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 single- family 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 101 102 103 104 105 Id South North Boulder Brookfield Elmwood Total Year Well #2 Well #3 Well #4 Well #5 Well #1 (gallons) 2004 47,786,100 41,827,100 49,696,100 20,761,200 5,504,500 165,575,000 2003 42,557,300 28,919,100 44,879,000 23,568,200 8,773,800 148,697,400 2002 36,937,200 36,867,200 36,465,100 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 Total (gallons Id South North Boulder Brookfield Elmwood **** per month) Well # 2 3 4 5 1 6 1 4,000,240 4,000,240 4,000,240 1,378,000 413,849 - 13,792,591 2 2,678,348 3,672,573 4,954,966 3,366,450 4,039,740 1,295,859 20,007,935 2.1 Well 1

Well 1 is known as the Elmwood Well (Entry Point 105). The well is approximately 496 feet deep with an 8-inch diameter. The well has 91 feet of grouted steel casing. The reported static water level is 50 feet, which indicates that the saturated thickness of the aquifer is 405 feet. The well has an estimated safe yield of 144,000 gpd or 19248 ft3/d. 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. No dynamic water level data is available from 2003 to 2004. 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. The well has an estimated total yield of 208,800 gpd or 27910 ft3/d. 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). The well has an estimated total yield of 201,600 gpd or 26948 ft3/d. 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). The well is approximately 600 feet deep with an 8-inch diameter. The well has 52 feet of grouted casing. 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. The well has an estimated total yield of 345,600 gpd or 46197 ft3/d. 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). The well is approximately 525 feet deep with an 8-inch diameter. The well has 50.6 feet of grouted steel casing. 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. The well has 50.6 feet of grouted steel casing. 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 Rate Rate TOT TOT TOT TOT TOT gpm ft3/d 90 d, ft 1yr, ft 2yr, ft 5yr, ft 10yr, ft 001 100 19249 213 429 607 960 1357 002 62 11934 179 361 511 808 1143 003 85 16361 190 382 541 855 1209 004 114.7 22078 196 395 559 883 1249 005 138 26563 232 466 660 1043 1475 006 30 5775 96 ** 193 273 431 610

* Pumping at average pumping rate. **Minimum radius is 100 feet. 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 Average and Peak Daily Pumping Rate Model Type Steady State Reference Head 650 feet – downgradient of the site (trial and error analysis and static water level of 50 feet) Gradient (dh/dl) 0.012 ft/ft – (based on trail and error analysis) Porosity 0.07 (dimensionless value used by PADEP in desktop analysis) Flow Direction 315 degrees or southeast Aquifer Bottom 0 feet Aquifer Top 500 feet Aquifer Thickness 500 feet Hydraulic Conductivity 0.2 ft/d (Pumping test data) Storage 1*e^-5 (confined system) Recharge Rate 0 ft /d Groundwater Discharge -0.00026 ft/d (Based on Q7/10 flow) Well Diameter 0.66 feet Screened Interval 500 feet (fully penetrating) Confining Layer 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 II Zone of Capture- area were natural flow patterns are altered and contribute to the Zone I. Zone III Contributes Water to the Zone II Area.

Using the capture zone method, the zones were not based on a time-of- travel, 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 7 Animal Feedlots/Diary Farms Commercial 10 Auto Repair Industrial 1 Quarry Misc 20 Underground Petroleum Tanks Residential 3 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. The DRASTIC “Model” was developed by the EPA in the 1980's. 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). The hydrogeologic conditions that make up the acronym DRASTIC are: [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 Low Moderate High Index 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 Chloride T Hardness mg Point mg CaC03/L mg/L mg/L CaCO3/L 6/1/2004 001 105 7.03 162 17 30 160 6/1/2004 002 101 6.91 85 20 40 96 6/1/2004 003 102 6.91 97 20 32 136 6/1/2004 004 103 7 121 17 8 160 6/1/2004 005 104 7.07 113 14 16 144

