Groundwater Capture Zone Analysis for the
Roamingwood Sewer and Water Association Well Field
July 2005
Revised September 2005
Prepared for
Roamingwood Sewer and Water Association
PO Box 6
Lake Ariel, PA 18436
Prepared by
Mr. Brian Oram, PG,
Mr. Bill Toothill, MS, and Mr. John Pagoda, BS
Wilkes University
Geo Environmental Sciences and Engineering Department
84 West South Street
Wilkes Barre, PA 18766
http://www.water-research.net
http://gis.wilkes.edu
1.0 Introduction
The Roamingwood Sewer & Water Association was awarded a “PA Growing
Greener Grant” to aid in the development of a Source Water Protection
Program for the Roamingwood Sewer & Water Association
(PWS ID # 2640025).
The Roamingwood Sewer & Water Association provides
drinking water from five groundwater sources to over 2,979 private
homes and 24 community buildings within the planned residential
development known as The Hideout in Salem and Lake Township in Wayne
County.
In 1798, Wayne County was subdivided from Northampton County
and named after General Anthony Wayne.
Wayne County contains over
488,250 acres that has been divided into 28 local municipalities.
Based on the 2000 Census, the rate of growth in Wayne County during the
1990’s was 19.5 % with an estimated population of over 47,700 in 2000.
In the Commonwealth, Wayne County ranks 3rd with respect to rate of
population growth and 18th with respect to density. The Hideout is a
planned residential community consisting of approximately 2,979 singlefamily homes nestled in the Pocono Mountains of Northeastern
Pennsylvania.
Prior to submitting the grant application and with the assistance of
the PADEP and PA Rural Water Association, the RS&W developed a
Roamingwood Sewer & Water Source Water Protection Steering Committee.
The primary objective of the overall project was to develop the Source
Water Protection Plan which would aid in the identification of actual
and potential sources of contamination, allow for public education,
provide an initial step towards the implementation of sustainable
planning, aid in developing a comprehensive action plan, and developing
long-term management plans to protect the quantity, quality, and
reliability of the groundwater system.
The primary goal of this
portion of the project was to compile and update available data and
conduct a more rigorous delineation of the capture zones for the well
field.
2.0 Well Field Capacity
The well field for RS&W consists of six wells with five wells in use.
From the available data, the average annual production for the period
from 2002 to 2004 was equivalent to 143,530,233 gallons per year or
11.9 million gallons per month (see Table 1).
In addition to the
production wells, the system has storage capacity of 908,000 gallons
and the primary form of treatment is disinfection using chlorination.
Table 1. Summary of Annual Water Production for the System.
Entry
Point
Id
Year
2004
2003
2002
101
102
South
North
Well #2
Well #3
47,786,100 41,827,100
42,557,300 28,919,100
36,937,200 36,867,200
103
Boulder
Well #4
49,696,100
44,879,000
36,465,100
104
105
Brookfield Elmwood
Total
Well #5
Well #1
(gallons)
20,761,200 5,504,500 165,575,000
23,568,200 8,773,800 148,697,400
4,847,900 1,200,900 116,318,300
Annual
Average 143,530,233
Monthly
Average 11,960,853
Based on information provided by RS&W, the anticipated maximum
production capacity for the system is 20 million gallons per month or
660,000+ gallons per day.
Therefore, the capture zone analysis was
conducted based on a projected demand of 13.8 million gallons per month
and a peak demand of 20 million gallons per month.
Table 2 shows the
individual daily pumping rates for the wells for the two scenarios.
Table 2. Pumping Rates Used in Well Head Protection Zone Calculations
and Steady-State Pumping Rates for the Groundwater Model.
Entry
Point
101
102
103
104
105
106
Id
South
North
Boulder
Brookfield
Elmwood
****
Well #
2
3
4
5
1
6
1
4,000,240
4,000,240
4,000,240
1,378,000
413,849
-
2
2,678,348
3,672,573
4,954,966
3,366,450 4,039,740 1,295,859
Total
(gallons
per month)
13,792,591
20,007,935
2.1 Well 1
Well 1 is known as the Elmwood Well (Entry Point 105).
approximately 496 feet deep with an 8-inch diameter.
feet of grouted steel casing.
The well is
The well has 91
The reported static water level is 50
feet, which indicates that the saturated thickness of the aquifer is
405 feet.
ft3/d.
