the bedrock to a micaceous clay
(Hall, 1973). This residual clay also serves as a confining bed from the
overlying consolidated Coastal Plain sediments (Greenman, 1961). Along
the fall line, ground water generally occurs under water table conditions.
Tie median yield in the Wissahickon formation is 10 gpm and ranges from 0
to 350 gpm. The median specific capacity is 0.4 gpm, and drawdown ranges
from 0.06 to 8.4 gpm/foot.
Groundwater in the Coastal Plain area near Tinicum is found mostly in
the Farrington Sand member of the Raritan formation and in the Cape May
deposits. The Farrington Sand member, generally overlain by a confining
bed of clays, is the primary artesian aquifer for the area. The average
transmissibility for this aquifer is 50,000 gpd/ft, the average permeability
is 1,000 gpd/ft2, and the storage coefficient is 0.0002 (Greenman, 1961).
The Cape May deposits of sand, gravel, and clay comprise the most
extensive water table aquifer in the lower Delaware River Valley in Pennsyl-
vania. The yields of wells in the coastal plain sediments range widely
from 8 to 7000 gpm. The field coefficients of transmissibility are generally
lower than the Farrington aquifer and average 41000 gpd/ft. The average
storage coefficient is 0.0006, indicating that in some areas deposits
contain water under artesian conditions resulting from the deposition of
recent, less permeable sediments (Hall, 1973).
Depths to groundwater during sampling at the Center ranged from 0 to
15 feet below the land surface. In the Folcroft Landfill, water
tables were 0 to 15 feet below the surface. In the southeastern end of
Tinicum, water table depths were 0 to 5 feet below the land surface. Both
in the southwest and Folcroft Landfill, "fill" material lies within the
water table.
The general pattern of groundwater movement in the water table system
is from the high point along the fall line toward the Delaware and Schuyl-
kill Rivers. Discharge points also occur in adjacent stream valleys and
usually follow the local topography. Discharge from the water table is
expected to be especially high through evapotranspiration in the marsh
areas (Hall, 1973). In the Coastal Plain, the major source of recharge to
groundwater is direct infiltration from precipitation (Lehigh, 1982).
Movement in the artesian system is more heterogeneous but again follows
the fall line southeast to the Delaware River and its tributaries (Greenman,
III-6
-------
1961, and Lehigh, 1982). Groundwater in the underlying crystalline rocks
flows in interconnected paths following fractures, although the hydraulic
gradient is in a southeasterly direction.
Discharge from the artesian systems is also primarily to streams.
Near the Delaware River, seasonal fluctuations in the water table are not
as pronounced because of tidal balancing. Fluctuations in the water table
due to tides are not expected farther than several hundred feet from the
river (Greenman, 1961) and thus would not influence Tinicum. However,
tidal fluctuations within Darby Creek may influence water table levels.
No monitoring data are available to verify local flow conditions.
III. B. Biological Characterization
The Center contains a variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat
types that include old field, forest, revegetated dredge spoil, open water,
and marsh. The marsh habitat is perhaps the Center's most significant
feature. Comprising about 350 acres (U.S. FWS, 1983a), Tinicum Marsh is
the largest expanse of freshwater tidal marsh remaining in Pennsylvania.
Historically, tidal marshes in the Philadelphia area covered over 5,700
acres, extending along the Delaware River from the Walt Whitman Bridge to
a point beyond Eddystone, and more than 5 miles upstream from the mouth of
the Schuylkill River (Tinicum N.E.C., 1985). Since World War I, more than
5,000 acres of tidal wetlands in the area have been filled to construct
railroads, highways, boatyards, the Philadelphia International Airport,
and residential and industrial developments (U.S. FWS, 1978).
Freshwater tidal wetlands are a relatively poorly studied ecosystem
type found between the more well-known tidal "saltmarsh" ecosystems down-
stream, and freshwater non-tidal wetlands upstream (Odum et al., 1984).
In general, freshwater tidal wetlands are characterized by an average
annual salinity of 0.5 ppt or lower (except under certain drought con-
ditions); freshwater plant and animal species; and a daily, lunar tidal
fluctuation (Odum et al., 1984). Because few scientists distinguished
between freshwater tidal wetlands and other estuarine ecosystems, the
literature pertaining to biological and ecosystem processes of this spec-
ialized wetland type is sparse (Odum and Smith, 1981).
III.B.I. Flora
The distribution of plants in freshwater tidal wetlands is frequently
described as occurring in "zones" of "reoccurring groups of species which
form recognizable patterns" (Odum et al., 1984, p. 21). These zones are
typically comprised of one or two dominant plant species and varying asso-
ciated species. According to Odum et al. (1984), zonation is probably
caused by variations in physical site characteristics (such as elevation
and period of inundation) and ecological processes (such as interspecific
competition). McCormick (1970) noted that the vegetation of Tinicum Marsh
III-7
-------
is "particularly well suited to mapping because . . .
it is composed of numerous visually distinct sub-
units that differ in color, height and texture and
that differ in position in relation to drainage channels
and microtopography. Several of the types that were
recognized were 'pure stands', that is, they were
composed almost entirely of plants of a single species.
This was true of the wild rice, common reed, spatterdock,
creeping primrose willow and sraartweed types. Over
much of the area in which it occurred, the cattail
type also was pure, but in part of the area it occurred
in mixture with various other species of aquatic
plants. The other vegetation types recognized in
this survey were much more subjective categories.
For example, a mixed-aquatics type was mapped in much
of the tidal marsh. Generally, stands of mixed aquatics
were composed of two or more species of smartweed
growing with various mixtures of arrowheads, beggarticks,
jewelweed, bur-reed, cattail, spatterdock, wild
rice, iris, sedges and grasses. They were woven to-
gether in many places by masses of dodder—a parasitic,
orange-colored vine. A shrub type, which actually
was composed largely of shrublike herbs which die to
the ground in winter, occurred primarily in diked
sections of the marsh with impounded water.
Purple loose-strife was the most common species, but
marsh mallow was scattered throughout the stands. In
some places, the shrub type was formed by dogwoods
and willows and, in a few places, by alders and other
woody shrubs. The tree type included several dozen
species in the mapped area, but willows were the
chief components in the marsh proper. The last type,
characterized as oldfield herbaceous vegetation,
included many kinds of grasses, goldenrods, asters,
fleabanes and similar 'weeds'. This type occupied
fields formerly cultivated on higher lands around the
marsh and covered the dikes that anastamose through
the wetlands (McCormick, 1970, pp. 34-35).
Other wetland plant species identified by McCormick include arrow-
arum, pickerelweed, jewelweed, water plantain, buttonbush, sensitive fern,
reed canary grass, water hemp, bulrush, bur marigold, sweetflag, golden
club, pondweeds, rushes, blue vervain, marsh hoarhound, lizard's tail,
water parsnip, mad-dog skullcap, and tall cone-flower.
McCormick's study included a rather detailed map of Tinicum's vege-
tation which clearly illustrates a high interspersion of vegetation types
within the marsh. The wild rice type occupied the greatest acreage of the
tidal wetlands (138 acres), but the spatterdock type (108 acres) and the
III-8
-------
mixed aquatic type (103 acres) were nearly as widespread. Cattail stands
occupied 77 acres in the tidal marsh and 3 acres in the impoundment. The
"mixed aquatic" type occurred on 100 acres of tidal marsh. The introduced
primrose willow had taken over 20 acres of previously open water and
cattail at the time of McCormick's study. The common reed type was
really predominant throughout the region that was mapped, but the type
occupied only 13 acres in the tidal wetlands. It was most characteristic
of areas covered with dredged materials. At the time of McCormick's
study, 295 acres of tidal marsh in the Long Hook Marsh section had recently
been filled with dredged material, and common reed had already formed
"vast colonies" on over 70% of the area (McCormick, 1970, p. 38).
McCormick also determined standing crop estimates for various vege-
tation types within Tinicum Marsh, and concluded that the data seemed
to indicate "unusually great" productivity in Tinicum Marsh (Ibid, p.36).
Other interesting observations McCormick recorded in his study
concern the area of the marsh adjacent to the Folcroft Landfill. In
McCormick's opinion, the Folcroft Borough portion of Tinicum Marsh con-
tained the "most pristine tidal marsh vegetation, which is ... the
most desirable for preservation" (p.14). McCormick evidently based this
assessment on his observation that the Folcroft section was unmarked by
mosquito ditches, retaining natural drainage patterns. Other areas of
the marsh, ditched in the late 1930's for mosquito control, contained
stands of giant ragweed that seemed to grow on the low, wide banks formed
by sidecast materials from the ditch excavation. In contrast, giant
ragweed was rare in the Folcroft section.
Other significant natural features of the Center include the 145 -
acre impoundment in the northeast end of the refuge, separated from
Darby Creek by dikes. The impoundment contains spatterdock, purple
loosestrife, primrose willow, rose mallow, and cattails (Schwartz, 1976),
and attracts large numbers of waterfowl. In addition, a 24-acre forested
area consisting of oak, birch, black willow, white and red mulberry, and
quaking and bigtooth aspen in the southeastern section of the center
represents the only forested habitat remaining in south Philadelphia,
and adds habitat diversity to the Center. Several other small stands
are found throughout the Center, composed of such species as black gum,
sweet gum, red maple oaks and willows.
A complete list of plant species found at Tinicum is in Appendix Table B.
Rare and Endangered Flora
No federally listed rare or endangered flora are known to occur at
Tinicum. However, three plant species listed as "proposed rare" by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania currently exist at Tinicum: river bulrush
(Scirpus fluviatilis), Indian wild rice (Zizania aquatica), and waterhemp
ragweed (Amaranthus cannabinus). Wright's spike-rush (Eleocharis obtusa
III-9
-------
var. peasei), a Pennsylvania "tentatively undetermined" species, has also
been observed at Tinicum (Davison, 1986). Historical records exist for
several other state-listed threatened or endangered species, but there
have been no recorded observations of these plants since the early 1900's
(Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory, 1986).
III. B. Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrates seem to be the most poorly studied com-
ponent of the Tinicum Marsh ecosystem. In 1968, the Delaware River Basin
Commission (Craighead, 1971) investigated the chemical and biological
condition of the Delaware River and its tributaries. The report concluded
that 39 of the 46 tributaries studied were in a state of degraded water
quality. Darby Creek was rated as a marginal quality stream based on an
evaluation of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and macroinvertebrates.
Grant and Patrick (1970) determined the presence and relative abun-
dance of plants and animals at 19 stations within the tidal marsh. Macro-
invertebrates found along Darby Creek included large numbers of tubifex
worms (a species that thrives in organically polluted waters) as well as
leeches, mosquito larvae, midges, a few aquatic beetles, fingernail clams
and small populations of isopods and snails.
In 1976, PA DER conducted an aquatic biological investigation of
Darby Creek and its tributaries (Strekal, 1976). The objective of the
study was to determine water quality of the headwaters of Darby Creek (the
closest station to Tinicum was located near Route 3). The investigation
concluded that benthic diversities were high in the headwaters and stream
conditions were described as fair to good.
Stark (1978) conducted a study on the feeding habits of ruddy ducks
at Tinicum, and included some limited benthic sampling to determine the
availability of food material in ruddy duck feeding areas. Macroinver-
tebrate "food items" were broadly classified as one of three categories:
tubificid worms, Tubificidae, fingernail clams, Sphaeriidae-Sphaerium spp.,
or midge larvae (Tendipedidae), and quantified as a percentage of the
total volume of food items. Only three stations in Tinicum Marsh were
sampled: Darby Creek near the confluence of Big Thoroughfare Creek, the
wide lagoonlike area of Darby Creek just upstream of Wanamaker Avenue,
and the large lagoon just upstream of the 1-95 crossing.
Another study in the Tinicum area that included benthic macroinver-
tebrates was conducted by T. Lloyd Associates (1979) in an assessment of
the two lagoons just upstream of the 1-95 crossing (0.7 mile upstream of
the Delaware River). The study documented the numbers of individuals
within four Phyla in the lagoons:
1) Annelida, including tubificid worms and leeches. Limodilus spp. were
111-10
-------
more common than Tubifex spp., but both were found in shallow water areas
on submerged logs, trash and other debris. Placobdella were the most
common type of leech found, while Glossiphonia and Hirudinea were also
present.
2) Mollusca, represented by Sphaeriidae or freshwater clams. Both Sphaerium
spp. and Musculium spp. were found, in sediments along the lagoons' shore-
lines. Musculium spp. were the more numerous of the two species.
3)Anthropods (uncommon) including amphipods (Gammarus sp.), isopods (Asel-
lus sp.), midge larvae (Chironomidae) and dragonfly nymphs (Epicordullia
sp.).
4) Bryozoans or "moss animals," occurring in small colonies on sunken
logs.
Tom Lloyd (1986) cautions that macroinvertebrates in the lagoons are
probably not at all characteristic of macroinvertebrates in Darby Creek,
due to the extreme depth (35-40 ft.) and restricted tidal action in the
lagoons. Furthermore, Lloyd's studies were limited to deepwater habitat
only, ignoring the shallow habitats around the edges of the lagoons.
To our knowledge, no macroinvertebrate studies have been conducted
recently at Tinicum Marsh.
III.B.3. Fish
According to the Tinicum National Environmental Center Master Plan
(U.S. FWS, 1983a), forty species of fish occur or probably occur within
the waters of the Tinicum area. Appendix Table C lists these species and
provides a brief description of their food habits and life history. Carp,
brown bullheads, white suckers, and a number of species of minnows are
dominant. Two species of killifish, the mummichog and the topminnow, are
relatively common. American eel, striped bass, and pumpkinseed sunfish are
found occasionally, and the eastern mudminnow is found rarely. Goldfish,
crappie, topminnow, and bluegill sunfish have been collected in the 145-
acre impoundment. Mosquitofish (Gambusia spp.) were introduced in the
early 1960's to control mosquito larvae. A large population of carp inhabits
the Center's impoundment.
One of the more traditional roles of the FWS has been to lead efforts
to restore nationally important fishery resources that have been damaged
by overuse or habitat degradation. Restoration of anadromous fish (espec-
ially American shad) in the Delaware River has been the focus of a consid-
erable amount of FWS's time and money. Many anadromous fish are known to
use Delaware River estuary tributaries as spawning and/or nursery areas
(Delaware River, 1979) and Darby Creek is probably no exception. American
shad apparently do not currently use the Delaware's tidal tributaries,
instead migrating through the estuary to reach spawning areas upstream of
the Delaware Water Gap (Delaware River, 1979). This marks a change from
historical records, which indicate that many of the Delaware's tidal trib-
III-ll
-------
utaries supported large populations of spawning American shad (Delaware
River, 1979). In fact, in 1904 the New Jersey Board of Fish and Game
Commissioners reported that in 1820, a shad fishery existed at the mouth
of every creek and river between Bayside and Trenton (Zich, 1977). It
would seem likely that the same would be true for most streams on the
Pennsylvania side of the Delaware, including Darby Creek. Unfortunately,
pollution apparently eliminated the viability of these streams as spawning
and nursery areas by the 1940fs (Ellis et al., 1947).
During the 1970's, the Delaware River Basin Anadromous Fishery Project
(1979) undertook a study of the use of selected major Delaware River trib-
utaries as spawning and/or nursery habitat by anadromous fish. Darby
Creek was sampled twice during the course of this study, once in 1973 and
again in 1976. During the 1973 collection, blueback herring were the only
anadromous species collected; during 1976, no blueback herring were found
but a number of adult and juvenile white perch were present. Dissolved
oxygen in Darby Creek on the day of the 1973 sampling was 5.0 ppm, the
minimum level considered acceptable to support sensitive aquatic species.
During the 1976 sampling, dissolved oxygen ranged from a low of 1.6 ppm on
September 15 to a high of 6.0 ppm on April 8. In all 16 streams studied,
the authors noted that American shad were never found where dissolved
oxygen was below 5.0, and that shad presently made little or no use of
Delaware River tributaries for spawning or nursery habitat. River herring
(alewife or blueback) were abundant in all of the sampled streams except
Darby Creek and two others. White perch were found to use the tributaries
extensively for spawning, but only to a limited extent as nursery habitat.
Few anadromous fish were collected below a dissolved oxygen concentration
of 4.0 ppm (Delaware River, 1979).
October 1979 sampling by T. Lloyd Associates (1979) in the lagoons
of Darby Creek yielded six white perch, one blueback herring, one alewife,
one gizzard shad, and one American eel (in addition to a number of non-
anadromous fish). In August 1984, the FWS State College Field Office
collected brown bullheads and white suckers from Darby Creek for chemical
analysis. During the field work, one white perch was caught in the tidal
marsh area of Darby Creek, and a number of American eels were observed
upstream of the marsh, adjacent to the Clearview Landfill. Tinicum staff
report that white perch are commonly caught by anglers in the lagoons.
Unfortunately, no comprehensive studies of anadromous fish use of
Darby Creek have been undertaken since the 1970fs, when sewage treatment
plants along Darby Creek caused severe organic pollution of the Tinicum
area. With the elimination of these sources of biological oxygen demand,
one would expect dissolved oxygen levels in Darby Creek to have improved
to the point where anadromous fish may once again use the Tinicum area as
spawning and nursery grounds.
111-12
-------
Threatened and Endangered Fish
The only federally-listed threatened or endangered fish species in
the Tinicum area is the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). This
anadromous species is generally restricted to the east coast of North
America. Although found most often in large tidal rivers, it has also
been taken in brackish and salt waters. Shortnose sturgeon are bottom
feeders, eating such benthic organisms as sludge-worms, chironomid larvae,
small crustaceans and plants (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Historical and
recent records for the Delaware River indicate that the species is confined
to the main stem between river kilometer 0 and 238; the only known spawning
ground is at Scudders Falls (Masnick and Wilson, 1980). Thus, the Tinicum
Marsh/Darby Creek area would not be expected to constitute critical habitat
for shortnose sturgeon. It is possible, however, that adult and sub-adults
would make incidental use of the area (Goodger, 1986).
Other Aquatic Life
As with other aspects of the Tinicum Marsh biological community,
non-fish aquatic life is also poorly studied and available information
relies solely on anecdotal observations. Blue crabs and fiddler crabs are
the only additional species known to use the Tinicum Marsh area.
III. B. 4. Amphibians and Reptiles
The amphibian and reptile species at Tinicum are cataloged in Appendix
Table D. According to the Tinicum Master Plan (U.S. FWS, 1983a) eight
species of amphibians and eighteen species of reptiles have been reported
from the Tinicum area. Several specimens of the diamondback terrapin have
been obtained from Darby Creek and from the 145-acre impoundment. These
were considered to be released pets, or progeny of pets. However, this
species is found regularly, although in small numbers, along the Delaware
River at least as far upstream as Chester. Odum (1984) states that the
diamondback terrapin is really a brackish and saltwater turtle, but often
enters tidal freshwater areas. The specimens from Darby Creek, therefore,
may be endemic.
The 145-acre impoundment supports a large population of snapping
turtles. Because the omnivorous turtles pose a potential threat to suc-
cessful waterfowl breeding in the impoundment, refuge officials have occa-
sionally permitted commercial harvesting of snappers. In 1983, 1400 turtles
totalling over 7 tons in weight were trapped. The false map turtle is
described by Odum (1984) as being "very rare" and introduced in the Tinicum
marshes. Turtle harvesting is now prohibited because of contaminants found
in samples.
Life histories and habitat requirements of Pennsylvania-listed endang-
ered amphibians and reptiles are provided in the following section on species
of concern.
III. B. 5. Birds
111-13
-------
Odum et al. (1984) have described the value of freshwater tidal marshes
to birds:
Tidal freshwater wetlands provide a varied habitat for
birds. Of the different types of coastal wetlands, tidal
freshwater wetlands are among the most structurally diverse.
Structural diversity is provided by the broad-leaved plants
characteristic of the low marsh, tall grasses of the high
marsh, the intermediate canopy provided by the shrub zone,
and the high canopy found in tidal freshwater swamps.
Tidal freshwater wetlands harbor a higher diversity of
birdlife than structurally simpler wetland types such as
salt or brackish water marshes. Low marsh and adjacent
exposed mudflats are used by shorebirds and rails. The
grasses and sedges characteristic of higher elevations in
the marsh are similar to grassland or savanna habitats and
support an abundance of seedeating species. Tidal channels
and pools provide habitat for wading birds. Waterfowl use
the open water areas in addition to the marsh surface itself.
Shrubs and trees found in the high marsh and along the up-
land-marsh ecotone provide habitat for a large number of
arboreal birds. These arboreal birds can often be found
feeding in or over the marsh proper.
The values of this wetland type to birds are magnified in the case of
the Tinicum marshes because of their strategic location on the Atlantic
Flyway. Delaware Bay represents a major interchange on the Atlantic Flyway.
On their northward flight many migrating birds leave the coast and fly up
the Delaware River valley. Similarly, many birds that have summered and
nested in northern Canada fly down the Delaware River to the coast. Tinicum
Marsh is a convenient stopover near this flyway junction and apparently is
more heavily used than similar areas on other sections of the flyway.
Because urbanization and agricultural diking along the lower Delaware
River have eliminated thousands of acres of former tidelands, Tinicum
Marsh and other wetland remnants in the lower Delaware Valley may be used
more intensely now than in the past. Over 280 species of birds have been
recorded in the Tinicum area (Tinicum N.E.C., 1985). Bird species known
to nest at Tinicum are listed in Appendix Table D.
A brief discussion of specific types of birds and their use of tidal
freshwater wetlands follows:
Waterfowl
Few waterfowl breed in tidal freshwater wetlands of the
mid- and south Atlantic coasts. Only wood ducks, and to a
lesser extent American black ducks and mallards, commonly
use these wetlands for breeding habitat. Stotts and Davis
(1960) found that 65% of the nests of American black ducks
were located in upland areas often hundreds of yards from
the nearest water. Only 17% of the nests were in the marsh
and these were located on elevated sites above the high-tide
111-14
-------
line. Once the eggs have hatched, the brood moves to the
nearest wetland. Although brood rearing may occur in a
number of habitats, it seems that sedge, cattail, and
bulrush marshes are favored (Bellrose, 1976). Availability
of cover is the most important criterion for brood-rearing
areas since ducklings feed on aquatic insects, not vege-
tation. (Odum et al., 1984).
Nine species of waterfowl have been observed to nest in the Tinicum
area. These include approximately 50 mallards, 20-30 black ducks, and
20 Canada geese. Several nests of pied-billed grebes, shovelers, green-
winged and blue-winged teal and wood duck have been found. Only one
pintail nest has been located (U.S. FWS, 1983a).
Schwartz (1976) documented a number of interesting observations about
bird use of the Center's habitats in his study comparing waterfowl, waterbird
and shorebird use of the large impoundment with that of the tidal marsh.
Waterfowl (especially mallards, black ducks and Canada geese) appeared to
use the tidal marsh and impoundment equally during the summer when vegetative
diversity in the marsh is high, but they preferred the impoundment during
the barren winter. Waterbirds (herons, egrets, gallinules and bitterns)
spent more time in the impoundment than in the tidal marsh. Shorebirds
(e.g., killdeer, sandpipers, etc.), however, used the tidal marsh more
than the impoundment, feeding in the tidal mud flats.
Wading Birds, Rails and Shorebirds
Odum et al's (1984) description of the habitat and food of these
birds is further testimony to the ecological value of wetlands such as
Tinicum marsh.
Fifteen species of herons, egrets, ibises, and bitterns
[and 35 species of rails and shorebirds] make up this
familiar group of marsh birds. These birds make heavy use
of the tidal channels, creeks, and ponds found throughout
the low and high marshes. They are also found commonly
along the banks of watercourses in tidal swamps and salt
marshes.
Fish, from small minnows and silversides to catfish,
are prefered prey. Other food items include: crayfish,
snails, frogs, lizards, and snakes. Occasionally herons
and bitterns consume some warm-blooded prey items such as
mice and shrews or even young birds.
Green herons and bitterns nest in tidal freshwater
marshes. Green herons build nests of sticks in vegetation
low to the ground. Bitterns use sedges and grasses to
construct nests low over the water. Breeding colonies of
herons use a wide variety of trees and shrubs to support
111-15
-------
their nests, and sometimes nest on the ground in dense
vegetation. The actual location of the nest site is
not critical to these birds as they will fly long distances
between heronry and feeding grounds (Kushlan 1977; Maxwell
and Kale, 1977). During the summer when these waders are
young, their fish prey is most abundant within the marsh.
The food which the waders gather from tidal freshwater
marshes is undoubtedly important to the maintenance of
adults and to the growth and survival of their young.
At least 35 species of shorebirds and rails make
extensive seasonal use of the high marsh, low marsh,
and especially of the associated tidal flats. Hawkins
and Leek (1977) observed killdeer, spotted sandpiper,
sora rail, and American woodcock in tidal freshwater
marshes in New Jersey during the summer. The woodcock
was confirmed as nesting in the wildrice/arrow-arum
zone of this wetland.
Primary food of these species include freshwater
worms, crayfish, snails, and mollusks. In fact, they
will eat almost any invertebrate organisms found in the
upper few centimeters of the sediment surface (Baker
and Baker, 1973; Schneider, 1978). During their fall
migrations, surprising numbers of shorebirds make exten-
sive use of the seeds of marsh plants such as wildrice,
three-square, halberdleaf tearthumb, dotted smartweed,
redroot sedge, rice cutgrass, and many other marsh plants.
Many shorebirds are present only during the fall migration
when the seed supply is maximum. An interesting note is
the utilization of wildrice by rails. During autumn
migration large numbers of soras (and possibly other
rails) gather to feed on the seeds of this abundant marsh
plant (Webster, 1964; Meanley, 1965). During the month-long
period in the fall when wildrice seeds are ripening, they
may comprise 90% of the sora's diet (Webster, 1964).
A number of the species discussed above nest in Tinicum. Interes-
tingly, a stand of sweet gum and pin oak trees on the southern shore of
the large impoundment supports a productive heron and egret rookery.
A number of birds known to nest at Tinicum are considered "Species of
Special Emphasis" by the Northeast Region of the FWS. A more detailed dis-
cussion of these species is provided in a later chapter.
III.B.6. Mammals
There has never been an intensive survey of the mammals of Tinicum
but Frederick A. Ulraer, Jr., Curator Emeritus of Mammals, Philadelphia
Zoological Garden, has provided information based on occasional collections
made in the marsh about 1940 (Appendix Table F). At that time, the meadow
111-16
-------
were common in the tidal wetlands and in upland old fields. White-footed
mice were not found in the tidal wetlands, but they were frequent on the
dikes, in old fields, and in other upland habitats. Short-tail shrews
ranged as widely as meadow voles, from the tidal wetlands to various
upland sites. Meadow jumping mice were listed as common in a checklist
that formerly was maintained at the City Wildlife Preserve. The eastern
mole also was listed as common, and a few tunnels made by moles were
seen during 1968 at several places in the upland sections of the Tinicum
area. Cottontails now are common on the dikes and in old fields around
the marsh. They were present during the 1930's, but probably were not
as abundant when Eastwick was densely populated and the farms in Folcroft
and Essington were being cropped. The Pennsylvania Game Commission is
reported to have released cottontails in the Tinicum area about 1960.
Gray squirrels are also common (Tinicum N.E.G., 1985). River otters
were sighted in the area of the marsh in 1969, and an unconfirmed otter
sighting was reported in 1985 (Nugent, 1986). Norway rats also occur
at Tinicum.
Rice rats were reported to nest in the marsh between Long Hook
Creek and Darby Creek in 1916 (McCormick, 1970). In 1984, biologists
with the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Index visited the Center to
determine whether the species still existed at Tinicum. Based on trapping
and visual observations, the researchers concluded that rice rats are no
longer present and that the habitat is poor for this particular species
(the tidal fluctuations are too great and thick stands of grass are not
found in the higher sections of the marsh) (Tinicum N.E.G., 1985).
The current white-tailed deer herd at the Center numbers 4-7 animals
(Tinicum TNEC, 1985). Odum (1984) notes that this species uses freshwater
tidal marshes to feed on the leaves and stems of wild rice, cattails and
other wetland plants.
Muskrats have been known to inhabit the region since its earliest
settlement. Muskrats still are common residents of the impounded and
tidal wetlands; in 1983 they were estimated to number 250 animals (Tinicum
N.E.C. 1983). McCormick and Somes (1982; cited in Odum 1984) indicate
that muskrats along the Atlantic coast prefer freshwater tidal marshes
dominated by sweetflag, arrow-arum, and wild rice. They are known to
feed extensively on the "shoots, roots, and rhizomes of three-squares,
cattail, sweetflag, arrow-arum, and other marsh plants," but the "leaves
of marsh plants are seldom, if ever, consumed" (Odum et al. 1984, pp.
82-83). Lodge-building materials for Tinicum muskrats has been described
as consisting of cattail, common reed, and purple loosestrife (Tinicum
N.E.C., 1983).
III. C. Species of Concern
The FWS, through its seven Regional offices, is currently engaged
in a planning effort called "Regional Resource Planning" (RRP). "Species
of Special Emphasis" addressed in FWS's Region 5 (Northeast Region,
111-17
-------
which includes Pennsylvania) Regional Resource Plans are chosen according
to criteria that narrow the list of species of highest interest based on
biological, political, social and economic concerns. The selection criteria
also take into account legal/administrative responsibilities, threatened
and endangered status, population trends, habitat trends, ecological values,
human/species conflicts, public demand/use, and data availability.
The following species, known to live and breed at the Tinicum National
Environmental Center, are identified among Region 5's Species of Special
Emphasis: wood duck, black duck, American woodcock, snowy egret, black-
crowned night heron, and great egret. One of the primary reasons each of
these birds has become a cause of concern is habitat loss. Each of these
species requires wetland habitats for feeding, cover, breeding and nesting.
Habitat alteration that has already occurred, and increasing development
pressures on remaining wetland areas significantly increase the importance
of protected wetland areas such as Tinicum Marsh, to the continued survival
of these species.
A brief description of the pertinent aspects of these species' life histories
is presented below:
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa)
Nest ing Habitat; Wood ducks generally return to the same area to breed
every year. They are cavity nesters, selecting a nesting site adjacent
to water, or (rarely) more than a mile away from water.
Brood Habitat: Overhanging woody vegetation (e.g., willows, buttonbush)
or emergent aquatic plants such as water lilies are important cover
for ducklings .
Food; Ducklings feed on a variety of animal life, especially insects
such as mayfly and dragonfly nymphs; even fish may be consumed. Their
diet gradually changes to vegetative matter as they grow older, eventually
including acorns, mulberries, wild grapes, and the seeds of buttonbush,
arrow arum, and bur-reed.
(Bellrose, 1976).
Black Duck (Anas rubripes)
Nesting Habitat; Reaches highest breeding density in coastal marshes.
nest sites are located in a variety of habitat types, from marshes to
upland areas. Dikes and muskrat houses have been used by black ducks in
Lake Erie marshes.
Brood Habitat: Varied: "sedge, cattail, and bulrush marshes; beaver
ponds; alder-fringed streams; and swamp loosestrife bogs."
Food; Animal life (especially in winter) such as mussels and snails;
seeds of wild rice, bur-reed, pickerel weed, smartweed, etc.
(Bellrose, 1976)
American woodcock (Philohela minor)
Nesting Habitat: Usually in wooded swamps, brushy corners of pastures,
or in underbrush or tall weeds at the edge of a wooded area.
111-18
-------
Food: Almost entirely animal life, most of which consists of earthworms,
but many other insects are also consumed. Occasionally, salamanders,
frogs, snails, and plant berries and seeds. Have been known to eat more
than their own weight in earthworms in 24 hours.
(Terres, 1982)
Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)
Nesting Habitat: Nests singly or in colonies with other herons; can
nest on the ground but usually 5 to 10 feet up in trees and shrubs, up
to 30 feet high in trees.
Food: Small fish, frogs, snakes, fiddler crabs, crayfish, grasshoppers,
aquatic insects. Uses one foot to stir the bottom substrate to bring
prey into view.
(Terres, 1982)
Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)
Nesting Habitat; Nests in colonies in many kinds of habitat ranging
from stands of Phragmites to tall trees in urban parks.
Food: Mostly fish (gizzard shad, herring, suckers, pickerel, eels) as
well as frogs, tadpoles, salamanders, crayfish, blue crabs, fiddler
crabs, dragonflies and their nymphs. May even eat young of other birds.
(Terres, 1982)
Great Egret (Casmerodius albus)
Nesting Habitat: In colonies in wooded swamps, or trees such as willows
near water, about 20-40 feet high. Sometimes in cattails only 1-4 feet
above water.
Food: Fish, frogs, salamanders, snakes, crayfish, mice, aquatic insects,
grasshoppers, moths, etc.
(Terres, 1982)
The Tinicum marshes are also home to several species of reptiles and amphib-
ians designated as "Species of Special Concern" by the Pennsylvania Bio-
logical Survey.
Southern or Coastal Plain Leopard Frog (Rana utricularia)
Breeding: Begins in early March and lasts through April, but can begin
in February depending upon temperature. Eggs are laid in shallow water,
usually attached to aquatic vegetation at or near the water surface.
Food: Tadpoles - algae, decaying plant debris, some aquatic inverte-
brates. Adults - a wide variety of terrestrial and aquatic insects.
(McCoy, 1985)
Red-bellied Turtle (Pseudemys rubriventris)
Breeding: Nesting takes place in June; nest is dug in sandy clay or
loam, usually in full sunlight.
111-19
-------
FoocU Mostly vegetarian, feeding on common aquatic plants such as Sagi-
ttaria. May also eat crayfish, snails and tadpoles.
(McCoy, 1985)
Bog Turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii)
Breeding: Eggs are laid in June or July in sedge tussocks or under sphag-
num moss.
Food: Omnivorous; plant foods include filamentous algae, berries, and
plant seeds (Potamogeton spp. and Carex spp.), but insects represent the
major portion of its diet. Also consumes snails, slugs, earthworms and
carrion.
(McCoy, 1985)
Eastern Mud Turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum)
Breeding: Nesting occurs from June through August in sandy, loamy soils
near water, in open ground but often under piles of vegetation, logs or
boards.
Food: Insects, aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, carrion and aquatic
vegetation.
(McCoy, 1985)
III. D. ECOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS
From the preceding descriptions of Tinicum's flora and fauna, it is
evident that a tidal freshwater marsh supports a unique, diverse assemblage
of plants and animals. The geohydrology, soils, hydrology, and other
physical components described in the previous sections provide the condi-
tions necessary to support the marsh ecosystem. The various forms of life
are interdependent on a complex series of ecological relationships commonly
known as a food web. In turn, the delicate balance of the food web depends
on the quality of the physical substrates of the system. The pollutants
which exist in the Darby Creek watershed have the potential to upset the
balance of the food web and thus impair the health and functions of the
Tinicum Marsh ecosystem. Figure 6 illustrates some of the complex food
pathways that would be expected to occur in the Tinicum Marsh ecosystem.
Measurements of productivity and energy transfer through the food chain
are not available.
The plant communities present at Tinicum Marsh can be broadly charac-
terized into groups consisting of 1) broad-leaved emergent perrenial macro-
phytes, 2) herbaceous annuals, 3) annual and perenial sedges, rushes, and
grasses, 4) grasslike plants or shrubform herbs, 5) hydrophytic shrubs, 6)
deciduous forest, and 7) aquatic vascular plants and phytoplankton. Species
density in the marsh is high, and primary productivity estimates are expected
to be great. No recent data are available although historical studies
have estimated peak standing crop in Tinicum to range from 523 g/m^ for
111-20
-------
in
CD
TO
in
TO
3
4->
TO
Q.
TJ
8
in
cn
O
Q.
TO
x:
cn
E •
3 O
o oo
— CTi
C •—
4-> C
TO —
XI CD
CO in
5 S
TJ d
O
O TJ
M- C
TO
CO
— -a-
xi co
— cr»
in i—
cn
O •
CL —
TO
TO
CD
l_ 3
O1TJ
TO O
TJ E
O
TJ l-
CO M-
M- TJ
— CD
•— 4-1
CL O_
E TO
— TJ
CO <
vO
CD
3
O)
c
TO
CO
CL
CL
TO
O
O
TO
•t
Ol
co
XI
Ol
0
o
'i
3
E
•V
in
CO
x:
in
in
O
C
c
'i
•s
CL
s_
TO
O
CD
TJ
3
O
C
x:
cn
it-
Ol
C
TJ
CO
co
14-
in
4-1
4-> .
• •
in
d
O
4-1
OJ
4-1
O
~z.
CO
TJ
TJ
C
ra
in
3
0
U
O
• —
.Q
1—
co
T:
TO
TJ
TO
x:
cn
TJ
L-
TO
N
N
•—
Ol
4-1
i—
3
TJ
TO
CO
O
cn
CD
4-1
x: x:
3 0
s_
- co
CL Q.
TO 3
0 O
TJ CO
TO >-
x:
in TJ
c
C TO
TO
0 *
— in
i- cn
CD TO
E XI
* 4-J
CO 3
'i co
CD 0)
•— 1-
TO TO
Ol -
C —
1- O)
co co
x: 3
_* XI
o
ro •
XI TJ
CO CD
3 CD
— cn
XI C
— CL
CO E
CD 3
Q.
C
01 •
O cn
.— cn
t- ro
CO XI
IT,
CD
CD CL
TJ —
3 i-
•— 4-1
O in
c
x:
x: o
m u
— CO
M- CL
CO CD
L- 4->
O —
•_
C
1_
03
O
»—
d)
>
0)
f— -
1
-M
I/)
L.
. —
1 1
J3
(~
3
•V
TJ
TO
CD
f—
T—
3
-Q
C
3
O
n
O Q-
i- a
XI (0
U
•> O
in _*:
— U
M- m
4-1 •—
U
•k
CD CD
— CL
x: Q.
3 TO
• O
in CD
.— 4-1
14- ._
TO
M- -
in
* in
— TO
CD XI
CD XI
0 3
'o. E
CO
C Ol
M- TO
TJ —
CO
in
- in
TJ TO
TO XI
x:
in x:
4-1
C 3
TO O
0 E
CD TO
s- x:
— co
C CL TJ
l_ ci
TO CO TO
0 4->
.— A
— x: x:
CO 3 O
> v_
CD - CO
— TJ CL
1 TO
TJ CD 3
c x: o
O — •—
o — —
CD 3 CD
CO XI X
o
O
in
O
co
Q.
in
Ol
C
I
"o
u-
x:
CO
£X
(0
X
L.
o
U- ••
E
TO
• u
C Ol
x: TJ
cn
XI
in a)
>- 3
TO
3 -o
x: o
4-J O
TO M-
Q.