Date Well_ID Entry Total_colifom Stnd Plate Fe_total Mn_total Cond Point #/100 ml #/ ml mg Fe/L mg Mn/L umohs/cm 6/1/2004 001 105 < 1 < 100 0.06 0.02 357 6/1/2004 002 101 < 1 < 100 0.03 0.02 267 6/1/2004 003 102 < 1 < 100 0.08 0.02 279 6/1/2004 004 103 < 1 < 100 0.06 0.02 244 6/1/2004 005 104 < 1 < 100 0.43 0.02 220

Date Well_ID Entry T CaHard Calcium Magnesium NO3_N NO2_N Point mg CaCO3/L mg Ca/L mg Mg/L mg N/L mg N/L 6/1/2004 001 105 156 62.5 0.93 0.05 < 0.010 6/1/2004 002 101 88 35.2 1.92 0.34 < 0.010 6/1/2004 003 102 128 51.3 1.9 0.16 < 0.010 6/1/2004 004 103 136 54.5 5.79 0.16 < 0.010 6/1/2004 005 104 128 51.37 3.69 0.13 < 0.010

Date Well_ID Entry Turbidity Sodium Potassium Copper Zinc Point ntu mg Na/L mg K/L mg Cu /L mg Zn/L 6/1/2004 001 105 0.5 125 1.7 0.01 0.02 6/1/2004 002 101 0.5 92.6 1.1 0.01 0.005 6/1/2004 003 102 0.3 100.8 1.4 0.01 0.005 6/1/2004 004 103 0.3 91.4 1.2 0.01 0.005 6/1/2004 005 104 0.3 96.7 1.0 0.01 0.005

Table 8. Surface Water and Spring Cation and Anion Data Total Date Surface_ID ID pH_lab Alk_HCO3 Sulfate Chloride Hardness mg mg CaC03/L mg/L mg/L CaCO3/L 7/2/2004 Stream RW#1 7.1 36 18 25.9 64 6/1/2004 Lake_Outlet RW#2 6.95 32 13 21.9 80 6/1/2004 Lake RW#3 7.85 32 14 23.9 72 6/1/2004 Lake_Inlet RW#4 6.6 32 5 19.9 48 6/1/2004 Spring SS#1 6.52 87 5 14 100

Fecal_ Date Surface_ID ID colifom Fe_total Mn_total Cond Turbidity #/100 ml mg Fe/L mg Mn/L umohs/cm ntu 6/1/2004 Stream RW#1 120 < 0.06 < 0.02 190 4 6/1/2004 Lake_Outlet RW#2 20 < 0.06 0.72 180 3 6/1/2004 Lake RW#3 40 0.07 0.04 150 2 6/1/2004 Lake_Inlet RW#4 < 20 0.08 0.02 140 1 6/1/2004 Spring SS#1 10 0.05 0.01 98 0.3

Date Surface_ID ID T CaHard Calcium Magnesium NO3_N NO2_N mg CaCO3/L mg Ca/L mg Mg/L mg N/L mg N/L 7/2/2004 Stream RW#1 60 24 1 1 < 0.010 6/1/2004 Lake_Outlet RW#2 60 22 5 0.1 < 0.010 6/1/2004 Lake RW#3 40 16 8 0.05 < 0.010 6/1/2004 Lake_Inlet RW#4 36 14.4 3 0.15 < 0.010 6/1/2004 Spring SS#1 95 30 1.25 0.5 0.1

Date Surface_ID ID Sodium Potassium Copper Zinc Mg Na/L Mg K/L Mg Cu/L mg Zn/L 6/1/2004 Stream RW#1 86.7 2.2 < 0.01 < 0.005 6/1/2004 Lake_Outlet RW#2 90.8 1.5 < 0.01 < 0.005 6/1/2004 Lake RW#3 77.3 1.4 < 0.01 < 0.005 6/1/2004 Lake_Inlet RW#4 84.4 1.2 < 0.01 < 0.005 6/1/2004 Spring SS#1 25 0.8 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.