The well has an estimated safe yield of 144,000 gpd or 19248
From the available well log, it appears that water-bearing
zones were observed at a depth of 91 feet (2 gpm), 156 feet (20 gpm),
and 196 feet (50 gpm).
Based on a review of the available pumping test
data, it would appear that estimated transmissivity and permeability
for the aquifer is 353 ft3/d/ft and 0.87 ft/d, respectively.
dynamic water level data is available from 2003 to 2004.
No
Figure 1 is a
stiff diagram that presents the geochemistry of Well 1 (EP 105).
Figure 1. Entry Point – 105 – Well 1 – Stiff Diagram.
2.2 Well 2
Well 2 is known as the South Well (Entry Point 101).
The well is
approximately 456 feet deep with an 8-inch diameter.
The well has 92
feet of grouted casing.
Because the reported static water level is 102
feet, this suggests that the saturated thickness of the aquifer at
Well 2 is at least 354 feet.
208,800 gpd or 27910 ft3/d.
The well has an estimated total yield of
From the available well log, the water-
bearing zones were observed at approximately 131 feet (2 gpm), 210-220
feet (1 gpm), and 381 to 392 feet (200 gpm).
Based on a review of the
available pumping test data, the estimated transmissivity and
permeability for the aquifer is 588 ft3/d/ft and 1.46 ft/d,
respectively.
From a review of the water level data, the dynamic level
for a pumping period of at least 2-hours ranged from 242 to 271 feet.
This suggests that the well is not being pumped below the primary
water-bearing zone, but the dynamic level may be lower than the upper
confining layer for the aquifer.
Figure 2 is a stiff diagram that
presents the geochemistry of Well 2 (EP 101).
Figure 2. Entry Point 101 – Well 2 – Stiff Diagram.
2.3 Well 3
Well 3 is known as the North Well (Entry Point 102).
The well is
approximately 495 feet deep with an 8-inch diameter.
The well has 60
feet of grouted casing.
The reported static water level is 61 feet,
which suggests that the saturated thickness of the aquifer at Well 3 is
at least 434 feet.
From the available information for this well, the
water-bearing zones were observed at approximately 20 feet
(unconsolidated 50 gpm), 96 feet (10 gpm), 136 – 138 feet (10 gpm), 189
feet (40 gpm), 250 feet (60 gpm), and 280 feet (100 gpm).
an estimated total yield of 201,600 gpd or 26948 ft3/d.
The well has
Based on a
review of the available pumping test data, the calculated
transmissivity and permeability for the aquifer is 686 ft3/d/ft and
1.57 ft/d, respectively.
Upon reviewing the available water level
data, the dynamic level for a pumping period of at least 2-hours range
from 126 to 158 feet.
This indicates that the well is not being pumped
below the primary water-bearing zone.
Figure 3 is a stiff diagram that
presents the geochemistry of the Well 3 (EP 102).
Figure 3. Entry Point 102 – Well 3 Stiff Diagram.
2.4 Well 4
Well 4 is known as the Boulder Well (Entry Point 103).
approximately 600 feet deep with an 8-inch diameter.
feet of grouted casing.
The well is
The well has 52
The reported static water level is 15 feet,
which suggests that the saturated thickness of the aquifer at Well 4 is
at least 548 feet.
gpd or 46197 ft3/d.
The well has an estimated total yield of 345,600
From the available well log, it appears that
water-bearing zones were observed at 142 feet (15 gpm), 155 feet (60
gpm), 192 feet (40 gpm), 235 feet (135 gpm), and 508 feet (65 gpm).
Based on a review of the available pumping test data, it would appear
that estimated transmissivity and permeability for the aquifer is 907
ft3/d/ft and 1.65 ft/d, respectively.
From a review of the water level
data, the dynamic level for a pumping period of at least 2-hours range
from 71 to 112 feet.
The available data indicates that the well is not
pumped below the primary water-bearing zone.
Figure 4 is a stiff
diagram that presents the geochemistry of Well 4 (EP 103).
Figure 4 – Entry Point 103 – Well 4 – Stiff Diagram.
2.5 Well 5
Well 5 is known as the Brookfield Well (Entry Point 104).
approximately 525 feet deep with an 8-inch diameter.
feet of grouted steel casing.
The well is
The well has 50.6
The reported static water level is 50
feet, which suggests that the saturated thickness of the aquifer at
Well 5 is at least 473 feet.