CO
TJ x:
Ic
CO
x: TJ
4-1
u- ro
O c
01
x: —
O m
TO CO
CO TJ
C cn
— CO
O
TJ 1-
C 3
3 O
O m
14-
TJ
CO O
XI O
<4-
TJ
3 x:
O <-•
cn
CD
O
CD
a.
in
TJ
L
•_•
XI
>.*
c
TO
S
TJ
CD
in
3
"O
^_
3
O
3
~
C
U
QJ
0
c
o
0
o
3
TJ
TJ
O
i
».
\/
o
3
TJ
v
O
TO
CD
^~
O
3
TJ
TJ
0
i
o
3
TJ
O
TO
XI
C
O
U
CO
x:
x:
Ol
c
TJ
CD
§
O
1
O
TO
XI
4-1
CO
1-
Ol
CO
>
o
c
in
*
4-"
CO
U
Ol
CO
I 1
TO
CD
1_
C3
cs
c
o
co
x:
x:
Ol
c
TJ
C
L.
O
1
U
TO
XI
4->
CD
1-
01
CO
TO
CD
U
Ol
*
4-) 4->
CD CD
V_ L.
O) O)
CD CD
>- J-1
3 TO
O CO
C >-
CO t-3
CO -d"
snowy egret, black-crowned night heron, woodcock
snowy egret, black-crowned night heron
•> «\
4-1 4->
CD CD
1- 1_
Ol Ol
CO CD
I i ) i
TO TO
CD CD
C3 CJ3
LA MD
-------
-------
smartweed to 1373 g/m^ for purple loosestrife (McCortnick, 1970). The
structure of the aquatic and terrestrial vegetation also provides a physical
habitat for aquatic life and wildlife. Tidal freshwater wetlands are
believed to be primarily detritus-based ecosystems (Odum et al., 1984). A
large fraction of the dead plant material may be decomposed by microbial
populations while a significant portion of detritus is flushed into the
water by tidal action becoming food for zooplankton, benthic invertebrates,
insects, and fishes. Plants in the low marsh are expected to decompose
more rapidly than those in the higher marsh (Odum, 1978).
The invertebrate community is poorly studied at Tinicum; however
tubicifid worms, leeches, physa, mosquito larvae, midges, and freshwater
clams have been documented in the Marsh. These species are primarily
detritus feeders and are an important food source for fish. As illustrated
in Figure 6, the benthic invertebrates are also consumed by birds. These
invertebrates represent the primary consumers in the food chain.
The fish community at Tinicum can be broadly characterized as fresh-
water, oligohaline, and anadromous populations. The most common fish
(carp, bullheads, white suckers, and minnows) are freshwater species and
may consume vegetation, benthic invertebrates, and insects. Anadromous
species in the marsh are rare and primarily consume vegetation and inver-
tebrates although some consumption of smaller fish may occur. Game fish
at Tinicum include white perch, carp, catfish, crappies, sunfish, and
eels; these species represent both primary and secondary consumers in the
food chain.
The diversity of the bird community at Tinicum is quite high and the
marsh is used extensively for breeding and nesting. The majority of birds
using freshwater wetlands are believed to be omnivores (Simpson et al.,
1983). The avian species of concern are both omnivores (wood duck and
black duck) and carnivores (American woodcock, snowy egret, blackcrowned
night heron, and great egret).
The role of reptiles, amphibians, and mammals in the tidal marsh
ecosystem is not well known. The amphibian and reptile species, including
the species of concern at Tinicum, are primary or secondary carnivores.
Mammals at Tinicum are primarily herbivores (cottontail, muskrats, deer,
and mice) although omnivorous species are also common (Norway rats and
shrews). Humans are included in the food chain as a consumer of fish,
turtles, crabs, and ducks.
111-23
-------
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
IV. A. Potential Contaminant Sources
Because the Center is located in a major urban area, potential pollu-
tant sources are both diverse and numerous. Urban stormwater runoff to
streams and vehicular emissions in the 1-95 corridor represent potential
nonpoint pollutant sources. Point sources such as wastewater treatment
plants, industrial complexes, and power plants are found within a 3-mile
radius of the Center. At one time, three sewage treatment plants dischar-
ged into the marsh. One Superfund site, Havertown PCP, is located in the
Darby Creek watershed, and Clearview Landfill, located approximately one
mile upstream of Tinicum, is suspected of leaching hazardous pollutants
into the drainage basin. Contaminants may be transported to the Center
through direct discharges to surface waters, stormwater runoff, or by
discharge to storm sewers. Examples of potential sources in the Tinicum
area are junkyards, electroplating operations, chemical processing indus-
tries, incinerators, and historical dumpsites. Sediments contaminated
through historical spills or illegal discharges also represent a potential
pollutant source. Since October 1984, ten spills to Darby Creek watershed
have been reported to EPA's Regional Response Center. Three spills of
oil, two spills of acids, one spill of raw sewage, and four spills of
unknown substances were reported.
Within the Center itself, the Folcroft Landfill and Folcroft Landfill
annex are suspected of being repositories for hazardous pollutants. Pre-
vious disposal practices from the closed Delaware County Incinerator, the
Delaware County Joint Sewer Authority Waste Treatment Plant, and the Muckin-
ipattis Wastewater Treatment Plant may have had a significant impact on
environmental quality. Several wetlands in the Center have been filled
with spoils from construction projects and dredging operations.
More detailed information on these potential pollutant sources is
presented in the following sections. Because of the absence of information
on loading rates, the relative contribution of non-point sources and point
sources to ambient water quality levels could not be determined. Appendix
Table G contains a listing of air toxicant point sources and potential point
sources of water pollutants regulated under EPA's NPDES program.
Point source loadings of air toxicants are only available for sources
within the city limits of Philadelphia. There are 26 air toxicant sources
in Philadelphia which are within a 3 mile radius of Tinicum. Air toxicants
emitted include: lead, chromium, benzene, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and
aromatic hydrocarbons. Because of the lack of data on ambient air toxicant
levels and the absence of information on air toxicants emissions in Delaware
County, air toxicant levels could not be evaluated. Recent studies in
Philadelphia (Haemisigger, 1986) also indicate that health risks from
water sources are significantly greater than those from air sources.
Pollutant sources to the Darby Creek watershed include non-point
source runoff and point source discharges. Approximately 21% of the Darby
Creek watershed is located in Philadelphia County and has combined storm
and sanitary sewers that discharge to Cobbs and Darby Creeks. The remaining
IV-1
-------
79% of the Darby Creek watershed has separate storm and sanitary sewers.
No information on pollutant loads from storm sewers is available for the
Darby Creek watershed. Annual loadings (Hagerman, 1978) from the combined
sewers for Cobbs Creek in Philadelphia County have been estimated for BOD
(684,000 Ibs) , N03 (122,000 Ibs), org-N (47,800 Ibs) , N02 (26,700 Ibs) ,
and NH3 (21,000 Ibs). No data are available for other streams or other
pollutants in the Darby Creek watershed.
Urban non-point source loads of lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and
copper have been investigated for other watersheds in the Philadelphia
area with separate sewers. Annual metal loadings were calculated as Ibs/
acre for each urban land use category (Richards, 1977). By using these
loadings and values of urban land use acreage in the Darby Creek basin
(Chernik, 1979), the following estimates of metal loadings from urban
sources to the Darby Creek watershed were derived: Lead - 1430 Ibs/year,
Cadmium - 329 Ibs/year, Chromium - 356 Ibs/year, Nickel - 539 Ibs/year,
and Copper - 56 Ibs/year. These loads correspond to the following annual
loading per acre of urban land: Lead - 0.051 Ibs/acre, Cadmium - 0.012
Ibs/acre, Chromium - 0.013 Ibs/acre, Nickel - 0.019 Ibs/acre, and Copper -
0.002 Ibs/acre. It is stressed that these values are estimates and may
differ from actual conditions because of differences in land use categories
used in the two reports, site specific variation in industry, and the
contribution of metal loads from combined sewers. However, these values
indicate that nonpoint source metal contributions to the watershed may be
important for the urban area in the Darby Creek watershed. Future studies
should refine estimates of metal loadings from nonpoint sources and include
water column sampling under various flow conditions to identify the impor-
tance of non-point source loads.
Major NPDES permits were evaluated for historical permit compliance.
The following discussion identifies potential pollutant loadings from 1)
the three sites within the watershed which have been investigated by EPA's
Superfund program (Havertown PCP, Clearview Landfill, and Folcroft Land-
fill) 2) major NPDES dischargers which have been in noncompliance with
their permit, and 3) two inoperating sites (Delaware County Incinerator
and Delaware County Joint Sewer Authority) which were identified through
site inspections and historical imagery analysis as potential pollutant
sources. It was not possible to review PA DER's compliance records and
site investigation reports for all other dischargers. A full evaluation
of all sources should be included in future studies.
Tinicum Township Wastewater Treatment Plant, Essington (Figure 7, Site 1)
Tinicum WWTP is permitted under NPDES to discharge into Darby Creek
at a rate of 1.4 MGD. A review of the monitoring records of the plant
indicates that the plant has a history of noncompliance with BOD limits and
high discharges of copper. The facility also has raw sewage overflow at
Jensen Avenue and Front Street which discharges to the Delaware River.
The bypass occurred 66 times during 1983 and each resulted in the discharge
of 400,000 gallons of raw sewage into the river. A Municipal Compliance
Plan has been required of the facility by DER to correct these violations
and the copper discharges.
IV-2
-------
FIGURE 7. Potential contaminant sources to Tinicum NEC.
SCALE I = 4000
4-
-------
Sludge disposal also occurs on site. In 1980, EP toxicity tests on
the sludge indicated that contaminants were below detection levels (Kagle,
1986).
Folcroft Landfill and Folcroft Landfill Annex, Tinicum (Figure 7, Sites 2
and 3)
Folcroft Landfill is located on the northeastern edge of the Center
and is bordered by Darby Creek and Thoroughfare Creek on the east, Hermes-
prota Creek on the west, and the closed Delaware County Incinerator and
Delaware County Sewage Treatment plant on the north. Although historical
photographic analysis indicates dumping in the area as early as 1953,
the site did not officially open until 1959. By 1958, the landfill covered
about 2 acres of marsh area. The dump continued expanding until a total
of 46 acres of wetland were filled, and directly abutted Darby Creek,
Thoroughfare Creek, and Hermesprota Creek. Sixteen acres of wetland were
also filled in an area directly west of Folcroft Landfill known as the
Folcroft annex.
The Folcroft property was owned by Mr. Wilbur C. Henderson, Mr. Wilbur
C. Henderson, Jr., and Folcroft Landfill Corporation and leased to Tri-
County Hauling in 1961 (U.S. EPA, 1985). The annex was owned by Henderson-
Columbia Corporation and was subsequently sold to the Department of Inter-
ior and the Philadelphia Electric Company. Disposal records for the land-
fill are not available; however, the site operated under DER Solid Waste
Permit Number 10053 and was permitted to accept municipal, demolition, and
hospital wastes.
PA DER inspection reports indicate that the landfill was not used
solely for municipal dumping, nor was the landfill operating as required
under the solid waste permit. A 1969 inspection report indicated that the
landfill received wastes from the Philadelphia Navy Yard, Boeing Vertol,
American Viscose, incinerator ash from the neighboring incinerators, sewage
sludge, industrial waste drums, and oil soaked materials (Emerich, 1969).
The Waste Site Disposal Directory indicates that the landfill may have
been used by the E. I. Dupont Co. and the Rohm and Haas Co. between 1967
and 1973.
In 1970, the DER inspection reports chronicled that "a mix of soil
and refuse is right up to the edge of Darby Creek." Noted on site were
piles of oil-soaked industrial waste, pools of leachate flowing directly
into Darby Creek, and six drums of industrial waste (Emerich, 1970). The
waste overflowing into the marsh along the southeast corner of the landfill
was described as oil-soaked earth-like material of various colors of green,
lavender, white and red (Emerich, 1970). In 1972, 55-gallon leaking drums
were found on the site labeled methyl ethyl ketone. Twenty other unlabeled
drums of liquid waste were present on the site (Beitler, 1972). In 1973,
drums were again found on the site and were labeled methyl salicylate,
rholex, epoxy, and dulux skins (Beitler, 1973). Numerous leachate seeps
were identified and the site was noted as having a "high" potential for
contaminating groundwater and surface water.
IV-4
-------
In 1973 the landfill was closed for permit violations and improper
management including direct dumping into Darby Creek. Closure operations
began in 1974 with orders to regrade the landfill to eliminate the excess-
ively steep slopes, eliminate fires, and cover refuse with fill. Fill
was allegedly obtained from dredge spoils, 1-95 construction sites, and a
construction site at the SunOil Co. refinery in Marcus Hook (Environmental
Evaluation, 1979). Cover material averaged 2 to 4 feet thick with depths
in some locations ranging up to 10 feet. The area was reseeded with rye
arid fescue but good vegetative cover was not established on the eastern
half of the site. Site inspection closure reports note the lack of vege-
tation and also the absence of leachate seeps. Cover material was described
as well drained sandy loam. The landfill reached heights of about 50
feet above surrounding land and was sloped to encourage runoff.
On October 29, 1980, a site inspection was conducted for EPA by Ecology
and Environment. Field observers noted smoke emanting from an underground
fire and one major leachate flow with brown stain residue observed along
Hermesprota Creek and Darby and Thoroughfare Creeks. A total of 12 environ-
mental samples were collected (one leachate, four soil, and seven water)
and analyzed for metals, organic compounds, and pesticides.
In July 1983, a fire occurred at the landfill annex and at that time
several drums were uncovered. Soil, sediment, water, and air samples were
taken to determine if hazardous materials were being released from the
site. Eight samples were taken from the drums and classified in terms of
pH, flammability, reactivity, corrosivity, and pesticide content. Two
drum samples were also screened for metal content (As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg,
Se, and Ag). The remaining samples were screened for 44 contaminants.
Results of the ambient air samples taken during the fire are not considered
representative of typical conditions and have not been included in this
evaluation.
In September 1983, EPA conducted another sampling trip to the Folcroft
Landfill. During the site visit four sediment samples and five surface
water samples were collected and analyzed for priority pollutants.
In February 1986, EPA's Environmental Services Division collected and
analyzed four samples from the Folcroft Landfill area to screen for aquatic
toxicity. Samples were taken from leachate at the southeast corner of
Folcroft landfill, in Darby Creek adjacent to the leachate, from leachate
at the southern edge of the Folcroft annex, and in Hermesprota Creek between
the landfill and the annex. Samples were analyzed for chronic toxicity to
Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas. The samples were also screened
for selected metal content. Numerous leachate seeps were observed flowing
from the annex directly into the adjacent tidal flat. Seeps from the
Folcroft Landfill were observed along the southeast and northwest edges of
the landfill adjacent to Hermesprota Creek and Thoroughfare Creek.
Sampling results from the inspections in 1980, 1983, and 1986 are
summarized in Tables 4 through 6. A quality assurance usability review of
the 19813 data was conducted by EPA, Environmental Services Division, Annap-
olis CRL. The review indicates that a lack of supporting documentation
IV-5
-------
and discrepancies in paperwork compromise the inorganic and pesticide
data. Organics data are also compromised by blank contamination and exceed-
ance of quality control criteria such as sample holding time and poor
quality standards (Krantz, 1986). A usability review of the data collected
in the September, 1983 investigation was performed by the NUS Corporation
(Sloboda, 1986). As with the previous sampling, the 1983 analytical results
are seriously compromised by poor quality data. Consequently, many data
are not presented in the Tables and the results of a number of samples are
qualified as to their interpretive value.
Table 4 lists the analytical results for the drum and soil samples
taken from the annex area during the fire. All drum samples were non-
halogenated and non-hazardous for reactivity. Two samples were ignitable.
One drum contained polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) at ppt levels.
Barium, chromium, lead, mercury, and silver were detected in two drum
samples ranging in levels from 1 ppb to 12.3 ppm. Metals were also detected
in soil samples at similar levels, however PAH levels were all less than
10 ppm. Pesticide levels in all samples were less than detection limits
(10 p pm) .
Usable results from the onsite samples taken during the 1980 and 1983
inspections are summarized in Table 5. The only organic compounds which
could not be attributed to blank contamination were found in the leachate
sample. Methylene chloride, vinyl chloride, chloroethane, and chlorobenzene
were tentatively identified in this sample. Runoff also contained unusually
high levels of cyanide (4.5 ppm). Lead (54 ppb) and cadmium (0.26 ppb)
were also present. Numerous metals were found in the ponded water and
sediment including arsenic, cadmium, lead, aluminum, chromium, barium,
cobalt, copper, iron, nickel, manganese, zinc, and vanadium. Aluminum and
iron levels (144 ppm and 247 ppm) in the water and in the sediment (6.75
ppt and 11.2 ppt) are notably high. Vanadium, chromium, and lead also
showed high sediment concentrations. As mentioned previously, results for
all other compounds such as pesticides and chlorinated hydrocarbons were
unacceptable for quality assurance reasons.
Table 4. Priority Pollutant Samples taken from Folcroft "Landfill annex.
July 16 and 18, 1983. Samples 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 are taken from drums,,
Samples SI and S2 are taken from soil. All compounds not listed were not
detected; detection levels ranged from 10 ppm to 100 ppm. All data are
in ppm. NA = not analyzed.
Compound
Arsenic
Barium
Cadi urn
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Naphthalene
acenaphthene
fluorene
phenanthrene
fluoranthene
pyrene
chrysene
b en zo fluoranthene
benzoC a)pyrene
indeno pyrene
benzopyrelene
2
<.15
1.0
<.l
0.15
3.1
0.005
<.15
0.70
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
3
<.15
2.9
0.1
0.6
12.3
0.008
<.15
12.0
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
7&8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
9
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8000
3870
7528
8000
8244
12713
25085
11794
11371
2512
1636
SI
<.005
1.48
0.02
0.09
0.53
0.001
<.005
0.02
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
S2
<.005
0.28
0.01
0.01
3.08
0.0015
<.005
<.01
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
-------
Table 5. Priority pollutant samples taken from Folcroft Landfill and
Folcroft Landfill annex. Locations: (1) ponded water, Folcroft Landfill,
1985, (2) ponded sediment, Folcroft Landfill, 1985 (3) runoff Landfill
annex, 1980. MA - not analyzed, T - tentative identification, ND = not detected.
Compound
methylene chloride
vinyl chloride
chloroethane
chlorobenzene
As
Hg
Cd
Pb
CN
Al
Cr
Ba
Co
Cu
Fe
Ni
Mn
Zn
Va
Ag
l(ppm)
MA
NA
MA
NA
0.057
ND
ND
0.085
ND
144
0.340
1.57
0.088
0.479
247
0.214
5.84
2.60
0.359
ND
2(ppm)
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.7
NA
13
1260
400
6750
17.8
66
4.7
25.2
11200
0.5
177
125
17.2
ND
3(ppb)
T
T
T
T
NA
NA
0.26
54
4560
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Table 6a summarizes the chronic toxicity data collected in February,
1986. Undiluted leachate samples from both the Folcroft Landfill and the
Landfill annex were acutely toxic to fathead minnows. The LC(50) to fathead
minnows for the leachates ranged from 22.1% at the Folcroft Landfill to
86.4% at the Landfill annex. Ceriodaphnia tests indicate an EC(50) of
12.7% for the Folcroft Land'fill leachate and 40.5% for the Landfill annex
leachate. Microtox screening of both samples indicated no toxicity to
bacteria. No effects were observed on Cenodaphpia reproduction from the
ambient samples. Only slight mortality to fathead minnows was observed
from Darby Creek. Based on these results, the samples are characterized
as follows: Folcroft Landfill leachate - moderate to high toxicity, Folcroft
Landfill annex leachate - moderate toxicity, Darby Creek - no toxicity,
and Hermesprota Creek - no toxicity.
Analytical results from the toxicity screen are summarized in Table 6b.
Leachate from the Folcroft Landfill indicates that the landfill is a source
of copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc to Darby Creek. Leachate
from the Folcroft Landfill annex shows elevated levels of iron, lead, and
zinc. The high toxicity observed for the annex leachate suggests that
other toxicants besides those anlyzed are present in the leachate.
Table 6a. Chronic Toxicity Data Summary from Folcroft landfill and Folcroft
landfill annex leachate samples. Samples were analyzed by EPA Environmental
Services Division, Wheeling Field Office, February 1986. Data reported as
the LC(50) +/- ISO and the EC(50) +/- 1SD.
Folcroft landfill
leachate
Folcroft landfill
annex leachate
Pimephales promelas
LC(50)
22.12 (16.7-30.1%)
86.4% (54.9-100%)
IV-7
Ceriodaphnia dubia
EC(50)
12.72(4.8-25.7%)
40.5%(31.3-55.8%)
-------
Table 6b. Analytical results from February 1986 sampling for heavy metals
at Folcroft landfill. Sampling was conducted at slack ebb tide. All
results are In ppb except alkalinity (allc, mg/1), pH (standard units), and
dissolved oxygen (DO, mg/1).
Location pH DO Alt. CdCrCuFePbMn NlZn
Uermesprota
Creek - - 224 <10 <40 <20 2800 8 550 <40 62
Folcroft Landfill
annex leachate 7.2 5.2 1064 <10 <40 <20 4250 12 1000 <40 97
Darby Creek - - 124 <10 <40 <20 2200 22 710 <40 81
Folcroft Landfill 7.4 7.0 1153 <10 <40 190 3030 200 1220 70 1090
leachate
In summary, the review of compliance inspection reports indicates
that the Folcroft Landfill had poor operating practices and may have accep-
ted hazardous wastes. Limited on-site samples indicate elevated levels of
heavy metals and tentatively identified volatile organic compounds in waste
streams. Leachate testing conducted in 1986 showed elevated heavy metals
and toxicity to bioassay organisms. Because the landfill is located dir-
ectly over tidal marsh substrate and because there is no liner or leachate
collection system, any contaminants on site are likely to be transported
into Tinicum Marsh. Data are inadequate to determine the full range of
contaminants present in Folcroft Landfill, the extent of contamination in
the landfill, the extent of contamination in all environmental media, and
the degree of contaminant transport off-site. Future studies are needed
to complete these data gaps. Samples should be taken to identify the
extent and degree of contamination in the landfill, the rate of contam-
inant transport, and the likely transport mechanisms. All samples should
be analyzed for a full range of priority pollutants and using detection
levels which will allow adequate characterization of environmental risks.
Delaware County Incinerator #2 (Figure 7, Site 4)
The incinerator facility was closed in 1978. Incinerator residue and
flyash were disposed on the southern end of the property adjacent to Herm-
esprota Creek and directly in marsh (now overlain by Folcroft Landfill).
Two settling lagoons for quench water also discharged directly into Herm-
esprota Creek. A portion of Hermesprota Creek was rerouted to provide
more area for disposal. The site may have been a significant source of
pollutants to the marsh (U.S. EPA, 1984) during operation. The potential
for continued contributions to heavy metal levels in Hermesprota Creek
from this area should be investigated.
Delaware County Joint Sewer Authority (Figure 7, Site 5)
Primary treatment sludge was disposed in sludge beds up to 10 feet
thick alongside Darby Creek. An Administrative Order was issued to the
Authority in 1975 for illegal sludge disposal. Numerous seeps flowed
directly into the Creek. The plant was closed between 1972-74, and until
that time discharged directly into Darby Creek. Sludge deposits are still
present at the site and there is a potential for continued seepage into
the Creek. Future studies should identify whether this site is still
a source of pollutants to Darby Creek.
Gulf Oil Darby Creek Tank Farm, Folcroft (Figure 7, Site 6)
IV-8
-------
The facility has an NPDES discharge to Darby Creek. Sludge is also
disposed on site, and an EP-toxicity test of the sludge indicated non-
hazardous conditions (Kagle, 1986). There were infrequent occurrences of
phenol NPDES permit violations in 1983 and 1984; however, the site has
been in compliance with the NPDES permit for the past year. No additional
studies are recommended at this site.
Clearview Landfill (Figure 7, Site 7)
Clearview Landfill is located approximately 1 mile northeast of Tin-
icum adjacent to Cobbs and Darby Creeks. This 16.5 acre wetland site was
filled in the late 1950's. The municipal waste landfill closed in 1973,
and in 1984 and 1985 EPA performed site inspections to determine whether
the site could qualify for remediation funded by the Superfund program.
During the site visit numerous seeps were observed. Because there is no
liner, no leachate collection system, and little cover over the landfill,
it would be expected that seepage and contaminated on-site runoff would
continue to flow into Darby Creek. Sampling of the leachate sediment
indicated the presence of a number of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons,
metals, and PCB's as listed in Table 7.
Iron levels in the sediment were the highest of all the metals at 119
ppm. Chromium (24 ppb), barium (132 ppb) , and vanadium (17 ppb) levels
are also noteworthy. PCB 1260 was detected on site at concentrations up
to 143 ppb. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons including fluoranthene,
pyrene, and phenanthrene were detected both on-site and in the leachate
sediment. Off-site sediment and water column data associated with Clear-
view Landfill are discussed in the water quality section.
Table 7. On-site samples taken from the Clearview Landfill area. Leachate
sediment sample taken in July, 1983, soil samples taken on September 11,
1983. Sediment data are in ppb; soil data are presented as a range in ppb.
Identification: P = positive, T = tenative. DL = detection limit.
Sediment
Compound
acenapthene
anthracene
benzo( a)anthracene
benzo(b) fluoranthene
benzo(k) fluoranthene
benzo(a)pyrene
chrysene
fluoranthene
fluorene
phenanthrene
pyrene
2, 3,7-trimethyloctane
2, 6, 11-dimethylundecane
4,6-dimethylundecane
2, 5,9-trimethyldecane
2, 7,10-trinethyldodecane
decanal
PCB 1260
napthalene
chromium
barium
copper
iron
manganese
zinc
vanadium
arsenic
lead
Ident.
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
Cone
ND
<.4
1.4
0.97
<.80
1.1
1.3
2.8
ND
1.7
3.1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
<.4
24.0
132
23.0
11900
115
140
17.0
8.5
85
-------
PA DER collects water quality samples annualy to identify whether lea-
chate from Clearview landfill presents an environmental health problem
to Darby Creek. This monitoring should be continued. The potential for
PCB's at the site to be transported to Tinicum through flushing and sedi-
ment transport should be investigated in future studies.
Havertown PCP Site (Figure 7, Site 8)
Havertown PCP site is listed on EPA's National Priority List and is
currently under investigation by EPA and PA DER. Havertown PCP is located
approximately 17 miles upstream of Tinicum. The site involves the release
of pentachlorophenol (PCP) and oil into Naylor's Run, a tributary to Cobbs
Creek. Approximately one million gallons of PCP sludge were alledgedly
pumped into a shallow well. The subsurface sludge flow is intercepted by
a concrete sewer line and is released into Naylor's Run (Massey, 1983).
As part of EPA's emergency response actions, filter fences were installed
in Naylor's Run to prohibit and reduce the release of the PCP/oil in down-
stream areas of Naylor's Run.
An assessment of water quality conditions in Naylor's Run by EPA's
Emergency Response Team indicated that conditions in the stream were toxic
to aquatic life. Approximately 1/2 mile downstream of the sewer line, the
stream was devoid of aquatic life and instream concentrations of PCP were
780 ppb. Near the mouth of Naylor's Run, PCP concentrations ranged from 6
to 51 ppb and invertebrate surveys revealed a stressed invertebrate popu-
lation. Tinicum was cited as an area of concern (Allen, 1981) since PCP
is readily bioaccumulated, dilution ratios of Cobbs and Darby Creek with
Naylor's Run are low, and sediment transport is high. Allen (1981) estim-
ated that under worst case condition, PCP sediment concentrations in
Tinicum could be as high as 39 ppb. Sampling conducted by EPA (U. S. EPA,
1985) identified pentachlorophenol, phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene,
pyrene, benzo( a) anthracene, chrysene, acenapthene, fluorene, dibenzofuran,
benzo( b) fluoranthene, and indenopyrene in the water column and sediment
near the discharge point at Naylor's Run. Chapter 5 of this report includes
an evaluation of whether this site may be a contaminant source to the marsh
through sediment transport.
IV. B. Air Quality
In general, air quality in the Tinicum area is typical of a major
urban center. There are two air quality monitors near the Center, one in
Folcroft and one in Chester. These monitors measure concentrations of
criteria pollutants: total suspended participates (TSP), sulfur dioxide
(S02), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (N02), ozone (03), and
lead.
In the Folcroft area, levels of TSP, S0£, CO, and N02 are within EPA's
standards set to protect human health and welfare. One exceedance of the
secondary standard to protect welfare was observed for suspended par-
ticulates in Chester in 1985 and in Folcroft in 1983. All of Delaware and
Philadelphia Counties are nonattainment areas for ozone. There are no
lead monitors within the area, however the Philadelphia area has seen an
increased trend in lead levels and violations were noted in 1982 and 1983
(Hankin, 1985).
IV-10
-------
Air quality modeling done by Scott Paper Co. in Eddystone in 1984
estimated that the Folcroft area would be in compliance with air quality
standards for S02, TSP, N02, and CO (Air Quality, 1984). Except for the
limited sampling done during the fire at Folcroft Landfill, there has been
no toxicant air sampling in the area around Tinicum. The results of the
sampling done during the fire are discussed in the previous section.
IV. C. Soil Quality
Limited soil data are available for the Tinicum area. All soils
within the Center are classified as moderately to highly erodible. Soils
in the tidal marsh are characterized as a silty clay while soil cover on
the Landfill consists primarily of sandy loam. The clay materials of the
marsh would be expected to complex the heavy metals to a much greater
extent than the soils in the landfill.
Erickson (1977) determined soil levels for lead, cadmium, zinc, and
copper. The four study sites were the southwest area of the Center (1),
the Landfill annex (2), the Folcroft Landfill (3), and the area east of
the landfill (4). Soil samples were randomly selected from 5 meter interval
grids at depths between 0 to 5 cm and 13-18 cm for a total of 20 samples
from each site. Heavy metal concentrations were analyzed by site and
sampling depth. Lead levels were significantly higher at the soil surface.
Lead levels were also significantly higher in the landfill and the area
east of the landfill.
Two soil samples were also taken in the annex area during the fire in
1983. Contaminant levels ranged from 0.53 to 3.08 ppm, and barium levels
ranged from 0.28 to 1.48 ppm. Cadmium, chromium, silver, and mercury were
detected at levels less than 0.1 ppm. A priority pollutant scan revealed
that levels of all priority pollutants were less than 10 ppm (U.S. EPA,
1985). The lead levels are notably lower than the levels found in Erickson's
1977 study. This variability may be due to difference in soil type or to
actual conditions.
The absence of on-site surface soil data for all priority pollutants
is a serious shortcoming of the data base. Future studies should include
soil sampling on Folcroft Landfill and in the adjacent tidal marsh.
IV. D. Sediment and Ambient Water Quality
Sediment and water column data in Cobbs, Darby and Hermesprota Creeks
were reviewed to estimate possible impacts of toxic substances from Clear-
view and Folcroft landfills on Tinicum.
Ambient data for the Tinicum area were obtained from four sources:
(1) EPA's STORET national database, which contained 17 stations sampled
since 1970, (2) the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
(DER), which took water samples at 9 stations in 1984 and 1985, (3) a
1983, 14-station study by NUS Corporation on behalf of EPA, and (4)
samples collected by EPA Annapolis CRL in 1984 as a follow-up to the NUS
studies.
Water column data were combined into a single database using the
IV-11
-------
Table 8. Ambient Water and sediment station locations. RMI is the
river mile, referenced from the conference of Darby Creek and the Delaware
River.
Station
0
C2
C3
C4
C5
HI
H2
Dl
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
D7
D8
D9
D10
Dll
D12
D13
D14
D15
D16
D17
Location
Cobbs Creek,
Cobbs Creek,
Cobbs Creek,
Cobbs Creek,
Cobbs Creek,
Hermesprota
Hermes prota
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek ,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek ,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby Creek,
Darby , PA
500' upstream confluence of Darby Cr.
350' upstream confluence of Darby Cr.
200' upstream confluence of Darby Cr.
50' upstream confluence of Darby Cr.
Creek, Upstream Folcroft Landfill
Creek, at Folcroft Landfill
Devon, PA
Upper Darby, PA
1000' upstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
650' upstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
500' upstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
100' upstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
25' upstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
at confluence of Cobbs Cr.
75' downstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
150' downstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
300' downstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
1000' downstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
1800' downstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
2000' downstream confluence of Cobbs Cr.
Upstream Folcroft Landfill
at Folcroft Landfill
at Rte 291 Bridge
RMI
6.28
6.25
6.22
6. 19
6.16
5.00
4.50
19
8.40
6.34
6.28
6.25
6.17
6.16
6.15
6.14
6.13
6.10
5.97
5.81
5.76
4.73
4.36
0.4
SAS statistical package (SAS Institute, Gary, NC) running on a 3270-series
IBM mainframe computer. STORE! data before 1980 were discarded because
several sewage treatment plants in the basin were taken off line that year,
and it was assumed that pre-1980 data were not representative. Data from
the NUS and DER studies were combined where it appeared both had used the
same locations. NUS sediment data were based on dry weight, but PA DER
data were based on wet weight. PA DER data were normalized to dry weight
equivalence by correcting for percent moisture in the sample.
The final data base contained 17 stations on Darby Creek (from Devon,
PA to the confluence of Darby Creek and the Delaware River), five on Cobbs
Creek (from Darby, PA to the confluence of Cobbs and Darby Creeks), and
two on Hermesprota Creek (above and below Folcroft Landfill). The data
base had the following potentially serious limitations, which made inter-
pretation tentative at best:
1. Although many locations were monitored, most had only one obser-
vation. Internal variation could therefore not be compared statistically
with variation due to location or time.
2. The DER study did not include adequate location data. Possible
opportunities to gain statistical resolution by combining DER and NUS
stations may have been lost.
3. The database included measurements of toxic metals, ammonia, and
cyanide only; VOCs, PAHs, pesticides, and other classes of toxic organic
IV-12
-------
pollutants were not monitored. No estimate could be made of the potential
presence or impact of these compounds.
Table 8 and Figure 8 identify the sampling locations which were eval-
uated. River miles (RM) were derived for each sampling location to allow
easier graphic presentation and analysis. Samples taken at river miles 6.28
arid 6.25 represent background levels on Cobbs Creek. Samples taken between
river miles 19 and 6.16 represent background levels on Darby Creek. Loca-
tions between river miles 6.10 and 6.22 are adjacent to Clearview Landfill.
Stations between river miles 4.73 and 6.1 are downstream of Clearview Land-
fill and upstream of Folcroft Landfill. Tidal influence on sampling stations
is expected between river mile 5.97 and the mouth of Darby Creek.
Sediment Threshold Contamination Levels
Sediment concentrations of toxic pollutants were compared to threshold
contamination levels currently under development by the EPA (U.S. EPA, 1985).
In addition to evaluating threshold contamination levels, this document
discusses possible methodologies for determining sediment criteria. There
are currently no adopted EPA sediment criteria. In the absence of adopted
criteria, the threshold contamination levels are the best available stan-
dards against which sediment data can be compared.
Threshold values were derived from sediment-water equilibrium partition
coefficients and toxicological data available from established Water Quality
Criteria. The approach is based on the assumption that the distribution of
various chemicals is controlled by an equilibrium exchange among sediment,
irifauna, interstitial and overlying waters. The constants relating these
concentrations at equilibrium are referred to as partition coefficients.
Compound-specific partition coefficients are determined and used to predict
the distribution of the compound between sediment and interstitial water.
Because of the influence of organic carbon in the sediment on the distri-
bution of many chemicals among phases, partition coefficients often are
expressed in terms of organic carbon content of the sediment. It is assumed
that the average sediment contains 4 percent total organic carbon.
Site-specific variations in physical and chemical factors (such as
particle size or carbon content) complicate the quantification of the contam-
inant distribution among phases. For this reason, the actual biological
effects of sediment concentrations observed in excess of the threshold values
may vary by locations. Table 9 lists the toxicants found in Cobbs, Darby,
and Hermesprota Creeks, and the corresponding threshold contamination concen-
tration levels.
Sediment data were plotted using an IBM PC/AT desktop computer running
Graphwriter. Locations are duplicated on some of the graphs because addi-
tional samples were taken at the same locations. Replicate samples were
collected at RM 6.22 in 1983. One sample will be indicated as RM 6.22 and
the other sample will be indicated by RM 6.22(a) in discussion. River mile
IV-13
-------
Figure 8. Locations of selected ambient water and sediment stations.
SCALE T* 4OOO
-------
Table 9. Threshold contaminant concentrations for sediments.
based on dry weight (U.S. EPA, 1985) and reported in ppm.
Values are
Contaminant
FLuoranthene
Chrysene
Pyrene
Benzo( a) anthracene
Benzo( k) fluoranthene
Anthracene
Naphthalene
PCB ' s
Cnlordane
Threshold
28
460
198
220
5,000
66
42
0.28
0.02
Contaminant
Benzo( a) pyrene
Arsenic
Mercury
Cadmium
Lead
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Cyanide
Threshold
1800
33
0.8
31
132
136
20
760
0.1
6.16 was sampled in 1983 and 1984. River mile 5.97 was also sampled in
1983 and 1984. In discussion, these two locations will be identified
by river mile and year.
Sediment Data Results
The sediment data obtained from the Tinicum area are listed in Appen-
dix Table H. Generally, the sediments contained high concentrations of
meitals, cyanide, PCB's, and chlordane. The only parameters that exceeded
the EPA threshold concentrations were cyanide, lead, chromium, PCB's, and
chlordane. These parameters, as well as aluminum, copper, nickel, and
iron (because of their high levels and known toxicity to aquatic life)
were plotted for ease of comparison to location and criteria. It should
be noted that there are no threshold contamination levels for aluminum and
iron. The high concentrations of these metals in the sediments are a
concern. PAH's were all below threshold contamination levels.
Figure 9 shows the level of PCB 1242 in Cobbs and Darby Creeks.
There are no PCB data below river mile 5.97. River miles 6.28, 6.25,
6.19, 6.16(1984), 6.14, 6.1, and 5.97(1984) exceed the PCB threshold contam-
ination level. The variation between 1983 and 1984 at river miles 6.16
and 5.97 suggests that temporal variance may have been as important as
variance due to location. Background levels at river miles 6.25 and 6.28
are less than 0.4 ppm. River miles 6.19 and 6.16(1984) show the highest
concentrations. The PCB concentration at river mile 5.97 was also consider-
ably higher than background. These three locations are adjacent to Clear-
view Landfill. Soil samples at Clearview Landfill contain high concen-
trations of PCB 1260. These observations suggest that Clearview may be a
source of PCB's in the sediment samples.
