66
A WATER RESOURCES STUDY OF THE DUBLIN AREA DUBLIN, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNATIONAL EXPLORATION. INC. 577 SACKETTSFORD ROAD WARMINSTER. PA 18974-1396 (215) 598-7137 May 1, 1984
A WATER RESOURCES STUDY
OF THE
DUBLIN AREA
DUBLIN, PENNSYLVANIA
INTERNATIONAL EXPLORATION. INC.577 SACKETTSFORD ROAD
WARMINSTER. PA 18974-1396(215) 598-7137
May 1, 1984
Bifl
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
III. SURFACE WATER AS A DRINKING SUPPLY ........ 4
IV. MAJOR FACTORS CONTROLLING GROUNDWATERAVAILABILITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
V. POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR PRODUCTION WATER WELLS . 37
VI. CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
FIGURES LISTING
FIGURE 1 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING LOCATIONS WITHIN THEWATERSHEDS OF THE DUBLIN STUDY AREA (Docket)
FIGURE 2 GEOLOGIC AND FRACTURE TRACE MAP (Docket)
FIGURE 3 GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP (Docket)
FIGURE 4A STREAM LEVELS - STATION 1 23
FIGURE 4B STREAM LEVELS - STATION 2 24
FIGURE 4C STREAM LEVELS - STATION 3 25
FIGURE 5 LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY WELLS ANDREGIONS OF POTENTIAL WELL INTERFERENCE (Docket)
LISTING OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. MARCH 16, 1984, WELL WATER DATA . ....... 14
2. PUBLISHED BASE FLOW RATES FOR THE BRUNSWICKAND LOCKATONG FORMATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. LOW FLOW DATA FROM PA. WATER RESOURCESBULLETIN NO. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. HISTORICAL BASE FLOW DATA: EAST BRANCH OF DEEPRUN CREEK AT STONY BRIDGE ROAD ....... 21
5. BASE FLOWS FOR THE DUBLIN STUDY AREA FORMARCH THROUGH APRIL 13, 1984 . . . . . . . . 22
6. GROUNDWATER CONSUMPTION WITH DUBLIN BOROUGH . . 29
7. ANALYSIS OF WATER FROM THE BRUNSWICK LITHOFACIES 31
I. INTRODUCTION
As a result of the increasing demands for water in the Dublin
area of Bucks County, Pennsylvania, International Explora :,?.Inc. (INTEX) has been commissioned by Dublin Borough to assess
the water resources in the vicinity of the Borough. Existing
published data and field measurements of surface and ground-
water occurrences performed specifically for this study have
been compiled to produce this report.
The primary purpose of this study is directed towards identi-
fying available surface and groundwater reserves which can be
developed by the Borough for consumptive use. In addition to
groundwater availability, the rates of groundwater replenish-
ment, anticipated quality and the effects which withdrawal may
have on surrounding consumers have been addressed. Conclusions
have been developed in regard to the optimal sites for imple-
menting a water supply system.
The conclusions of this study will be of assistance to planners
in developing their water resources in a manner that will allow
expansion of the existing water supply system without adversely
affecting the environment of the region.
II. STUDY AREA
4 --*^ «The Dublin study area comprises the region within one square t9 <£>%
mile of Dublin Borough, which represents a total area of 7.6
square miles (Figure 1). Dublin Borough is located within
central Bucks County, Pennsylvania between Bedminster Town-
ship to the north and Hilltown Township to the south.
Dublin Borough consists primarily of single family residences
and apartment complexes having a current population of approxi-
mately 1,650 people. An estimated 46 small industries and
commercial establishments exist in the borough that employ /service
approximately 400 people. No large water consuming industries
operate in the vicinity of the study area.
The topography of the region is characterized by gently rolling
subtle valley and ridge terrane characteristic of the Triassic
Lowland Section of the Piedmont Province of Pennsylvania. The
topography trends in a northeast-southwest direction. Ridge-
tops average 600 feet in elevation and valleys average 450 feet
above mean sea level. :
There are two major drainage basins within the study area.
Rain waters falling on the southern half of the study area flow
into the Perkiomen Creek watershed system via Morris Run stream.
Runoff in the northern half of the area flows into the Tohickon
Creek watershed system via the west and east branches of DeepftfH 00006Run.
The geology within the study area consists of alternating
black and red argillites and siltstones with occasional fine
grained sandstone layers. The rocks are of the Triassic age
Lockatong and Brunswick Formations and dip to the northwest
at approximately 10 degrees from horizontal. The "tight"
nature of the rocks in this area produce relatively low well
yields and combined with the increasing density of housing
are the primary reasons that the Delaware River Basin Commis-
sion has classified the region a Special Groundwater Protected
Area.