The well has an estimated total yield of
194,400 gpd or 25985 ft3/d. The driller reported water-bearing zones at
235 feet (20 gpm), 426 feet (80 gpm), and 525 feet (160 gpm).
Based on
a review of the available pumping test data, it would appear that
estimated transmissivity and permeability for the aquifer is 193
ft3/d/ft and 0.41 ft/d, respectively.
The available dynamic water
level data indicates that the dynamic level after 2-hours of continuous
pumping ranges from 263 to 298 feet.
This indicates that the well is
currently being pumped below both the upper confining layer and first
water-bearing zone.
Figure 5 is a stiff diagram that presents the
geochemistry of the Well 5 (EP 104).
Figure 5 – Entry Point 104 – Well 5 – Stiff Diagram.
2.6 Well 6
Well 6 is currently not utilized by the system. The well is
approximately 653 feet deep with an 8-inch diameter.
feet of grouted steel casing.
The well has 50.6
The reported static water level is 50
feet, which suggests that the saturated thickness of the aquifer at
Well 6 is at least 603 feet.
The well has an estimated total yield of
43,200 gpd or 5774 ft3/d. From the available well log, there was only
one water-bearing zone at 653 feet (30 gpm).
Based on a review of the
available pumping test data, it would appear that estimated
transmissivity and permeability for the aquifer is 5 ft3/d/ft and
< 0.01 ft/d, respectively.
3.0 Geology
The project site is located in the Glaciated Low Plateau Section of the
Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province.
The Appalachian Plateaus
Physiographic Province is characterized by rounded hills and valleys of
low to moderate relief.
Surface drainage tends to form a dendritic
drainage pattern and the bedrock is represented by a mixture of
sandstone, siltstone, shale, and some conglomerates. Based on regional
mapping conducted in 1980, the area is mapped as the undivided Poplar
Gap and Packerton Members (Dcpp).
The Poplar Gap Member can be
described as a gray and light-olive gray sandstone, conglomerate, and
siltstone containing intermittent red beds.
The Packerton Member
(Dcpg) is a greenish-gray to gray sandstone and siltstone with some
conglomerate.
The Poplar Gap and Packerton Member (Dcp) of the
Catskill Formation has reported well yields ranging from 80 to over 150
gpm and specific capacity of 0.65 to 0.67 gpm/ft (Davis, D, 1989).
The bedrock has a monocline structure with a strike of 50 to 65
o
NE and
a dip of 2 to 12o NW (Moody and Associates, Inc, 1974 and Oram, B, 2003
and 2004).
Based on the fracture trace analysis conducted by Moody and
Associates, Inc., the primary fracture trace orientations were
10 to 15
o
NE, 75 to 80
o
NE, and 60 to 70
o
NW.
Since the original
analysis was not available for review, a second fracture trace analysis
was conducted by Mr. Brian Oram, PG.
This analysis suggested that
there is a fourth set of fractures that trends 10 to 25
o
NW.
This
fracture set was field confirmed by Mr. John Pagoda and Mr. Brian Oram
in 2004.
The fracture trace analysis suggests that Well 2, 3, and 4
are probably along multiple fracture intersections, Well 1 and 5 are
along a single intersection, and Well 6 may be just north of a fracture
intersection.
4.0
Direction of Groundwater Flow
With respect to the direction of groundwater flow, the original
conceptual groundwater flow map for the project was developed by Mr.
Andrew Augustine (PADEP) in the “Source Water Assessment Report for
Roamingwood Sewer and Water” dated May 2003.
Because of the lack of
recent water level data, the groundwater elevation contours were based
on available static water level data for the Roamingwood Sewer and
Water Association Well Field and static water level data provided in
the Pennsylvania Ground Water Information System (PaGWIS).
The data
within the PaGWIS database has a range of accuracies in position and
elevation and contains historical water level data that dates back to
the early 1900s.
The groundwater map developed by PADEP used approximately 116
groundwater elevation points using data collected from 1900 to 1989.
The output from this evaluation was used to generate a groundwater
contour map for the region and the mapping indicated that the direction
of groundwater flow was to the southeast.
Upon reviewing the
preliminary mapping, it appeared that the data contained a few
anomalies that suggested that either additional data was needed or that
some of the historical data was not reliable.
To address this concern, a revised groundwater flow map was prepared by
Mr. Brian Oram and Mr. Bill Toothill using the Roamingwood Well Field
Data, elevation of springs, select well points, other controlled
discharge points, and manually inputted groundwater elevation control
points.