Figure 10 shows chlordane concentrations in the sediments of Cobbs and
Darby Creeks. River miles 6.22, 6.22(a), 6.16(1983), 6.15, 5.97(1983),
5.0, 4.73, 4.5, and 4.36, exceeded the threshold level. The locations
near Clearview (RM 6.22, RM 6.22(a), RM 6.16(1984), RM 6.16, RM 6.15) had
lower concentrations than locations at river miles 5.97(1983), 5.0, 4.73,
4.5, and 4.36, which are under the influence of Folcoft Landfill. This
IV-15
-------
suggests that Folcroft may be a possible source of chlordane contamination.
Figure 11 presents the sediment data for lead in Cobbs and Darby
Creeks. All data except river mile 6.16 were below the threshold contam-
ination level for lead of 132 ppm. Conversion of the Pa DER datum to dry
weight using the percent moisture of the sample indicates that at river
mile 6.16 the Pa DER value would exceed the threshold contaminant level
with a concentration of 153 ppm. Background levels varied between 109.8
ppm on Cobbs Creek and 59.7 ppm on Darby Creek. The data in the vicinity
of Folcroft (river miles 6.1 thru 4.7) were less variable with concentra-
tions ranging from 54 to 122 ppm. There is no discernable trend or source
of contamination for lead in the vicinity of Folcroft.
Figure 12 displays the cyanide concentrations in sediment for Cobbs
and Darby Creeks. The threshold contamination concentration level is 0.1
ppm. All locations monitored for cyanide in the sediment were below the
threshold contamination level except for the locations (RM 4.73, RM 4.36,
RM 5.0, RM 4.5, RM 4.7) surrounding the Folcroft Landfill, and the values
(820-5600 ppm) reported were far above background levels. The data suggest
that Folcroft may be a source of cyanide contamination.
Figure 13 illustrates the aluminum concentrations in sediment samples
in Cobbs and Darby Creeks. There is no threshold contamination value for
aluminum. The data vary to extremes. River mile 6.22 had a concentration
of 5070 ppm but the replicate sample (RM 6.22(a)) contained no detectable
aluminum. Extremely high levels of aluminum were observed around the Fol-
croft Landfill. This suggests that the Folcroft landfill may be a source
of aluminum contamination in Darby and Hermesprota Creeks.
Figure 14 illustrates the copper sediment data for the study area.
The threshold contamination concentration for copper is 136 ppm. Data for
all locations were below this threshold. Copper concentrations for river
miles 6.25 thru 5.97 vary from 13 to 36.3 ppm. Copper values for the loca-
tions between RM 4.73 and RM 4.7 were higher (25 to 60 ppm). The metal
concentrations tend to be higher in the Folcroft area.
Figure 15 presents the iron sediment data for the study area. There
is no threshold contamination concentration level for iron. Background
levels of iron on Cobbs Creek were 7584 ppm. The background station on
Cobbs Creek (RM 6.25) had an iron concentration of 10389 ppm. The back-
ground station on Darby Creek (RM 6.28) had an iron concentration of 14709
ppm. The highest concentration of 20200 ppm was reported at location RM
6.16. River mile 6.16 was sampled one year later and a value of 10901 ppm
was observed. The iron data are variable with no obvious trends.
Figure 16 displays the sediment data for nickel in the study area. The
threshold contaminant level for nickel is 20 ppm, which was not exceeded
at any location. However, river miles 4.73 and 4.5 had concentrations of
20 and 19.5 ppm, respectively. Both of these locations are adjacent to
the Folcroft Landfill, suggesting a potential source.
Figure 17 shows chromium concentrations in sediment for the study area.
IV-16
-------
~ m m O D —
u i 8 £ as
s r r S ^ ~ *
(_l £ O O O O
3 2
60 "
*_J ft
T
0
in*
-10
ID S
n u
n 3
cu a
"* S
:i
•^
«
w
*»
V
cu
3-*
3 $ §
s !* 5° i<
d *
o
•H
CO
1-1
g
i
s
cu •
•0 CU
•H r-j
tfl 6
^g <
00 >
0 -H
hJ M < *
f ^
CN *
8
CU M fa... >-.„, b-M, >-.., >— .
M < 88888S
3 | gig..
.;? §
Is -
|3
r— (_,
g|
" ^
n «i
JL
5 i~
*b^o {•
T
^-"
Cfl
in
0
n
^
in
cu
n
- n
to
^
0
W
^r
1 fU
^
cu g d
*""' LU a LU
7j £ £ g d-1
6 S! H! < Sg
U ^_ " Q g^ gp
Q) S m w i-»
> § S S £3
•H E "z
u x S
CO
3 *
ca
£ °
C
0 0
4->
CO O
4J *
c
cu
o *
c
0
u
CQ
O
CM
f
^ g *
Q) £(pT(\j*~aiu>n
^j rc ^ ^. ^ o o o
3 S
00 u
1-1 0
m
1"
|
1
r
r
9
J 1VJ IT
" S
i cr
®in ^
ih2 I
3
u.
Ul
« !j
153
1"
4
i S
OJ O^
0
l-i B .,
cu fc
•H 1
u
CO
3
ca
cu
0
•H
4-1
CO
*
4J
a
cu
o
(3
O
0
_
CO
cu
1
3 § , ,
2 M 2
3 5
oo S
1 a IS !
r h'i'
f *!'
"
jt
0 4> °° * **
* *
-
-
"
<
•
* <
*
§88898*
^
CU
m
0
5 [5
0 CE
:s
* 2
01 °
n g
ff
"S
•a
0
w
»»
w
CU
>*»
-------
M
OJ
(U
to
3
(O
M
O
CO
i-l
4-1
a
0)
o
a
o
o
0)
CU
o
o
Q)
S-l
D
* 0
<
in uj
CD IE
tfl yj
, §
CO
S-l
4-1
G
CU
O
in
o
o
cu
a
•H
z
0)
s-l
3
1 L.
«
(U
CO
3
CO
0
CO
u
4-1
§
a
a
o
o
s
O <
<
<
CO
3
CO
a
o
CO
M
4J
a
cu
o
C
O
o
a
o
:i
a
ri
-------
Figure 17. Chromima concentration versus river mile.
CONCENTRATION (PPM)
B0r
DARBY CHEEK
50
30
10
A *
CtBBS CREEK
* O
*Q HEHHESPHOTA CREEK
A A
-y/r - - -sr-G-—
* ^ EPA THRESHOLD
A ° CONTAMINATION LEVEL
4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2 5.4 5.B 5.8 E
MILES FROM DELAWARE RIVER
Data collected in 1983 are consistently high at all monitoring locations.
Fifty percent of theses observations exceeded the EPA threshold toxicant
contamination level of 25 ppm. The 1984 data did not approach the EPA
threshold toxicant contamination level. Overall, six of eighteen obser-
vations exceeded this level. Other than the temporal differences in the
data, no other trends were obvious,
Water Quality Evaluation Methods
Each observation of each toxic pollutant was individually compared
with water quality criteria (US EPA, 1985, 1980, or 1973 as appropriate).
For parameters having criteria related to hardness, observed hardness was
Lised in the criteria calculation. If hardness data were not available,
the observed mean total hardness of 97.7 mg/1 as CaC03 was assumed.
Possible stress on aquatic life by low dissolved oxygen, high temperature,
or phosphate - related eutrophication were also considered by including
"criteria" for these parameters (4 mg/1 DO, 1.5 mg/1 PO^, and 30°C) .
Comparison of observed ammonia concentrations (expressed as total ammonia)
with EPA criteria (as unionized ammonia) presented a special problem because
only the observations in STORE! included the temperature and pH data needed
to convert total to unionized ammonia. This comparison was done by hand
using a separate STORET output.
After each observation was compared with its applicable water quality
criterion, the proportion of measurements above the criterion was calculated
for each parameter at each station. Correlation analysis was used to test
for relations between both concentration and proportion of criterion excee-
dance and location, year, and temperature. Plots of mean concentration
versus location were made using a desktop computer and Graphwriter.
Ambient Water Quality Results
Mean and maximum concentrations and number of observations of each par-
ameter for Cobbs and Hermesprota Creeks are presented in Appendix Table I;
IV-19
-------
Table 10. Water quality criteria used for comparison to ambient
observations. All values are ug/1 except ammonia (mg/1), DO (mg/1), POi
(mg/1), and temperature (°C). Source: A = EPA, 1973; b = EPA, 1985- C =
EPA, 1980.
Variable
Aluminum
Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Cyanide
Chromium
Copper
DO
Iron
Criterion
(Mean)
200.0
0.012
360.0
500.0
1.08
5.2
196.7
11.2
4.0
1000
Source
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
-
C
Variable
Lead
Mercury
Manganese
Nickel
Phosphate
Selenium
Silver
Temperature
Zinc
Criterion
jMean)
2.98
0.012
20.0
91.49
1.00
35.0
3.69
30.0
47.0
Source
B
B
A
B
C
C
C
similar data for Darby Creek, are presented in Appendix Table J. Most toxic
pollutants had very high concentrations at river mile 4.36 adjacent to
the Folcroft landfill. In addition to the high concentrations measured at
RM 4.36, the data show an apparent trend of increasing concentration with
movement downstream.
Table 10 contains the means of water quality criteria to which the
ambient observations were compared. Table 11 contains the mean proportion
of criteria exceedances, number of observations, and standard error of the
mean for Darby Creek stations. Exceedance data from Cobbs and Hermesprota
Creeks were judged too sparse for tabulation. Concentrations of the foll-
owing metals were judged to seriously exceed chronic water quality criteria
at the mouth of Darby Creek: copper (52.8% of observations exceeded cri-
teria), iron (22.6%), lead (67.9%), and zinc (19.2%). Cadmium and mercury
had a notably lower 1.9% exceedance rate. Although upstream data were
sparse, all metals except mercury exceeded criteria at least once. Alum-
inum, silver, and manganese were not monitored at the mouth of Darby Creek,
but upstream data suggest these metals may also frequently exceed criteria.
Temperature did not exceed 30°C, unionized ammonia did not exceed
0.012 mg/1 and phosphate did not exceed 1.5 mg/1 in any sample. Dissolved
oxygen exceeded 4 mg/1 85.7% of the time. The local biota may be stressed
by low oxygen concentrations at high temperatures, especially during the
14.3% of the time when dissolved oxygen is below 4 mg/1.
Coefficients of correlation between observed concentrations and loca-
tion, year, and temperature are presented in Table 12; similar correlation
coefficients for mean proportion of criterion exceedance are presented in
Table 13. Dissolved oxygen, ammonia, and nitrite concentrations were
significantly correlated with temperature, as expected, suggesting the data
may be of reasonable quality. Silver, aluminum, manganese, nickel, nitrite,
and phosphate increased with movement downstream, - and dissolved oxygen
decreased downstream. Exceedances of criteria for silver, copper, manga-
IV-20
-------
Table 11. Proportion of measured ambient concentrations of toxic pollutants
exceeding water quality criteria on Darby Creek. First line of each cell =
mean proportion of exceedance (0 = no exceedancee, 1 = all exceedances),
second line = number of observations, third line = standard error of the mean.
Parameter
fl6
PL
AS
Bfi
CD
CN
CR
CU
DO
FE
HE
Ml
MG
Location
Upper
Darby
PA
D2
•
0
0.250
4
0.250
0.000
4
0.000
,
0
0.000
4
0.000
•
0
0.000
4
0.000
0.250
4
0.250
1.000
11
0.000
0.083
24
0.05B
0.000
4
0.000
0.500
4
0.289
0.917
24
0.000
/ Station
500 ft.
upstreai
CobbsCr
D5
•
0
0.000
1
,
0
u
0
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
4
0.000
1
.
0
0.000
1
.
0
1.000
1
•
0
100 ft.
upstreaa
Cobbs Cr
06
0.000
1
0.000
2
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
2
0.000
2
0.000
2
0.000
2
•
0
0.000
2
•
0
1.000
2
•
0
At
Cobbs
Creek
DB
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
•
0
0.000
1
.
0
1.000
1
.
0
150 ft.
dnstreai
Cobos Cr
D10
•
0
0.000
1
•
0
•
0
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
1.000
1
•
0
0.000
1
.
0
1.000
1
•
0
300 ft.
dnstreai
CobbsCr
Dll
0
1.000
1
.
0
.
0
1.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
1.000
1
t
0
1.000
1
•
0
1.000
1
•
0
1000 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
D12
•
0
•
0
,
0
.
0
•
0
0.000
1
0
,
0
•
0
1.000
1
,
0
•
0
,
0
1800 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
D13
•
0
1.000
1
,
0
•
0
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
i.OOO
1
•
1
1.000
1
.
1
1.000
1
,
0
2000 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
D14
1.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
0.000
1
•
0
0.000
1
•
0
1.000
1
m
0
!
At
Route
291
D17
•
0
•
•
0
•
0.000
53
0.000
•
0
•
0.019
53
0.018
.
0
0.000
53
0.000
0.528
53
0,069
0.857
21
0.078
0.226
53
0.058
0.019
53
0.018
.
0
•
1.000
53
•
IV-21
-------
Table 11. Continued.
Parameter
Nl
PB
PHE
P04
SE
TEMP
ZN
Location
Upper
Darby
PA
02
0.058
0.000
4
0.000
4
0.000
•
0
0.000
24
0.000
•
0
0.000
13
0.000
0.000
4
0.000
/ Station
500 ft.
upstreaa
Cobbs Cr
D5
0.000
1
1.000
1
•
0
m
0
.
0
.
0
0.000
1
100 ft.
upstreai
Cobbs Cr
06
0.000
2
0.000
2
0
•
0
0.000
1
,
0
0.000
2
fit
Cobbs
Creek
08
0.000
1
0.000
1
•
0
,
0
0.000
1
•
0
0.000
1
150 ft.
dnstreaii
Cobbs Cr
010
0.000
1
0.000
J
.
0
,
0
,
0
•
0
0.000
1
300 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
Oil
0.000
1
1.000
J
0
•
0
•
0
.
0
1.000
1
1000 ft.
dnstreaii
Cobbs Cr
012
•
0
.
0
•
0
0
•
0
•
0
*
0
1800 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
013
0.000
1
1.000
1
•
0
•
0
0.000
1
.
0
1.000
1
2000 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
014
1.000
1
0.000
1
0
•
0
0.000
1
•
0
0.000
1
At
Route
291
017
0.000
m
0
0.679
53
0.065
•
0
0.000
51
0.000
0.000
38
0.000
0.000
25
0.000
0.192
52
0.055
Table 12. Correlation analysis of mean concentrations of pollutants in
ambient water with order (1 = upstream, 17 = downstream), year (1980 -
1985), and temperature. First line of cell = r, Pearson correlation
coefficient; second line = p, probability of Type I error in accepting
h^ : r=0; third line = number of observations.
ORDER
YEAR
TEMP
PHENOLS
P04
SE
ZN
0.46464 0.66996 0.06943 0.05365
0.2076 0.0001*** 0.6355 0.6408
9 87 49 78
-0.57266 0.43106 -0.28456 -0.03443
0.1071 O.OOOlw* 0.0475t 0.7648
9 87 49 78
0.00876 -0.26322 -0.44244
0.9555 0.2140 0.0184*
0 43 24 28
IV-22
-------
Table 12. Continued.
« AL AS Bfl BODS CD CN_FREE
ORDER 0.30975 0.41009 0.02759 0.48042 0.19565 0.04812 0.28772
0.0017** 0.0375* 0.8259 0.1599 0.0646 0.6717 O.lb31
8 26 66 10 90 80 25
YEAR 0.33333 -0.02218 -0.02973 -0.38682 -0.23498 -0.02926 -0.01358
0.4198 0.9143 0.8127 0.2695 0.0258* 0.7967 0.9486
8 26 66 10 90 80 25
TEMP
ORDER
YEAR
TEMP
0
a?
0.04200
0.7115
80
-0.05246
0.6440
80
-0.07426
0. 7073
28
W
0.42704
0.0263*
27
-0.50000
0.6667
3
cu
0.06038
0.5947
80
-0.06630
0.5590
80
0. 17665
0.3685
28
NH3
0.07627
0.4602
%
0.00000
1.0000
28
DO
-0.60539
0
FE
0.07201
0.0001*** 0.4720
39
-0.36859
0.0209**
39
-0.57415
0.0001***
39
NI
0.44719
0.0193*
27
102
-0.00988
0.9215
102
-0.01012
0.9519
38
N02
0.40069
0.0001***
%
-0.08843
0.6081
36
H6
0.04411
0.7401
59
0.18858
0.1526
59
0.34765
0.0699
28
N03
-0.01324
0.8992
94
-0.09843
0.6183
28
KJEL_N
0.185%
0.1412
64
-0.18175
0.1506
64
-0.40044
0.0313*
29
PB
0.04107
0.7176
80
0
MG
0.00000
1.0000
23
0.13853
0.5285
23
-0.19283
0.5482
12
PH
-0.10969
0.4210
56
ORDER
YEAR -0.04436 -0.10825 0.01982 0.28895 -0.02072 -0.04238 -0.00429
0.8261 0.2938 0.9218 0.0043** 0.8429 0.7090 0.9750
27 % 27 % 94 80 56
TEMP -0.75593 -0.37046 -0.50000 0.39331 -0.10115 -0.04125 -0.05439
0.4544 0.0171* 0.6667 0.0110* 0.5401 0.8349 0.7*57
3 41 3 41 39 28 38
IV-23
-------
Table 13. Correlation analysis of mean proportion of observations in
ambient water exceeding EPA water quality criteria. First line of each
cell = r, Pearson correlation coefficient; second line = p, probability
of Type I error in accepting HQ: r=0; third line = number of observations
ftS
BA
CD
CN
CR
ORDER
YEflR
TEMP
ORDER
YEflR
TEMP
ORDER
YEflR
TEMP
0.97073
0.0013"
6
0.00000
1.0000
6
0
0.32982
0.1556
20
-0.40825
0.0739
20
-0.50000
0.6667
3
0.00000
1.0000
63
0.00000
1,0000
63
0.00000
1.0000
28
0.00000
1.0000
6
0.00000
1.0000
6
0
-0.06461
0.5871
73
-0.22904
0.0513
73
0.00000
1.0000
28
0.00000
1.0000
18
0.00000
1.0000
18
0
0.00000
1.0000
73
0.00000
1.0000
73
0.00000
1.0000
28
Q)
0.23680
0. 0437*
73
-0.51666
0.0001***
73
-0.03782
0.8485
28
DO
-0.26701
0.1003
39
-0. 16285
0.3219
39
-0.20731
0.2054
39
FE
0.17644
0.0872
95
-0.08419
0.4173
95
-0.19944
0.2300
38
HG
0.03671
0.7863
57
0. 18814
0.1611
57
0.34765
0.0699
28
HN
0.47191
0.0357*
20
0.00000
1.0000
20
-0.50000
0.6667
3
NI
0.52159
0.0183*
20
0.47140
0.0359*
20
0.00000
1.0000
3
PB
0.37536
O.Oull**
73
-0.42001
0.0002***
73
-0.01151
0.9537
28
P04
0.00000
1.0000
81
0.00000
1.0000
81
0.00000
1.0000
43
SE
0.00000
1.0000
46
0.00000
1.0000
46
0.00000
1.0000
24
ZN
0.12136
0.3099
72
-0.38440
0.0009***
72
-0.13122
0.5057
28
IV-24
-------
nese, nickel, lead, and zinc increased significantly downstream. Exceed-
ances of criteria for copper, lead, and zinc have decreased since 1980,
but exceedances for nickel have increased. Five-day BOD and dissolved
oxygen have decreased (paradoxically) since 1980, and nitrite and phosphate
have increased.
Comparisons between Sediment and Water Quality Data
Tables 14 and 15 indicate where exceedances of EPA Water Quality Cri-
teria and sediment threshold toxicant contamination levels occurred by
stream and river mile. An exceedance signifies that one observation was
above the criterion.
These tables illustrate some of the water quality problems in the
Darby Creek basin. The tables were not developed to quantify the contam-
ination, but rather to identify problem parameters by comparison to the
best available criteria or guidelines. Parameter selection was limited by
data availability. The contaminants with the most frequent exceedances of
water quality criteria were aluminum, ammonia, copper, iron, lead, mang-
anese, and zinc. The contaminants that exceeded the sediment threshold
contaminants levels were PCB, chlordane, chromium, lead, and cyanide.
Concentrations of aluminum in the water column exeeded the water
quality criterion (200 ppb) at river miles 8.4, 6.1, 5.81, 4.5, and 4.36.
Sediment concentrations were above 3600 ppm at all locations except river
niles 6.22a, 6.46, and 6.1 where aluminum was not detected. The highest
concentrations of aluminum in the water column occurred at river mile 4.36
(398 ppm ). The highest concentrations in the sediment occurred at river
mile 4.73 (144,000 ppm). The highest values in both the water column and
sediment occurred in the vicinity of Tinicum and the Folcroft Landfill.
There was one exceedance of the water quality criterion for cyanide
(5.2 ppb) which occurred at river mile 4.36 with a concentration of 445
ppb. The threshold toxicant level of 0.1 ppm was exceeded at river miles
4.73 (1050 ppm), 4.36 (4040 ppm), 5.0 (820 ppm), and 4.5 (5600 ppm). All
these exceedances occurred in the vicinity of the Folcroft Landfill and
the Tinicum area.
The EPA water quality criterion for copper (11.2 ppb) was exceeded at
river miles 8.4, 6.13, 6.1, 5.81, 4.36, and 0.4. The highest concentration
of copper in the water column (2070 ppb) occurred at river mile 4.36. The
water column copper concentrations were more variable than the sediment
concentrations. The highest sediment concentration occurred in the Folcroft
Landfill area. Copper levels were also elevated in Folcroft Landfill leach-
ate.
The iron water qualtity criterion (1 ppm) was exceeded at river miles
7.19, 8.4, 6.34, 6.1, 5.97, 5.81, 4.73, 4.36, 5.0, 4.5, and 0.4. There is
no threshold toxicant contaminant level for iron. Sediment concentrations
ranged from 5200 to 20200 ppm. The highest sediment concentration was
observed upstream of Clearview Landfill. The highest water column concen-
tration was at Folcroft Landfill (505000 ppm). Both the sediment and
water column data are highly variable with no apparent trend. High iron
IV-25
-------
cu
Ll
CJ
C
X co
Ll CO
Q -3
e -j
M
C -H
CU CO
TO X
4J
c
cr <•
cu
o. .
B ^
TO CL,
CO %_^
C -H
•H — ^
CO <4-l
to
OJ r-|
4J M-l
c o
CO Ll
c o
•H I-H
B O
cfl ta
C sO
S ^O
-• I
U
— 1 II 1
u
CN
CN
•
*O
U
in
CN | II 1
^
0
CO
^o
•o
r-t
o
jr a
co a. ^o o o o
at a. ^o CN o o
Ll CN 00 O
.C ~H in
H
cu
1 C 1
J= CU o
d cu c X —i
co c co a. <*-* cu
c ai ^ cu x^ x-, c
•H CJ CO C TO ^i CU
B TO ^~f cu • — / x^/ js
CO Li O O O O LJ
AJ .C N (0 N N C
C *J C Li C C TO
8e cu cu cu
<3 BQ 85 CO
1
1
1 1 1 1
1
1
1 1 I 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1
SOO CN CO
CN vt cy*
-^ i— i
cu
c
cu cu
cu u cu
c e — i
cu co co cu
co LI j= e
:* o u cu
Ll 3 Q. Ll
S: rH TO X
O Cu Z &<
X
1 X
1 1
X
1 X
X X
X 1
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
oo CN m — '
CN O PI ro
• •
O O
CU
c
* CU
CJ O CJ J
ao o o
• CN \O
0 r^
Ll ^
3 cu
0 J< CJ
Ll O C
CU ^H ^-1
S Z IN
-------
0)
cu
o
to 0)
-Q — i
-O J3
3 cO
_l
•H
• CO
^~v >
Q CO
CU
•X u
CU
U cO
O 4J
CO
>> T3
M O
cO CJ
a
U
C CO
•H JC
4-1
C
CU M
^i CU
CO 4-1
4J CO
O
CO -H
CU -o
>•— ( C3
Q. -H
B
CO -C
CO CO
CO
C -0
•H CU
CO r-l
CO -rl
•H • 2.
u cu
CU U kl
4J e a>
•H CO >
o "S a!
cu
>> o
4-" X
•H CU
f>_4
fl C
3 CO
cr
ca
01 -H
4J U-l
CO »r-4
s c
«3 -H
CLi CO
X
U-l
o 3
CO
cu
0 •
CO EC
* a i i i i i i i x i i i i i i i
m
, ,
•QXXII XXXIX IIX
^O
ro
• Q 1 1 1 X 1 X 1 1
.3.
^H
• Q XII XXIX II
^O
_^
• Q X X
V40
^^
• U X IX X
\o
-^
• Q 1 1 1 1 II
vO
r-
• a x ix
ON
•^
• CJ |
\o
CM
CM
• U | 1 I X 1 X 1 1
vO
ul
CM
•U 1 1 1 X XIX IIX
CM
• a x i i xix
OO
CM
vO
-QlXlll|l|l|l|lll|
i-H
CX OcMOOCOcNr^-CNOoOCMO^Of^O
-H CTi^HOCN »CMC^rO , -' (jCr-l-HM
4J aocu-Hecooue-oo 50^ cu > o
C 3SCOl4T3cOtiO.o<0)-iCL)i— 1 <— tC
-------
iron levels were also measured in Folcroft Landfill leachate.
The EPA water quality criterion for lead (2.978 ppb) was exceeded
at river miles 7.19, 6.34, 6.25, 6.22, 6.14, 6.1, 5.81, 4.36, and 0.4.
The highest concentration was at river mile 4.36 (3450 ppb). The sediment
threshold criteria was exceeded at river mile 6.16 (153 ppm) . Sediment
concentrations were variable upstream of the Tinicum area, and ranged
from 94 to 122 ppm. Water column data indicate increased concentrations
in the Tinicum - Folcroft area. High lead levels were measured in Folcroft
leachate.
The water quality criterion for nickel (91.49 ppb) was exceeded at
river miles 5.76 (116 ppm) and 4.36 (908 ppm). The sediment threshold
toxicant contaminant level of 20 ppm was not exceeded. However, locations
KM 4.73 (20 ppm) and RM 4.5 (19.5 ppm) were high enough to be of concern.
Both sediment and water column concentrations were highest in the Tinicum
- Folcroft area. Nickel concentrations were high in Folcroft leachate.
The USEPA water quality criterion for chromium (200 ppb) was exceeded
only once at river mile 4.36 near Folcroft (1500 ppb). The sediment
threshold toxicant contamination level was exceeded in 6 of 18 obser-
vations. Sediment data showed a wide variation, however no noticeable
trend was observed for the data.
The water quality criterion for zinc of 47.0 ppb was exceeded at
river miles 7.19, 6.22, 6.1, 5.81, 4.5, 4.36, and 0.4. The highest
concentrations was reported at Folcroft Landfill (8460 ppb). The sedi-
ment threshold toxicant level for zinc is 760 ppm. The highest sediment
value reported was 235 ppm at river mile 6.16 above Clearview Landfill.
The overall trend in the water column shows an increase in concentration
proceeding downstream to the Tinicum - Folcroft area. The sediment data
are more variable with no obvious trends. High zinc concentrations were
measured in Folcroft leachate.
Conclusions of Water Quality Evaluation
The data presented suggest that Clearview Landfill may be a source
of PCB contamination in the area. The Folcroft Landfill appeared to be
a source of chlordane, cyanide, chromium, copper, and nickel contamination
in the study area. However, sediment transport effects and particle
size were not studied. Therefore it will be necessary to confirm that
the higher concentrations observed adjacent to these landfills reflected
the location of the source and not a sediment transport phenomenon or
particle size bias in the samples. Further investigation is needed to
determine the effects upon aquatic life and to determine what remedial
action is necessary.
The sediment data review found that PCB's, chlordane, cyanide, and
lead (at one location) exceeded USEPA toxicant threshold contamination
levels. Aluminum, iron, and nickel had concentrations in the sediments
that were a concern. There are no threshold contaminant levels for iron
and aluminum. The PCB's data were collected only in the area of Clearview
IV-28
-------
landfill. High soil levels of PCS' s at Clearview indicate that it may be
source of PCS contamination. Cyanide, chlordane, lead, nickel, and
aluminum were at their highest concentrations near the Folcroft landfill.
Iron concentrations were high throughout the sampling area. If these
observations were representative and accurate, they indicate that Folcroft
may be a source of cyanide, chlordane, lead, and aluminum contamination.
Elevated levels of copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc were
also found in seeps at Folcroft Landfill, further supporting this theory
that Folcroft Landfill is a likely source of heavy metals to Tinicum.
It is clear that at least four toxic metals (copper, iron, lead, and
zinc) have routinely exceeded applicable EPA water quality criteria
downstream of Tinicum and probably also at the Center. Measured concen-
trations of cadmium, mercury, aluminum, silver, and manganese also app-
eared excessive. Levels of contamination increased with travel down-
stream, and were very high in the Tinicum area. These observations
support the theory that Folcroft Landfill is a continuing source of
toxic metals. High metal concentrations measured in Hermesprota Creek
on the other side of the landfill and in seeps from Folcroft Landfill annex
lend further support to this theory.
This analysis concludes that, in general, data were too sparse to
characterize trends and spatial distributions of pollutants in a statis-
tically conclusive manner. However, the highest concentrations of several
pollutants were observed around the Folcroft Landfill. These pollutants
include metals, chlordane, and cyanide. High concentrations of PCB's and
metals were also found in the area of the Clearview Landfill. Only qual-
itative statements linking sources to degraded water quality could be
made because the results were highly variable, showed low reproducibility,
and were not controlled for factors such as sediment particle size.
Additional sample collection will be necessary to identify sources
in the areas where high concentrations were observed. Future monitoring
should include multiple samples, background controls, and particle size
analysis of sediment samples. Biological monitoring, such as artificial
substrates, would also be useful as an indicator of water quality impacts.
Studies should be done to identify the extent and degree of sediment and
water contamination in Tinicum. Samples should be taken on Folcroft
Landfill, in adjacent soils and sediments, and in water to identify the
degree to which Folcroft contributes to degraded water quality in Tinicum.
Samples should be taken under varying flow regimes to discern the relative
pollutant contributions from upstream sources.
LV. E. Groundwater Quality
No groundwater samples have been taken during investigations of the
Folcroft Landfill. Because of the local topography, hydrology, and
water table depths in Tinicum, groundwater in the perched water table
would be expected to discharge directly into the creeks and tidal flats.
General groundwater quality in the water table system is character-
ized as weakly acidic, slightly mineralized, and calcium bicarbonate or
calcium sulfate water. The mean concentration of dissolved solids is
IV-29
-------
679 ppm, and iron ranges from 0.08 to 429 ppm with a median of 1 ppm.
Contaminant levels vary highly in this system (Hall, 1972).
Water in the artesian system may also discharge to the streams and
Delaware River; however, the flows should be verified through field sam-
pling. General chemical conditions are similar to those in the water
table. Groundwater in the artesian system also exhibits widespread degra-
dation. Iron levels typically range from 0.09 to 25 ppm and hardness may
exceed 150 ppm (Hall, 1973).
Various data sources (STORET, DER files, local well-drilling records,
Township engineers) were searched to identify monitoring or supply wells
in the Tinicum area. Thirteen monitoring wells were identified in the
3-mile radius around Tinicum. Unfortunately, sampling in these wells was
inconsistent with respect to depth, well type, period of record, and sam-
pling parameter and correlations could not be made with groundwater- in
Tinicum. Thirteen water supply wells were identified along Maple and
Ashland Avenues in Folcroft. These wells are less than one mile from the
landfill. It is not known whether these wells are currently being used
because public water supplies are available in the area.
One water table well is located upgradient of Folcroft Landfill near
Clearview Landfill at 8316 Buist Avenue (U.S. EPA, 1985). A sample taken
from this well identified several organic compounds at ppb levels including
1,2 dichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene, chlorobenzene,
and tetrachlorobenzene.
One well used as a drinking water source is located approximately 1
mile south of Folcroft landfill. The well is approximately 20-30 feet
deep and currently serves a family of 2. Samples taken by DER in May and
August 1985 by DER indicated lead levels of 0.087 and 0.103 ppm (the drinking
water standard for lead is 0.05 ppm). The continuity between the aquifer
underneath Folcroft and this residence is unknown.
An industrial supply well is located at Atlas Environmental Company
on Industrial Drive, approximately 1 mile north of the Folcroft Landfill.
The well is currently used for fire protection.
Groundwater sampling conducted by Boeing Vertol in Eddystone (Fouler,
1985) indicates that shallow water table wells are contaminated with organic
halogen compounds. Groundwater samples at the Westinghouse facility also
indicate low levels of chloroform and tetrachloroethylene in the water
table. Because of the discharge relationship between Darby Creek, the
tidal marsh, and the water table, it is likely that these values reflect
water quality conditions in the creek and marsh.
In summary, data are inadequate to determine whether contaminants at
Folcroft Landfill have entered groundwater. Additional studies should be
done to identify the extent of groundwater contamination in Tinicum and the
local flow regimes of groundwater. Samples should be collected to identify
local flow patterns, tidal fluctuations, and groundwater treatability.
Local well use and the potential for contamination of these wells from
Folcroft Landfill should be identified.
IV-30
-------
IV. E. Biota
No extensive studies have been undertaken to determine the extent to
which environmental contaminants at Tinicum may be entering the food chain.
However, several limited studies have been done.
Erickson (1977) determined lead, zinc, copper, and cadmium levels in
soils, cattails (foliage, stem, and rootstock) and muskrats (livers and kid-
neys) form four locations within Tinicum in an effort to relate pollution
levels to muskrat population characteristics. The results showed a strong
correlation between lead levels in soils and cattails (where lead seemed
to concentrate mostly in the rootstocks) and muskrat tissue levels. Soil
and plant cadmium levels were positively correlated, but muskrat tissue
levels were not related to cattail concentrations. Muskrat "vitality"
(condition, reproduction, density, etc..) appeared unaffected by the levels
of pollutants detected. Unfortunately, the author made no effort to collect
animals from a control area or to seek out comparable studies in the lit-
erature that would help determine whether the metal levels in biota were
higher than background levels.
In 1976, PA DER and the PA Fish Commission collected "catfish" and
carp samples from Darby Creek about 0.4 miles downstream from the Darby
Creek Joint Authority Plant. Cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc
were detected in the edible portion of the fish. Quality assurance infor-
mation was not presented for these data and several values appear suspect
based on the precision reported. Therefore, no quantitative data are
presented. From these results, the PA DER concluded that the fish did not
represent a hazard to human consumers (U. S. FWS, 1978).
In 1982, Tinicum staff collected carp and brown bullhead fillets from
the large impoundment and "16 acre pond" and had them analyzed for organo-
chlorine pesticides, PCB's and metals. The contaminant levels detected in
the fish are shown in Table 16. Levels of organochlorine pesticides,
PCB's, and DDE/ODD in the brown bullhead sample from the 16-acre pond
exceeded criteria established by the National Academy of Sciences/National
Academy of Engineers (U.S. EPA, 1973) for the protection of piscivorous
fish and wildlife. It should be noted that both of these ponds are isolated
from Darby Creek and do not receive regular inflows of water from the
Creek; therfore, these fish should not be considered representative of fish
exposed to Darby Creek water.
In 1984, the Service's State College Field Office collected whole fish
from Darby Creek for chemical analysis. White suckers were collected from
an area just upstream of 84th Street, adjacent to the Clearview Landfill,
and brown bullheads were collected from Darby Creek in the Long Hook area.
In addition, snapping turtles were collected from the large impoundment.
Turtle fat and leg meat were submitted for organochlorine analysis; two
leg meat samples were analyzed for polcyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and
aliphatic hydrocarbons; and five turtle livers were analyzed for metals.
IV-31
-------
Table 16. Results of heavy metals/organochlorine analysis of fish fillets
from two locations within Tinicum N. E.C. Collection conducted by U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Tinicum N.E.C. staff. Samples collected In
1982. Values reported in ppm wet weight.
Impoundment
16-acre Pond
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Zinc
DDE
ODD
PCB (1260)
Alpha-BHC
Gamma chlordane
Dieldrin
Cis-nonachlor
Carp
<0.01
0.06
0.18
0.45
0.11
14.9
0.08
0.12
0.18
0.05
«••—
Bullhead
0.06
0.07
<0.1
0.11
0.02
7.6
0.19
0.26
0.33
0.02
___
Carp
<0.01
0.03
<0.1
0.31
0.01
13.8
0.33
0.48
0.27
0.03
.__
Bullhead
0.03
0.07
<0.1
0.13
0.12
6.6
0.52
0.59
0.86
0.03
0.06
0.01
Table 17 lists the data from the organochlorine analysis of these
fish and turtle samples. Both fish samples exceeded the NAS/NAE criteria
for dieldrin, cis-chlordane, trans-nonachlor and PCBs. In addition, the
brown bullhead sample taken near the Folcroft Landfill exceeded the NAS/NAE
criterion for DDT and its metabolites. Both fish samples also contained
higher levels of DDE, ODD, dieldrin, trans-nonachlor and PCBs than the
average concentrations found in fish from over 100 sampling stations nation-
wide in the Service's National Pesticide Monitoring Program for 1980-1981.
Turtle leg meat samples proved to be relatively uncontaminated; no organo—
chlorines were found above detection limits. Turtle fat, however, contained
a variety of organochlorine contaminants, and high levels (4.7 to 23 ppm)
of PCBs.
Table 17. Organochlorines in whole fish samples collected by the U.S.
and Wildlife Service from Darby Creek near Clearview and Folcroft
Landfills August 7-8, 1984, and in snapping turtle leg meat and fat.
Results In ppm wet weight.
Fish
p.p'-DDE
p,p'-DDD
p.p'-DDT
Dieldrin
Heptachlor epoxlde
Oxychlordane
Cis-chlordane
Trans-nonachlor
Cis-nonachlor
Endrin
Toxaphene
PCBs (1260)
Brown
Bullheads
(Folcroft)
0.70
0.53
N.D.
0.17
N.D.
N.D.
0.43
0.17
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
1.8
White
Suckers
(Clearview)
0.38
0.30
N.D.
0.35
N.D.
N.D.
0.48
0.28
N.D.
N.D.
N.D.
2.0
Range in
Snapping
Turtle Fat
0.49-3.4
N.D.-0.70
N.D.
0.23-0.45
N.D.-0.13
0.26-0.75
0.22-0.80
0.42-1.2
N.D.-0.32
N.D.
N.D.
4.7-23
N.D. = not detected. Lower limit of reportable residues = 0.1 ppm for pesticidi
and 0.5 ppm for PCBs.