RRIQQQ07
III. SURFACE WATER AS A DRINKING SUPPLY
Consideration was made for the possibility of collecting surface
water runoff into reservoirs to be used either as a primary
source of water or as a back-up emergency source in conjunction
with a well system during drought periods. Mr. Robert Bourquard
of Bourquard Engineering, Harrisburg, PA., was contacted about
this subject. Mr. Bourquard participated in the formation of
the Lake Galena Reservoir. He felt that it would not be economi-
cally feasible to construct a surface reservoir and treatment
plant to supply a relatively low water demand of 160,000 gallons
per day as is presently being consumed by all of Dublin.
The proposed Point Pleasant water diversion project is designed
to supply a Chalfont water treatment and distribution station,
which is expected to be able to supply the Dublin area with
water. This water supply alternative may not be available as
a result of debate over whether the Point Pleasant pumping
project shall be constructed. In addition, such a program would
require Dublin Borough to purchase water instead of produce
water for sale through the use of a water well. Thus, the
remainder of this report shall concentrate on the information
necessary for Dublin Borough to obtain their own water through
a groundwater withdrawal system.
IV. MAJOR FACTORS CONTROLLING GROUNDWATER AVAILABILITY IN THE
Various processes interact and combine with one another to
determine the ultimate available yield of water wells. Geology,
precipitation and ultimately the well's location and design are
fundamental parameters which must be understood in order to
develop a sound groundwater withdrawal system. The following
is a detailed analysis of the major factors controlling ground-
water availability in the area.
Geology
The Dublin study area is underlain by consolidated sedimentary
rocks of the Triassic Age, Brunswick and Lockatong Formations.
These formations occur as alternating interfingered layers
which trend in a northeast-southwest direction(Figure 2).
The Brunswick lithofacies is a sequence of irregularly bedded
red shales locally interbedded with fine-grained red sandstone.
The lower beds of the Brunswick, in the zone of transition with
the Lockatong Formation in the Dublin Borough study area, in-
clude a considerable thickness of thick-bedded hard red argil-
lite and occasional beds of gray shale.
The Lockatong Formation consists primarily of dark gray to
black, thick-bedded argillite with zones of thin-bedded black
shales. Locally, thin layers of impure limestone or calcareous
shale are present. Small crystals of calcite and pyrite occur
ARI00009
throughout the formation. The upper beds of gray argillite ^
in the transition zone with the Brunswick Formation are exten-
sively interbedded with dark red argillite. The top of the
Lockatong Formation is comformable with the overlying Brunswick
Formation/ but the contact is transitional and marked by a
thick sequence of interbedded red and gray shale.
Aquifer Systems —
The Brunswick and Lockatong Formations in the study area are
aquifers with similar hydraulic characteristics.
The Brunswick Formation is composed of fine-grained rocks, the
matrix of which offer high resistance to the flow of ground-
water. The available permeability of the formation results
from horizontal and vertical joint planes and other secondary
openings. The horizontal fractures parallelling bedding
planes are usually narrow and may not contribute substantially
to the permeability. The important openings in the formation
are the vertical joint planes, oriented at various angles,
that intersect one another and provide an interconnected
series of channels through which groundwater can flow.
The Brunswick Formation is generally considered a reliable
source of moderate supplies of groundwater. Wells in the forma-
tion, if properly located, constructed and developed may yield
more than 500 gallons per minute (gpm).
AS 100010
The Brunswick Formation contains water in both water table and^^
semiartesian conditions in the weathered zone of the formationf
which may extend to 600 feet of depth. There is a significant
relationship between well yields and depths. A water table
aquifer of low permeability, comprising the highly weathered
zone of the formation can extend to approximately 250 feet of
depth. Semiartesian aquifers occur to a maximum depth of 600
feet. Weathering of the near surface rocks has produced resid-
ual clays that may infill the fractures and reduce the permea-
bility of the rocks above 200 to 250 feet (Greenman, 1955).
If yields of 100 gpm or more are desired, wells should be
drilled at least 200 feet deep. Wells drilled to depths of
between 200 and\550 feet deep are most likely to obtain maximum
yields (Longwill and Wood, 1965).
An analysis of 199 wells in the Brunswick Formation indicates
that 32 wells yield 200 gpm or more. All but two of these
wells are between 185 and 545 feet deep. Seven wells yield
more than 300 gpm and all but one of these are between 200
and 510 feet deep (Longwill and Wood, 1965).
The average yield.from fourteen wells drilled in the Brunswick
Formation, located from Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources records in the Blooming Glen area of Hilltown
Township, is 20 gallons per minute. These wells range in
production from 6 gpm to 60 gpm.
ftBIOOOI1
Rocks of the Lockatong Formation have the least potential«£ ,*•-
for groundwater development in the Dublin stuay area. The "S<$.&9npore spaces in the Lockatong Formation are very small and mdst
groundwater movement occurs through a series of interconnected
vertical joints and bedding plane fractures. Fractures in the
Lockatong Formation are narrower and more widely spaced than
those of the shales of the Brunswick Formation; consequently,
capacity to store and transmit groundwater is lower than the
Brunswick.