Based on this analysis, the direction of groundwater flow was
to the southeast – south-southeast and the groundwater gradient ranged
from 0.006 to 0.03 ft/ft.
From this data, a non-pumping groundwater
gradient of 0.012 ft/ft was used for the capture zone analysis.
Even
though this analysis appears to provide a more realistic representation
of the groundwater elevation, the output still contains a few anomalies
that would suggest the need for additional groundwater elevation data.
5.0 Wellhead Protection Zones
During the initial development of a Wellhead Protection Zone for the
groundwater sources, a simplified volumetric flow equation developed by
the EPA was used.
This simplified volumetric flow equation (VFE) does
include some hydrogeological data, but does not require the use of
aquifer testing or groundwater modeling (U.S. EPA, 1987 and U.S. EPA,
1994).
Since the fixed radius method does not provide a means of
accounting for the effect of the hydraulic gradient, well interference,
or groundwater discharge, a groundwater flow model was used to account
for the hydraulic gradient, simultaneous well pumping, watershed
divides, and natural groundwater discharge.
5.1 VFE- Fixed Radius Method
The volumetric flow equation assumes the well is fully penetrating and
that the water enters the well from an area that mimics a cylinder with
a fixed radius around the well.
The generalized equation for the
volumetric flow equation is:
R =( (Q* t)/ *(pi* n* H)) ^0.5
R – fixed radius around the well, feet
Q – constant pumping rate, ft3/day
pi = 3.1415
n = porosity (dimensionless) – range from 3 to 10 % (0.03 to 0.10)
H- saturated thickness of the open borehole, feet
t – time of pumping, days
For the fixed radius method or arbitrary method, the Zone I is based on
a travel time of 90 days to 1 year with typical values ranging from 100
to 400 feet.
Zone II is equivalent to a travel time of 2+ years or a
fixed radius of 0.5
miles, and Zone III is equivalent to a travel time of 5 to 10 years or
the area that contributes groundwater to Zone II.
Assuming a porosity
of 3% and a time-of-travel ranging from 90 days to 10-years, Table 3
presents a summary of the calculated fixed radii for each well.
Table 3. Calculated Fixed Radius Zone I, Zone II, and Zone III *
Well_ID
001
002
003
004
005
006
Rate
gpm
100
62
85
114.7
138
30
Rate
ft3/d
19249
11934
16361
22078
26563
5775
TOT
90 d, ft
213
179
190
196
232
96 **
* Pumping at average pumping rate.
**Minimum radius is 100 feet.
TOT
1yr, ft
429
361
382
395
466
193
TOT
2yr, ft
607
511
541
559
660
273
TOT
5yr, ft
960
808
855
883
1043
431
TOT
10yr, ft
1357
1143
1209
1249
1475
610
5.2 Groundwater Flow Model – Capture Zone Analysis
The groundwater model that was used for this evaluation was the
Environmental Simulations, Inc. WinFlow Model.
This model is a 2-
dimensional steady-state and transient groundwater flow model that has
been tested against MODFLOW.
The steady-state module allows entering
data related to the aquifer saturated thickness, permeability,
porosity, hydraulic gradient, direction of groundwater flow, and
establishing recharge/discharge areas for both unconfined and confined
aquifers.
The model assumes that the groundwater system is homogeneous
and isotropic.
The output from the groundwater model was then inputted
into the GIS database for the project. The following were the
parameters or variables that were used for this project:
Pumping Rate
Model Type
Reference Head
Gradient (dh/dl)
Porosity
Flow Direction
Aquifer Bottom
Aquifer Top
Aquifer Thickness
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Storage
Recharge Rate
Groundwater
Discharge
Well Diameter
Screened Interval
Confining Layer
Average and Peak Daily Pumping Rate
Steady State
650 feet – downgradient of the site
(trial and error analysis and static
water level of 50 feet)
0.012 ft/ft – (based on trail and error
analysis)
0.07 (dimensionless value used by
PADEP in desktop analysis)
315 degrees or southeast
0 feet
500 feet
500 feet
0.2 ft/d (Pumping test data)
1*e^-5 (confined system)
0 ft /d
-0.00026 ft/d (Based on Q7/10 flow)
0.66 feet
500 feet (fully penetrating)
200 feet *
*When water dropped below the confining layer, the model automatically
switched to equations for unconfined flow.
From the capture zone analysis completed using the WinFlow Model, the
area was divided into three separate zones.