IV-32
-------
The five turtle livers were analyzed for lead, copper, zinc, vana-
dium, cadmium, aluminum, thallium, mercury, arsenic and selenium. The
ranges and means of the results are shown in Table 18. Two turtle leg
neat samples were analyzed for polycyclic aromat.ic hydrocarbon (PAH) anal-
ysis. In its analytical procedure for testing for PAHs, the laboratory
.also tested for aliphatic hydrocarbons. The results showed an absence of
PAHs, but a wide variety of aliphatics including tridecane, tetradecane,
octylcyclohexane, pentadecane, nonylcyclohexane, hexadecane, heptadecane,
pristane, octadecane, phytane, nonadecane, and eicosane. The levels of
these compounds ranged up to 0.21 ppm.
Table 18 . Residues of metals in five snapping turtle liver samples from the
Tlnicum N.E.C. Turtles collected by staff of the Pennsylvania
State University. Results in ppm wet weight.
Range Mean
Lead N.D. - 0.19 0.138
Copper 1.4-3.0 1.94
Zinc 30.-36 35
Vanadium N.D.-0.20 0.04
Cadmium N.D.
Aluminum 1.9-6.6 3.88
Thallium N.D.
Mercury 0.04-0.10 0.072
Arsenic N.D.-0.08 0.016
Selenium C.27-0.78 0.526
N.D.= none detected. Lower limit of reportable residues - 0.10 ppm for lead,
copper, zinc, vanadium, cadlum, and thallium; 1.0 ppm for aluminum; 0.02 ppm
for mercury; and 0.05 ppm for ar&enic and selenium.
Two additional biological tissue sampling efforts were undertaken at
Tinicum in 1985, but the results are not yet available. The Fish and
Wildlife Service's Patuxent Wildlife Research Center collected slugs,
voles, white-footed mice and short-tailed shrews from a Phragmites dom-
inated former dredge spoil disposal area within the Center* s boundaries
to evaluate heavy metal uptake. Results are not anticipated for some time.
Also in 1985, Center staff collected fish samples from Darby Creek for
chemical analysis. These results are also unavailable.
In summary, limited sampling data indicate that PCB's and pesticides
have been transported into the food chain. Studies should be done in
Darby Creek to identify whether heavy metals are present in biota. Anal-
yses should also be done for all bio accumulative pollutants found at Fol-
croft Landfill. If on-site samples taken at Folcroft Landfill indicate
elevated pollutant levels, tissue analyses of terrestrial organisms should
also be considered.
IV-33
-------
V. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
V. A.. Contaminants of Concern
The preceeding chapter identified numerous contaminants present in the
Tinicum area. Heavy metals such as lead, zinc, cadmium, mercury, and cop-
per are present in water, sediment, and biota. Aromatic hydrocarbons
including benzene, phenanthrene, and chrysene were found in sediments and
drum samples. Darby Creek sediments contained varying levels of all prio-
rity pollutant metals. PCBs detected in Darby Creek sediments were also
present in biota. Chlordane was found in Darby Creek sediments and fish
tissue. Table 19 summarizes the results of the contaminant sampling by
environmental medium in the area around Folcroft Landfill.
A serious limitation of the historical data base is the general ab-
sence of analyses for organic compounds in environmental samples; the
majority of analyses were conducted for heavy metals. Because of this
sampling limitation, there are no data which would help define the source
of organochlorine pesticide levels detected in biota or PAH's detected in
Darby Creek sediments. Data are also lacking to define the extent of
contamination in the watershed, in the soils on Folcroft Landfill, in the
groundwater, and in the food chain. Because of these data limitations, the
remainder of this report will focus on those contaminants which had a
significant data base in all media. Further discussion is also limited to
those contaminants present at levels which would be expected to adversely
impact natural resources. These compounds are silver, cadmium, chromium,
copper, mercury, lead, nickel, zinc, cyanide, PCBs, and chlordane.
V. B. Fate and Transport
V.B.I. General Processes
Metals in the aquatic environment exist as soluble ions, organic
complexes, coprecipitates, or adsorbed to sediment hydroxide particulates.
Metal equilibria among these phases are influenced by pH, DO, suspended
solids, and concentration among other factors. Existing data are inadequate
to predict predominant metal species in the water column or sediments.
Future monitoring should focus on defining the equilibria of these metals
in Tinicum Marsh.
Limited data are available on heavy metal fluxes in tidal freshwater
marshes. Studies in Woodbury Creek Marsh (a Delaware River tidal fresh-
water wetland in New Jersey) indicate that cadmium is exported from the
marsh through tidal fluxes, while nickel, copper, zinc, and lead are impor-
ted and retained in the marsh ecosystem. Metal uptake by vegetation was
most notable during the growing season. Following dieback of macrophytic
species, levels of heavy metals increase substantially in litter (Simpson
et al., 1983) and may represent a short term sink for heavy metals fol-
lowing the growing season.
In soils, metals may be present bound to clays, as metal oxides
V-l
-------
u
to
Q
c
•H
d
— i
— i
•H
13
cfl
U —
U-l
O
O
O
4J
cfl
•H
U
s
•o •
CD cu
— H i— 4 CU
°- -° r-t
§ * o.
Cfl rH P -
CD -H S
CO a)
•H cfl 3:>
T3 CU ^
2 ed1 ^
Ji cfl ^ .
^ j ^J
CU cfl
-a T3
tO O Til
4J d -*U
d -
cd u
d CO
•H X!
S 4J
Cfl
d cu
0 -H
O 'M
•H
i [ i g
O &0
Table 19. Maximum concentratioi
Creek.. An asterisk i
nidd
qsTJ 3TOq,
mdd
uidd
qdd
qdd
uidd
• p3g .13 XqjBQ
qdd
BipEai "["[fjpuBT
aiBtpeai xauuy
uidd
auiipag •QtjpuE'i
qdd
uidd
1-1
•H
o
co
X Q
CU O
Contaminant g
<
************* ooco— ir^r^in^-co *******
• OO^'-HO * in
o o o o o o
************* co cNcsiin *******************
~-< O CO O O
CN O CN
LiO c^j c*sj ^^ ^H -^
^, CM — i — i
**o***, 3 cucNoeodd-HpQ Uj-Si-»%y2
T-( Q 3 *._j LI LI i—l - i LI -rt ^ O *rt Q 1 Ui 1 JS y CO Cu d Cy \^ to JC
fl 3 «rH g CU 3 CU d ^ "^ CN CN LI d CO ^J CO CX cO^COtOdOl-l^j
tu-r-isoo.d-ao-^cu>od— <— 'oi d^-ix: tfl'u'§uS2id'S"S.
Lj (0 nj ,.^ o ^J ^ ^ **H ^ *M **H ^^ ^^ CJ -^ *^H Vj *iH ^H r^ C^ C3 O il) ^^ ^^ *^ -t* Q ^
^ri PQ CjS CJ CJ H~^ i 3j 23 CO dO C^ tj C^ &^ C_3 ^j E-^ C^ ^C ^^ C5 C3 ^-^ HJ ^* ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ **^
-------
or sulfates, or in a soluble form. In general, complexation with organic
compounds increases the solubility of metals in soil as does reduced pH.
Flooding and anaerobic decomposition in the tidal marsh would be expected
to increase the complexation and leaching rate from marsh soils.
The distribution of PCBs in the environment is affected by adsor-
ption, volatilization, and bioaccumulation. Sorption to suspended bed
sediments is the dominant fate in natural waters because of PCBs low
solubility. The degree of adsorption increases with increasing chlorin-
ation of the molecule, and with the organic content of the adsorbent (US
EPA, 1979). PCBs in the heavier Aroclor series (such as PCB1260 detected
in Tinicum) are essentially non-biodegradable.
Chlordane fate in the environment is affected by volatilization,
sorption to sediments, and bioaccumulation. There is little known about
biotransformation of chlordane (US EPA, 1979).
V. B. 2. Specific Transport Processes
Contaminant transport in the Tinicum Marsh was studied to determine
whether substances are being transported from upstream sources to the
Center, transported from Folcroft Landfill to adjacent tidal marshes and
creeks, or transported out of the Center by tidal flushing.
V.B.2.a. Soil and Groundwater
Site specific data are not available to model groundwater transport
arid soil runoff. In addition, hydrologic and geologic data are unavail-
able to calibrate or verify models. Groundwater in the upper aquifer
is expected to discharge directly into the tidal marsh, Darby/Thorough-
fare Creeks, and Hertnesprota Creek. In the absence of localized flow
data, quantitative estimates of groundwater discharge could not be deter-
mined .
Site specific soil data are also lacking. Areas which have been
poorly vegetated on Folcroft Landfill would be expected to be highly
erodible. Portions of the landfill which directly abut the creeks and
marsh are expected to be readily eroded by tidal action. Thus any contam-
inants sorbed onto the eroding soil will enter the aquatic system.
Future monitoring should identify whether soil runoff and groundwater
transport to the marsh represent significant pathways for contaminant
transport.
V.B.Z.b. Water and Sediments
, Although site specific data are generally not available for a num-
ber of hydrologic and water quality parameters, transport of surface
water and sediments into and out of Tinicum Marsh was estimated using
V-3
-------
the best available information. Data were evaluated to determine the flow
characteristics of Darby and Cobbs Creek, the flushing time of Darby Creek,
the settling and resuspension rates of adsorbed materials and the desorp-
tion rate of organic contaminants.
V.B.2.b.l. Flow characteristics of Darby and Cobbs Creeks
The stream gradients on Darby and Cobbs Creeks were examined to predict
which stream segments are experiencing scour or settling of sediments.
This determination depends primarily on stream velocity and particle size
of sediments. Figure 18 illustrates this relationship. Stream velocity
is a function of stream gradient, cross-sectional area and a coefficient
representing the roughness of the stream channel. In general, increases
in stream gradient results in increased velocities when other factors are
constant. Because cross-sectional areas and roughness coefficients are
not available for the various stream segments on Darby and Cobbs Creeks,
predicting actual velocities is not possible. However, stream gradients
have been analyzed to identify areas where increases or decreases in stream
velocity might be expected.
The gradients for both streams are illustrated in Figure 19 as they
relate to distance upstream from the mouth of Darby Creek. Darby Creek
experiences its highest stream gradients through the 4 mile stream reach
which begins approximately 8 miles from the mouth. The gradient exceeds
0.003 ft/ft throughout this reach and exceeds 0.01 ft/ft in three stream
segments.
On Cobbs Creek, the stream gradient begins to fluctuate significantly
beginning 12 miles from the mouth of Darby Creek. The gradient through
the 4 mile reach upstream of this point exceeds 0.003 ft/ft throughout,
exceeds 0.013 ft/ft in two segments, and exceeds 0.026 ft/ft in three
segments.
Figure 18. Relationship between stream velocity, particle size, and the
regimes of sediment erosion, transport, and deposition.
WOO
181*
otio
5 SSS '""""« 888 I
CLAY SILT SAND
PARTICLE DIAMETER, mm
V-4
-------
LU
a
_
CD
CE
^£
a
UJ
UJ
cr
0
en
m
m
o
CJ
\
i -
1
p
u_
\
1, 1 1 1 f 1 I 1 t 1 I 1 1 1 1
^
to o
CE
U_
4
STANCE
I-H
O
cu
r-»
oo
(O
LU
UJ
CM g
" 5
m
cc
LL
o
CD
Z)
o
LUOOOO
I-H
a
<
cr
CD
o o o o
• • • •
OOOO
o o o o
* • • •
OOOO
-------
LU
LU
CE
CJ
CD
CE
LU
CE
O
cn
£
O
CJ
cn
CE
o
_i
<
ID
CC
CO
GC
O
i * 11:: s r:¥:^w
CD
.-.•.•.•:::.'...-.~j
cn
LU
_J
CO
LU
H LU
Q LU
< GC
GC CJ
CD
CO
DO
CD
LU O
GC CJ
CO
LU
LU
GC
CJ
•»-!
CD
LU
O
CD
EC
U_
O
O
LU
CJ
CD
GC
cn
n
a
CM
u_
i-
u_
LU
O
O
O
o
•
o
O
•
O
o
•
o
o
•
o
o
o
o
•
o
o
o
o
•
o
CE
CD
-------
The increased stream gradients through each of these reaches on Darby
and Cobbs Creeks may result in velocities high enough to cause the scouring
of stream sediments. Because stream gradients remain relatively low below
each of these reaches, decreased velocities could be expected and sediment
being carried by the stream would begin to settle.
The stream gradient was also examined on Naylors Run, a tributary to
Cobbs Creek. The relationship between the gradient on this stream and
Cobbs and Darby Creeks is illustrated in Figure 20. Stream gradients in
Naylors Run range from a low of 0.00267 ft/ft to a high of 0.08 ft/ft.
Scouring of sediments from this tributary could be expected in high gra-
dient reaches.
Sediment scoured from the higher gradient reach on Darby Creek would
have to be transported approximately 2 miles before reaching the section
of stream influenced by tidal action. On Cobbs Creek, the higher gradient
reach is approximately 6 miles above this point. Sediments scoured from
Naylors Run would enter Cobbs Creek and have to travel approximately 3.7
miles before reaching tidal waters.
The section on Darby Creek influenced by tidal action begins at the
mouth and extends upstream for approximately 6 miles. This tidal inf-
luence, along with the low stream gradient through this section (0.00027
ft/ft), results in low stream velocities. Sediment suspended in the water
column would be expected to settle out or remain in suspension through
this stream section depending on particle size. The stream velocity due
solely to tidal action can be estimated as follows:
V Q
Q = and U =
T A
where
Q = discharge, m3/s
V = intertidal volume, m3
T = time of one-half of tidal cycle, s
U = stream velocity, m/s
A = cross-sectional area of channel, m2
At the mouth of Darby Creek, the tidal velocity equals:
452,854 m3
Q = = 20 m3/s
22,320 s
20 m3/s
U =
90 m2 = 0.22 m/s = 22 cm/s
V-7
-------
According to Figure 18, sediment particles <0.05 mm in diameter would be
transported at this velocity; particles between 0.05 and 1.0 mm would be
eroded; particles between 1.0 and 3.0 mm would be transported; and par-
ticles >3.0 mm would be deposited.
If the cross-sectional area of Darby Creek remained the same, the
tidal velocity approximately three miles from the mouth would be:
68,179 m3
q = = 3 m3/s
22,320 s
3 m3/s
U = = 0.03 m/s = 3 cm/s
90 m2
At this velocity, sediment particles <0.4 mm would be transported while
those >0.4 mm would be deposited.
As mentioned earlier in this discussion, the stream gradient, the
cross-sectional area and the roughness of the channel all are equally
important in determining stream velocity. This analysis of potential
scouring or settling of sediments in various stream reaches can only be
used as a guide for future data collection. Cross-sectional areas and
roughness coefficients must be determined for individual stream reaches
to determine actual stream velocities. In addition, analysis of sediment
particle size is necessary to predict if that particle will be subject to
scouring or settling at a given stream velocity. Future studies should
include an analysis of particle size, stream gradient, and stream cross-
section so that these estimates can be refined.
V.B.2.b.2. Flushing Time on Darby Creek
Flushing time is a measure of the time required to transport a
conservative pollutant from some specified location within the estuary
(usually, but not always, the head) to the mouth of the estuary. The
Modified Tidal Prism Method (US EPA, 1985) was used to describe the
flushing time on Darby Creek. This method divides an estuary into segments
whose lengths are defined by the maximum excursion path of a water particle
during a tidal cycle. Within each segment, the tidal prism is compared
to the total segment volume as a measure of the flushing potential of
that segment per tidal cycle.
To calculate the tidal prism (or intertidal volume), a straight-line
relationship was assumed between the cross-section of the stream at the
mouth of Darby Creek and the cross-section at the upstream limit of the
tidal influence. The intertidal width ranges from 40 feet (12m) at the
upstream limit to 250 feet (75m) at the mouth of Darby Creek. The inter-
tidal depth ranges from 0 at the upstream limit to 5.8 feet (1.74 m) at
the mouth. The intertidal volume was calculated every 100 meters.
These volumes along with the cumulative intertidal volume are presented in
Appendix Table F.
V-8
-------
The subtidal volume was also calculated on Darby Creek. A straight-
line relationship was again used assuming a parabolic channel with a top
width of 40 feet (12 m) and depth of 3 feet (0.9 m) at the upstream limit
and a top width of 250 feet (75 m) and depth of 6 feet (1.8 m) at the
mouth. The subtidal volumes were calculated every 100 meters. These
volumes along with the cumulative subtidal volume are also presented in
Appendix Table F.
To use the tidal prism method, the estuary must be segmented starting
at the upstream limit so that each segment length reflects the excursion
distance a particle can travel during one tidal cycle. The first segment
must then have an intertidal volume completely supplied by stream flow.
Since the average annual discharge of Darby Creek is 101 cfs (3 m3/s) , the
discharge over one tidal cycle (R) equals the following:
R = 3 m3/s x 12.4 hrs/tidal cycle x 3600 s/hr
= 133,920 m3
The cumulative intertidal volume (II) corresponding to this discharge
volume occurs at a distance of 6169 meters from the upstream limit. The
cumulative subtidal volume (SI) occurring at this same distance is 165,085
nr>. Hence, the total volume of this segment (VI) equals:
VI = II + SI = 133,920 m3 + 165,085 m3 = 299,005 m3
The downstream boundary of the next seaward segment is located at the
distance where the subtidal volume of that segment equals the combined
subtidal and intertidal volumes of the previous segment. Because the date
is presented as cumulative volumes, the volume at any given distance
represents the volume from the upstream limit to that distance. To find
the volume for a particular stream segment, the volume at the upstream
boundary of that segment must be subtracted from the downstream volume.
Hence:
S2 = S2d - S2u
where
S2 = subtidal volume of segment 2
S2d = subtidal volume at downstream limit of segment
S2u = subtidal volume at upstream limit.
Since the subtidal volume of the upstream boundary of segment 2 (S2u)
is the same as the subtidal volume of segment 1:
S2u = SI .
Therefore,
S2d - S2u = II + SI S2d = II + SI + S2u
V-9
-------
= VI + SI = 299,005 m3 + 165,085 m3
= 453,090 m3
This volume exceeds the cumulative subtidal volume of Darby Creek at the
mouth. Therefore, under normal flow conditions, the estuary has only one
segment.
The flushing time (T) for that segment is calculated by:
SI + II VI
II II
299,005 m3
Tl =
133,920 m3
= 2.2 tidal cycles .
Flushing time for an estuary varies over the course of a year as the
river discharge varies. Since low flushing rates correspond with low
stream discharge, the flushing time was also calculated for low flow
conditions on Darby Creek when stream discharge is 20 cfs (0.6 m3/s).
Under these conditions, the estuary can be divided into three segments with
boundaries approximately as shown in Figure 33. An estimated three tidal
cycles or 1.5 days are required for stream flow entering the estuary to
pass through the first segment. Flow through the second segment requires
1.79 tidal cycles or 22 hours and flow through the third segment requires
1.56 tidal cycles or 19 hours. The total flushing time for the Darby Creek
estuary under low flow conditions is 6.29 tidal cycles or 3.25 days. Table
20 summarizes the segment information.
Table 20. Estimated flushing times on Darby Creek during low flow
conditions.
Segment
1
2
3
Downstream
Segment
Boundary
(m)
3363
5505
8505
Intertidal
Volume
(m3)
55,288
82,072
185,381
Subtidal
Volume
(m3)
26,784
103,309
333,926
Segment
Flushing
Time
(tidal cycles)
2.94
1.79
1.56
V.B.2.b.3. Settling and Resuspension of Adsorbed Metals
Resuspension and deposition of contaminated sediments redistributes
adsorbed contaminants to and from the bed. According to EPA's Water
Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional
V-10
-------
Figure 21
FLUSHING TIME SEGMENTS
ON DARBY CREEK
FOR LOW FLOW CONDfTIONS
V-ll
-------
Pollutants In Surface and Ground Water (Rev. 1985), the rate of resus-
pension and the rate of settling can be predicted as follows:
uHl(SSd - SSu)
Wrs =
mx(106)
and
-Hlu SSu
Ws = ln[ ]
x SSd
where
Wrs = resuspension velocity, m/day
Ws = settling velocity, m/day
u = stream velocity, m/day
HI = water depth, m
SSd = suspended solids concentration at downstream
boundary, mg/1
SSu = suspended solids concentration at upstream
boundary, mg/1
m = solids concentration in bed, kg/1
x = distance downstream, m
While heavy metal concentrations have been measured in both the
sediments and the water column on Darby and Cobbs Creeks, prediction of
transport of contaminated sediments through resuspension and deposition
has been impossible due primarily to lack of suspended solids data and
cross-sectional areas of the stream channel. Future data collection
efforts should first center on estimating stream velocities. This infor-
mation can then be used to predict which stream segments may be exper-
iencing resuspension and which are experiencing deposition. After this
prediction is made, suspended solids concentrations need to be measured
at the boundaries of each of these segments.
V.B.2.b.4. Desorption of Organic Toxicants from Darby Creek Bed
Sediment samples were collected from Darby and Cobbs Creeks and
analyzed for organic toxicants. Ten samples were taken in the vicinity
of the Clearview Landfill and four were taken at the Folcroft Landfill.
Only the samples taken at Clearview Landfill yielded results adequate
for further modeling. These samples were used to estimate the concen-
tration of organic toxicants in the water column through the process of
desorption. The following equation (US EPA, 1985) was used to calculate
the average water column concentrations:
CsO
Cwc =
KpD
where
Cwc = average water column concentrations (ppm)
V-12
-------
Cs = concentration of pollutant in bed (ppm)
0 = equivalent depth of water in sediment (mm)
Kp = partition coefficient
D = depth of contaminated sediment (mm).
Because the depth of contaminated sediment (D) and the equivalent
depth of water in the sediment (0) were unknown, these quantities were
estimated using Table I which is provided in the screening procedure.
The percent solids by weight for the samples ranged from 59% to
100% with an average value of 84%. Using the value of 80% on Table
21, the ratio of the equivalent depth of water (0) in the sediment to
the depth of contaminated sediments (D) is constant at 0.27. Therefore,
the equation to calculate concentrations of the organic toxicants in the
water column can be simplified to:
Cs
Cwc = x 0.27.
Kp
The partition coefficient (Kp) can be calculated using the following
equation:
Kp = Koc[0.2(l-f)Xsoc + fXfoc]
where
Koc = partition coefficient expressed on an organic carbon basis
f = mass fraction of fine sediments
Xsoc= organic, carbon content of coarse sediment fraction
X^oc= organic carbon content of fine sediment fraction
The value of Koc can be related to the octanol-water partition coef-
ficient (Kow) by the following relationship:
Koc = 0.63Kow
In the absence of detailed information on sediment grain size and organic
carbon content, the screening procedure provides the following equations
for calculating typical and maximum values for the partition coefficient:
Typical value for Kp = O.OlKow
Maximum value for Kp = 0.065Kow
The concentration of desorbed organic toxicants in the water was cal-
culated using both the typical and maximum values for the partition
coefficients. In addition, concentrations were calculated using both
the mean and maximum concentration detected at the ten sample sites.
Table 22 summarizes the results.
The effective removal velocity through desorption is estimated as
follows:
V-13
-------
Table 21. Mass of Contaminated Sediments and Equivalent Water Depth as
a Function of Depth of Contamination.
Depth
(mm)
1
5
10
20
50
100
Percent Solids by Weight
20
50
80
20
50
80
20
50
80
20
50
80
20
50
80
20
50
80
Ms
(g/cm2)
0.02
0.06
0. 11
0.11
0.30
0.55
0.23
0.60
1.10
0.45
1.20
2.20
1.10
3.00
5.50
2.30
6.00
11.00
0
(mm)
0.9
0.6
0.3
4.5
3.0
1.4
9.1
6.0
2.7
18.0
12.0
5.5
45.0
30.0
14.0
91.0
60.0
27.0
uo
Ue =
MsKp
where
Ue = effective removal velocity (cm/sec)
U = stream velocity (cm/sec)
0 = equivalent depth of water in sediment (cm)
Ms = mass of contaminated sediment per unit of stream bed
(g/cm2)
Kp = partition coefficient.
The stream velocity for the contaminated stream segment flowing by
the Clearview Landfill was estimated assuming a parabolic channel with a
top width of 40 feet and a depth of 3 feet. The stream gradient
through this area is estimated to be 0.00027 ft/ft. Using Manning's
equation with a roughness coefficient of 0.025, the stream velocity is
calculated to be 1.5 ft/sec (45 cm/sec).
Using Table 21 for 80% solids by weight, the ratio of the equivalent
depth of water in the sediment (0) to the mass of contaminated sediment per
unit area of river bed (Ms) is a constant value of 0.25. This simplifies
the effective removal velocity to:
U
Ue = x 0.25 .
Kp
V-14
-------
The time required to desorb the toxicant is-
where
T =
Ue
T = time required (sec)
L = length of contaminated stream segment (cm).
The length of the contaminated stream segment flowing by the Clear-
view Landfill is approximately 1400 feet (42000 cm). Table 22 presents
the time required for desorption of the organic toxicants detected. These
desorption times do not reflect the influence of other transformation pro-
cesses such as microbial degredation on the contaminated sediments.
Table 22. Water column concentrations and required desorption times for
organic toxicants In Naylors Run.
Parameter
Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Phenant hrene
Pyr ene
Benzo(a) anthracene
PCB1260
PCB1242
Chlordane
Benzo( a)pyrene
Kp Cs 1
Typclal Mean
and Co nc .
Maximum (cpm)
3400 1.36
22100
4000 1.02
26000
290 1.29
1885
2000 1.77
13000
4000 1.03
26000
10000 0.14
65000
2000 0.77
13000
6 0. 21
39
10000 1.10
65000
Cs2 Cwc
Mean WC Cone
Cone . Using Cs 1
(ppm) (ppm)
2.80 1.08xlO"4
1.66x10-5
1.30 6.89xlO~5
1.06x10-5
1.70 1.20xlO-3
1.85xlO~4
3.40 2.39xlO~4
3.68x10-5
1.40 6.95xlO"5
1.07x10-5
0.23 3.78xlO"6
5.82xlO"7
1.57 1. 04x10-*
1.60x10-5
0.96 9.45xlO-3
1.45x10-3
1.10 2.97x10-5
4.57xlO"6
Cwc
HC Cone Desorption
Using Cs2 Time
(ppm) (day8)
2.22xlO-3
3.42x10-5
1.89xlO"4
2. 91x10-5
2.61xlO"3
4.01xlO~4
3.78xlO~4
5.82x10-5
1.89xlO"4
2.91x10-5
7.56x10-5
1. 16x10-5
3.78xlO~4
5.82x10-5
1.26X10"1
1.94xlO-2
7.56x10-5
1. 16x10-5
147
955
173
1123
13
81
86
562
173
1123
432
2809
86
562
0
2
432
2809
In addition to the sediment samples analyzed at the Clearview and
Folcroft Landfills, the sediments in the headwaters of Naylors Run were
analyzed for a number of organic toxicants. Several polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons present in the samples taken near the Clearview Landfill
were also present in the Naylors Run sediments. While the relative
V-15
-------
Table 23. Relative proportion of organic toxicants in Darby Creek and
Naylors Run sediments.
Compound
Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzo- a- anthracene
Benzo-a-pyrene
Darby
Average
Cone.
(ppm)
1.36
1.02
1.29
1.77
1.03
1.10
Creek
Relative
Proportion
U)
18
13
17
23
14
15
Naylors Run
Average Relative
Cone. Proportion
(ppm) (%)
9.80 27
4.51 12
8.83 24
5.46 15
4.37 12
3.53 10
Totals
•7757
100
36.50 100
proportion of these compounds in the sediments does not remain constant
(Table 23), the variation can be explained by differences in water solu-
bility. The two compounds which decrease in relative proportion in Darby
Creek are fluoranthene and phenanthrene. These are both three-ringed
PAH's which are more water soluble than the other four- and five-ringed
compounds. These data therefore support the hypothesis that contaminated
sediments from Naylors Run are being transported in Darby Creek.
The water column concentration resulting from desorption of toxic
organics in the sediments on Naylors Run can be calculated using the same
procedure outlined for Darby Creek. These concentrations along with the
time required to desorb these toxicants from the sediments are presented
in Table 24.
Table 24. Water column concentrations and required desorption times for
organic toxicants in Naylors Run.
Parameter
Fluoranthene
Chrysene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
•
Benzo(a)pyrene
Kp Cs 1
Typcial Mean
and Cone.
Maximum (ppm)
9.80
Cs2
Mean
Cone .
3400
22100
4000
26000
290
1885
2000
13000
4000
26000
10000
65000
4.51
8.83
5.46
4.37
3.53
37.00
15.00
Cwc
WC Cone
Using Cs 1
( ppm)
7.78xlO~4
1.20xlO~4
6.62xlO~4
1.02xlO~4
36.00 9.12x10-3
1.40x10-3
16.00 1.32x10-3
2.04xlO~4
14.00 6.62xlO~4
1.02xlO~4
12.00 2.65xlO-4
4.07xlO~5
Cwc
WC Cone Desorption
Using Cs2 Time
(ppm) (days)
2.94xlO-3
4.52xlO~4
2.50x10-3
3.84xlO~4
3.44x10-2
5.30x10-3
5.00x10-3
7.68xlO~4
2.50x10-3
3.84xlO~4
9.99xlO~4
1.54xlO~4
147
955
173
1123
13
81
86
562
173
1123
432
2809
V-16
-------
V.B.2.b.5. Source Identification
The apparent increases in pollutant concentrations with distance
downstream in Darby Creek and the observed elevated levels of metals in
the Folcroft area can be explained by a number of hypotheses:
1. Important pollutant loads exist just above the downstream sampling
Location at the Route 291 Bridge on Darby Creek.
2. The samples reflect pollutant concentrations in the Delaware River
waters which enter the Creek through tidal action.
3, Pollutants are resuspended or desorbed from contaminated downstream
sediments.
4. Contaminated upstream sediments are scoured and transported downstream
during ebb tide.
5. The effect is an artifact of sampling error.
The existence of high pollutant loads in the lower part of Darby
Creek is suggested by the locations of the highest observed pollutant
concentrations. Pollutant concentrations at the mouth of Darby Creek
should reflect loadings from all sources upstream because samples were
taken at low slack tide. Concentrations just downstream of Folcroft Land-
fill were greater than concentrations in the sample at the Route 291
bridge, suggesting that particulate settling or dilution is occurring
between these stations. The high concentrations from Folcroft might have
been diluted at the mouth of Darby Creek by tidal mixing from the Dela-
ware River. Alternatively, high metal concentrations in the water column
could be a result of metal-carbonate equilibrium resulting from the high
alkalinity discharge from the landfill.
The observation that concentrations were greater just downstream of
Folcroft Landfill than at the mouth of Darby Creek suggests that the
Delaware was not the source of higher pollutant concentrations in the
marsh. The proportion of Delaware River water at the Route 291 bridge
is greater than that at Folcroft Landfill at the same tide stage. A
positive correlation between contaminant levels and stream flow at low
slack water flow also Indicates that the Delaware was not the source of
pollutants measured in Darby Creek near Folcroft Landfill.
To test the effect of tidal inflow from the Delaware, means of
water quality constituents at the Route 291 bridge sampling station were
compared with means measured in the Delaware River at Eddystone by the
Student's t-test (Table 25). Of the 13 parameters compared, ammonia,
nitrite, chromium, lead, and zinc were significantly more concentrated
in the Delaware. Dissolved oxygen and nitrate concentrations were grea-
ter in Darby Creek. These results suggest that tidal inflow of Delaware
River water may degrade the water quality of Darby Creek, but would also
considerably dilute contaminants from upstream sources. The pollutant
concentrations at Folcroft Landfill are probably not influenced by the
Delaware.
V-17
-------
The possibility that pollutants in Darby Creek just downstream of
Folcroft Landfill were desorbed from sediments in this area is also
unlikely because the system flushing times are short relative to diffusion
times. Resuspension of sediments is also unlikely because ebb tide
velocities are estimated to be too low to resuspend sands, silts, and
clays.
Scouring of upstream sediments during ebb tide transport is a possi-
bility that cannot be ruled out by the existing data. If scoured sed-
iments were transported as far as the Tinicum area during each ebb tide,
then high water column concentrations could occur even though upstream
water column concentrations are low at slack tide. Upstream velocities
are low and the resuspended material would be transported downstream
during the ebb flow. If this scenario were occurring, the contaminated
sediments would be located in the tidal portion of the creek which extends
just above Route 84, downstream of Clearview Landfill.
None of these hypotheses can be accepted or rejected without addi-
tional monitoring designed to test each hypothesis. However, hypotheses
1 and 4 seem most probable. The elevated levels of heavy metals in
leachate taken from Folcroft Landfill support the theory that the land-
fill is an important source above the most downstream station. Discrete
samples collected throughout the ebb tide cycle under several flow cond-
itions should provide data sufficient to determine what conditions are
responsible for the observed increase in water column concentrations
with distance downstream at low slack tide.
Table 25. Comparison of mean pollutant concentrations in Darby Creek and
Delaware River. An asterisk indicates the difference between means is
significant at the 95% confidence level based on the Student's t-test.
Conductivity is in umohs; DO, BOD, ammonia, nitrate, and nitrite are in
mg/1; pH is in standard units; and all other analytes are in ug/1.
Cond.
DO
BOD
pH
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
As
Cd
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Zn
Se
Darby Creek
Mean
352.0
6.771
2.95
6.856
0.742
0.979
1.819
107.8
0.375
15.22
27.75
986.8
17.45
39.59
126.5
2.313
N
53
21
52
53
53
53
53
53
16
23
35
53
36
43
37
51
S. Dev.
167.3
2.637
2.396
0.312
0.571
0.104
0.665
282
0.377
8.979
17.92
658
37.0
19.36
311.4
2.533
Delaware River
34.45
27.05
929.1
62.38
81.80
2.177
27
23
427
26
134
11
34.68
38.83
700.2
59.02
45.28
1.168
Calc. T
Mean
369.8
4.548
3.647
7.041
1.017
0.155
1.378
<30
N
386
477
359
461
445
469
456
S.Dev.
317.5
2.871
1.949
9.191
0.678
0.156
0.665
0.6342
3.7656*
2.0054
0.4291
3.2341*
3.5689*
4.5652*
2.7740*
0.0813
0.5972
3.4247*
8.6127*
0.2728
V-18
-------
V.B.2.c. Food Chain
Transfer of contaminants into the food chain at Tinic.um represents
another potential fate of the contaminants. The bioconcentration factor
(BCF) is commonly used as an indicator of the degree to which a contam-
inant will mobilize into the food chain. BCF's are primarily available
for fish, shellfish, and benthic invertebrates. BCF's for aquatic macro-
phytes and other organisms are seldom availble. The following section
discusses the potential for the contaminants to mobilize in the food
chain and the observed contaminant concentration in biota.
Aquatic organisms accumulate cadmium to a significant level above
ambient conditions (Menzie, 1979). Reported BCF's range from 320 in clad-
ocerans to 6100 in mosquitofish. Other reported BCF's include 603 I/kg
in Lemna sp. and 960 I/kg in Salvinia natans (US EPA, 1980). Algae,
mosses, lichens, and higher plants are also known to bioconcentrate
cadmium (US FWS, 1986). Cadmium was not detected in snapping turtle
liver samples.
The BCF for Chromium(VI) in rainbow trout is about 1 (US EPA, 1980).
Some fish, however are able to bioconcentrate chromium up to 100 times
ambient water concentrations. Upon entering uncontaminated water, fish
rapidly eliminate chromium; therefore intermittent exposure would not be
expected to result in significant chromium accumulation (Phillips, 1978).
BCF's for copper in algae range form 12-3240 I/kg. In fish BCF's
range from 0 in bluegills to 290 for fathead minnows. Copper is also
known to accumulate in aquatic insects (Phillips, 1978). Copper levels
observed in Tinicum biota ranged from 1.4 to 3.0 ppm in snapping turtle
liver.
Lead uptake from sediments by macrophytes and crayfish has been obs-
erved (Knowlton, 1983). Potamogeton foliosus and Nagas guadalopensi s
accumulate lead in root tissue and foliage; however senescent vegetation
accumulates more lead than live plants. Crayfish exposed to contaminated
sediments accumulate lead principally through adsorption to the exo-
skeleton. BCF's in other freshwater species include 45 for bluegills,
42 for brook trout, 1700 in snails (Lymnea palustris) and 1120 in stone-
fly (Pteronarcys dorsata) (US EPA, 1980). At Tinicum, lead levels in
snapping turtle livers ranged up to 0.19 ppm.
BCF's for mercury have been reported at 12,000 in brook trout and
63,000 in fathead minnow. Tinicum snapping turtle livers showed mercury
levels ranging from 0.04 -0.1 ppm.
BCF's for silver range from <1 in bluegills to 240 in mayfly (US
EPA, 1980). At least one algal species and freshwater mussel are known
to bioconcentrate silver, but biomagnification is apparently not signif-
icant. There are no data to indicate whether silver is present in the
Tinicum food chain.
V-19
-------
Zinc BCF's range from 51 in Atlantic salmon to 1130 I/kg in mayfly.
Food chain transfer appears to be a major source of zinc accumulation in
higher trophic levels. Periphyton and benthic invertebrates appear to
be the most active accumulators. Zinc levels in Tinicum snapping turtle
livers ranged from 30-35 ppm.
Hydrogen cyanide is either rapidly metabolized or causes death and
is therefore not likely to bioaccumulate. However, metal cyanides are
known to accumulate in fish tissues (US EPA, 1979). There are no data
to indicate whether metal cyanides are accumulating in Tinicum biota.
Chlordane BCF's have been reported as high as 8001/kg in fathead
minnows. Total chlordane was found in whole fish collected in Darby
Creek at levels up to 0.68 ppm.
Reported BCF's for PCB's in fish range from 3,000 to 274,000 (US
EPA, 1980). PCB's also biomagnify in the food chain. PCB1260 has been
detected in whole fish and turtle fat samples collected at Tinicum at
levels of 1.8 and 23 ppm, respectively.
V.B. 3. Summary of Fate and Transport Evaluation
Flow characteristics, flushing times, settling rates and desorption
times in Darby Creek were evaluated to determine the potential transport
of contaminants to Tinicum Marsh. Increased stream gradients on Darby
Creek between river miles 4-8 and on Cobbs Creek between river miles 8
- 12 are great enough to cause sediment scouring. On Darby Creek between
river miles 0-4, settling of sediments is expected based on stream
gradient analysis. In this area, tidal velocities would be expected to
transport sediment particles less than 0.4 mm in size. The flushing
time from Darby Creek between the mouth of the Delwaware River and river
mile 6.15 (just upstream of Clearview landfill) is estimated to be 2.2
tidal cycles under normal flow conditions or 6.5 tidal cycles under low
flow conditions.
The settling and resuspension rate of metals sorbed to particulates
could not be determined from exisiting information. Desorption times
for organic contaminants in Darby Creek range from 2 days for chlordane
to 7.7 years for PCB1260. Similar desorption times for organic contami-
nants from Naylors Run were predicted. A comparison of PAH levels in
Darby Creek and Naylors Run suggests that contaminated sediments from
Naylors Run may be reaching the marsh.
In general, data are inadequate to conclusively identify the rela-
tive pollutant source loads to the Tinicum Marsh. The data suggest,
however, that important pollutant loads exist just above the Route 291
Bridge on Darby Creek. The most likely significant sources of contamin-
ation are Folcroft Landfill and Clearview Landfill. The Delaware River
may be contributing to degraded water quality in Darby Creek, as evidenced
by ammonia, nitrite, chromium, lead, and zinc levels. Future studies
V-20
-------
should focus on source identification through targeted sampling on-site,
in surface water, and in sediments. These data should be evaluated and
compared to non-point source estimates of pollutants to the Darby Creek
watershed.
Bioconcentration rates for the contaminants vary widely. Contaminant
transfer to fish is likely for cadmium, copper, mercury, chlordane, and
PCB's. Bioconcentration rates for flora and other biota indicate that
mobilization of cadmium, lead, and zinc into the food chain requires inves-
tigation.
V. C. Effects
The potential effects of Folcroft Landfill, Folcroft Landfill annex,
and other pollutant sources on natural resources include physical pertur-
bations, acute toxicity, and chronic toxicity. The following sections
discuss the observed changes in the structure of the marsh habitat, and
the predicted toxicological impacts to aquatic life and wildlife.
V.C.I. Observed Effects
No studies have been done to specifically identify effects of Fol-
croft Landfill on biota at Tinicum. The following discussion is based
on studies undertaken for other purposes. Observed effects of Folcroft
Landfill and non-source specific contaminants in the watershed include
change in vegetative and habitat structure, decreased benthic populations,
fish disease, and bioaccumulation of contaminants in the food chain.
The most visible and documentable impact of Folcroft landfill is the
loss of 46 acres of valuable, productive tidal marsh. In 1968, the Folcroft
Landfill occupied only 34 acres, but McCormick (1970) found that changes
in the marsh adjacent to the landfill were already evident.
In the tidal marsh, cattail stands were most extensive
in areas that had once been fertilized. In the Borough of
Folcroft extensive stands of cattail have existed at least
since 1945. One large cattail area fringed the fallow, now
built-up farmland along Maple Avenue. This land was formerly
cultivated and must have received regular applications of
fertilizer. A contiguous cattail stand, extending westward
from the Folcroft landfill, had developed on most of its
1968 area during the preceeding years. That earlier stand
was associated with drainage from agricultural lands along
Hermesprota Creek. The cattail migrated westward as it was
covered by the landfill, and apparently it now receives
considerable organic enrichment (McCormick, 1970, p. 44).
The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (1976) has noted
that wild rice had diminished noticeabley in the 8 years since McCormick's
V-21
-------
field work. The Commission suggested that poor effLuent quality from
three local sewage treatment plants and leachate from the Folcroft Land-
fill had organically enriched the marsh, causing cattails to spread into
former wild rice habitat. Siltation from dredging and filling associated
with 1-95 construction in the early 1970's was also believed to be a
contributing factor in the loss of wild rice. Today, however, Tinicum
officials believe that wild rice is expanding once again (Nugent, 1986).
Based on aquatic life surveys conducted in 1968, 1970, and 1976, Darby
Creek was found to be of marginal water quality in the lower sections of
Darby Creek basin from Route 13 through the tidal areas of Tinicum Marsh.
There have been no recent studies to determine whether populations of
biota have changed. The effects of Clearview Landfill, Folcroft Landfill,
and the three sewage treatment plants which once discharged into the marsh
were likely factors contributing to the decreased diversity. The DER
investigation in 1976 showed fair to good water quality conditions in the
headwaters of Darby Creek. This area is now a "put-and-take" trout fishery.
Incidental to the Fish and Wildlife Service's 1984 collection of the
Clearview Landfill fish samples, a number of brown bullheads, largemouth
bass, and American eels were taken from Darby Creek. These were submitted
to Dr. Hans Rothenbacher, a Pennsylvania State University Veterinary Pathol-
ogist. Dr. Rothenbacher found a condition in the fish known as "hemorrhagic
erosive dermatitis" a condition which could be caused by exposure to toxic
chemicals. Brown bullheads, channel catfish, white suckers, and white
bass caught near the Folcroft Landfill exhibited fatty livers, another
condition which is associated with environmental stress and exposure to
toxic chemicals.
Because of bioaccumulation effects, aquatic life tissue concentrations
would be expected to be a least as high as sediment levels in Darby Creek.
Therefore, tissue levels would be expected to approach the FDA action
level of 2 ppm for PCBs and 0.3 ppm for chlordane. The direct measurement
of fish and turtle flesh for PCS and chlordane concentrations confirmed
that contaminants have bioconcentrated to levels of the same order of
magnitude as sediment concentrations.
The results of the 1984 fish and turtle sampling effort were reviewed
by an EPA toxicologist, who determined that the carcinogenic nature of
some of the contaminants found warranted a public health advisory limiting
consumption of these organisms (Brunker, 1985). The PA DER eventually
issued such an advisory for the Tinicum area. Because of this health
advisory, Refuge officials have also limited commercial harvesting of
snapping turtles. Levels of organochlorine pesticides in whole fish exceed
criteria established to protect wildlife and piscivorous fish. Contaminant
levels in fish and snapping turtles represent a hazard to consumers.
Additional studies should be done to establish baseline conditions of
biota in the creeks and marsh. Histopathological studies shou also be
conducted concurrent with tissue analyses to identify whether the health
of resident biota is impaired.
V-22
-------
V.C.2. Predicted effects
The data presented in the preceeding chapter are evaluated here to
determine whether the contaminants found in Tinicum could toxicologically
impact aquatic life and wildlife. Because of the absence of information
regarding contaminants in soil and terrestrial vegetation, hazards to
wildlife could not be estimated based on this exposure route. Therefore,
only potential toxicological hazards to aquatic life and consumers of
aquatic life could be evaluated.
Water quality data from the area near the Tinicum National Environ-
mental Center were evaluated for the purpose of predicting toxic effects
to aquatic flora and fauna. Table 26 summarizes water quality parameters
which were observed to exceed applicable acute and chronic water quality
criteria (US EPA, 1985, 1980, and 1972), Including the ratio of the obser-
ved mean to the chronic criterion. The sum of the mean:criterion ratios
for all pollutants was 10.6, suggesting that waters of Darby Creek were
an order of magnitude more toxic than sensitive species can tolerate
(assuming additive effects of these pollutants). Limited data are avail-
able for nickel and chromium; however because low levels of these elements
may impact flora a limited discussion was included.
Available data on lethal and sublethal effects reported over acute
and chronic time scales were considered in this analysis. EPA water qual-
ity criteria documents (US EPA, 1985 and 1980), which contain relatively
complete literature surveys and summaries, were used as the principal
sources of toxicological information. EPA has not proposed criteria for
iron and manganese since 1972, and their toxicity has been inadequately
studied. These metals were therefore not considered in this discussion.
Toxicological data for freshwater plants, birds, and mammals are extremely
limited. Unless otherwise noted, data for these species were taken from
EPA water qualtiy criteria documents or US FWS publications on contaminant
hazards to fish and wildlife (Eisler, 1985; Eisler, 1986a and b).
Table 26- Darby Creek, PA.
criteria.
Water quality parameters exceeding applicable
Param.
Ag
Cd
Cu
Fe
Hg
Mn
Pb
Zn
Chronic
criterion
0.12
1.08
11.2
1000
0.012
20
2.98
47
Observed
mean
3.5
0.113
18.3
987
0.038
456
11.9
32.7
% exceed.
25
1.9
52.8
22.6
1.9
80.0
67.9
18.2
Mean :
criterion
*
.105
1.64
.987
3.16
*
3.99
.696
Acute
criterion
4.1
3.9
18
1000
2.4
20
82
320
Observed
maximum
14
65
2070
505000
2
5760
3450
8460
Total meanrcriteria ratio: 10.6
* = sample size too small for meaningful ratio
V-23
-------
Limitations of the Analysis
This toxicological evaluation is based on assumptions that: (1) obser-
ved water quality means were representative of ambient conditions, (2) the
observed mean hardness of 100 mg/1 (as CaCC^) was typical, and (3) the
observed maxima were not freak incidents, but may occur often enough to
influence community structure. The water quality data did not unequivocally
support these assumptions because (1) most locations were only monitored
once, (2) some locations were inadequately identified, and (3) many pollu-
tants likely to occur were not monitored. For more details about the
ambient water quality database, see the water quality section of this
report.
The aquatic toxicology database may have also limited the accuracy of
conclusions. Most species found at Tinicum are not routinely used in
toxicity testing, and closely related species were substituted, assuming
toxicological similarity. There is, however, no way to prove such simil-
arity. In fact, typical bioassay species have "non-average" sensitivity
to toxicants, because they are not selected at random. Species tend to be
used because they are easy to culture and maintain in a laboratory (and
therefore unusually hardy), or because they are "indicator species" (and
therefore unusually sensitive to toxicants). Species substitutions may
therefore be a source of error.
The list of indigenous species at Tinicum is presented in Chapter 3
of this document. An attempt was made to confine the discussion to species
actually found at Tinicum, in order to refine the conclusions of the cri-
teria documents (which consider a broader range of species). However,
toxicity data on Tinicum species were limited, and it was sometimes nec-
essary to substitute data for similar animals. Data on fish species were
substituted only within families. For example, the fathead minnow (Pime-
phales promelas), which was not on the Tinicum species list, was assumed
toxicologically similar to the following listed cyprinids:
1. golden shiner (Notemigonus chrysoleucas)
2. satinfin shiner (Notropis analostanus)
3. bridle shiner (Notropis bifrenatus)
4. common shiner (Notropis cornutus)
5. spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius)
6. blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus)
The Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) was assumed similar to the tide-
water silverside (M. beryllina), largemouth and smallmouth bass (Microp-
terus salmoides and _M. dolomieui) were interchanged, and all sunfish
(Lepomis spp.) data was considered for discussion. Data for invertebrates
were usually substituted on the family level (eg., chironomid, tubificids) ,
but were occasionally Interchanged as high as the phylum level (e.g.,
bryozoans) .
The list of aquatic macroinvertebrate species known to occur at Tinicum
V-24
-------
is short and certainly incomplete. It was therefore desirable in this
analysis to include species not reported but likely to occur. For example,
cladocerans and gastropods are widespread inhabitants of freshwater wet-
lands , and some species are certainly native to Tinicum. The common bio-
assay organism Daphnia magna was assumed representative of cladocerans;
because of scarcity of gastropod data, all freshwater species were consid-
ered typical.
For euryhaline native species, results obtained in salt water were
assumed equivalent to freshwater results (e.g., for the mummichog, Fundulus
heteroclitus). Sublethal effects data from all species were included in
the discussion, because such data are scarce.
It is difficult to predict toxic effects in nature on the basis of
laboratory results. Laboratory tests are unable to take into account
variations in nutritional status, reproductive condition, inter- and intra-
specific competition, and other factors which exert stress on organisms.
Laboratory tests also do not consider the ability of organisms to adapt to
environmental insults lethal to laboratory stocks. This ability makes it
possible for species to tolerate conditions believed impossible. Such
.adaptation is likely to exact a physiological cost, expressed as reduced
growth or reproduction, however. Laboratory bioassays would also not
reflect the actual temperature ranges, suspended solids levels, or temporal
water quality variations which organisms would be exposed to in their
natural environment. Because of interactions and effects not measured in
Che laboratory, toxicity tests are at best an over-simplified model of
toxicants in nature.
A third source of uncertainty is that the list of species known to
occur at Tinicum is probably limited to a small proportion of the actual
fauna, so relevant toxicological data may have not been included in this
analysis. Also, the Tinicum environment has probably been degraded for
decades, and sensitive native species may have been lost. For this reason,
the analysis may not consider all sensitive species.
A fourth possible source of error is that only the effects of single
toxicants are considered. Interactions among toxicants (which may occur
Ln the chemical soup to which the fauna of Tinicum are apparently exposed)
are not discussed. Therefore, actual toxic effects may be worse than
estimated.
Predicted Effects of Toxic Pollutants
Silver
The mean silver concentration was 3.5 ug/1, and the maximum was 14
ug/1, which exceeded the EPA chronic and acute criteria (at 100 mg/1 hard-
ness) of 0.12 and 3.5 ug/1. Only four observations exist, however, so it
is unknown if these concentrations are typical. Biota were not analyzed
for silver.
a. Acute effects. The most sensitive species were Daphnia magna
(acute LC50 = 0.25-49 ug/1), the daces Rhinichthys atratulus and R. osculus
V-25
-------
(4.9-14 ug/1) , and the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas, 3.9-270 ug/1) .
The least sensitive species tested were the chironomid Tanytarsus (3200
ug/1) and the amphipod Gammarus (4500 ug/1). Intermediate sensitivities
were shown by juvenile Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia, 400 ug/1) and
bluegill (Lepqmis macrochirus, 64 ug/ 1). IfThemaximum observed silver
concentration of 14 ug/1 occurs frequently, it may periodically eliminate
sensitive cladoceran and minnow species.
b. Chronic effects. Daphnia magna (chronic LC50 = 1.6-41.2 ug/1) was
the most sensitive species for which chronic results were available. Large-
mouth bass (Micropterus salmoides, 93-105 ug/1) was the least sensitive
species tested. In addition to lethality, silver exposure has been shown to
depress oxygen consumption in fish and gastropods at concentrations as low
as 120 ug/1, increase oxygen uptake in some marine molluscs at concentrations
above 10 ug/1, and inhibit the activity of three liver enzymes in the mummi-
chog (Fundulus heteroclitus) at 30 ug/1. The observed mean silver concen-
tration of 3.5 ug/1,if typical, appears likely to exclude sensitive cla-
doceran species from Tinicum. Of 13 species for which EPA final chronic
values were calculated (US EPA, 1980), four species had final chronic values
lower than the mean silver concentration. If the test organisms were typical
of natural communities, silver toxicity might eliminate significant numbers
of species.
Cadmium
The mean cadmium concentration was 0.113 ug/1, and the maximum was 65
ug/1. The EPA chronic and acute criteria for cadmium (at 100 mg/1 hardness)
are 1.08 and 3.9 ug/1, respectively, and 1.9% of observations exceeded the
chronic criterion.
a. Acute effects. The most sensitive species were Daphnia magna (acute
LC50 = <1.6 - 166 ug/1), fathead minnow (Pimephales promeias; 11.7 - 72,600
ug/1), and the amphipod Gammarus (54.4 - 70 ug/1) . Striped bass adults
(Morone saxatilis) were relatively insensitive (1100 ug/1), but larvae and
fingerlings had very low 96-h LC50s of 1 and 2 ug/1, respectively. The
least sensitive species tested were the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus,
22,000-114,000 ug/1) , goldfish (Carassius auratus, 2340 - 46,800 ug/1), and
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus, 1940-21,100ug/1). Species showing inter-
mediate sensitivity were the tubificid worms Limnodrilus (170 ug/1) and
Tubifex (320 ug/1), American eel (Anguilla rpstrata, 820 ug/1), and Atlantic
silversides (Menidia menidia, 577 - 28,532 ug/1) . If the maximum observed
cadmium concentration of 65 ug/1 occurs frequently, sensitive cladoceran,
amphipod and minnow species might be eliminated. However, it is more likely
that the mean hardness of 100 mg/1 would be high enough to protect these
species. The young of striped bass, and possibly other fish species, would
be unlikely to survive these conditions, however.
b. Chronic effects. The species most sensitive to chronic effects were
the cladocerans _D. magna (chronic LC50 = 0.15-0.44 ug/1) and Moina macrocoj>a
(chronic LC50 = 0.2 ug/1), the bivalve Aplexa hypnorum (3.4605.801 ug/1),
the chironomid Tanytarsus (3.8 ug/1), and the white sucker (7.1 ug/1). The
least sensitive species tested were the blue crab (Callinectes sapidus,
V-26
-------
50-150 ug/1), fiddler crab (Uca pugnax, 2900 ug/1) , and carp (Cyprinus
carpio, hatch inhibited at 2094 ug/1). , Sublethal effects included altered
oxygen uptake in fiddler crabs (1 ug/1) and striped bass (0.5-5 ug/1),
decreased activity of liver enzymes in striped bass (5 ug/1), avoidance by
smallmouth bass (8.8 ug/1) and bluegill (41 ug/1), and reduced plasma
sodium in goldfish (44.5 ug/1). With the exception of sensitive cladoc-
erans, the tested species may be able to tolerate the observed mean cadmium
concentration of 0.113 ug/1.
The primary toxicological impact to plants is growth reduction.
Frond reduction has been observed in duckweed (Lenina minor) and the fern
Salvina natans at cadmium levels as low as 10 ppb. Inhibition of leaf
decomposition on mixed natural fungi and bacteria communities is reported
at 5 ppb. Observed cadmium concentrations in Darby Creek would indicate
that sublethal impacts to plants may occur.
Toxicological and dietary data for wildlife are sparse, however data
indicate that birds and mammals are comparatively resistant to the biocidal
properties of cadmium. Decreased metabolic rates and kidney lesions in
mallards have been observed at dietary intakes of 450 ppm cadmium; however
black ducks have exhibited behavorial effects from dietary intakes as low
as 4 ppra. Generally, wildlife dietary levels greater than 100 ppb on a
sustained basis are viewed cautionary.
3. Copper
The mean copper concentration was 18.3 ug/1, and the maximum was 2070
ug/1, which exceeded the EPA chronic and acute criteria (at 100 mg/1 hard-
ness) of 11.2 and 18 ug/1. 52.8% of observations exceeded the chronic
criterion.
a. Acute effects. The most sensitive species tested were Physa (acute
LC50 = 39-108 ug/1), Gammarus (20-910 ug/1), Chironomus (301690 ug/1),
Daphnia (6.5-200 ug/1), goldfish (Carassius auratus, 36-300 ug/1), and
fathead minnow (Pimephales jprqmelas, 22-1760 ug/1). Among the least sen-
sitive species were American eels (Anguilla rostrata, 2540-6400 ug/1) ,
satinfin shiner (Notropis analostanus, 790-1900 ug/1), pumpkinseed (Lepomis
gibbosus, 1740-2700 ug/1) , and goldfish embryos (Carassius auratus, 5200
ug/1).Species of intermediate sensitivity included Tubifex (140 ug/1),
several byrozoan species (140-510 ug/1), carp (Cyprinus carpio, 63-810
ug/1), blacknose dace (Rhinichthys atratulus, 320 ug/1), and brown bullhead
(Ictalurus nebulosus, 170-540 ug/1). Although copper toxicity varies
inversely with the log of hardness, the observed maximum copper concen-
tration of 2070 ug/1 is so high that 100 mg/1 hardness would be insuffic-
iently protective. If obtained frequently, a copper concentration of 2070
ug/1 would probably eliminate all the above species except the American
eel.
b. Chronic effects. The most sensitive species tested were the gas-
tropod Fhy_s_a (chronic LC50 = 8-14.8 ug/1), the amphipod Gammarus (4.6-8
ug/1), and Daphnia magna (1.4-43 ug/1). The most sensitive fish species
V-27
-------
were the fathead minnow (4.3-33 ug/1) , white sucker (Catastomus commersoni,
12.9-33.8 ug/1), and bluegill (Legomis macrochirus, 21-40 ug/1). The
least sensitive species were the amphipod Ampe,lisca abdita (90 ug/1) ,
Atlantic silverside (lesion formation at 500 ug/1) , and mummichog (Fun-
dulus heteroclitus, enzyme inhibition at 600 ug/1). Other sublethal
effects included increased albinism in channel catfish at 0.5 ug/1. The
mean copper concentration of 18.3 ug/1 would probably result in the loss
of sensitive gastropod, amphipod, cladoceran, and minnow species from the
Tinicum community.
Tissue levels of 0.18 ppm in fish tissue are much less than dietary
levels (550 ppm) which produce reduced growth and physiological effects to
mallards. Copper inhibits plant growth and photosynthesis in freshwater
plants at concentrations of 1 ppb to 8 ppm. Sublethal impacts to duckweed
(Lemna mipor) and watermilfoil (Myriophy11urn spicatum) have been observed
at 119 ppb and 250 ppb. Most studies on plants indicate that following
copper exposure, freshwater algae and macrophyte populations shift to
dominance by copper resistant species. Copper toxicity to plants decreases
with increasing organic content in waters; however, because observed levels
at Tinicum are up to one thousand times greater than observed effect levels,
chronic impacts to freshwater plants are likely.
4. Mercury
The mean mercury concentration was 0.038 ug/1, which exceeded the EPA
chronic criterion of 0.012 ug/1; the maximum concentration was 2 ug/1,
slightly less than the EPA acute criterion of 2.4 ug/1. 1.9% of obser-
vations exceeded the chronic criterion.
a. Acute effects. The most sensitive tested species were the amphipod
Gammarus (acute LC50 = 10 ug/1), Daphnia magna (1.47-5 ug/1) and Chironomus
(20 ug/1). The least sensitive species were mummichog embryos (Fundulus
heteroclitus, 67.4 ug/1), fathead minnow (150168 ug/1), and bluegill (160
ug/1). Species showing intermediate sensitivity were Atlantic silverside
juveniles (Menidia menidia, 71-86 ug/1), mosquitofish (Gambusia, 37-44
ug/1), carp (Cyprinus carpio, 139 ug/1) , and goldfish Carassius auratus,
82 ug/1). The observed maximum mercury concentration of2 ug/1 may result
in the loss of Daphnia magna, but should be tolerated by the other tested
Tinicum species.
Limited information is available for mercury effects to other wildlife.
Lethal concentrations of elemental mercury to mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti;
LC50=0.7-4.1 ppm), Rana pipiens (7 day LC50=7.3 ppb), and spring peeper
(7d LC50 = 2.8 ppb) have been observed. The observed maximum concentration
of 2 ppb may result in acute effects to these amphibians.
b. Chronic effects. Chronic toxicity data for mercury are limited.
The most sensitive tested species were Daphnia magna (chronic LC50 = 0.96-
1.287 ug/1) and fathead minnow (0.23-0.26 ug/1). These species should be
able to tolerate the observed mean mercury concentration of 0.038 ug/1.
Freshwater plants are relatively insensitive to elemental mercury but
V-28
-------
are very sensitive to methylated mercury compounds. Decreased root
weight in watermilfoil from Hg(II) is observed at 3.4 ppm (32-day
EC50). Algae are more sensitive to methylmercury (15-day EC50= 0.8-4.0
ppb). Other chronic effects to wildlife include failure to metamorphose
by Rana piplens at 1-10 ppb.
In formulating the chronic freshwater criterion for mercury, EPA
determined that bioaccumulation effects could occur at concentrations
below those toxic to aquatic life. The chronic criterion (0.012 ug/1)
Is therefore based on the FDA action level of 1 mg/kg for methylmercury
In fish tissue, and an observed BCF of 81700 for methylmercury in fat-
head minnows. It is not known whether the ambient mercury in Darby
Creek was inorganic or methylated. However, if a high proportion of
ambient mercury was methylated, or were to become methylated by the
action of organisms in the sediment, bioaccumulated mercury could
reach levels toxic to high-level predators, including humans. Observed
mercury tissue concentrations in snapping turtle are below levels
considered injurious by dietary intake to mink (1.1 ppm) and trout (5
- 7 ppm). Reduced hatching success and juvenile survival are observed
in mallards and black duck diets containing 0.5 ppm and 0.1 ppm of
mercury.
5. Lead
The mean and maximum lead concentrations were 11.9 ug/1 and 3450
ug/1, respectively, which exceeded the EPA chronic and acute criteria
of 2.98 and 82 ug/1. 67.9% of observations exceeded the chronic criter-
ion.
a. Acute effects. The most sensitive organisms tested were an
unidentified amphipod species (acute LC50 = 142 ug/1), mummichog
(Fundulus heteroclitus, 315 ug/1) , and largemouth bass larvae (Microp-
terus salmqides^240 ug/1). The least sensitive species were the
annelid worm Tubifex (27,500-450,000 ug/1), the chironomid Tanytarsus
dissimilis (224,000 ug/1), mosquitofish (Gambusia sp_.t 240,000 ug/1),
and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus, 23,800-442,000 ug/1). Species of
intermediate sensitivity were the bivalve Aplexa hypnorum (1340 ug/1),
the gastropod Limnaea marginata (14,000 ug/1) , tidewater silverside
(Menidia beryllina, >3140 ug/1) , and carp (hatch inhibition at 7293
ug/1) . Taking into account to influence of hardness on toxicity, the
highest observed ambient concentrations of lead might eliminate sens-
itive cladoceran and amphipod species from the Tinicum environment.
Should high lead concentrations occur during spawning seasons for
such sensitive fish species as the largemouth bass, reproductive suc-
cess would probably be reduced.
b. Chronic effects. The most sensitive species tested were Daph-
nia magna (chronic LC50 = 9-193 ug/1), the gastropod Lymnaea palustris
(12-54 ug/1), and the mysid Mysidopsis bahia (reduced spawning at 25
ug/1). The least sensitive species were the chironomid T_anytarsus
dissimilis (chronic LC50 = 258 ug/1), mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus,
retarded hatch at 10,000 ug/1), and the bivalve Orqnectes virilis
(increased ventilation at 500 ug/1). Other sublethal effects observed
V-29
-------
included embryo deformation in the mummichog (100 ug/1) , embryo deformities
in goldfish (1660 ug/1), and inhibition of selected liver enzymes in gold-
fish (470 ug/1). The mean ambient lead concentration of 11.9 ug/1 in
Darby Creek is not predicted to eliminate any of the tested species.
Typical bioconcentration factors range from 42-45 for fish species to
500-1700 for invertebrates. Because fish, which are by far the most common
high-level predators, apparently posess physiological mechanisms for elim-
ination of tissue lead, toxic effects through food-chain biomagnification
seem unlikely.
6. Zinc
The observed mean zinc concentration (32.7 ug/1) did not exceed the
EPA chronic criterion (47 ug/1); the maximum concentration (8460 ug/1) did
exceed the acute criterion (320 ug/1). 18.2% of observations exceeded
the chronic criterion.
a. Acute effects. The most sensitive species were Daphnia magna
(acute LC50 = 100-655 ug/1), striped bass (Morone saxatilis, 100-6800
ug/1) , bluegill fry (Lepomis macrochirus, 235 ug/1) , and the gastropod
Physa heterostropha (600-4400 ug/1). The least sensitive species were the
mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus, 60,000-83,000 ug/1) pumpkinseed (Lepomis
gibbosus, 20,000 ug/1) and white killifish (Fundulus diaphanus, 19,100
ug/1). Species of intermediate sensitivity were the amphipod Gammarus
(8100 ug/1), carp (Cyprinus carpio, 7500 ug/1), goldfish (Carassius auratus ,
6440-7500 ug/1) , and golden shiner (Notemigonus chrysoleucas, 6000 ug/1) .
Assuming a hardness of 100 mg/1, it is estimated that 15 of the 29 tested
species (including fathead minnows, striped bass, Physa, and Daphnia)
would be unable to tolerate the maximum zinc concentration of 8460 ug/1.
b. Chronic, effects. The most sensitive species were the chironomid
Tanytarsus (chronic LC50 = 37 ug/1), Daphnia magna (42-190 ug/1), and
fathead minnow (78-145 ug/1). The least sensitive species appeared to be
the mummichog, which withstood 60,000 ug/1, although histological damage
was sustained. Other reported sublethal effects were increased coughing
in bluegill (3000 ug/1), decreased fecundity in the fathead minnow (180
ug/1), and reduced growth in mosquitofish (1150 ug/1). No species were
predicted to be lost at the mean concentration of 32.7 ug/1.
Nickel
Only one nickel sample was taken in Darby Creek (908 ug/1) , and
effects to biota cannot be estimated. However because Folcroft Landfill
appears to be a significant source of nickel, a brief discussion of nickel
toxicity has been included. Acute effects to fish are not clear. Toad
embryos (Gastrophyryne caroliensis) appear to be relatively sensitive to
nickel (LC50=50ppb). Chronic impacts from nickel to biota appear to be
more significant. Decreased growth of freshwater algae at 100 - 700 ppb
and decreases in diatom diversity at 2 ppb are reported. Chronic impacts
V-30
-------
to fish are unlikely below levels of ICKppb.
Chromi um
Mean concentrations of total chromium in Herraesprota Greek were 34
ppb, 1.5 ppin in Darby Creek, and 0.07 ppm in whole fish. EPA water qual-
ity criterion for chromium (VI) is 11 ppb. Becuase data collected for
chromium are for the total species, the water column levels cannot be
estimated to impact aquatic life. However, aquatic plants are the most
sensitive organisms tested. Therfore, a limited discussion of chromium
hazards has been included. Chronic effects to algal species are reported
at 62-9900 ug/1 (growth reduction) and inhibition of photosynthesis in
natural populations of river algae have been reported at 20 ppb of
total chromium. Duckweed (I^emna minor) is among the most sensitive
species tested (EC50= 10 ppb Cr(VI), decreased growth). Bioaccumulation
of chromium by living and dead plant tissues is extensive although no
adverse biological effects have been observed in native vegetation bearing
high chromium residues. Bioaccumulation by aquatic fauna is expected to
be low.
Summary
Predicted effects of each parameter found to exceed EPA water quality
criteria in Darby Creek are summarized in Table 27. Copper, zinc, and
silver present the most serious acute toxic threat to aquatic life,
although the estimated effects of zinc are based largely on one very high
observation. The pollutants which appear to pose the greatest chronic
toxic threat to aquatic life are cadmium, copper, lead, and silver.
Cadmium, copper, and zinc represent a chronic toxic threat to vegetation.
Because of potential effects from chromium and nickel to aquatic vegeta-
tion, additional information is necessary on ambient levels in water.
Because of their relatively high bioconcentration factors, mercury and
cadmium may bioaccumulate to levels harmful to high-level predators and
human consumers of fish. Fish tissue cadmium levels may pose a dietary
threat to wildlife consumers. None of the six pollutants considered was
estimated to be innocuous to fauna of Tinicum. Because of questions
about the quality of the ambient water quality data (discussed in the
introduction), it is not certain that all of these pollutants actually
limit the quality of the biological community at Tinicum. Conversely,
many pollutants which may be present at Tinicum have not been measured.
Therefore, toxic pollutants which were not discussed here may exert an
important influence on environmental quality. It is clear that no firm
conclusions about toxic effects can be made without more complete water
quality data.
Additional studies are needed to verify these toxicological impacts.
Studies should include aquatic bioassays to assess the degree which hab-
itat has been degraded. Phytotoxicity tests and earthworm bioassays at
Folcroft Landfill are also warranted to identify whether hazards exist
to these components of the Tinicum ecosystem.
V-31
-------
3
O
•H
C
•H
H
CO
-i a
— t _0 41
4-1 *J
CJ 41
3 — 1 •
•O XI -O
O i-l Li •
Ll CO CO
O. CO N -
41 O CO
LI a. -B
col
E|
CO
•H
d
a
co
Q
o
41
u
3
0 41
41 1 >
U — '
CO
1 3
4J
CO CO
E Ll
CO 3
U CO
CO
E CO
3
CO -H
E CO
H CO
> co
-t Ll
CO co
n u
4-1
CJ
3
-o
O
Li
0.
01
Ll
T3
41
O
3
T3
41
Ll
«
CO
•H
d
> -C
CO
3
Ll
CO
a
s
CO
O
a
CO
O
CO
3
B
O
- d
col O
col Ll
CO
CO
CU
CJ
CJ
3
CO
•
CO
3
4-1
CO
Ll
3
CO
CO
3
•H
CO
Caras
*
CO
CO
—4
01
S
O
Ll
a
CO
01
—4
CO
x:
a
CU
S
Oi
*
CO
3
E
CO
4-1
X
o
CO
d
CO
CO
•H
a
Notro
co .* • •
1 1-1 0 X! CO
CL, CO 4j a)
0 0 -1 3 41
a. ~H x» o o •
x: u o cu
I • a. i no 1 3 "0
S
3
* 4-1
U
0
E
•H
a
CO
d
a
41
j
CO
O
-H
a
x
S
3
M
— *
>!
« a
41 O
CO -H
bO ^
— * >!
< 33
CO
3
CO
>,
* X!
x
41
1-1
•H
XI
3
H
4-1
x:
CJ
T4
B
•H
x:
a!
CO
o
^H
3
XI
01
c
x
3
Ll
3
x
3
CO
0
XI
-H
X
^-1
L epom
* ~H
0
•H
O.
Ll
CO
CJ
X
3
d
•H
Ll
a
CJ
CO
4J
U
M
CO
3
—4
3
atrat
CO U T3 X bO
M O Ll -O CO
x e co eu 41
01 CO N o "O
x: 4-1 co 3 — *
u 01 -c -o o
B e 41 a
>, • d Ll — 1
X X | O CO
O 4J -HI X
4-1 14-1 CD 4-1
o — < d co o) x
£ x: 41 -1 CO 3
Q. X >H 3 bO ^
o. e — i 41
T3 B .rJ 3 CO 4-1
4) O CX O O.
O — 1 O « O
3 4J CO CO j^ Ll
•a o c oo 0
41—1 CO M 3 -H
Ll 3 02 XI -o £
CO
-H
d
x:
CO
CO
CO
^-i
E
x:
o.
co
Q
— 1
41
a
O
Ll
a
x
. 41
CO
3
ammar
o
.H
CO
x:
a
41
a
•H
f^i
Q.
CO
a
i -i
01 oi co
> X
-< 3
4-1 Ll
O -<
3 x;
T3 CJ
O O
U Ll
Q. CJ
41 CO
LI a
•o x
01 M
o a
3 0
•0 Q.
01 41
^ J
>
•H *
4J X
O -H
3 X
-o d
O 41
Li "O
a. co
01 B
Ll CO
• CJ
T) CO
41 CO CO
04) 01
3 O -O
-a o o
CU 3 —1
Ll CO ^
CO
x:
a
o
Ll
4-1
CO
o
* Ll
T3 01
O B
0. 0
— 1 Ll
x: o
o. s
41
u
41
-C
CO
CO
—4
COI 01
a cols
co » H °1
col coix:
Ej -a d a.
bd cu bd
col — 1 COI «
a| u e|x
•i-l «H
CO 4-1 CO
- - -H E -H
ccjlcol d CU col d
co d| x; -a B| x;
>J bd a -H bd a
x;l 10 co E col co
a.|a| a 3 e| a
^H
•H
s axat
Lit
°4
CO
41
<-H
CO
x:
a
41
a
•H
CXi
J=
4J
3
0
Ll
bO
T3
41
CJ
3
T>
41
Ll
1
Ll
0
d
«H
B
CO
C
a
41
j
0)
4->
O
co
o
CO
CU
41 4-1
a 3
•H Cj
H CO
x:
o
B
O
Ll
x:
x:
cj
0)
U
PL,
a
a
a
"O
CO
41
o.
Q.
O
CJ
•a
a
41
CO
H
-------
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
The Tinicum National Environmental Center was established by Congress
in 1972 to preserve 1200 acres of diverse fish and wildlife habitat for
its natural and educational values. Contained within the Center is Tinicum
Marsh, which at 350 acres is almost all that remains of approximately
5700 acres of tidal marsh that once existed in Pennsylvania's Delaware
River floodplain. The presence of Tinicum Marsh within the highly urban-
ized Philadelphia area provides a unique educational model illustrating
the values and functions of a freshwater tidal marsh; serving as fish and
wildlife habitat, providing an area for stormwater detention, and improving
water quality by removing nutrients from the water column. Over 37,000
people visited the Center in 1984, spending from 1 to 4 hours engaged in
activities such as hiking, bicycling, canoeing, fishing, birdwatching,
nature photography, and environmental education activities. Although its
urban setting provides for maximum opportunities for human enjoyment of
the Center, the location also means that urban influences, such as pollu-
tion, have the potential for harming the area's natural resources.
The Center's physical setting is along Darby Creek, just above the
confluence of the Delaware River. The land features within the Center
range from flat tidal marsh to grassy, forested uplands, to the steep-
sided Folcroft Landfill rising 50 feet above the surrounding marsh. The
Darby Creek watershed is predominantly urbanized. Limited public use of
the creek for swimming, fishing, and boating occurs in many areas.
Overall, Tinicum represents a unique ecosystem surrounded by urban
development. The Center contains a functioning tidal marsh with high
primary productivity that forms the base of a complex detritus-based food
web. However, identified water quality limitations, believed to be attrib-
utable to upstream sources, are probably impairing the health of this
ecosystem.
Transport of contaminants into the Tinicum marsh ecosystem may be
occurring by inputs from upstream sediments and water, tidal influx from
the Delaware River, and migration of biota into the marsh.
The Tinicum watershed is approximately 70 square miles and receives
drainage from Darby, Cobbs, Muckinipattis, and Hermesprota Creeks. Tidal
inflows from the Delaware River extend approximately 3/4 of a mile upstream
of the Center. Seven-day ten-year low flows in Darby Creek just north of
the Center are 10 cfs.
Potential upstream sources of surface water and sediment contamination
to the Tinicum Marsh are numerous. Based on historical records, runoff
from sludge beds at the Delaware County STP and the Delaware County Incin-
erator may have been a significant source of contamination upstream of the
Center. Data are inadequate to identify whether these sources, and other
point and non-point sources, are significant contributors to degraded water
quality in Tinicum. Havertown PGP is a potential contaminant sources to
VI-1
-------
Darby Creek located upstream of the Tinicum Center. This site is currently
being investigated by EPA and DER.
Clearview Landfill is located approximately 1 mile north of Tinicum.
Available samples on-si.te and in adjacent Darby Creek sediments support
the theory that Clearview Landfill may be a source of PCBs to Darby
Creek. Water quality data also suggest that Clearview Landfill con-
tributes low levels of PAH's and metals to the creek.
Flow gradients in these upstream reaches of Darby Creek, Naylors Run,
and Cobbs Creek are estimated to be high enough to cause scouring of
contaminated sediments. The flushing time of Darby Creek in the upstream
reach between Clearview Landfill and Folcroft Landfill indicates that
this area is flushed through Tinicum approximately every three tidal
cycles (1.5 days).
Ammonia, nitrite, chromium, lead, and zinc levels were significantly
more concentrated in the Delaware River than in the mouth of Darby Creek.
All other contaminant concentrations were statistically higher in Darby
Creek, suggesting that tidal inflow to Tinicum is a source of these
contaminants.
Folcroft Landfill is the only known pollutant source within Tinicum.