The zones were defined as
follows:
Zone I
Zone of Direct Influence- area where all
groundwater is captured.
Zone of Capture- area were natural flow
patterns are altered and contribute to
the Zone I.
Contributes Water to the Zone II Area.
Zone II
Zone III
Using the capture zone method, the zones were not based on a time-oftravel, but the change or alternation of the direction of the
groundwater flow.
In addition to this analysis, a second time based
analysis was period.
Under the time based scenario, the “capture
zones” were delineated based on estimated time-of-travel to the
production well.
The zones were delineated based on time-of-travel of
< 10 years, < 50 years, < 100 years, and < 150 years.
Based on the hydrogeological analysis, the following are the
preliminary findings of the capture zone analysis:
1) it appears that Well 1, 2, and 5 may have or will experience a
significant amount of influence or interference when the wells
are operated simultaneously;
2) it appears that Well 3 and 4 may experience a significant amount
of influence or interference when the wells are operated
simultaneously;
3) the capture zones from the well field intercept water that is due
east of the development and may pull groundwater hydraulically
downgradient of the well field and across local water divides;
4) the analysis provides insights into areas that could be used as
long-term monitoring locations for the project.
6.0
Hazardous Activity Inventory
The PADEP completed a very comprehensive evaluation of potential
pollution sources or activities within and surrounding the study area
that may impact groundwater quality and quantity.
This initial
inventory included the search of available PADEP databases and field
documentation.
The PADEP concluded that a few of the limitations to
the use of the available datasets were that the data may contain errors
and omissions and sites may not be geocoded.
The PADEP indicated that
the primary limitation to the available susceptibility analysis is the
lack of specific information regarding the current status of the
identified sites and specific control practices that may or may not be
implemented to mitigate contamination.
The PADEP report identified 41
individual point source pollution activities (see Table 4).
Overall,
the PADEP compiled a very comprehensive listing and assessment of
potential sources of contamination surrounding the project site.
Table 4. 41 Individual Point Source
Pollution Activities. (PADEP, 2003).
Agriculture
Commercial
Industrial
Misc
Residential
7
10
1
20
3
Animal Feedlots/Diary Farms
Auto Repair
Quarry
Underground Petroleum Tanks
Swimming Pools *
*probably related to chemical storage and use.
As part of the analysis prepared by Wilkes University, the work plan
included a field assessment to identify additional potential sources of
contamination that were within or outside of the original study area.
The target areas were selected based on a preliminary capture zone
evaluation that was conducted in 2003 and early 2004 using the EPA WHPA
Model.
Based on the preliminary output from the EPA WHPA and WINFLOW
Model, the target area was expanded in 2005 to the northwest.
Wilkes University did reevaluate the DRASTIC Score for the water supply
system.
DRASTIC is a groundwater quality spreadsheet model used to aid
in the evaluation of the pollution potential of large areas based on
the hydrogeologic settings.
The primary assumptions used in the
DRASTIC “Model” are that the contaminant is introduced at the surface,
recharged by precipitation, transported by water, and the study area is
greater than 100 acres.
in the 1980's.
The DRASTIC “Model” was developed by the EPA
The model employs a numerical ranking and weighing
approached to establish relative vulnerability to groundwater
contamination (Aller et al., 1985, Aller et al., 1987, Deichert et al.,
1992).
are:
The hydrogeologic conditions that make up the acronym DRASTIC
[D] Depth to water table: Shallow water tables pose a greater chance
for the contaminant to reach the groundwater surface as opposed to
deep water tables.
[R] Recharge (Net): Net recharge is the amount of water per unit
area of the soil that percolates to the aquifer. This is the
principal vehicle that transports the contaminant to the
groundwater. The more the recharge, the greater the chances of the
contaminant to be transported to the groundwater table.
[A] Aquifer Media: The material of the aquifer determines the
mobility of the contaminant through it. An increase in the time of
travel of the pollutant through the aquifer results in more
attenuation of the contaminant.
[S] Soil Media: Soil media is the uppermost portion of the
unsaturated / vadose zone characterized by significant biological
activity. This along with the aquifer media decides the amount of
percolating water to the groundwater surface. Soils with clays and
silts have larger water holding capacity and thus increase the
travel time of the contaminant through the root zone.
[T] Topography (Slope): The higher the slope, the lower the
pollution potential due to higher runoff and erosion rates.
[I] Impact of Vadose Zone: The unsaturated zone above the water
table is referred to as the vadose zone. The texture of the vadose
zone determines the time of travel of the contaminant.
[C] Conductivity (Hydraulic): Hydraulic conductivity of the soil
media determines amount of water percolating to the groundwater
through the aquifer. (PADEP, 2003)
Table 5.
DRASTIC Ranking
DRASTIC
Index
Low
Moderate
High
Values
< 95
95 to 140
> 140
Source: PADEP, Source Water Assessment Report, Roamingwood Sewer and
Water, May 2003.
The DRASTIC Score established by the PADEP was 132 (moderate) and the
revised score calculated by Wilkes University ranged from 139 to 160
(moderate to high risk).
The primary difference in the analysis was
the selection of the ratings for the vadose zone, depth to first water,
and topography (see Table 6).
The revised DRASTIC score suggests that
Well 1 through Well 5 would have a rank of high susceptibility.
This
does not suggest a deficiency in the system, but does indicate the
importance of developing a Source Water Protection Plan.
Table 6. Revised DRASTIC Rating
for Roamingwood Well Field (Oram, B., 2005).
PADEP Revised
Well_ID Rating Rating
001
132
147
002
132
142
003
132
155
004
132
160
005
132
160
006
na
139
7.0
Water Quality
The available water quality and water elevation data from the
Roamingwood Sewer and Water Association was compiled and included in
the GIS database that was developed for the project.
Since the dataset
did not contain a complete cation and anion analysis of the water, it
was necessary to collect a series of water quality samples to develop a
“fingerprint” of the background water quality of both the groundwater
and surface water features for the project site.
This water quality
sampling was conducted in June and July 2004 and the sampling included
the 5 production wells, 3 lake sites, 1 stream, and 1 spring sampling
site.
Table 7 contains the cation and anion data for the production
wells and Table 8 contains the water quality data for the surface water
and spring sampling site. The results of the chemical analysis were
used to generate Piper/Stiff Diagrams for each sampling site.
The
Stiff Diagrams for the individual wells are presented in the previous
sections of the report.
Figure 6 presents the Stiff Diagrams for the
five surface water sites.
From a review of the Piper and Stiff Diagrams, it appears that the
groundwater and surface water sources have similar, but distinct
geochemical fingerprints.
Further, it appears that Well 1, 2, and 5
are dissimilar to the water quality at Well 3 and 4.
A comparison of
the Stiff Diagrams from EP 102 (Well 3) and EP 103 (Well 4) and the
surface water samples from Roamingwood Lake indicate that the water
quality has a similar geochemical fingerprint.
Since these well are
hydraulically upgradient and along fracture traces that bi-sect the
lake, it is likely that Well 3 and 4 are intercepting a portion of the
water that naturally discharges and aids in supporting the water level
and surface water flow.
This relationship provides a valuable tool to
related the groundwater and surface water systems and could be used to
tool to educate homeowners in the importance of protecting both the
groundwater and surface water systems.
Because of the hydraulic
connection, the preliminary assessment indicates that these wells could
be more vulnerable to surface water or near surface influence.
This
should not be used to indicate that Well 3 and 4 need to be classified
as surface water or that a groundwater under the influence evaluation
is needed, but this information should be used to identify potential
weaknesses in the groundwater system for The Hideout and to concentrate
additional monitoring efforts, i.e., surface water and groundwater, in
the general vicinity of Well 3 and 4.
Table 7. Cation and Anion Data for Production Wells.