Transport of contaminants from Folcroft to the marsh may be occurring by
groundwater discharge to surface waters or soil runoff into surface
waters. The limited data collected for Folcroft Landfill indicate that
the site is a significant source of contaminants to Tinicum Marsh.
Levels of aluminum, cyanide, copper, lead, and zinc in Darby Creek
water and sediments are the highest in the Tinicum/Folcroft area. High
metal levels are also found in the Hermesprota Creek water column adja-
cent to Folcroft Landfill. Leachate samples collected from the landfill
annex show high levels of copper, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, and
zinc. Historical samples taken on-site also contain elevated metal
concentrations. Sediment chlordane levels are also highest in the
Folcroft area. The lack of onsite data and the absence of information
regarding sediment size make it impossible to determine whether sediment
chlordane contamination is a result of Folcroft Landfill or from sediment
transported from upstream.
Soils in the Center are primarily tidal marsh. These soils are
generally anaerobic, highly organic, and primarily silty clay and silty
loam. Soils in adjacent upland areas exhibit moderate to high permeabil-
ities, high water tables, high credibility, and low depth to bedrock.
Average surface water runoff in the watershed is 17 to 20 inches per
year. Limited contaminant data are available for soils within the Center.
Lead, chromium, and cadmium were detected in soils on the Folcroft Land-
fill annex at low levels. Detection limits for other priority pollu-
tants were 10 ppm and are too high to identify whether other problems
exist.
Groundwater discharge from Folcroft Landfill represents a potential
pathway for contaminants to be transferred into the marsh ecosystem.
VI-2
-------
Tinicum is located in the Coastal PJLain province alongside the fall line
of the Piedmont province. Coastal Plain deposits in the Center are
primarily unconsolidated sediments underlain by a crystalline bedrock
floor. Fill material in the Folcroft Landfill is deposited on the tidal
marsh soils and underlain by gray, silty sand, fine sediments, and gravel.
Groundwater occurs in the Center under water table conditions in the
unconsolidated Coastal Plain sediments, under artesian conditions in the
Farrington Sand member, and in the crystalline bedrock. Fill material
within the Folcroft Landfill lies within the water table. Leachate
samples from the landfill show elevated lead, nickel, copper, iron, and
manganese levels. Industrial supply wells and monitoring wells in a
3-mile radius of Tinicum indicate non-source specific contamination of
the water table with low levels of organohalogen compounds. Elevated
lead levels have been observed in a private supply well approximately 1
mile south of the Center. No site specific groundwater data are available
within Tinicum to document contamination or flow characteristics. Thir-
teen water supply wells were identified in the Folcroft Borough; however
it is not known whether these wells are being used for drinking water.
Data are inadequate to identify whether contaminants in Folcroft Landfill
have entered the Farrington Sand aquifer and whether these contaminants
have migrated to supply wells in the area. The topography, hydrology,
and geology of the area indicate that groundwater discharge to the marsh
is likely, and contaminant discharge from the water table to the marsh is
documented from leachate testing.
Surface water and sediment quality in the lower reaches of Darby
Creek are degraded, as evidenced by water column, sediment, and benthic
biota sampling. Priority pollutant data collected during hazardous waste
site investigations and as part of routine water quality monitoring are
extremely limited. These data are inadequate to identify temporal trends
or the extent of contamination in the Tinicum area. Levels of cyanide,
chromium, nickel, and chlordane in Darby Creek sediments exceed sediment
threshold contaminant levels downstream of Folcroft Landfill. PCB concen-
trations exceed threshold contaminant levels upstream of Folcroft, however
no PCB sediment data are available in Tinicum. Concentrations of copper,
iron, lead, and zinc seriously exceed EPA water quality criteria for the
protection of aquatic life in Darby Creek. All metals except mercury
exceeded criteria at least once in the Tinicum area. Levels of contam-
ination decrease with travel downstream on Darby Creek and were higher
in the Folcroft area. Copper, iron, and zinc levels have generally
decreased since 1980 while slight increases in nickel levels have been
observed. Dissolved oxygen levels decreased with travel downstream and
approximately 14% of the measurements are below 4 mg/1. Data for ammonia,
phosphate, and temperature are sparse but only ammonia levels exceed
water quality criteria.
Air quality in the Folcroft area is typical of a major urban center.
There are a great number of sources of conventional air pollutants and
air toxicants within a 3-mile radius of the Center. Ambient monitoring
and air quality problem indicate that, in general, no air quality problems
from criteria air pollutants are present. Lead levels are elevated in
the Philadelphia area. No data are available for monitoring or modeling
air toxicant levels within the Center; however hazards to biota from air
toxicants are expected to be less than those from water, soil, and sed-
VI-3
-------
iments.
The biota within Tinicum represent the primary receptors for these
contaminants in soil, water, groundwater, and sediments. Not only do
the biota represent a contaminant sink within the marsh, these organisms
may be directly or indirectly impacted by the contaminants either through
food chain or toxicological effects. Water quality data and tissue
data were evaluated to identify whether the contaminants in Tinicum repre-
sent a potential toxicological hazard to exposed biota.
The diversity of habitat at the Center provides the food, cover,
and nesting requirements for a rich assemblage of wildlife.
The tidal marsh is characterized by zones of wetland plants such as wild
rice, spatterdock, cattail, and countless combinations of associated
plant species. A 145-acre impoundment attracts wintering waterfowl and
is home to numerous other bird, reptile, amphibian, and fish species.
Forested areas along dikes and other upland areas provide habitat for
songbirds, and support a heron rookery. In addition, three, plant species
listed as "proposed rare" by the Commonwealth of Pensylvania also occur
at the Center. There are no data on residue levels in vegetation within
the marsh. A directly observed effect of Folcroft Landfill is the loss
of 62 acres of valuable marsh habitat.
There are limited data on benthic invertebrate populations in Darby
Creek, but the available information points to low-diversity benthic
populations indicative of degraded water quality in the Tinicum area.
Tubifex worms, leeches, beetles, some clams, a few midges, and mosquito
larvae have been reported in Darby Creek. Several lagoons along Darby
Creek contain tubicifid worms, leeches, molluscs, and a few arthropod
species.
Over 40 species of fish have been documented at the Center. Use of
Darby Creek by anadromous fish for spawning may have been historically
significant, but degraded water quality eventually prevented this use.
Today, American shad, white perch, blueback herring, alewife, gizzard
shad, and American eel are known to use Darby Creek within the Center as
feeding areas. The shortnose sturgeon, a Federally-listed endangered
species, may occasionally use the area. Resident fish species in Darby
Creek contain PCB's at levels up to 2.0 ppm, total chlordanes as high as
0.74 ppm, dieldrin at 0.35 ppm, DDD at 0.53 ppm, and DDE at 0.7 ppm.
CXrerall, the levels of organochlorine contaminants in fish collected from
Darby Creek were much higher than in those collected form the impoundment
and 16-acre pond (neither of which receives Darby Creek water inflow).
Although there is limited information on the amphibian and reptile
populations at Tinicum, almost 30 species have been reported, including
several listed as rare or threatened by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The large snapping turtles that inhabit the Center have been harvested
commercially in the past. Recent analyses of snapping turtle leg meat,
livers, and fat identified a number of aliphatic hydrocarbons (at low
levels) but no organochlorine pesticides in the leg meat. The signific-
ance of the aliphatics is unknown. Turtle livers were analyzed for
metals, revealing the presence of lead, copper, zinc, vanadium, aluminum,
mercury, arsenic, and selenium. Turtle fat samples contained a variety
VI-4
-------
of organochlorine pesticides, but most notably, PCBs at levels up to 23 ppm.
Because of the variety and levels of organochlorine pesticides and PCBs
present in the fish and turtle samples, in 1985 the PA DER issued a health
advisory on consumption of fish and turltes from Tinicum.
Over 280 species of birds have been reported to use the varied habi-
tats present at Tinicum. Nine species of waterfowl breed at the Center.
In addition, seven bird species identified as "Species of Special Emphasis"
by the FWS nest at Tinicum: wood duck, black duck, American woodcock,
snowy egret, black-crowned night heron, and great egret. One of the pri-
mary reasons these species are of concern to the Service is habitat loss.
Each of these species requires wetland habitat, such as Tinicum Marsh, for
feeding, cover, breeding, and nesting. There are no data available on
contaminant levels in birds residing at Tinicum. However, fish samples
taken at Tinicum show levels of organochlorine pesticides and PCBs that
would be anticipated to adversely affect fish-eating wildlife — such as
herons and egrets.
Available information on mammals present at Tinicum indicates a good
variety of species ranging from mice, to fox and deer. There are no data
on contaminant levels in mammals at Tinicum.
Limited data are available on the effects of contaminants in Tinicum
on these natural resources. Contaminants within the watershed (which
cannot be attributed solely to one source) have resulted in hemmorhagic
erosive dermatitis and fatty livers in fish. Bioconcentration rates of
cadmium, lead, zinc, chlordane, and PCBs indicate that mobilization of
these contaminants into flora and fauna is likely. Elevated levels of
heavy metals and organochlorine compounds in tissue is direct evidence
that Tinicum biota represent a sink for these pollutants. These contam-
inant levels also represent a hazard to higher level consumers.
A review of the contaminant data by the FWS's Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center (R. Eisler, letter dated August 23, 1986) notes that based
on an evaluation of toxicity tests and contaminant loadings in sediment
and biota that the Tinicum habitat "has been seriously degraded by anthro-
pogenic contaminants to the extent that substantial endangerment exists to
growth, survival, and reproduction of Service species of concern." In
light of the important limitations of the water quality, toxicological,
and tissue data, the toxicological review indicates that zinc, copper,
and silver levels in the water column represent an acute toxicological
threat to aquatic fauna. Levels of cadmium, copper, lead, silver, chromium,
and zinc pose a potential chronic threat to aquatic flora and fauna.
Levels of mercury and cadmium in the water column and biota are potentially
harmful to higher level predators. Sensitive organisms which are predicted
to be adversely impacted by the levels of these toxicants include primary
producers, primary consumers, and secondary consumers.
VI-5
-------
Conclusions
There are a number of pollutant sources to the marsh and data are
inadequate to define the relative pollutant loadings from each source.
There are potentially significant upstream sources on Darby Creek to
Tinicum Marsh. Estimates of non-point source loadings also indicate
that these sources are significant.
Folcroft Landfill is located within the Center and is a significant
heavy metal source to the marsh. It is likely that contaminated sediments
from upstream sources are scoured and transported to the Center. Marsh
sediments and biota represent a sink for these contaminants. Flushing
from the Delaware River serves to dilute pollutant loadings and flush
the marsh system of larger sized contaminated sediments. However, some
pollutants are likely to be transported into the marsh by tidal inflow.
Environmental data show that the water quality and habitat value of
the marsh are degraded; however these data are inadequate to define the
extent and degree of degradation. Contaminants mobilized into the food
chain have resulted in a fishing advisory and ban on commercial turtle
harvesting. Toxicological estimates predict that water quality is limi-
ting for the survival, growth, and reproduction of organisms within the
Center. No data are available to document impacts to populations or
communities within the marsh ecosystem.
In summary, the various pollutant sources in the Darby Creek water-
shed have an adverse environmental impact on the Tinicum marsh. Fol-
croft Landfill, located within the Center, is a source of contamination
to the marsh. Data are currently inadequate to identify relative pollu-
tant loadings from the various sources, the extent and degree of contam-
ination, and the overall impact to the ecosystem. However, environmental
data do indicate that the degraded water quality and habitat value of
the marsh may result in decreased survival of sensitive species. Contam-
inant transfer to the food chain has resulted in reduced recreational
fishing opportunities and loss of a commercial turtle harvest.
VI-6
-------
-------
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Because of the outstanding natural and public values of the Tinicum
National Environmental Center and as a result of the findings of this
investigation regarding contaminants that are degrading the Tinicum Marsh
ecosystem, the Tinicum Work Group recommends the following:
1. EPA and DOI should conduct a full scale site assessment to determine
the extent and degree of contamination in Tinicum.
2. EPA and DER should increase their efforts to reduce upstream pollutant
sources in Darby Creek, including Clearview Landfill.
3. DOI, with the assistance of EPA, should continue to investigate options
to fund the recommended investigations and any subsequent remedial actions
required.
A site assessment similar in scope to a Remedial Investigation conduc-
ted by the EPA Superfund program should be conducted in Tinicum. The
results of the assessment should be used to develop a set of feasible
remedial alternatives for the Folcroft Landfill. Because existing inform-
ation is primarily limited to metals, future sampling and analysis should
include all prioity pollutants. Initial efforts should concentrate on the
Folcroft Landfill area including Darby Creek, Hermesprota Creek, and the
tidal marsh. The investigation must be multi-media including soil, ground-
water, surface water, sediment, and biota sampling. There has not been
any air sampling at the Folcroft Landfill, and any potential for this
exposure route should be determined. The site assessment should include
the following investigations:
Source Identification - quantify point source loadings, non-point source
contributions, and the relative contribution of pollutant loading
from Folcroft Landfill.
Soils - determine the degree of contamination at surface and subsurface
levels in Folcroft Landfill, determine the degree of contamination
in tidal marsh soils, and identify the potential for toxicity to
biota through earthworm toxicity and phytotoxicity tests.
Groundwater - identify local well use and the potential for contamination
of these wells, and establish monitoring well clusters in and
around Folcroft Landfill to identify local flow conditions in the
three underlying aquifers and the extent of contamination.
Water - identify sources and extent of contamination through surface water
and sediment sampling under several flow conditions, and determine
the physical characteristics of the stream and its sediments to
verify models of flushing, desorption, and transport.
Biota - determine priority pollutant levels in fish tissue, conduct benthic
and fishery surveys to assess current populations, assess the
health of aquatic populations using histopathology, and determine
VII-1
-------
toxicological impacts using bioassays. These studies should be
designed to identify existing impacts and to provide baseline
conditions against which post-remediation conditions can be com-
pared.
These data should be sufficient in scope to identify and evaluate pos-
sible remedial actions for the Folcroft Landfill. Of particular concern
are the numerous leachates discharging to surface water and the banks of
the landfill which are being eroded by tidal action. The alternatives anal-
ysis should be consistent with that required by the National Environmental
Policy Act.
DER should continue its efforts to identify and investigate other
contaminant sources in the Darby Creek watershed. EPA's and DER's work
to remediate hazardous waste sites should, over time, improve water qual-
ity conditions in the Creek. However, increased monitoring and compliance
are needed to reduce unauthorized discharges to storm sewers and creeks.
In particular, work should focus on identifying enforcement and corrective
strategies for other potential sources of pollution specified in this
report. Efforts should be taken to improve NPDES discharges with a history
of non-compliance which contribute to the degraded habitat in Darby
Creek. Although actions taken at Folcroft Landfill will likely improve
conditions in the marsh, good water quality cannot be expected when other
sources, including Clearview Landfill, continue to discharge hazardous
constituents into the watershed.
DOI should continue to pursue actions to obtain funds to investigate
and reduce releases of hazardous pollutants from Folcroft Landfill. Federal
and State agencies should also investigate potential, enforcement actions
against parties responsible for dumping hazardous wastes at Folcroft Land-
fill. These actions could be used to obtain compensation for restoration
of natural resources injured by hazardous pollutants from Folcroft Landfill.
EPA should assist DOI by examining all provisions of the Comprehensive
Environmental Recovery, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) which may
be used to investigate or remedy conditions at Folcroft Landfill.
VII-2
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
Air Quality Analysis of the New Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion
Boiler at the Scott Paper Company Chester Plant. 1984. Enviroplan.
Ref. No. 1501-359.
Allen, H. L. 1981. Nature and extent of hazards at National Wood
Preservers Site, Haverford, PA. Memorandum to T. I. Massey.
October 8.
Baker, M.C. and E.M. Baker. 1973. Niche relationships among six species
of shorebirds on their wintering and breeding ranges. Ecol. Mongr. 43:193-
212.
Beitler, B. 1973. Memorandum entitled "Folcroft Landfill." PADER.
January 19.
Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America.
Wildlife Management Institute; published by Stackpole Books,
Harrisburg, PA.
Cain, B.W. and E.A. Prafford. 1981. Effects of dietary nickel on survival
and growth of mallard ducklings. Arch. Env. Contam. Toxicl. 10:737-745.
Chernik, R.J., H.S. Tung, and R.P. Shubinski. 1979. WRE/DVRPC Stormwater
modeling study. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. #9211-3-RT.
Craighead, W.M. 1971. Biological and Water Quality Investigation of
Tributaries to the Delaware Estuary-Bay. Delaware River Basin
Commission, Trenton, NJ.
Davison, S. 1986. Personal communication. The Nature Conservancy,
Philadelphia, PA.
Delaware River Basin Anadromous Fishery Project. 1979. Distribution of
American shad and other anadromous species in the tributaries of the
Delaware River basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Delaware River
Basin Anadromous Fishery Project Completion Report, AFS-2 (R. Reichard,
preparer). 64 pp.
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. 1976. Four environmentally
significant areas. Delaware Estuary Coastal Zone Working Paper.
Philadelphia, PA. 50 pp.
Ecological studies in the lagoons, Tinicum National Environmental Center.
1979. T. Lloyd Assoc. Philadelphia, PA. 25 pp. + appendices.
Eisler, R. 1985. Cadmium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates;
A synoptic review. US FWS, Biological Report 85(1.2). 46pp.
Eisler, R. 1986a. Chromium hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates;
A synoptic review. US FWS, Biological Report 85(1.6). 60pp.
Eisler, R. 1986b. PCB hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates; A
synoptic review. US FWS, Biological Report 85(1.7). 72pp.
1
-------
Ellis, M.M., B.A. Westfall, D. K. Meyer and W.S. Platner. 1947. Water
quality studies of the Delaware River with reference to shad migration.
Eraerich, G. 1969. Memorandum entitled "Hydrologic field investigation
of Folcroft landfill." PADER. September 12.
Emerich, G. 1970. Memorandum entitled "Hydrogeologic reinvestigation
of Folcroft landfill." PADER. October 5.
Emerich, F. 1970. Memorandum entitled "Hydrologic field investigation
of Folcroft landfill." PADER. December 17.
Environmental Evaluation of Folcroft Landfill, Delaware County, PA.
1979. SMC-Martin, King of Prussia, PA. 23 pp.
Erickson, D. W. 1977. Spatial Variation of Pollutants and Muskrats
M. S. Thesis, Penn State University.
Fowler, J.W. 1985. RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Program, Summary of
Activities, 1984-1985, Boeing Vertol Company. BCM, Plymouth Meeting, PA
Gosselink, J. G. and R. E. Turner. 1978. The Role of Hydrology in
Freshwater Wetland Ecosystems, in Freshwater Wetlands. R. E. Good, D. F.
Whigham, and R. L. Simpson, eds. Academic Press, New York, pp 63-78.
Graham, R. 1970. Groundwater in the Southeastern Coastal Plain. McGraw-
Hill, NY. 225 pp.
Graf, W.H. 1971. Hydraulics of sediment transport. McGraw-Hill, NY.
Greenman, D. W., D. R. Rima, W. N. Lockwood, and H. Meisler. 1961.
Groundwater Resources of the Coastal Plain Area of Southeastern Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Harrisburg. 375 pp.
Hagerman, J. A. , Huemmler, A. E. , and G. R. DiMino. 1978. An assessment of
urban storm water in the Delaware Valley. Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission.
Hall, G. M. 1973. Groundwater in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Harrisburg. 252 pp.
Hankin, M. 0. 1985. Environmental status report, Assessment of 1983
Air Quality, EPA Region III.
Hawkins, P. and C.F. Leek. 1977. Breeding bird communities in a tidal
freshwater marsh. Bull. N.J. Acad. Sci. 22(1):12-17.
Kagle, G. 1986. PADER. Personal Communication.
Krantz, P. J. and C. Sand. 1986. Usability Review, Folcroft Dam/Tinicum
Marsh. Memorandum to J. Newsom. January 31.
Kushlan, J.A. 1977. Population energetics of the white ibis. Condor
81:376-389.
-------
Lehigh University. 1982. Aquifer designation study: Groundwater
basins. Project No. ME79506 for U. S. EPA.
Lloyd, T. 1986. Personal communication.
Massey, T. I. 1983. Final OSC-Report, National Wood Preservers,
Inc. U.S. EPA Memorandum. March 21.
Maxwell, G. R. Ill and H.W. Kale II. 1977. Breeding biology of five
species of herons in coastal Florida. Auk 94:689-700.
McCormick, J. 1970. The natural features of Tinicum Marsh, with
particular emphasis on the vegetation. In J. McCormick, R. R. Grant, and
R. Patrick, Two studies of Tinicum Marsh, Delaware and Philadelphia
Counties, Pennsylvania. The Conservation Foundation. 123 pp.
McCormick, J. and H.A. Somes, Jr. 1982. The Coastal Wetlands of
Maryland. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis. 241 pp.
McCoy, C. J. 1985. Amphibians and Reptiles. Pages 259-295 in
Genoways, H. H. and F. J. Brenner, eds. Species of Special Concern
in Pennsylvania. Special Publication No. 11, Carnegie Museum of
Natural History. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 430 pp.
Meanley, B. 1965. Early food and habitat of the Sora in the Patuxent
River marsh, Maryland. Chesapeake Sci. 6:235-237.
Obrien, A. L. and W. S. Motts. 1980. Hydrogeologic evaluation
of wetland basins for land use planning. Water Resources Bulletin.
Vol. 16, No. 5.
Odum, W.E. and T. G. Smith. 1981. Ecology of tidal, low salinity
ecosystems. In R. C. Carey and P. S. Markovits (ed.), Proceedings -
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Workshop on Coastal Ecosystems of the
Southeastern United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-
80/59.
Odum, W.E., T. J. Smith III, J. K. Hoover, and C.C. Mclvor. 1984. The
ecology of tidal freshwater marshes of the United States east coast: a
community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-83/17. 177
Phillips, G.R. and R.C. Russo. 1978. Metal bioaccumulation in fishes and
aquatic invertebrates: a literature review. US EPA. EPA-600/3-78-103.
Richards, W.G., R. R. Bartchy, L. Kent. 1977. Urban Stormwater Quality, Land
Use Characterization. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
Schneider, D. 1978. Equalization of prey numbers by migratory shorebirds.
Nature (Lond.) 271:353-354.
Schwartz, C. W. 1976. Ecological comparisons between a fresh-water
tidal mash and adjoining impoundment in southeastern Pennsylvania. M.S.
Thesis, The Pennsylvania State University. University Park. 77 pp.
-------
Simpson, R. L. R. E. Good, R. Walker, and B. R. Frasco. 1983. The Role
of Delware Freshwater Tidal Wetlands in the Retention of Nutrients and
Heavy Metals. J. Environ. Qual. Vol 12 (1): 41-48.
Sloboda, R. 1986. Letter from NUS Corporation "Organic Laboratory Data"
to J. Newsom. January 27.
Soil Exploration and site study of the Tinicum NEC. De Co., Pa. 1977.
Soils Analysis and Foundation Engineering Company, Philadelphia, PA.
Stark, R. T. 1978. Food habits of the ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis)
at the Tinicum National Environmental Center. M.S. Thesis. The
Pennsylvania State University. University Park. 68 pp.,
Stotts, V.D. and D.E. Davis. 1960. The black duck in the Chesapeake Bay
of Maryland: breeding behavior and biology. Chesapeake Sci. 1:127-154.
Strekel, T.A. 1976. Memorandum to W.E. Standley. December 15.
Terras, J. K. 1982. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North
American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 1109 pp.
Tinicum N.E.G. 1982. Tinicum National Environmental Center. Annual
Narrative Report, Calendar Year 1981.
Tinicum N.E.C. 1985. Tinicum National Environmental Center. Annual
Narrative Report, Calendar Year 1984. June 14, 1985.
U. S. EPA. 1973. Water quality criteria. 1972. A report of the committee
on Water Quality National Academy of Sciences. Washington. 594 pp.
U. S. EPA. 1979. Water related environmental fate of 129 priority pollutants,
EPA 440/4-79-029a &b. 2 vols.
U. S. EPA. 1980. Water quality criteria; availability. Federal Register 45
(231) 7931-7938.
U. S. EPA. 1981. An on-site Inspection of Folcroft Dumpsite. Prepared by
Ecology and Environment.
U. S. EPA. 1984. Site Inspection of Clearview Landfill. Prepared by
NUS Corporation. EPA No PA-413.
U.S. EPA. 1984. Site Analysis, Tinicum Marsh Environmental Center,
Folcroft, PA. EPA:EMSL, Las Vegas, NV. 48 pp.
U. S. EPA. 1985. A Hazard Ranking System for Clearview Landfill.
Prepared by NUS Corporation. EPA No. PA-413.
U. S. EPA. 1985. On Scene Coordinator's Report, Tinicum NEC, Folcroft,
PA.
U. S. EPA. 1985. Water Quality Criteria; Availability of documents
Federal Register 50(145): 30783-30796.
-------
U. S. EPA. 1985. Sampling Field Trip Report, Havertown PCP. Prepared by
NUS Corporation.
U. S. EPA. 1985. National perspective on sediment quality. Office of
Water Criteria and Standards Division.
U.S. EPA. 1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening procedure for
toxic, and conventional pollutants in surface and groundwater. EPA 600/6-
85-004.
U. S. FWS. 1970. Staff memo on water quality standards for pollutants
(unpublished).
U. S. FWS. 1983a. Master Plan - The Tinicum National Environmental
Center. U.S. FWS Region 5, Newton Corner, MA. 157 pp.
U. S. FWS. 1983b. Bird Checklist - Tinicum National Environmental
Center, Philadelphia, PA. Compiled with the aid of John C. Miller.
Pamphlet; revised 1/83.
U. S. FWS. 1985. Special Scientific Report No. 38. Washington, D. C.
U. S. FWS. 1986. Field operations manual for resource contaminant assessment.
Wash., DC.
Wang, F. C. and A. R. Overman. 1981. Impacts of surface drainage on
groundwater hydraulics. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol 17:6.
Webster, C.G. 1964. Fall foods of soras from two habitats in Connecticut.
J. Wild. Manage. 28:163-165.
Zich, H. E. 1977. Final Report - New Jersey Anadromous fish inventory.
New Jersey AFC-2.
-------
APPENDIX A - TABLES
-------
Table A. Discharge data (cfs) for Cobbs and Darby Creeks,
* #***«*****#t*4#*#********«****«*«*«Ht**t*»t*fr»*****#t***
*
*
*
*
t
*
*
*
t
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
*
f
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
*
<
*
*
*
«
KlBIIIIBlflWII
•••••RBIRIKII
JANUARY
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Cobbs Ck
at
U.S. 1
•HKIIIIIIVK
T**** t f f ***
£.78
6.61
7.74
3.49
3.79
6.16
6.59
Cobbs Ck
below
Indian Ck
BrJUHH- it JtMJt Jt JL JLM.
***** * **** * **
4.64
12.66
15.43
8.98
9.6
14.3
15.83
Cobbs Ck
at
Darby
JLJLJL JL JLJL£ JL*X4JL
it f 11 TtTTHtirTirirT
8.43
17.4
26.06
6.%
9.27
24.9
26.8
Darby Ck *
at *
Idi by *
*• A Jt JUt Jt Jt Jt Jt &• Jfr4
********** *T
*
*
27.16 *
64 *
87.7 *
33.51 *
54.03 *
68.29 «
75.74 *
*
Average 5.31 11.63 17.12 61.49 *
ifftfiVBiMViuiiiiirKjfivfif.KtfftffiicBfiirBviiviitfBirvififiiFirvrBiiifi
• • • K*** ************************* WWWW* ft ****** **T*VY******wY**V
FEBRUARY *
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Average
I1IIMHHRVIHIV!
WWW ****W*****1
MARCH
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
10.24
4.86
4.28
3.36
6.58
11.71
10.44
7.35
III! tllftBftlJ
r**w ****** vi
4.36
11.52
12.05
5.46
6.12
7.92
9.24
18.83
8.36
8.06
9.25
12.88
26.23
21.34
14.99
IIIVIKMKBBIB-M-I
f*****»******1
7.18
20.95
20
11.57
12.3
18.48
20.19
32.43
9.75
12.36
8.76
22.94
67.32
44.27
28.26
•.KIM llft&l I III
r***********i
8.1
36.38
39.89
14.39
23.1
50.58
40.7
t
95.92 *
63.92 *
56.65*
38.32 *
93.46 *
68.54 *
98.44 *
t
73.61 *
IIIVIIIKIIItl
tllRIIIKIIRI
*
*
63.51 *
124.67 *
108.87 f
63.32 *
73.41 *
163.6 *
113.96 *
t
Average 8.10 15.81 30.45 101.62*
•••IIBIIIIIVlBIIBIBEIIIIlllBlflKIIIBBKIttVIIfBIIIBIBBBBBIIIBBBI
************ • • I •«****»* «****• B I 99 ***» ******** •'••***•• V W WV V*
APRIL *
1966
1%7
1968
1%9
1970
1971
1972
Average
5.12
6.41
6.69
4.77
10.93
6.31
10.15
7.20
8.05
10.8
13.92
10.98
28.86
14.61
19.13
15.19
17.49
17.3
24.14
12.9
53.74
45.46
37.43
29.78
i
49.69 *
69.59 *
66.46 *
52.59 *
143.69 *
104.7 *
99.76 *
*
83.78 *
*«.IIlHilllHlllll»»lllI»»IHlllllllillIllll«ll»IHIIIllllIII
-------
Table A. Continued.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
*
*
£
*
*
«
*
*
*
*
«
«
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
It
«
*
*
*
»
*
«
#
*
*
«
*
Cobbs Ck Cobbs Ck Cobbs Ck Darby Ck *
If f If* If VIVIVfVff
TtWTt WW WCK WY
NAY
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
at
U.S. 1
Kltf IK IV 1 1 1 1
It I HIVIVIIVR
6.19
7.72
9.79
4.87
5.3
7.17
11.25
below
Indian Ck
KMVIVIVIVIVMK
If! I Iwf )rw»«l
10.24
14.25
18.29
10.94
11.08
18.26
20.06
at
Darby
• » «]!•««• MJLJLJt-
t ****»#*****
18.19
22.39
32.38
23.03
12.46
32.74
48.61
at *
Darby *
^iHiiit iiil-t
*
*
58.64 *
78.61 *
82.03 *
49. 12 *
70.77 *
80.22 *
96.16 *
§
Average 7.47 14.73 27.11 73.65*
If Hf tlVIIIVIVIIIIIRIEIIIIIIHlKtVIVIVIllllffllllMIVIVIVlKlllltftlV
Wl K • II Kill KV ITYITVir V1TTW WWW Hf WIPTirWK • WWWKW TFW • V W ItWW lit V1TYVWY
JUNE *
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
2.08
3.89
8.6
5.31
6.62
3.61
11.63
3.13
8.51
21,34
13.52
18.47
11.02
22.98
1.79
13.28
41.01
55.15
40.35
19.36
55.33
t
28.73 *
50.19*
122.93 *
59.66 <
84.66 *
44.93*
127.66 *
t
Average 5.% 14.14 32.32 74.11 *
"••••"••'••'•••••••'•••••ft|f*IWVV||(|tf(KV||||tf|ff|||f|KB|ff||f|f||Mf|I
irtirvvtvfltirvirt 8 tvwwwwvvitwYtwt wtv www • mitffiii iivtvi vwt wi vvvvv
JULY *
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
3.29
5.32
3.93
12.43
4.65
4.33
5.55
9.22
11.73
12.09
30.95
16.06
13.92
14.62
24.58
22.14
21.29
81.36
22.08
28.74
29.61
i
34.16 *
50.22 *
56.54 *
118.9 *
54.% *
44 *
68.93 *
<
Average 5.64 15.51 32.83 61.10*
•*••»••••••«••••« •» • •••••••*Hyv(|MMBBV •VIIIIIIIIMIIIVfflllVHI
irif ft 11 it if tiiiitfi it Itfttttif tftl ilititillitittil tt ilia ••ittii
AUGUST *
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
Average
HiMilllll Bgjf • 1
1.93
8.76
3.65
8.95
4.07
10.71
4.54
6.09
niminiiiii
3.79
18.44
10.56
17.08
10.54
27.01
10.18
13.94
HHI1IKIIIIH
7.17
43.28
16.59
24.54
24.79
60.86
20.19
28.20
lll»«IHiI»l-
*
21.9 *
89.32 *
40.35 *
77.22 *
57.41 *
97.61 *
50.48 *
*
62.04 *
H*4*ltltHI
-------
Table A. Continued.
IT
t
*
*
u
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
mKBiii»mmKiiiiKiaimiiiinnimiiiiiiiimimiiniiniiiiitit»iiiiiiT
Cobbs Ck Cobbs Ck Cobbs Ck Darby Ck *
H 1 1 II II • B •• • I
at
U.S. 1
HVHVMBWVHIlIt
below
Indian Ck
• •••ukvBttKM rn.it.
at
Darby
* V VM •»•••••«
at *
Darby *
JLJl Jt* Jt JLM. JLJL MJL. M.
R • • I V W VWVWVWWlC VK WYWWK' Wit W YKTITVK • WTTTITKITV • KEVB • • M • IT V K"> H KM » • "W
SEPTEMBER *
1966
1%7
1968
1%9
1970
1971
1972
Average
IflllllllVlltl
HIWIVWH R VWWI1
OCTOBER
1966
1%7
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
7.52
4.27
2.39
4.78
2.17
20.21
3.36
6.39
K BH I • !• •• II !
K Vw VWYVW W1
3.33
7.17
4.3
3.6
3.09
7.72
9.86
18.09
8.42
5.52
10.77
5.87
48.34
7.37
14.91
• • •••itjBBKi'K
WH WW ffffVVVWTTV"
5.58
13.37
6.71
9.03
7.28
13.69
22.46
39.53
15.25
6.44
18.23
6.22
%.76
12.49
27.85
• ••»l»BMl>»i
HYWW'f f Wtf ITU
10.89
29.5
12.01
11.78
11.02
25.62
66.61
*
78.5 *
47.33 *
25.59 *
53.83 *
27.53 *
189.% *
37.% *
t
65.81 *
BUI B itiillltlMB
»1t III tVVW
t
*
26.09 *
74.35 *
39.77 *
33.9*
28.09 *
60.33 *
107.64 *
<
Average 5. 56 11.16 23.92 52.88*
NOVEMBER *
1%6
1%7
1968
1%9
1970
1971
1972
2.12
4.73
4
4.72
3.73
8.02
10.74
3.39
8. 78
6.68
13.98
9.01
19.53
17.45
4.41
15.53
9.08
20.67
39.41
37.79
68
*
22.03 *
55.53*
41.46 *
47.69 *
37.% *
69.83 *
99.09 *
t
Average 5.44 11.26 27.84 53.37 *
DECEMBER «
1966
1967
1968
1%9
1970
1971
1972
Average
2.49
4.63
9.77
4.88
7.69
6.39
6.31
6.02
4.85
10.35
20.8
12.56
16.89
14.86
15.83
13.73
8.18
14.44
43.31
15.26
9.27
28.16
27.48
20.87
«
25.64 *
56.35 *
100.16 *
45.61 *
75.74 *
68.29 *
79.38 *
t
64.45 *
* »««I1II«HHIIIIIIIIHH1I1IIIIIIIII»HHI1IIHIIIIIIIIII«1IHI
-------
Table B. Common and scientific names of plant species mentioned in
this report.
Narrow-leaved cattail
Broad-leaved cattail
Wild rice
Common reed
Spatterdock
Primrose willow
Smartweed
Arrowhead
Beggar-tick
Jewel weed
Bur-reed
Yellow iris
Sedge
Dodder
Purple loosestrife
Marsh mallow
Dogwood
Black willow
Common alder
Giant ragweed
Oak
Birch
White mulberry
Red mulberry
Quaking aspen
Black gum
Sweet gum
Red maple
Arrow arum
Pickerelweed
Water plantain
Buttonbush
Sensitive fern
Reed canary grass
Bulrush
Bur marigold
Marsh hoarhound
Sweet flag
Golden club
Pond weed
Rush
Blue vervain
Lizard's tail
Water parsnip
Mad-dog skullcap
Tall cone-flower
*Listed as endangered species by the
Tpha angustifolia
Typha latifolia
Zizania aquatica
Phragmites communis
Nuphas advena
Jussinea repens
Polygonum spp.
Sagittaria spp.
Bidens spp.
Impatiens capensis
Sparganium spp.
Iris pseudacorus
Carex Spp.
Cuscuta sp.
Lythrum salicaria
Hibiscus palustris
Cornus spp.
Salix nigra
Alnus serrulata
Ambrosia trlfida
Quercus spp.
Betula spp.
Morus alba
Morus rubra
Populus tremuloides
Nyssa sylvatica
Liquidambar styraci-flua
Acer rubrum
Peltandra virginica
Pontederia cordata
Alisma subcordatum
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Onoclea sensibilis
Phalaris arundinacea
Scirpus spp.
Bidens laevis
Lycopus europeaeus
Acorus calamus
Orontium aquaticum
Potamogeton spp.
Juncus spp.
Verbene hastata
Saurus cernuus
Sium suave
Scutellaria laterifolia
Rudbeckia laciniata
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
-------
bO
4-1
CU
•r-l
-D
•o
a
*
CO
•H
tO
73
o
i. .
^ CO
i. 4J
cu e
c g
cu 6
bO o
0
P 0
•H
CU
,c
4J
«
CO
cu
P
tfl
g
5
O
•H
c
•H
H
cu
4-1 /— x
td
C <"*"}
•H CO
r-l — •
3
CJ » CO
CJ CO 4J
OS -H
e -Q
o to
c/3
C "^
5 . o
03 0
.c •
to e
•H O
4-1 -r-l
4-1
4-4 Pi
O -H
P
CO O
01 CO
•H CU
o -d
cu
cx >.