Date
Well_ID
Entry
pH_lab
Alk_HCO3
Sulfate
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
001
002
003
004
005
Point
105
101
102
103
104
7.03
6.91
6.91
7
7.07
mg CaC03/L
162
85
97
121
113
mg/L
17
20
20
17
14
Date
Well_ID
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
001
002
003
004
005
Date
Well_ID
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
001
002
003
004
005
Date
Well_ID
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
6/1/2004
001
002
003
004
005
Entry
Point
105
101
102
103
104
Total_colifom Stnd Plate
#/100 ml
#/ ml
<1
< 100
<1
< 100
<1
< 100
<1
< 100
<1
< 100
Entry
Point
105
101
102
103
104
T CaHard
mg CaCO3/L
156
88
128
136
128
Entry
Point
105
101
102
103
104
Turbidity
ntu
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
Chloride T Hardness
mg
mg/L
CaCO3/L
30
160
40
96
32
136
8
160
16
144
Fe_total
mg Fe/L
0.06
0.03
0.08
0.06
0.43
Mn_total
mg Mn/L
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Cond
umohs/cm
357
267
279
244
220
Calcium
mg Ca/L
62.5
35.2
51.3
54.5
51.37
Magnesium
mg Mg/L
0.93
1.92
1.9
5.79
3.69
NO3_N
mg N/L
0.05
0.34
0.16
0.16
0.13
NO2_N
mg N/L
< 0.010
< 0.010
< 0.010
< 0.010
< 0.010
Sodium
mg Na/L
125
92.6
100.8
91.4
96.7
Potassium
mg K/L
1.7
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.0
Copper
mg Cu /L
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Zinc
mg Zn/L
0.02
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
Table 8. Surface Water and Spring Cation and Anion Data
Date
Surface_ID
ID
7/2/2004
Stream
RW#1
6/1/2004 Lake_Outlet RW#2
6/1/2004
Lake
RW#3
6/1/2004 Lake_Inlet RW#4
6/1/2004
Spring
SS#1
Date
Surface_ID
ID
6/1/2004
Stream
RW#1
6/1/2004 Lake_Outlet RW#2
6/1/2004
Lake
RW#3
6/1/2004 Lake_Inlet RW#4
6/1/2004
Spring
SS#1
Date
Surface_ID
ID
7/2/2004
Stream
RW#1
6/1/2004 Lake_Outlet RW#2
6/1/2004
Lake
RW#3
6/1/2004 Lake_Inlet RW#4
6/1/2004
Spring
SS#1
Date
Surface_ID
ID
6/1/2004
Stream
RW#1
6/1/2004 Lake_Outlet RW#2
6/1/2004
Lake
RW#3
6/1/2004 Lake_Inlet RW#4
6/1/2004
Spring
SS#1
Sulfate
Chloride
7.1
6.95
7.85
6.6
6.52
Alk_HCO3
mg
CaC03/L
36
32
32
32
87
mg/L
18
13
14
5
5
mg/L
25.9
21.9
23.9
19.9
14
Total
Hardness
mg
CaCO3/L
64
80
72
48
100
Fecal_
colifom
#/100 ml
120
20
40
< 20
10
Fe_total
mg Fe/L
< 0.06
< 0.06
0.07
0.08
0.05
Mn_total
mg Mn/L
< 0.02
0.72
0.04
0.02
0.01
Cond
umohs/cm
190
180
150
140
98
Turbidity
ntu
4
3
2
1
0.3
NO3_N
mg N/L
1
0.1
0.05
0.15
0.5
NO2_N
mg N/L
< 0.010
< 0.010
< 0.010
< 0.010
0.1
pH_lab
T CaHard
mg CaCO3/L
60
60
40
36
95
Sodium
Mg Na/L
86.7
90.8
77.3
84.4
25
Calcium Magnesium
mg Ca/L
mg Mg/L
24
1
22
5
16
8
14.4
3
30
1.25
Potassium
Mg K/L
2.2
1.5
1.4
1.2
0.8
Copper
Mg Cu/L
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
0.005
Zinc
mg Zn/L
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
0.005
Figure 6. Surface Water Quality Sites – Stiff Diagrams
Figure 7. Piper Diagram for Sampling Sites
8.0 Recommendations
The results of this evaluation should be used to develop a Source Water
Protection Plan for the system.
The plan should be developed in such a
manner to aid in establishing tighter controls for unregulated
activities that occur within the Zone I and Zone II Areas.
For areas
outside the boundaries of The Hideout, the plan should provide
suggested management and educational tools that could be utilized or
implemented by the local government or other Associations.
In general,
the plan should include public education, developing addition deed
covenants/restrictions for The Hideout, long-term environmental
monitoring, water-level monitoring, and draft local ordinances related
to private well construction.
8.1 The Hideout
Even though the capture zone analysis indicates the Zone II and Zone
III areas extend beyond the borders of The Hideout, it is unlikely that
the Roamingwood Sewer and Water Association would have jurisdiction to
establish or control land-use activities and development outside of the
borders of The Hideout.
Since the Zone I and Zone II areas using the
fixed radius and capture zone methods indicate that most of this area
is represented by lands known as The Hideout, it would be advisable to
implement management and control strategies that would minimize the
adverse impact to the quality and quantity of water in the aquifer.
These impacts would not only include the introduction of hazardous
chemicals or microbiological agents, but also maintaining the long-term
groundwater recharge rate for the system.
With respect to land-use, education outreach, or other outreach
activities for the activities within The Hideout, it would be advisable
for the plan to consider the following components:
1) continue the STOP and Recycled Used Oil Fact Sheet and Awareness
Programs;
2) provide or facilitate a means for homeowners to properly dispose
of toxic and hazardous wastes and waste oil through education
outreach or the development/implementation of Hazardous Waste
Cleanup Programs;
3) prohibit the use of underground fuel storage tanks and establish
guidelines or notification for the use of above ground tanks;
4) encourage the use of water conservation and good practices as it
relates to the use of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers;
5) minimizing erosion and sedimentation during on-site construction
and maintaining the long-term infiltration capacity of the site
through the use of greenspace, vegetative buffers, porous
walkways, gravel/stone driveways, natural greenways, and
bioretention/infiltration systems;
6) to help maintain background groundwater recharge rates, it would
be advisable to establish maximum lot impervious area of not more
than 30%;
7) provide a means of reviewing and updating the nutrient and
pesticide management plan for the golf course;
8) encourage the use of rainwater capture systems rather than the
use of potable water for lawn/landscape irrigation.
Regarding issues related to the proper use and storage of hazardous
chemicals and underground storage tanks, the most vulnerable zones
would be the areas with a shallow depth to bedrock.
A good source of
information related to the development of these control measures would
be the Home-A-Syst Program, local colleges and universities, and county
conservation district.
8.2 Outside of The Hideout
With respect to the surrounding communities, it would be advisable to
participate in public education programs and consider assisting the
local government in the development of local ordinances related to
private well construction and operation/maintenance of on-lot
wastewater disposal systems.
The education outreach programs should
encourage proper operation and maintenance of private wells and septic
systems and proper disposal of hazardous waste.
It may be advisable to
encourage the local municipalities to develop a well construction
ordinance for all new private wells.
The key components of a well
ordinance would be construction criteria that would require grouting
the annular space, establishing minimum casing length, type, and
strength, requiring the use of sanitary well caps, submitting a copy of
the Well Completion Report to the municipality, and requiring
preliminary water testing for potability and general water quality.
This ordinance would require all new private wells meet specific
standards with respect to siting, construction, and reporting well
construction and yield.
It may be advisable for the well ordinance to
require the well driller to submit a copy of the Water Well Completion
Report to the municipality and installation of a solid PVC pipe in the
well to facilitate water level measurements.
The position of the well
should be described using tax or parcel mapping information, but it
would be best to use a standardized coordinate system such as: latitude
and longitude (decimal degrees) or PA State Plane using a standard
datum, such as: WGS84 or NAD83.
In addition to a water well ordinance, it would be advisable to develop
some type of septic system inspection, maintenance, and repair program.
PA Act 537 and Chapter 73 of the Act provide a number of options for
the implementation of on-lot wastewater management for a municipality.
Because of the in-flux of new residents that have limited experience
with private wells and on-lot septic system, it would be advisable for
the municipalities, communities associations, and possibly builders or
real estate agents to work together to provide educational and
informational materials to all new landowner or homeowners.
This
information and education package should include information related to
groundwater and well operation/maintenance, wellhead protection, septic
systems operations and maintenance, and disposal of household hazardous
waste.
Regarding the neighboring Property Owners Associations or Civic
Groups, the RS&W Association and Steering Committee should provide
educational outreach to neighboring communities and schools.
8.3 RS&W Association Infrastructure
Based on the review of the available information, it would be advisable
for the Association to consider the following modifications to the
existing system.
The modifications the system should consider are as
follows:
1) annual comprehensive water testing of the production wells,
including Well 6, for major cations and anions;
2) Well 6 should be converted into a groundwater monitoring station
and water level in this well using a datalogger/pressure
transducer;
3) pressure transducers/data loggers in the existing pumping wells
should document and store water level;
4) it would be advisable for the system to monitor the volume of
water pumped in conjunction with the static/dynamic water level
measurements;
5) it would be advisable to either install additional monitoring
wells or to use surrounding private wells as supplementary
long-term monitoring wells within the area delineated as Zone II
and Zone III;
6) the system may want to consider the installation of real-time
water quality sensors to monitor for changes in water pH and
conductivity;
7) even though the groundwater and surface water systems are not
immediately or directly connected, it is critical for the
Association to monitor the general quality of their surface water
resources.