C/) r-l
o
4J
• CO
0 -H
.r cu
cu B
rH CU CO
,04-1 Z
CO -H
g
•H
CO
tO
CU
P
4J
CO
lJ
cu
4J
s
n
CO
CU
P
I4_|
CO
c
cu
o
CO
tfl
• •>
CO
3
B
o
P
CO
c
•1
0
4J
1-(
CO
CO
P
cd
CO
^J
CO
cu
>%
-3"
I
ro
>»
4J
CO
M
e
3
O
>-<
•
c •
3 CO
tO P
cx cu
CO 4-1
CO
2 5
CO
bO cu
d P
P
cx c
cu
4-1
• c
CO O
e
CO 00
& i-l C
e
o
c
CO
P
CO
cu
*3"
0
4-1
bO
s
O
^
CO
3
C
•H
P
CO
3
c*
o
N
>%
e
o
r_|
4-1
CU
e -H
CO 73 •
bO CU CO
P cu cu
O M-l .C
CO
CU •• i-l
4J O M-l
3 -H
•H i-l CU
6 tn si
CO 4-J
e i-i o
O CO
CX 4-1
bO O
C CO
1-1 4J 73
73 rH O
CU 3 O
>
cu
r-l
CX
B
to
r-H
CO
cu
^3
73
C
CO
P
CU
CU
4-1
r-l
C
I-l
3
4J
fj
O
c
>1
cu
b£
P
ttf
h— 1
• *•
CO
B
o
CO
4J
cO
O
CO
CU
4->
CO
P
JO
CU
4J
P
01
>
e
1-1
Q
r-l
O
CO
B
O
•H
f"*
4-1
C2
CU
^o
..
bC
e
3
>>
to
4J
tO
4J
CO
O
r^
O)
rH
rH
•H
3
bO
•§
•
t-i
CU rH
4-1 CO
C 73
iH i-l
Jw(
CD
4-1
rt
s
rH CO
CO «)
13 ~,
rW
CU
4J
to
^
CO
CU
I-l CO
4-1 CO
cu
CU r-l
CO CO
e03 >,
bO 3 CU i-l
C r-l
•H CU
4-1
•O CO
CO
c cu
•H I-l
4-f
&
o e
3 _.
cc cu
i-i
3
• 4J •
O CX CU
•H tO O
4J CJ CO
•H e P
e cu 3
3 CU CO
4J .^
O CU CO
CX > r-l
a tfl to
0 5C B
*
1 CO
O 0)
bO rH
•H O
rH CX
O 73 «
CD CO
» 4-> CU
H) 4-1
CO • •> CO
r* ^^ <"? £j
r-l CO CO ^5
to e -H cu
rH CO 4-1 4J
M >> M
ifl CU CO CU
O M >
» O 0 C
rC *X3 1-1
CX CO
B rH •• I-l
?. O CO CU
C rH U
« 0) CU
4-1 CO CU 4-1
o cu
CU 4-> M •>
CO Q) CU ,C
C C8 T3 CO
1"H ^ rH «H
-^004-,
s~\
rH
CU
cu
e
CO
O
•H
r-l
cu
B
^
c
1-1
Jj
o
4J
CO
£T)
<4_l
c
•H
e
5
cd
a
CO
**l
CO
3
0
B
T3
tO
C
£
O
cu
«
4-4
I-l
3
CO
4J
CO
T3
CU
4-1
• •
CO
CU
rH
i-l
C
cu
>
">
CO
•H
rH
CO
>
•H
4J
CO
CU
CO
CO
CO
o
<;
CO
CO t-l
CU 3
iH C
"d t^
CD 4J
I> *T-(
^3 Cl
^™5 t^— (
rH
tO
• CO
cu
CO O
M rH
4J
CO T3
/*> f^ «
3 cfl C
co B
T3 Q) 4-1
r-l 4J 3
CO tO tO
f Jj
I-l CO *H
CU CU 4J
> I-i C
««
^*v
CO •
*O ^-x
•H 4-1
B ^ 4-1
CO CO -H
O bO M
,n bo-o
cu
>-> CO
rH C tfl
•H cfl ^
r-l CU
10 O CU
B to to
1-H 4J >
I-l CO I-l
CX 3 tO
O
CO 73
e - -H
to co B
r-l T3 O
0 O C
o cx o
73 CU M
CO CX f-l
rH O rC
000
s**^
bO
C
•H
r^
I-l
CU
j£
X.
o
cO
&
cu
3
s
>
o
B
r-l
5
o
rH
CO
c
•H
5
CO
a
CO
• r.
CO
73
o
o
Q
73
(Tj
c
^c
»1
CO
•X3
0
a
cu
cx
o
0
M
CO
c
CO
r-l
cu
0
0
Tt
cfl
rH
o
• •
CO
cu
rH
•H
e
cu
>
3
^
CO
3
bO
c
cu
M
cd
o
73
3
cu
CO
a
cfl
CO
o
<
CO I-i
cu cu
rH CO
•H p
C 3
cu e
3 >,
*"") 4-1
•H
c
• 1-1
bO rH
C to
•H CO
l-l >
cu o
*e rH
<**. ^Q •
o e
rO CO 3
CU 73 4-1
3 i-l 3
rH 4J CO
^5
IJ rH
Cfl 4-1 4J
f. (rj p*
4J !S 3
M
3
o
1-1
r-l
tfl
>
CO
4-1
o
cu
CO
e
•H
»>
CO
bO
bO
cu
e ^^
CO CO
cu e
O cfl
CO M
4-J CU
CO 4J
3 CX
I-i -H
0 73
s-^
cu
4-1
•H
5
cu
rH
^
cu
C rH O
C CU CO 4-1
CO ^*^ T3
^f^ ,jO »i^ *^
O -rJ 4-1 -H
4J B
c cx P
•H CU CU rH
CO CJ 4-1 -H
B P CO 4-1
cu S c
C CX rC 3
•H CO
4-1 CU CO
rH 4-1 CU
•H CO M
P CO CU Cfl
a) cu co
B P 3 ^i
•H CO P
P CO CU
CX C CU CO
C -H 3
S CO C C
CO rH CU
CX tfl > >,
CO O 3 4J
_f"1 r-^ ^_J 9
• •-co e c
3 73 • rH 3
o e co tfl 4J
B cfl 4-i co 3
O CO C cfl
P cu ;s
Cfl CU P rH 4-1
C > 3 tO
^
P CO
cu cu
•> 4J 1-1
CU ^^v CO rH
1 O CO 3 4-1
P cfl 73 ^-^
O 4-1 iH •>
CX P C ^"^ CO
CX 3 f 4J 4J
O CO CX 4-1 O •
tfl -H CU CU
4J cu e 73 P co co
cfl f o 73 e >
,C 4J >, -HP
? CU rH CO CO
CU 4J O 1-1 CO rH rH
B cfl to P \^ cfl
O 4-1 tO 1-1 .C
CO rC P B CU P CO
4-1 3 1-1 CO 4J -r-l
73 O CO P > CO 4-1
CU J3 CX P CU
cu cu *— ' to P "
4-1 >s» ^ , — f P x-s
rH 4-1 CO 0) CO
•• rH C 73 4J 4J
co to x to -H e
CU O 4J P E "Cfl
rH -H CO CU O C
•H 4-1 CU 0 C CU ~
C CO C O O E CO
> C J3 (0 T-! CO tO
33 rH x o e
>-) 4J ,« o o .0 bo
cfl
B
CO 73
CO CO
•H .^
73 CO
•H
P. e
cfl tfl
CO O
tfl P
co cu
0 B
35
f-»
CO
cu
4-1
4-1
JO
cfl
C
•H
b£
3
O
>-i
•
l-i
CU
CO
rC
CO
J_J
n ,
^
CO
5
CO
a
*
CO
T3
O
cu
CO tO
co cu o
CO > 4-1 •
CU "H f
r-l P 4J CO
CO C -H
CU CO 4-1
CU CO O B
CO rH CX tO
14 B bO
3 4-1 -H
CO 4-1
cu o
J= CO r-l
CO |J CO CO
^>J 4-1 bO -H
CO S 3 CU
r-l O CX
cu
3 «H rH
O 3 • CO
cu cu
i« CO i-l >
P r-l CU
I-i CU CO cc
4-1 CU 4-1 IJ
(d u co o
,
CO
3
• 4-1
CX CO -H
CU
4-) r-l
cx e 4j
o
0
M
tO
o
N
o
4-1
o
r-l
cx
• •
CO
cu
rH
•H
C
>
3
•->
e
3
C
to
•H
73
CO
a
o
o
CO
o
o
o
CO CU
cx
A
O 0)
•H CO
CX bO
O rH
O Cfl
CO
o -
i-i e
0 0
•H 4-1
• 6 ^
co C
T^ ^0
O •• rH
O co CX
a) 4J o
4J 3 >.
CO 73 .C
o
-------
T)
CU
d
cO
H
e
CO
CU
4-1
CD
^
•^
13
3
e
f!
CO
TH
bO
bO
3
rH
CO
M
rH
rH
cfl
cj
CO
CO
4-1
•H
«"i
CO
x;
d
H
A
CO
13
O
CX
cu
a
o
a
••
e
CO
CU
4-1
CO
LJ
0)
4-1
cfl
xi
CO
cu
p
4H
d
M
cfl
cu
CO
e
bO
Pi
CO
p
Xi
E
M
>-, CO
4J T3
rH CU
•H XI
CO
TJ
CU
4J 01
4H 3
O
CO •>
CO
d e
iH CO
cu
CO P
S 4-1
O CD
p
P XI
3 CD
pa -H
be
• 3
CO • rH
13 CO CO
OI CU
Xl 4J CO
CO 4J
13 P -H
CU 4-1 Xl
oi co ca
> rQ X!
3 d
ta co M
01
CO
> d
P 0
(0 4-1
rH *^
d
>-, CO
rH rH
4-1 CX
CO
•H
13
cfl P
O Cti
jj
O
d
d co
•H 3
B d
T3 CO
3 CJ
e -H
d cu
P S
OI Cfl
4-1
co X
cfl O
[i3 CO
x— ' U
d
cu
bO
^
X
O
d
D
4J
4H
O
M
rH
F«4
•H
4-1
W
CD
4-J
iH
Xi
nj
xi
d
iH
^
rH
• -rl
CO P
CX CO
B B
CO iH
3 P
CO CU
CO >,
13 rH
O 4H
cx d
•HOP
Xi bO O
CX cfl 4-i
e P
n) '"O D
o
d
co xi o>
d co P
(0 iH CU
p 4H UH
01 >> 0)
0 cfl P
O • P CX
•O co o
CO 4J XI
rH CJ • 4-1
o cu xi -H
CO CO 3
d -ri
.. TH UH CO
co 3
OI 01 O
rH P •• • P
•H 3 CO CD O
d 4-1 4J X >
OI CO rH CX iH
> S 3 B d
1-3 tH < d C§
/-s CO
rH 3
01 4-1
P cfl
01 P
^ 3
O CO
iH
CX CD
3
d -H
•rl CO
UH CO
*rj ffl
cu P
Oi cfl
•^ CJ
1
T)
d
3
d o
O CX
•rl B
4J -rl
Cfl
4J -
CU CD
bo -a
cu d
> o
cx
vt
CJ
•H -
XI CO
4J p
CU
x: >
4-1 -rl
TH }-l
S
M
CO CO
P S
0) cfl
4-1 01
cO p
S 4J
CO
4-J
d CD
CU 4-1
iH iH
0 Xi
iH CO
4H X
cu d
13 M
d bO
o d
•rl
01 M.
P • cfl
O 0) 4J
S cfl
> p
13 P Q)
0) CO 'rj
CU rH CU
4-1 O)
4-1 4H
bO O 1
do) B
3 CO O
o d 4-J
tH TH 4J
o
•a xi
• d
d co co
0 3
4-1 d O
,y o P
d 4-1 o
CO ^J >
rH d TH
cx co d
0 rH B
4-1 CX O
>, 0
x: o d
CX N -,
v-x CJ
a.
1 3
d
O bO •
CJ d CD
•H 0)
d P >
0) P O
4-1 -rH O
4H 4J
O to • d
bO -rl
4H d
• o TH d
*o *o ^o
•rH 4J 0) X
X> lH 0) 4->
P Xl 4-1
3 CO rH
4-1 XI bO CU
d d
^ o iH d
d 4-1 p Cfl
cfl 3 Xl
CU 13 0
P 3
cfl 13 CD d
CU 4-1 -H
rH 4-1 d
U CO 0) 4J
cu B d
X CX TH CO
4J TJ T3
o co cu d
Xi co 3
13 Xl
.« cu e co
CD P O
4J 0) 4-1 0)
d T) 4-i P
0) TH O O
6 CD xi S
B
o
4J
4J
o
X
. p
CO co
e oi
P d
o
U CD
rH
o
CD O
4J X
CJ 0
CU CO
CO
d oi
TH bO
p
co
d '""'
o
TH d
4J TH
cO
4-1 CD
cu *^
bO CU
CU 01
> PI-
TH
rH
CO
Xi
O
3
<-- d
cx
P CO
cfl 3
0 X
4-1
d «
o d
e M
B o
0 X
CJ ^
*~s 33
CP
CO
01
o
o
cfl
x:
4-J
•H
S
p
01
4-J
CO
T)
01
Cfl
4-J
01
bo
01
t>
4-J
0)
TH
3
0"
CO
p
cu
UH
01
Li
CX,
CO
3
O CO
4-1 0>
d 4J
0) >-,
S -E
CO CX
r-l O
•H p
UH CJ
CO
e
CO
13
•rl CU
B co
co bo
0) rH
rrj cfl
M • r,
CD CD
e 3
0 0
J-J p
CO • O
iH 0) t>
'O CO «rH
bO d
d ' — 1 S
O cO O
1
o
en
^
>•> P
P Xi
01 CJ
^
r-l CO
co 3
d
d o
l-i /^N bo
0) S -H
4J O B
co d oi
CO d 4J
W "H O
•^ E !Z
»
CD
s
o
rH
rH
cO
X!
CO
13
0)
CO
4-1
0)
bO
0)
^
cu
•H
CD
d
O)
4-J
X
0)
o
4-1
M
CO
3
4-1
TH
p
4-1
0)
Tj
•\
CO
CJ
CO
3
rH
rH
0
e
f.
CO
13
0
cx
•H
x:
CX
E
cfl
CD
CO
O
3
cu
rH
•
CD
4J
O
CU
CO
d
•H
/•-N
P
CU
d
•rl
XI
CO
d
cu
•a
T-H
O
O
*~s
*
CO
e
a
CU
P
^j
CO
CD •
CD CD
01 P
r-l O)
-O 4J
CU Cfl
CU S
» x:
CO
CO 0)
.U P
•H UH
Xi
Cfl rH
XI CO
d 13
iH iH
4J
^
r-H 0
r-H 4J
Cfl d
iH iH
4-1
d bO
ru d
P TH
cu >*
LM cfl
cu P
P 4J
CX, CO
0) x-s
cO co
> 0>
P iH
Cfl rH
J II i
cu
«M C
CJ 0
QJ 4-1
CD CO
d
•H •>
CO
- cu
CO rH
CU UH
P CO
.1-1 iH
CD 13
13
P CO
CD O
.U
CO •>
!s co
X 0)
CO -H
0) rH
P 4-1
4H >,
CO
d B
M v-'
CO
3
d
cfl >^.
.1-1 P
CO CU
o d
r-l iH
cfl f.
d co
CO
d
CO i-l
•H U-l
CX d
O iH
P 4-1
4-1 CO
O C/3
5z *~s
•0
3
e
UH
O
CO
cO
0)
p
cO
p
cu
>
0
CO
e
CO
O)
p
4-1
CO
X!
CO
•rH
bO
bO
3
rH
CD
CO
4-1
•H
Xl
CO
XI
C
M
«*
0)
CO
bo
rH
CO
*
CD
CU
4-1
CO
p
X>
O)
p
O)
>
d
•H
T— 1
rH
CO
e
C/3
CO
3
4-1
CO
d
OI
P
4H
•H
Xi
CO
•H
CX
0
p
4-1
0
f
4_)
•H
3
CO
CO
01
p
cO •
d
P O
0) TH
4-1 4J
CO ffl
3 4-1
I cu
^ bO
a cu
co >
CO 4-1
C
C cO
iH 13
d
" 3
CO X>
3 CO
4-J
•rH O
P 4J
4J
CU 0)
13 4-1
CO
* t-l
4J O)
r~* f r^
•H O
CO B
«
CO
OI
4-J
^
Xl
CX
0
U
CJ
6
s~*.
P
01
d
iH
r^
CO
0)
rH
13
•rH
(-1
CQ
v^
CO
CO
OI
rH
Tj
0)
0>
Jj
4-1
UH
•rl
*
CO
o
4-1
0)
4->
CO
P
cu
-a
o
E
d
•H
d
o
e
s •
O CO
0 S
cfl
OI 01
P P
0 4-1
S CD
rH
rH
CO
E
CD
*
CD
p
CU
U-l
•rl
4-J
0 •
P CD
4_>
« CJ
0) 0)
Cfl CO
bo C
rH iH
Cfl
.. to
co d
3 cfl
O 0)
P CJ
O CO
> 4J
•H CD
d 3
O 0
CO
3
4J <"-*
3 P
d cu
P d
O iH
0 f.
CO
CD
•H d
a o
° I
4J O
o a
-------
CD
CJ
d
>i
cu
cu
<-!
CO
iH
bC
c
•H
CO
P
cu
4J
(0
S
CO
cu
P
bO rH
3
rH
CO
*J5
g
tfl
cu
P
4-1
CO
d
cfl
g
CO
4J
iH
S*
CO
d
M
tfl
rH
3
CJ
•H
£>
P
O
cj
CO
o
CO
3
rH
rH
O
g
rH
rH
tfl
cu c/3
3
C
•H
C
O
u
CO
3
• -H
o d
o
CU CO
rH 73
-a 3
cfl f.
H
CO
•H
CX
o
P
4-1
o
z
«
CO
cx
g
to
S
CO
•\
CO
v;
CU
CU
P
O
CO
d
to
P
cu
CJ
o
CO
rH
o
x-x
to
cu
CJ
CO
4-J
CO
3
P
CJ
«s
S~*.
CO
•H
CO
G
cu
iH
1-1
d
cfl
g
,*- N
P
cu
d
•H
si
CO
rH
•H
rfl
4-1
4-J
o
cx
CO
—
to
73
•H
4J
P
cu
4-)
d
cu
0
4-J
•
0>
bO
d
*
P
CO
4.)
iH
4H
O
d
o
•H
4J
P
O
cx
>, d
CO
73
cu
CU -
CO /-x
4-1 CX
d co
tfl
-1 g
CX 3
0
* iH
^~\ d
CO CO
73 PM
o
cx -
CU •
cx cx
O CO
0
CO
•> -H
CO P
73 tfl
O 4-1
CJ 4J
Cfl 1-1
P bO
4-1 Cfl
CO Crt
o -^
rH
CU
•H
rH
cu
P
^
i
O CJ
4J 1-1
re cx
P O
CU CJ
CJ CO
o
• • P
CU CO U
cfl bO IH
> bO g
P CU
CO 4-)
rH Si CU
CO t-l
73 iH 73
IH <4H
B 4-1
O " O
d <"•>
o cu ^s
P to vO
S3 *
O CO
x_xrH g
CO
CO 73 CU
4-1 iH P
O O 4J
cu d co
co be
co d
•H CX M
CO
3
rH
3
4-J
CO
P
4-1
Cfl
CO
^
f-;
4-1
rC
CJ
•H
d
•H
rr
pi
P
cu
4J
P
O
d
d
•H
•I
CO 4J
4J d
CJ Cfl
CU rH
CD CJ.
d
P -HP
CU CU
4-i P bO
CO CU iH
g 73 .d
CU
QJ CU •>
> . (4-1 CU
•H CD tfl
4-1 4J 4-J bO
ca cj si rH
4-1 CU bO tfl
CU CO i-l
be d co -
cu 1-1 co
> co d
P 3 CO
u3 O 3
d CO -H 73 CO
CO g C CO CO
rH CU g rH lH
cx p o a 4-i
s~^
cu
CJ
CO CO
73 3 '"*v
4-J -Q
0) tfl 3
CO CO rH f
0 330
C rH O
^ i-l CO ^
CJ 4-1 g CU
[fl O O CU
rH g P P
PQ CU 4J CJ
x— ' C/} ffl x^
1— 1
,--{
cfl
g
CO
CO
73
d
cu
CJ
CO
rH CO
tfl
73
iH CO
1 1 g
1 CO
d cu
O P
d 4-1
CO
d
iH P
CU
4-> bC
d • P
ttS CD (0
73 P rH
d cu
3 4J CO
^Q tfl 4-1
Cfl 5 iH
Si .C
a> co co
P CU JS
OP d
S 4J r-J
CO
73
rH O
I
T3
d
3
O
a
g
•H
«•
CO
f!
o
•H
4-1
CO
3
cr
CO
bO ^O *
3
O
§co
cfl
CX CO
co S
o
O J3
4_> ^
o
bO
d
iH CD
P 73
a, d
CO O
g
P cfl
cu cu
4-1 P
CO 4-1
S co
C
P T-l
CO CO
cu g
rH
CJ '
Cfl
CO CU
P TH
CU P
>4-l tfl
CU • 4-1
cx P d 3
d
•H CO
cu
CO iH
PJ O ,jQ
•H T-l
4J P
• CO 4-1
M CX CO 4J
CU 3
a) o
P 0
U 0
o
•,-4
cx
CO CX O
iH CU
P CX
4J O
CO • CJ
CD Si
P CO •>
P i-l CO
CU 4-1 g
4-1 P
0
73 CO 3
d d
CO cfl *
CU W
cj o o
iH CO CD
4J 4-1 3
CO CO rH
33 rH
cr P o
cs o g
^i ** *•
rH CD CO
,13 4-1 4-1
CO O O
£* CU CU
O CD CO
P d d
PM T-I M
•H
d
o
CO
^-,
Q)
§
O
CJ
CO ^-x CO
CD T-l -C 3
3 rH CO g
rH Cfl -H O
•H P 4-i 4-1
4-> O rH CO
O CX rH O
e P tfl 4-1
ai o fa td
C/3 O x^ CJ
o
CO CD
o d
P (0
O P
i-l 0)
g 0
o
co ffi
73 rH
O 0
CJ
Cfl
P CO
4J 73
CO O
O CX
cu
CD O
d CJ
CO
0) •
O CO
O 4J bO
73 d d
tfl CO 3
rH rH O
O CX >-l
tfl
4-1
s~* 4-1
P CU
cu o
t^S r*
O CO
3
co d
o
CU N
4-1 ^
iH g
& -H
3 P
» — W
4-1 CU 4-1
d bo co
cu cu o
g > S
CO
73
O
*
CD
p
cu
4->
tfl
J5
^
a
(D
^Q
«•
CO
S
o
,0
X
o
J=
CO
•H
bO
bC
3
rH
CD
CO
4-1
iH
,0
CO
t"!
d
H
CO CO •
S4-I CO
O CU
O CU -H
CX - S CD rH
•H
rf
CO d <4H
C CU iH >i
CX « CO 4-1 tfl
g
Cfl
• rs
P
cu
73
CU
cu
<*-!
o
•H
4-1
CO
• lH
CD d
*Tj 3
iH 4J
g I-l
O O
d a.
o cx
P 0
T-l
si c
0 <
/— v
P
CU CD
O 4-1
3 to
CO O
f~\
3 CO
-= 3
U P
3
CU rH
,y to
tO 4J
I-J CJ
x-/ M
co cu cu 4.) g
73 CJ Cfl rH
o to si 3
CX g O 73 CO
CU 3 >•> tfl d
CX O rH CO
O O 'S P
cj ~ cx cu
CO rH 4-1
" 73 - CO CX
co T-I cu > fi
73 CO cfl p 73
0 JS > (0 x-<
CX g p rH
tfl CO CU
O •> rH » CO
0) CO CD >
73 d 73 g P
CO iH CO fO
- P g rH r-l
CO CU O CJ
73 0 d 4-1
O O O rH • CJ
CX 73 p rH Si CU
O Cfl T-l tfl CD CO
CO rH f g -H d
•H O O CD >4-l M
CO
3
CO
o
^~* rH
Si 3
CO S*
•H CU
y-i d
4-1
Cfl CO
O 3
p
0) 3
4J rH
•H CO
Es o
x^ K-l
•
CO
4J
d
cu
g
73
d
3
O
a
g
•H
CO
o
CO
3
rH 1
rH O
O - O
g P N
CU
« d -
/— > T-l CO
co si g
cu co ft
•H O
rH rH S
4-1 T-l
d tfl cu
O 4J 4-1
bO 4J CU
tfl O cfl
p cx si
73 CD O
\^s ^,
« rH
CD si o
cu co cx
rH 4-1 « d
4-1 /^ O
CO « CD 4-1
•iH CU P ^«J
73 CO CU d
73 bO > cfl
CO rH rH r-l
o to cu cx
^"^
73
tfl
0)
r"
rH
rH
3
JO
d
o
P
P3
— /
-------
1
d
•H
occur in freshwater
o
4J
>*
rH
cu
TH
rH
cu
o
S3
A
CO
4-1
O
cu
CO
iH
ft
CO
cfl
O)
CJ
cfl
4-1
CO
•3
M
CJ
rH
i-l
c/s
rs of genus . Common in
coves in low salinity areas,
freshwater.
cu o
4-1 CO d
O S-l iH
CU
4J > bO
CO iH d
O IH TH
B 13
- d
d co cu
CO >: 4J
XI cfl X
4-1 XI CU
CO
3
4-J
•H
t-l
4-1
CU
*X3
A
CO
g
o
S
•o
•H
rH
Cfl
3
4-1
CO
0)
XI
CO
iH
*s.
CJ
cfl
I-i
X>
S
o
iH
d
M
CO
S3
.
4-1
d
cu
TH
CO
d
CO
IH
I-i
cu
3
CO
to
TJ
CU
IH
0)
•H
CO
d
o
o
4-1
CO
cu
CO
rH
rH
Cfl
co
M
cx
B
•H
x:
CO
M
CO
4J
CJ
cu
CO
•r^
M
CO
cu
CO
•H
UH
freshwaters in Potomac, VA.
rH
tO
TH
4-1
d
TH
TJ
cu
cu
M
X!
rH
CO
TH
M
CU
U
4-1
d
CO
rH
CX
IH
cfl
rH
3
CJ
CO
cfl
>
UH
o
CO
4-1
d
3
o
B
CO
*
cu
cfl
bO
rH
CO
•0
d
CO
CO
4-1
cfl
rH
UH
CO
CO
CO
bO
CO
cu
CO
t-l
cfl
e
t>"»
TJ
TJ
3
CO
4J
iH
o
CO
d
M
CO
d
cfl
cu
CJ
cfl
4-1
CO
3
M
CJ
M
IH
0)
4-1
CO
f
CO
cu
I-l
UH
rH
CO
iH
4-1
d
M
s in marsh interior in summer
rH
O
O
cx
M
CO
rH
CU
d
d
cfl
_f^
o
*
X"N
CO
*rj
0
cx
cu
cx
o
CJ
TJ
iH
O
cx
o
rH
O
^
CJ
M
CO
o
CJ
CO
t-i
4-1
CO
0
^
I-l
0)
4-J
d
•H
S
d
TH
rH
•H
CO
d
T-l
S
o
IH
IH
3
^o
r^*»
CO
s-*.
CO
d
cO
!_•
CU
4J
cx
•H
B
cu
X!
A
CO
d
co
IH
CU
4->
cx
•H
TJ
\^r
CO
4-1
a
cu
CO
d
•rH
B
3
CJ
•H
d
(0
£L|
\^ /
CO
"0
QL)
0)
CO
CO
CO
to
I-l
bO
M
CO
bO
bO
cu
XI
CO
•t-l
UH
•
CO
I-l
cu
TH
Cx
W
•t
CO
TJ
O
cx
o
i-i
4-1
CO
Ifl
bO
»t
X~N
•
Cx
CO
cO
P-
cfl
CO
TH
UH
TJ
d
bO
O
waters.
p^
CJ
cfl
XI
f£J
w
0)
^
0
o
•K
CO
1— 1
X— N O
CO O
TH
B
•H
UH
UH
CO
cfl
•H
CO
3
ft
e
cfl
o
CX
rH
tO
TJ
T-l
4-J
CO
4-1
•rH
x>
cfl
XI
d
^ M
CO
IH
cfl
e
o
4-1
d
o
CO
TJ
TH
4-1
TJ
O
O
rH
UH
CO
Jj
O
rH
rH
O
UH
^
rH
•tH
TJ
CO
0)
&
bo
•rl
IH
3
CO
rH
O
o
cx
X!
CO
U
CO
e
d
•H
d
TH
cfl
B
01
IH
r>*
CO
S3
•
. CU
0) TJ
O TH
Cfl 4J
UH
IH S
3 0
CO rH
f resh-
co
IH
CU
4J
d
01
^
,—4
iH
TJ
Cfl
CU
• •*
4J
d
0)
TJ
TH
CO
eu
i-i
cu
d
•H
I-l
CO
3
4J
CO
w
cu
4-1
CO
5
XI
CO
0)
IH
U_i
r-l
CO
TH
4-1
d
•H
d
S
CO
CX
CO
^l
CO
^r*
.
^_j
cu
4-J
CO
S
d
•H
CO
4-1
cO
r-l
U-l
CO
CO
CO
I-l
bo
•d
d
Cfl
CO
J^
cu
cu
i-i
o
rH
CO
•rH
4-J
CO
4-1
•rl
X>
Cfl
jC
d
I-H
•
V.
0)
d
iH
S
d
T-l
CO
rH
01
d
d
CO
r~!
0
«
I-l
CU
0
3
Cfl
T-l
CO
S
0
r-H
r— 1
CO
XI
CO
CO
0)
•H
CX
3
o
o
o
«
4-1
d
O)
TJ
•H
CO
CU
t-i
01
d
•H
I-l
cO
3
4-1
CO
w
winter.
d
•H
CO
cu
bo
TJ
0)
rH
CU
d
d
CO
n
O
t-fl
rH
0)
d
d
CO
x:
CJ
*
I-l
ot
B
B
CO
• *
cu
o
cfl
UH
I-i
3
CO
I-l
cfl
/~* CU
CO
•H
d
•H
M— \
UH
CO
CO
•H
CO
3
ft
B
tO
O
d
>-,
i-H
•rH
IH
CO
B
TH
I-l
CX
CO
"O
cu
0)
CO
d
CO
IH
cu
4-1
CX
TH
T3
CO
d
cfl
IH
CU
4J
CX
•rH
e
CU
&
•^^
y.
4-J
o
01
CO
d
PK -H
CO
•o
o
a
o
CO
•H •
CO
* 4J
CO O
•o cu
•H 03
co d
« CO
CO -O
T3 O
O CX
CX TH
0) f.
cx cx
o e
U cfl
01
CO
T 1
•rt
0
3
r-H
CO
3
rH
3
T)
d
3
Pn
/^
Jj
O
d
d
•H
B
a.
o
H
s-x
/— \
. CO
CX -H
CO UH
0
Cfl 4J
•iH -rt
co 3
3 cr
X> CO
6 0
co S3
o ^ —
«\
t>*t I-l
r-H 0)
C 4J
•H CO
CO S
B X!
CO
" cu
CO IH
d UH
to
CU d
CJ 1 — 1
CO
4-)
CO «
3 CO
r-l TJ
U O
CX
rH TH
rH X>
to CX
e e
C/3 tO
x-s
CJ
CO
CU
CO
3
0
CO
TJ
TO
3
cr
CO
cu
4-1
rH
CU
cx
rH
V*
O
1 J
CO
0>
d
•rH
a.
CO
t-i
3
0
S-
CU
cfl
>
I-l
cfl
rH
!*,
rH
UH
^
<#
TJ
•H
B
5
d
o
i-i
•H
rl
CJ
.
CO
d
CO
0)
O
O
TJ
cfl
rH
O
-------
CO
3
OP >i
rH
rH
Cfl
XI
CO
4-J
•r-l
XI
cfl
x:
p
T-I
CO
cu
1-1
1-1
d
CU
£>
3
•t~
• *
CO
3
C
0
p
TJ
CO
p
CO
•H
B
cu
C/J
*
CO
d
cfl
p
cu
CJ
0
*"O
cfl
rH
CJ
f
CO
TJ
o
O cfl
d PQ
•H
a ,*: cu
CO J^
cu
CO -H
3 rH Pi
) CO
Pi-Id
CU O O
CX P CO
CU CU TJ
CU B 3
TJ B W
0
o cj cu
4J CJ
c£J £3
bO cfl
d 4-> TJ
•H P d
> 0 3
O CXXl
E co co
d j
rH O
CU rH bO - 1
CO cfl d O V
> 6 cfl in
P CO p bO r
Cfl U 3 r
rH - ^ CX|
x~s
4-1 CO CO CO
0 d d cu
CO CO CO 4J
CO P 0) CU /•
d cu o d i
•H 4J CO O i
cx 4-1 B
«i-l CO O i
CO TJ 3 CU
TJ P rH
CX O <& • CJ CO
cu
cx
o
o
• •
CO
CU
1— 1
•H
d
cu
^
3
TJ
CU
3
d
.-1
d
.Q «
o d
cfl
o
. -H
O p
cu
cu E
-4, CO
fl
CO CU
H d
0
p
0
s
cx co PU j
•H CO TJ P
x: TJ -H co •> i
cx 1-1 co bo cfl
6 d >-, I-l CO (
cfl O B CO O (
bo <-3 d <
- O •> -HI
CO CX CO CX <
P O CJ •• CO
CU 4-1 CO CO B <
«-l CO 3 4-1 CU 1
•H P rH rH 4J J.
4-1 CU rH 3 CX 4
o o o TJ cu T
P s_x E
d
•H
d 3
3 O
cfl p C
CX bO TJ
CO
t^ O P
p CU 4J CU
cu x: d 4-1
4J 4-1 i-l d
<4-l 1-1
Cfl CO CU 3
Cfl > P
B 0 cu
co B E >
CU CO O
P cu -
4-1 p >,
CO 4J Cfl •
bO d CO TJ TJ
d
•H
§
cfl
3d cu
O 3 >. CU
TJ O XI W-l
cu P o
CX > CU CU 4-1
CO
>/
CO
cu
O > 4-1
E O Cfl 4-1
E 3 x:
tfl bO
4J CO P -H
CX rH CU CU d
* *•
CO
3
o
E
o
p
TJ
Cfl
d
3
En
** •
-* " d
-1 CO O
-IP 4J
Jl CU -^
H d d
-> -H CO
-1 X: rH
3 rH CX
TJ -H CU 4-»
< d cu co
CU TJ
> CO
. 3 4J 3
CO •!-) T-I O
rJ XS rH
CU - CO i— 1
4J bO X! cfl
-, CO
CO rH CU
CU 4J 4-1 4-1
rH CJ >> CU
-O cu co d
•H CO B O
X d B
i— 1 0) CO
>4-l d CO rH
O CX cfl
3 PL,
B co cx
p
O CU <-8 CO
TJ CO CX O TJ TJ
2 0
rH O
A T-I N
3 cfl
U 4J
:x *j
3 O CU
2 CX CO
fl CO >
Z. P
D ^ • cfl
-> CO ^ rH
3 i-l • 4J
J CU CX CO
-i cu cx o
^s V) PH
CO
T-I
I-l
T-I
4-1
cfl
^
cfl
CO
cu
d
o
p
o
a
— i cu rH B
i-l Cfl
CO 4J d
cu 0 co «
i— i cu P ^^
•H rH 0) CU
C O) 4-J Cd
cu co cx >
> d -H n
3 O TJ CO
1-5 d ^ rH
*^N
CO
CO
CO
XJ
TJ
1)
cx
•H
P
4J
C/3
^ — /
•— 1
CO
•H
CJ
p
CU
E
G
O
CJ
c£J
4-1
p
O
cx
CO
p
o
CO
s
•
CO
rH
cu
d
d •
Cfl CU
rC 0
o d
co
P 4J
CU P
CX O
cu cx
cu B
TJ T-I
*
CO
TJ Cfl
•H B
CO O
>^ CO
B o
•H
" XI
CO O
TJ CJ
o ^-^
D.
cfl Ol
CJ CO
CU >
TJ P
cfl
P rH
cu
x: x:
4J CO
O T-l
ft
cx <-a
£2
•H x:
P CD
X- iH
CO UH
4-1
d
cO
TJ
d
3
XI
cfl
f,
4-J
•H
3
£_i
cu
4-1
CO
3
4-1
CU
3
4J
1 - P
x; P o
en cu cx
cu > co
P iH
l| | (V^ J_(
O
1— 1 O T-)
cfl CO cfl
TJ B S
i-l O
4J 4-J
O •
d pu ><
•H 2:
cu
co x; "
d 4J p
3 CU
co y-i >
CX O T-I
d
o d
• •HO •
d 4-1 en cu
0- O P TJ CJ
CO
•H
CX
0
p
4J
O
z
«v
CO
3
CO
o
Xi
•H
bO
CO
•H
B
o
cx
3
*
-H
o
Cfl
o
f\
s-**
•
cx
cx
en
(0
T-I
TJ
•H
d
p
O
.. 0
I-l >
cu cu
4-1 P
CO M
3 ^
x:
CO X!
CU CO
P i-i
M-l U-l
rH TJ
CO CU
TJ i-l
. T-I CX
en 4-i 3
CU rH
4-1 d CJ
01 i-l
Cfl 4J
x: co cu
CJ 4-> i-l
t^ rH TJ
rH 3
O TJ ^
cx
Xi CO
CU rH • d
4J /-v rH
P d cx
cu cfl B
> P -H
d cu P P
•H 4J x; cu
CX CO TJ
s~s T-I cu
•H U-l
** (-0 d
x: o 0
co >-, B i-i
•H rH eu x:
14-1 H-l (0 4-1
XrH d
TJ CO Cfl CU
CU B CX X3
cfl •> •> cfl
P CO CO
1 TJ XI >,
>^ O CO rH
d CX p i-l
•H T-I CJ p
a x: co
co cx cu E
E 3 -H
CO
3
CO
o
XI
XI
•H
bO
CO
•H
B
o
cx
cu
»J
•H O 3 d
4J CX M CO
CO 4-1
CX
cu to 3 > -H
M
CO
TJ
o
o
P CO
4J 0) M
cu x: w
•H 4-J CO
TJ O •> O
cu
ro co > co
VD rH p TJ
< CO O
rH CX
E cu
CO • 4-1 CX
cu cu o o
P CO CU CJ
4-1 ^ CO N— '
co P d
CO T-I CD
P rH d
01 <-8 CO
4-i d a>
(fl CO CO O
3 P 4-1 CO
f. CU O 4-1
CO 4-1 CU CO
cu cx co 3
MH TJ -H CJ
^-^
TJ
CU
cu
CO
d
•H
CX
B
PM
-------
Table D. Reptiles and amphibians known to occur in the Tinicum area.
Compiled from McCormick, 1970; Jack McCormick and Associates, 1971; and
Philadelphia 1976 Bicentennial Corporation, with taxonomic revisions
according to Hall, 1981.
REPTILES
Snapping turtle
Stinkpot
Eastern mud turtle*
Spotted turtle
Bog turtle*
Wood turtle
Eastern box turtle
Northern diamondback terrap
False map turtle
Red-bellied turtle*
Red-eared turtle
Eastern painted turtle
Midland painted turtle
Smooth softshell
Northern water snake
Northern brown snake
Eastern garter snake
Northern black racer
AMPHIBIANS
Chelydra serpentina
Sternotherus odoratus
Kinosteron subrubrum subrurum
Clemmys guttata
Clemmys muhlenbergii
Clemmys insculpta
Terrapene Carolina
Malaclemys terrapin
Graptemys pseudogeographica
Chrysemys rubriventris
Chrysemys scripta elegans
Chrysemys pieta picta
Chrysemys picta marginata
Trionyx muticus
Nerodia sipedon sipedon
Storeria dekayji. dekayi
Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis
Coluber constrictor constrictor
Mudpuppy
American toad
Spring peeper
Bullfrog
Green frog
Wood frog
Northern leopard frog
Pickerel frog
Southern leopard frog*
Necturus maculosus
Bufo americanus
Hyla crucifer
Rana catesbeiana
Rana clamitans melanota
Rana sylvatica
Rana pipiens
Rana palustris
Rana utricularia
*Listed as endangered species by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
-------
Table E. Birds known to nest in Tinicum. (U. S. FWS, 1983b)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Pied-billed grebe
American bittern
Least bittern
Great egret
Snowy egret
Green-backed heron
Black-crowned night-
Canada goose
Wood duck
Green-winged teal
American black duck
Mallard
Northern pintail
Blue-winged teal
Northern shoveler
Northern harrier
American kestrel
Ring-necked pheasant
Northern bobwhite
King rail
Virginia rail
Sora
Common moorhen
American coot
Killdeer
Spotted sandpiper
American woodcock
Mourning dove
Black-billed cuckoo
Yellow-billed cuckoo
Common barn-owl
Eastern screech-owl
Great horned owl
Ruby-throated hummin
Downy woodpecker
Northern flicker
Alder flycatcher
Willow flycatcher
Least flycatcher
Eastern phoebe
Great crested flycat
Eastern kingbird
Purple martin
Tree swallow
Barn swallow
Blue j ay
American crow
Fish crow
Carolina chickadee
Tufted titmouse
Carolina wren
Podilymbus podiceps
Botaurus lentiginosus
Ixobrychus exilis
Casmerodius albus
Egretta thula
Butorides virescens
Nycticorax nyct.lcorx
Branta canadensis
Aix sponsa
Anas crecca
Anas rubripes
Anas platyrhynchos
Anas acuta
Anas discors
Anas clypeata
Circus cyaneus
Falco sparverius
Phasianus colchicus
Colinus virgnianus
Rallus elegans
Rallus limicola
Porzana Carolina
Gallinula chloropus
Fulica americana
Charadrius vociferus
Actitis macularia
Philohela minor
Zenaida macroura
Coecyzus erythropthalmus
Coccyzus americanus
Tyto alba
Otus asio
Bubo virginianus
Archilochus colubris
Dendrocopos pubescens
Colaptes auratus
Empidonax alnorum
Empidonax traillii
Empidonax minimus
Sayornis phoebe
Myiarchus crinitus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Progne subis
Iridoprocne bicolor
Hirundo rustica
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Corvus ossifragus
Parus carolinensis
Parus bicolor
Thryothorus ludovicianus
-------
Table E. Continued.
House wren
Sedge wren
Marsh wren
Wood thrush
American robin
Gray catbird
Northern mockingbird
Brown thrasher
Cedar waxwing
European starling
White-eyed vireo
Warbling vireo
Red-eyed vireo
Yellow warbler
American redstart
Common yellowthroat
Troglodytes aedon
Cistothorus platensis
Telmatodytes palustris
Hylocichla mustelina
Turdus migratorius
Dumetella carolinensis
Mimus polyglottos
Toxostoma rufurn
Bombycilla cedrorum
Sturnus vulgaris
Virgo griseus
Vireo gilvus
Vireo olivaceus
Dendroica petechia
Setophaga ruticilla
Geothlypis trichas
-------
Table F. Mammals known to occur in the Tinicum area. (U. S. FWS
and Tinxcum NEC staff, personal communication). '
Common Name Scientific Name
Virginia opposum Didelphis virgniana
Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda
Eastern mole Scalous aquaticus
Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus
Raccoon Procyon Iqtqr
Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata
Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Red fox Vulpes vulpes
Gray squirrel Sciurus caro1inensis
White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus
Marsh rice rat Oryzomys palustris
Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus
Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus
Norway rat Rattus norvegicus
House mouse Mus musculus
Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudson!us
Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus
White-tailed deer Odocoileus virggiianus
Mink Mustel_a vi^son
River otter Lutra canadensis
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis
-------
Table G. Potential Point Sources in the Tinicum Area
Air Toxicant Sources within 10 km of Folcroft.
Name
Address
ARCO Petroleum, 2700 Passyunk
ARCO Petroleum, 3144 Passyunk
Gulf Refining, 30th and Penrose
Inolex Chemical, Jackson and Swans
Ashland Chemical, 2801 S. Delaware
DAK International, 201 Pattison
E. I. DuPont, 3500 Grays Ferry
Gulf Oil, Penrose Ave
Naval Regional Med Ctr,
Pattison and Broad
Saint Agnes, 1900 S. Broad
Sea Gull Lighting, 25th & Wharton
Southwark Cooperage, Meadow & Wolf
US Naval Base
US Uniform, 1202 Reed St
Amerada Hess, 1630 S 51st
Amoco Oil, 63 &Passyunk
Chemical Compounds, 5525 Grays Ferry
Chilton Printing, 5601 Chestnut
Exxon Co, 6850 Essington
General Electric, 6901 Elmwood
General Electric, 3198 Chestnut
Getty Refining, 49 & Grays Ferry
Hygrade Food, 8400 Executive Ave.
Industrial Lift, Isl. & Enterpr.
International Print, 711 S. 50th
Toxicant
Emitted
Benzene
Benzene
Chromi um
Benzene
Chromium
Nickel
Antimony
Manganese
Chromite
Aldehydes
Acrylonitrile
Formaldehyde
Propylene Imine
Benzene
Emission rate
Ib/yr
511
8202
523
31450
2150
1000
80
87
6.2
2962
.0319
.0549
.0215
Ethylene Oxide 453
Ehtylene Oxide 4300
Trichloroethylene 2420
Lead Chrornate 26
Trichloroethylene 2420
Perchloroethylene 4880
Chromium 13.8
Perchloroethylene 400
Benzene 156
Benzene 3010
Zinc Chromate 1
Pentachloroethylene .5
Propylene Oxide .3
Mercury .5
Formaldehyde 27
Perchloroethylene 24
Pentachlroethylene 123
Benzene 900
Zinc Chromate 7
Chrome Plating 22.6
Methlyene Chloride 100
Benzene 2376
Formaldehyde 426
Lead Chromate 50.4
Lead 90.5
Antimony 3.3
Trichloroethylene 144
-------
Table G. Continued.
LEK Corp, 5420 Paschall
MA Bruder, 5213 Grays Ave.
Mckesson, 8335 Enterprise Ave.
Paintarama, Island & Glenmore
Phil a Intl Airport
Phillips & Jacobs, 8300 Escort
Zinc Chromate 7.5
Lead 44.3
Pentachloroethylene .45
Propylene Oxide .37
Methylene Chloride -
Triehioroethylene -
Lead Chromate 5
Carbaryl 50
Chlordane -
Methylene Chloride 222
Perchloroethylene 13
Trichloroethylene 65
NPDES Permitted Discharges in the Tinicum Area
Boeing Corporation, Permit # PA0013323, Darby Creek
Gulf Oil, Permit # PA0011550, Darby Creek
Jones Fuel & Heating, Permit # PA0040151, Darby Creek
National Wood Preservers, Naylors Run
Tinicum Township STP, Permit # PA0028380, Darby Creek
International Paper, Permit # PA0010952, Muckinipattis Creek
Lansdowne Steel and Iron, Muckinipattis Creek
Philadelphia Electric, Eddystone, Permit # PA0013714, Darby Creek
Earlton Treatment Co., Permit # PA0034037, Darby Creek (expired)
Muckinipattis STP, Permit # PA0027588 (expired)
National Paper, Permit # PA0010952, Muckinipattis Creek
-------
—. in •*• in ca in
coo-or*-oomoooi»aoor--cD«-«-a
CO -C
CO cj
•H
0) JC U
Ij IS CU
CO >
CO 0)
CO 4_> J
l-l i—! O
—I CO
'4-1 CU 4J
•.-1 tl C
r-l CU
cfl CU co
3 :> cu
cr — i i-i
4_i a.
CO -H
4-1 CO >-,
n) O i— (
Q CL cu
„ >
II >H
e s co
CX 4J
CX - C
4J CU
C C 4J
•H CU
CO ||
0) CU
CO CL
M
CO CO 4J •
4-1 -H C C
CO CU O
O T3 01 — I
C cu *-"
3 !_i CO
• O CX CJ
Cfl O, -r4
a) e T3 y-i
l-i O CU -H
Cfl U g *->
3 C
S I* co co
3 0 co 3
o c co cr
•H 01
C T3 CU 1-J
•r-t -H X3 O
H >
0) 4_) C
D 00
Si bO C -H
4J C 4-1
O -r) cfl
C ij r-{ 0
•H 4J 3 t-i
CO O -H
"O _C M-l
0) II CO C
4-J O
CJ (^ -o CJ
o cu cx -H
CJ 4-1 g ,£J
CJ O -rl
CO CU CJ .£
4_) 4-1 CU O
CO CU r_| U
CO
4-1 4-1 .H Cfl
C O r-J J->
CU C CU cfl
£ l-l ^
•H II C
-rt 3 ,
r-H M-l
l-i 0
. •• co
33 CO CU 1)
5 r-l CJ
- cc
:E CD
ac cj
—J =3 =1 ^
Z
S
ig
t— LU
Z S
^"
1 LU
=1 - LU
h— 5
LU _>
cn :c
ca Q_
i LU ca a — >
CD LU —
z ^
LU a_
CO
UJ
| =;« <=-o =;
CJ
— o "^ — ^ c> c>oo
PD
CJ
Q_
— > O
CJ
a_
LU ninca o c=» o- a
IZ -V
cu
^
LU S "^ Z Z Z Z Z
^
z
sx ^-
11 ^ V
^
il -= "" s si -^£
^ 3C
LU ^
5
z: ..-^> z ca - r--
cc: *"* o <^ c>
Q_
i uj inin ^- ca ^- i— .if znt^iiazsi
|f --- ^ - o
Du
UJ — ' — ^- *• ~O Ki^- =3-W^3Ca
cn <^
OC.
CJ
1 LU lOin f>* ^-C^ cai-sl Z3CNII3ZD
5 LU fj-^~^ ^°7r-4°I N^
i ^~
u_ ac
t— oOoocooaoacDoacdcxiooaDcacDcoicobacDca
ca -, _ ,-. _ . -. « _ .__-^,^,«____
Z> . LU LU
— OC CO CO
- UJ LU uj ca
ct_ tra cj i — ca
— act >- «i u_ — CJ 4C CJ OC U_
LU ^ LU CD CO OC
Z1 LU t— « U. at CJ
x •— t •— > I> QC _J
•— ' O ^- OC LU CD
^ cn ^-— 'om«»-orj--a— «-oi —
^ — _- «^^r^ ^-— ro co -, cj -*
— <=>eacao.o<=.o.eaeaoc=acao<=>r^*»-inin
-« ^- _ — , _ — O-Cr-o-O
K 8S S SS §S §§§§§
(^> ^ r^~ ^ t--- •-« r^- -o m t>o ri-o-dr^«^
o in
o
oa cacaca ocacaca
cn z z z z z z z
co ct-r-- CNI -or^ in-— oof--r^r-vr^
CD r-- •* "*• com •*- — ro in o*
t— """"ScSc^So^^cSePcSo^cScScSS
« -.4«^«4«4«4^«n««« *
2 °= « *** *c ^
, — ce uj i— uj uj
o_ cj ac cj ag
— co >- «r u- «x CL,
pa oa LU CD t—
CO O CC _J OC CZI t—
(— cj «r cj cc u.
LU 3B LU C3 Cfl OC
1C UJ —* U- «C tJ
ac LU a: LU 3= u_
i— to
-------
o
u
ss:
i «•» fo —i
r <» OB o- cvi
1*0 P^ r^i c^4 »->
*• in P*. rs *-i 04
oo -o o* r*. r-a in
'O
ID ••• i
LU >-«
-------
Table I. Water quality data, Cobbs and Hermesprota Creeks, PA. Mean and
maximum concentrations of pollutants in ambient water. First line of each cell
= number of observations, second line = mean, third line = maximum. All
concentrations of metals, cyanide, and ammonia are in ug/1; concentrations of
BOD, dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, nitrates, and nitrites are in mg/1. pH is
in standard units, turbidity in JTU, and temperature in °C.
Parameter
06
flL
flS
Bfl
BODS
CD
CN FREE
CR
OJ
DO
FE
H6
KJE! ii
MB
Cobbs Creek: (! Heraesprota Creek:
Location/ Station !! Location/ Station
Darby
PA
Cl
1
0.00
0.00
2
100.00
200.00
j
0.00
0.00
1
0.00
0.00
0
.
.
2
0.00
0.00
2
1.00
2.00
2
0.00
0.00
2
0.00
0.00
2
8.00
9.50
2
890.00
1780.00
1
0.00
0.00
0
.
•
0
*
•
500 ft
upstreai
Darby Cr
B
0
•
«
1
0.00
0.00
0
•
•
0
•
*
0
.
•
1
0.00
0.00
1
2.00
2.00
1
0.00
0.00
1
0.00
0.00
0
.
t
1
490.00
490.00
0
•
p
0
*
*
0
•
*
350 ft.
upstreai
Darby Cr
C3
0
•
*
1
200.00
200.00
0
•
•
0
•
•
0
•
•
1
1.34
1.34
1
2.00
2.00
1
0.00
0.00
1
0.00
0.00
0
.
•
1
940.00
940.00
0
•
*
0
.
•
0
•
•
200 ft.
upstreai
Darby Cr
C4
2
0.000
0.000
2
0.000
0.000
2
0.000
0.000
2
0.000
0.000
0
•
2
0.000
0.000
2
0.000
0.000
2
0.000
0.000
2
0.000
0.000
0
.
•
2
0.000
0.000
2
0.000
0.000
0
•
•
0
.
,
50 ft. !! Upstreai
upstreai!! Folcroft
Darby Crl! Landfill
C5 !! HI
1 1
1 1
1 !! 0
o.ooo :: .
o.ooo :: .
1 !! 0
0.000 :i .
o.ooo :: .
1 I! 0
0.000 !! .
0.000 !! .
1 !! 1
41.000 !! 0.000
41.000 !! 0.000
1 !! 0
6.500 !! .
6.500 !! .
1 I! 1
0.000 !! 0.000
o.ooo :: o.ooo
1 1! 1
0.000 !! 0.000
0.000 !! 0.000
i :: i
0.000 !! 0.000
0.000 !i 0.000
1 !! 1
0.000 !! 0.000
0.000 !! 0.000
0 !! 0
1 i
• 1 i •
i 1
• It*
1 !! 1
439.000 !! 1340.000
439.000 !! 1340.000
o :: o
1 1
• II*
1 1
• II*
1 !! 0
1.090 !! .
1.090 !! .
o :: o
1 1
• ft*
1 1
« II*
fit
Folcroft
Landfill
H2
1
0.000
AOQQ,..
i
11000.000
11000.000
1
12.000
12.000
_- M« — — _ • — — — .
1
208.000
208.000
0
,
,
0
•
•
1
0.000
0.000
1
34.000
34.000
1
0.000
0.000
0
,
•
1
14000.000
14000.000
0
•
•
0
*
•
0
.
•
-------
Table I. (Continued)
Parameter
MN
NH3
NI
N02
N03
PB
PH
PHENOLS
P04
SE
TEHP
TURB
ZN
Cobbs Creek: ! ! Heraesprota Creek:
Location/ Station !! Location/ Station
Darby
Pfl
Cl
2
125.00
250.00
0
t
i
2
0.00
0.00
0
,
,
0
.
c
5.10
10.20
2
7.45
7.50
0
*
t
1
0.03
0.00
1
0.00
0.00
2
17.75
25.50
0
<
B
2
50.00
100.00
500 ft
upstreai
Darby Cr
C2
1
70.00
70.00
0
.
B
1
0.00
0.00
0
.
m
0
.
m
1
5.90
5.90
0
.
0
9
0
.
t
0
.
,
0
.
m
0
>
t
1
30.00
30.00
350 ft.
upstrean
Darby Cr
C3
1
130.00
130.00
0
.
B
1
0.00
0.00
0
,
1
0
*
,
1
8.60
8.60
0
«
0
m
0
.
m
0
,
t
0
.
m
0
m
1
30.00
30.00
200 ft.
upstreaa
Darby Cr
C4
2
0.000
0.000
0
.
t
2
0.000
0.000
0
.
m
0
.
,
2
0.000
0.000
0
.
0
,
m
0
,
m
2
0.000
0.000
0
,
m
0
t
f
2
70.000
140.000
50 ft. 11 Upstreai
upstreai! ! Folcroft
Darby Crl! Landfill
C5 !! HI
i :: i
81.000 i! 107.000
81.000 :: 107.000
i i: o
0.270 ,'! .
0.270 !! .
i i: i
o.ooo :; o.ooo
o.ooo :: o.ooo
i ;: o
0.352 :: .
0.352 :; .
1 !! 0
0.310 :: .
0.310 :: .
i :: i
0.000 !! 0.000
o.ooo :: o.ooo
i :: o
7.700 !i .
7.700 :: .
i :; o
o.ooo ;: .
o.ooo :: .
i :: o
0.340 !i .
0.340 ;: .
i :: o
o.ooo :: .
o.ooo :: .
o :: o
i i
• ii.
• i i •
o :: o
i i
i i
• i i •
i i: o
0.000 :: .
0.000 !! .
ftt
Folcroft
Landfill
H2
1
7%. 000
7%. 000
0
.
B
1
0.000
0.000
0
.
,
0
.
.
0
m
B
0
.
0
.
0
.
^
0
.
I
0
.
m
0
m
1
206.000
206.000
-------
Table J. Water quality data, Darby Creek, PA. Mean and maximum
concentrations of pollutants in ambient water. First line of each cell =
number of observations, second line = mean, third line = maximum. All
concentrations of metals, cyanide, and ammonia are in ug/1; BOD, dissolved
oxygen, nitrogen, nitrates, and nitrites are in mg/1. pH is in standard
units, turbidity in JTU, and temperature in °C.
Parameter
06
flL
AS
BP
BODS
CD
CHJFREE.
CR
01
DO
FE
H6
KJEL_N
I*
Location/
Devon,
PA
01
0
0
•
0
•
0
•
1
3.000
3.000
0
0
0
•
0
7
9.957
11.600
0
•
0
5
0.598
1.000
0
•
Station
Upper
Darby,
PA
D2
0
•
4
160.000
430.000
4
0.000
0.000
0
•
•
0
1.675
9.900
4
0.000
0.000
0
•
4
7.500
20.000
4
15.000
50.000
1
10.436
13.200
4
737.917
9360.000
4
0.000
0.000
1
0.300
0.300
3
9.720
11.500
1000 ft.
upstreaa
CobbsCr
D3
1
0.000
0.000
2
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
2
0,110
0.220
2
1.000
2.000
2
0.000
0.000
2
0.000
0.000
0
•
2
635.000
1270.000
1
0.000
0.000
0
0
650 ft.
upstream
Cobbs Cr.
04
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
•
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
•
0
•
•
500 ft.
upstrean
Cobbs Cr.
D5
0
•
1
BO. 000
80. 000
0
•
•
0
•
4
1.600
1.600
j
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
10.000
10.000
0
1
690.000
690.000
0
0
0
•
100 ft.
upstream
Cobbs Cr
D6
1
0.000
0.000
2
55.000
110.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
52.000
52.000
2
1.350
1.500
2
0.000
0.000
2
0.000
0.000
2
20.000
40.000
2
0.000
0.000
0
•
2
157.000
250.000
0
•
•
1
0.390
0.390
0
•
25 ft.
upstream
Cobbs Cr
D7
0
1
0.000
0.000
0
0
•
0
1
0.000
0.000
1
1.000
1.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
0
1
300.000
300.000
0
0
0
At
Cobbs
Cr
_ _M
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
47.000
47.000
1
4.000
4.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
1
317.000
317.000
0
•
•
1
1.080
1.080
0
•
75 ft.
dnstreaa
Cobbs Cr
D9
0
1
200.000
200.000
0
0
«
0
•
1
0.200
0.200
1
1.000
kwo _
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
0
1
1380.000
1380.000
0
0
»
*
0
•
*
-------
Table J. Water quality data, Darby Creek, PA. Mean and maximum
concentrations of pollutants in ambient water. First line of each cell =
number of observations, second line = mean, third line = maximum. All
concentrations of metals, cyanide, and ammonia are in ug/1; BOD, dissolved
oxygen, nitrogen, nitrates, and nitrites are in mg/1. pH is in standard
units, turbidity in JTU, and temperature in °C.
Parameter
UN
NH3
NI
N02
NQ3
PB
PH
PHENOLS
P04
SE
TEKP
TURB
ZN
Location/
Devon,
PA
Dl
0
•
•
3
0.080
0.160
0
•
•
3
0.007
0.010
1
1.500
1.500
0
•
•
8
7.122
9.200
0
•
•
6
0.133
0.310
0
•
8
13.917
33.000
0
•
•
0
Station
Upper
Darby,
PA
D2
4
17.500
30.000
4
0.047
0.270
4
5.000
10.000
4
0.014
0.044
4
1.877
2.990
4
0.000
0.000
5
7.910
8.900
0
•
•
4
0.075
0.270
0
3
12.654
24.000
0
•
•
4
17.500
30.000
1000 ft.
upstreai
CobbsCr
D3
2
35.000
70.000
0
•
•
2
0.000
0.000
0
•
•
0
•
•
2
2.800
5.600
0
•
*
0
•
•
0
•
•
1
0.000
0.000
0
0
2
0.000
0.000
650 ft.
upstreai
Cobbs Cr.
D4
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
•
0
1
0
0
0
0
•
•
0
•
1
0
0
0
•
•
0
•
•
1
0
0
500 ft.
upstreaa
Cobbs Cr.
D5
1
110.000
110.000
1
1.320
1.320
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.036
0.036
1
2.480
2.480
1
5.000
5.000
1
7.200
7.200
•
15.000
15.000
0
•
•
0
0
1
3.000
3.000
1
10.000
10.000
100 ft.
upstreai
Cobbs Cr
D6
2
43.500
50.000
2
0.240
0.380
2
20.000
40.000
2
0.044
0.066
2
1.265
2.000
2
0.000
0.000
2
7.600
7.700
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.120
0.120
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
1
1.000
1.000
2
5.000
10.000
25 ft.
upstream
Cobbs Cr
D7
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
0
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
0
0
•
•
0
•
•
0
0
•
•
1
10.000
10.000
fit
Cobbs
Cr
D8
1
60.000
60.000
1
0.1BO
0.180
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.220
0.220
1
1.580
1.580
1
0.000
0.000
1
7.700
7.700
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.280
0.280
1
0.000
0.000
0
0
•
•
1
0.000
0.000
75 ft.
dnstreai
CobbsCr
D9
1
120.000
120.000
0
•
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
0
•
•
1
12.600
12.600
0
•
0
•
0
•
0
0
•
0
•
•
1
30.000
30.000
-------
Table J. Water quality data, Darby Creek, PA. Mean and maximum
concentrations of pollutants in ambient water. First line of each cell =
number of observations, second line = mean, third line = maximum. Ail
concentrations of metals, cyanide, and ammonia are in ug/1; BOD, dissolved
oxygen, nitrogen, nitrates, and nitrites are in mg/1. pH is in standard
units, turbidity in JTU, and temperature in °C.
Parameter
06
PL
OS
Bfl
BODS
CO
CN.FREE
CR
CU
DO
FE
HB
KJa_N
MB
Location/
150 ft.
dnstreai
CobbsCr
D10
0
•
1
160.000
160.000
0
*
•
0
•
•
1
1.600
1.600
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
30.000
30.000
1
20.000
20.000
0
•
1
320.000
320.000
0
•
•
0
•
•
0
•
Station
300 ft.
dnstreai
CobbsCr
on
0
•
•
1
2210.00
2210.00
0
*
•
0
•
•
0
•
•
1
2.05
2.05
1
0.00
0.00
1
30.00
30.00
1
120.00
120.00
0
•
•
1
12290.00
12290.00
0
0
•
•
0
•
•
1000 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
D12
0
•
0
•
0
•
•
0
•
1
10.00
10.00
0
•
•
1
0.00
0.00
0
•
•
0
•
•
0
•
1
15056.00
15056.00
0
•
1
0.00
0.00
0
•
1800 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
013
0
•
•
1
1990.000
1990.000
0
•
•
0
•
1
1.000
1.000
1
0.230
0.230
1
0.007
0.007
1
20.000
20.000
1
30.000
30.000
0
•
•
1
3170.000
3170.000
0
•
0
0
•
2000 ft.
dnstreai
CobbsCr
014
1
14.000
14.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
55.000
55.000
1
1.100
1.100
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
1
761.000
761.000
0
•
1
1.220
1.220
0
•
•
Upstreai
Tinicui
Center
015
0
•
0
•
•
0
•
1
0.000
0.000
0
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
1
1990.000
_imoop__
~0
•
0
•
•
0
•
At
Tinicui
Center
D16
0
•
1
398000.00
398000.00
1
92.00
92.00
1
3310.00
3310.00
0
•
•
1
65.00
65.00
1
445.00
445.00
1
1500.00
1500.00
1
2070.00
2070.00
0
•
•
1
505000.00
505000.00
0
•
0
•
•
0
•
•
At
Route
291
017
0
•
•
0
•
•
53
0.000
0.000
0
•
•
53
2.894
14.800
53
0.113
1.660
0
•
53
6.604
40.000
53
IB. 326
80.000
21
6.771
12.100
53
986.781
4360.000
53
0.038
2.000
50
1.610
16.000
0
•
•
-------
Table J. Water quality data, Darby Creek, PA. Mean and maximum
concentrations of pollutants in ambient water. First line of each cell =
number of observations, second line = mean, third line = maximum. Ail
concentrations of metals, cyanide, and ammonia are in ug/1; BOD, dissolved
oxygen, nitrogen, nitrates, and nitrites are in mg/1. pH is in standard
units, turbidity in JTU, and temperature in °C.
Parameter
MN
W3
NI
N02
N03
PB
PH
PHENOLS
P04
SE
TEMP
TURB
IN
Location/
150 ft.
dnstreai
CobbsCr
010
1
60.000
60.000
1
0.540
0.540
1
10.000
10.000
1
0.026
0.026
1
1.990
1.990
1
0.000
0.000
1
7.500
7.500
1
0.000
0.000
0
0
0
1
3.000
3.000
1
20.000
20.000
Station
300 ft.
dnstreai
CobbsCr
Dll
1
490.00
490.00
0
•
•
1
30.00
30.00
0
•
•
0
•
•
4
407.00
407.00
0
1
35.00
35.00
0
•
0
•
0
•
•
0
•
•
1
320.00
320.00
1000 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
012
0
•
1
32.10
32.10
0
•
•
1
0.06
0.08
1
1.84
1.84
0
•
•
1
7.90
7.90
1
47.50
47.50
0
•
•
0
•
0
•
1
100.00
100.00
0
•
•
1800 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
013
1
120.000
120.000
1
2.750
2.750
1
10.000
10.000
1
0.038
0.038
1
1.980
1.980
1
131.000
131.000
1
7.500
7.500
1
37.500
37.500
0
•
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
1
25.000
25.000
1
60.000
60.000
2000 ft.
dnstreai
Cobbs Cr
D14
1
116.000
116.000
1
0.230
0.230
1
116.000
116.000
1
0.220
0.220
1
1.680
1.680
1
0.000
0.000
1
7.700
7.700
1
0.000
0.000
1
0.340
0.340
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
•
0
•
•
1
0.000
0.000
Upstreai
Timcuoi
Center
D15
1
280.000
280.000
0
•
•
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
•
0
•
•
1
0.000
0.000
0
•
0
•
0
•
0
•
•
0
•
0
•
•
0
•
fit
Tinicui
Center
D16
1
5760.00
5760.00
0
•
•
1
908.00
908.00
0
•
•
0
•
1
3450.00
3450.00
0
•
*
0
*
0
*
*
1
2.50
2.50
0
•
0
*
1
8460.00
8460.00
fit
Route
291
D17
0
•
•
53
0.742
2.730
0
•
*
53
0.098
0.714
53
1.819
3.450
53
11.851
224.500
17
6.893
7.600
0
•
51
0.225
0.420
38
0.263
10.000
25
13.820
27.000
0
•
•
52
32.738
110.000
-------
*
*
*
«KM4f I
Table K. Calculation of tidal prism on Darby Creek.
«K H M ILM.X.M.1L1 11 K II K M M.M.KJC >M>BVi«KII>Bi>WH«itB>CBW«if«Ki>««i>iri.u.»«»lvfvv),vv«Kltl,H>u>u>l,vl,_VVVK_KMVH
» • • i H^t •MKMMMBM
*
* Distance
* Proa
• • • M m it -m irww*
flpprox
rWCTimrK K k KB
flpprox
« «"»»ic f~K VWVK •• • w n m K » x virxw
Cumulative
* Upstreaa Intertidal Intertidal Intertidal Intertidal
*
*
v f f mi
*
*
*
t
*
*
*
*
*
t
*
f
*
t
*
«
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
t
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
4
*
«
« JUtJULJUUL
LiBit
<•)
(Ut Btf V 1 1 1 i
r* **¥ • » * • *
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
JUUL******
Depth
(•)
Kita nxjuum M> K
IT* 1 *********
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.33
0.35
0.37
0.38
0.40
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.49
0.51
0.53
0.55
0.57
0.59
0.60
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.70
0.71
0.73
0.75
0.77
0.79
0.81
0.82
0.84
.X**X**jLXJLJLJt.
Width
(•)
.••KKBIHllXK
! • • Y YYYYYYYYW
12.00
12.66
13.33
13.99
14.65
15.32
15.98
16.64
17.31
17.97
18.63
19.29
19.%
20.62
21.28
21.95
22.61
23.27
23.94
24.60
25.26
25.93
26.59
27.25
27.92
28.56
29.24
29.91
30.57
31.23
31.89
32.56
33.22
33.88
34.55
35.21
35.87
36.54
37.20
37.86
38.53
39.19
39.85
40.52
41.18
41.84
42.51
KJtJtmtJtKHJHHHLJ
Volune
(cu n)
*ii*fc*s<***i
YVYYVvvYYvYi
0
23
49
77
107
140
176
213
254
2%
341
389
439
491
546
603
663
725
789
856
925
997
1071
1148
1227
1309
1393
1479
1568
1659
1753
1849
1947
2048
2151
2257
2365
2476
2589
2705
2823
2943
3066
3191
3319
3449
3581
( K H M 1 XKK 11**
Volume
(cu n)
\ a a jutjJUUKJUt.
'YYYY YYYYYY Y Y
0
23
72
149
256
3%
572
785
1039
1335
1676
2065
2504
2995
3541
4144
4806
5531
6320
7176
8102
9099
10170
11318
12545
13854
15247
16725
18293
19952
21704
23553
25500
27548
29700
31957
34322
36798
39387
42092
44915
47857
50923
54114
57433
60881
64463
MMItM* HKXM||*|
flpprox
Subtidal
Depth
(•)
KJtXJULJLJ,JLJLJtXJ
FYYYYY Y Y Y YY*
0.90
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.%
0.97
0.98
0.99
0.99
1.00
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.04
1.05
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.09
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22
1.23
1.24
1.25
1.26
1.27
1.28
1.29
1.30
1.31
1.32
1.33
1.34
.**M***JtlE*«
flpprox
Subtidal
Width
(•)
iftSJtMMgKKJtKgK
f************
12.00
12.66
13.33
13.99
14.65
15.32
15.98
16.64
17.31
17.97
18.63
19.29
19.%
20.62
21.28
21.95
22.61
23.27
23.94
24.60
25.26
25.93
26.59
27.25
27.92
28.58
29.24
29.91
30.57
31.23
31.89
32.56
33.22
33.88
34.55
35.21
35.87
36.54
37.20
37.86
38.53
39.19
39.85
40.52
41.16
41.84
42.51
miiimnn
f
*
*
LAJt JtM. Jt Jt Jt Jt Jt. _M. Jt
RftRHIRBKRHKKBaKXaXK B1TKT
*
*
Cumulative t
Subtidal
Volume
(cu B)
• •iEjL>ainiK<
II **********
720
768
816
866
916
%7
1019
1072
1126
1180
1236
1292
1349
1407
1465
1525
1585
1646
1708
1771
1835
1899
1965
2031
2098
2166
2235
2304
2375
2446
2518
2591
2665
2739
2815
2891
2966
3046
3125
3204
3285
3366
3448
3531
3615
3700
3785
minium
Subtidal t
Volufte *
(cu ra) *
i JL X Jt Jt JLJLJLJL XJL Jt
YYYYYYY**YT
720 *
14fc8 *
2304 *
3170 *
4086 t
5054 *
6073 *
7145 »
8271 *
9451 *
10687 *
11978 *
13327 *
14734 *
16199*
17724 *
19309 *
20955 *
22663 *
24435 »
26269*
28169 *
30134 *
32165 t
34263 *
36429 *
38664 *
40968 *
43342 *
45788 *
48306 *
50897 *
53562 *
56301 «
59116 *
62007 *
64975 *
68021 *
71146 *
74350 *
77635*
81001 *
84450 *
87961 >
915%*
952% t
99081 *
minim
-------
*
* ****!
t
* Distance
» From
« Upstrean
*
#
LiBit
(•)
Table
flpprox
K. Calculation of tidal prism on Darby Creek. t
t
HHHHHHHHrt
t
t
flpprox Cumulative flpprox flpprox Cumulative t
Intertidal Intertidal Intertidal Intertidal
Depth
(•)
Width
(•)
VolUM
(cu •)
Volure
(cu n)
Subtidal
Depth
(•)
Subtidal
Width
(•)
Subtidal
Voluw
(cu n)
Subtidal *
Volume *
(cu •) *
X JLJLJtlHI KKM » JLJtJlitJtJLJL K » K K g E K It JtJtJtM K II ¥ g IT » •Jt-UgMKMKMME • If V It. » • It. ...» « » «*. » » . » »H »» t, *» I... ....H.....M... .«.••,.».«»•. ».»•..«.
*
t
#
t
*
*
*
*
*
*
«
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
«
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
JL
_„______.„„_.„„„„.. »»•»••.«»•.«•»»•»•• •>••»•••* ••*wHKwwvirirRKTKxw«Kicir> mm mm • m v VICTVTTTTB x virwir* • • •• • mwwwMWKWKWJfW
4700 0.36 43.17 3716 68179 1.35 43.17 3872 102952 t
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
5500
5600
5700
5800
5900
6000
6100
6200
6300
6400
6500
6600
6700
6800
6900
7000
7100
7200
7300
7400
7500
7600
7700
7800
7900
8000
8100
8200
8300
8400
8500
8600
8700
8800
8900
9000
9100
9200
9300
9400
9500
aXJtJtJLJLJULXJUt <
0.88
0.90
0.92
0.93
0.95
0.97
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.04
1.06
1.08
1.10
1.12
1.14
1.15
1.17
1.19
1.21
1.23
1.25
1.26
1.28
1.30
1.32
1.34
1.36
1.37
1.39
1.41
1.43
1.45
1.47
1.48
1.50
1.52
1.54
1.56
1.58
1.59
1.61
1.63
1.65
1.67
1.69
1.70
1.72
1.74
43.83
44.49
45.16
45.82
46.48
47.15
47.81
48.47
49.14
49.80
50.46
51.13
51.79
52.45
53.12
53.78
54.44
55.11
55.77
56.43
57.09
57.76
58.42
59.08
59.75
60.41
61.07
61.74
62.40
63.06
63.73
64.39
65.05
65.72
66.38
67.04
67.71
68.37
69.03
69.69
70.36
71.02
71.68
72.35
73.01
73.67
74.34
75.00
3853
3993
4136
4280
4427
4577
4729
4883
5040
5199
5361
5525
5691
5860
6032
6206
6382
6560
6742
6925
7111
7299
7490
7683
7879
8077
8278
8481
8686
8894
9104
9317
9532
9749
9969
10192
10417
10644
10874
11106
11340
11577
11817
12058
12303
12549
12798
13050
72032
76025
80161
84441
88868
93445
98174
103057
108097
1132%
118657
124182
129873
135733
141765
147971
154352
160913
167654
174579
181690
188990
196480
204163
212042
220120
228397
236878
245564
254458
263562
272879
282411
292160
302130
312322
322738
333382
344256
355361
366702
378279
390095
402154
414456
427006
439804
452854
1.35
1.36
1.37
1.38
1.39
1.40
1.41
1.42
1.43
1.44
1.45
1.46
1.47
1.48
1.49
1.50
1.51
1.52
1.53
1.53
1.54
1.55
1.56
1.57
1.58
1.59
1.60
1.61
1.62
1.63
1.64
1.65
1.66
1.67
1.68
1.69
1.70
1.71
1.71
1.72
1.73
1.74
1.75
1.76
1.77
1.78
1.79
1.80
43.83
44.49
45.16
45.82
46.48
47.15
47.81
48.47
49.14
49.80
50.46
51.13
51.79
52.45
53.12
53.78
54.44
55.11
55.77
56.43
57.09
57.76
58.42
59.08
59.75
60.41
61.07
61.74
62.40
63.06
63.73
64.39
65.05
65.72
66.38
67.04
67.71
68.37
69.03
69.69
70.36
71.02
71.68
72.35
73.01
73.67
74.34
75.00
3959
4047
4136
4225
4316
4407
4499
4592
4686
4781
4876
4973
5070
5168
5267
5367
5467
5569
5671
5774
5878
5983
6088
6195
6302
6410
6519
6629
6739
6851
6963
7076
7190
7305
7420
7537
7654
7772
7891
8011
8132
8253
8376
8499
8623
8748
8873
9000
106911 t
110958 *
115093 *
119318 *
123634 »
128041 i
132540 *
137133 *
141819 *
146600 «
151476 *
156449 *
161519 •
166687 f
171953 *
177320 f
182787 «
188356 *
194026 *
199800 t
205678 t
211660 i
217749 *
223943 *
230245 *
236655 t
243174 *
249802 t
256541 t
263392 *
270355 «
277431 *
284621 t
291926 *
299346 *
306883 «
314537 *
322310 *
330201 *
338213 *
346344 «
354598 *
362974 *
371472 *
380095 *
388843 f
397717 *
406717 *
ixxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx»xxxxxjLXXxxxxxx»ii«x«»»«»«»i»IIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIHlllilllllHHHiH»tmHI
------- |