Two major joint sets and well defined bedding planes are found
in Lockatong rocks in the vicinity of Dublin. Observed thick-
nesses of individual Lockatong beds range from 6 inch to 35
inches. The orientation of the bedding planes is generally
N50°E with a dip of 10° from horizontal to the northwest. The
two joint sets intersect at nearly right angles to one another.
They are generally orientated N50°E and the other at N40 W.
Both joint sets are nearly vertical with dips from the hori-
zontal of 80 degrees southeast and 82 degrees south, respec-
tively, ^ne joints may sometimes be completely filled with a
secondary mineral deposit of calcite. Older wells in the area
often experience a gradual decrease in well yields as the
joints develop increasing calcite buildup.
Groundwater in the weathered zone of the Lockatong, extending
to about 150 feet in depth, is under water table conditions.
Most wells in the Lockatong intercept water bearing Series! UU I
within 150-200 feet of the surface, although some wells do
intercept water below 200 feet. Well yields reported in the
literature range from 4 to 40 gpm with an average yield of
7 gpm. Well yields greater than 25 gpm are often located
in fracture zones. Well yields as great as 100 gpm have been
reported for Lockatong rocks. High well yields are an excep-
tion, however, and the Lockatong is generally not considered
a suitable source of large volume water supply. The average
production from 6 wells drilled in the Lockatong Formation,
located from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
records in the Blooming Glen area, is 9 gpm.
Experience gained through drilling in the interfingered area
of Brunswick and Lockatong has shown that significant amounts
of water may be intercepted when wells penetrate contact zones
of the two rock types. A well which begins at the surface in
Brunswick rocks and penetrates Lockatong rocks at depth may
benefit by intercepting water, which is in effect "perched" on
top of the less permeable Lockatong rocks. This water, which
has traveled through the more numerous and larger secondary
openings in the Brunswick, flows down dip along the contact
zone. The water may continue its downward travel in the less
numerous vertical joints of the Lockatong; however, some water
is retained above the less permeable formation and can be
intercepted by a well that penetrates this zone.
RRIOO
<High yielding production wells should intercept the Lockatong-^g> §•,'&•
Brunswick contact 200-500 feet from the surface. The horizontal
distance, downdip from the surface contact, at which one would
intercept the contact between Brunswick and Lockatong rocks
200-500 feet from the surface was calculated. An average dip
of 10 degrees northwest was used for this projection. Results
are summarized in the following table: f
Horizontal (surface)distance from contact(at surface) in downdip Depth ofdirection (NW)________ contact .~
1040' 200'
1590' 300'
2190' 400'
2750' 500'
•AfiiOOOU
10
Fracture Trace Analysis ^3%
Fracture traces are natural linear features that are visible
on aerial photographs and are probably surface manifestations
of underlying zones of fracture concentrations in the bedrock.
In areas underlain by fractured rocks, where most of the ground-
water occurs in secondary openings of the rock such as in the
Dublin study area, location of highly fractured regions is
helpful in the development of groundwater. Fracture zones can
be local and are usually more highly weathered and of greater
permeability than surrounding strata. Therefore, the fractures
facilitate vertical and lateral groundwater movement. Fracture
traces consist of natural linear-drainage alignments (e.g.,
straight stream segments), soil-tonal (color change) alignments,
natural vegetation alignments and topographic alignments.
Linear features not included as fracture traces are bedding,
striation, foliation and lithologic contacts.
Black and white stereo aerial photographs at a scale of 1:24,000
were analyzed. Fracture traces were identified first with the
unaided eye and then, with a stereoscopic lens. Due to the
difficulty in distinguishing numerous woodlot lines of past
timbering from natural alignments, few fracture traces were
plotted in forested areas. Only the most conspicuous alignments
were identified and plotted as preliminary fracture trace loca-
tions (Figure 2).
ARIOOOIS
Should a well site be proposed to be located on a fractureO'
field verification of its validity and location is highly recom-
mended. If a well site is located in an area not containing
mapped fracture traces, a more intensified observation of the*
photographs may uncover secondary fracture traces which could
be of importance.
Groundwater Flow Directions
Precipitation seeping into the groundwater system enters the
water table and eventually flows out of the watershed either
through the subsurface or through springs and streams. Ground-
water flow generally moves down gradient in the direction of
the slope of the water table. Under natural conditions, water
table contour elevations usually parallel surface topography.
Thus, rain falling on a hilltop that seeps into the underlying
groundwater system will eventually flow in a downhill direction
and may become exposed at the surface as springs in stream
valleys. Rock bedding may also influence groundwater flow and
cause groundwater to move along strike of bedding in a
a northeast-southwest direction.
Substantial groundwater withdrawal from wells alters natural
groundwater flow by creating a cone of depression around the
well which causes the water to flow into the well like water
running down the sides of a funnel. Any groundwater up gradient
of the cone of depression can be intercepted and consumed by the
12
well. This area up gradient of the well and the cone of "3^
depression are known as the "recharge region" for the well. *
Any precipitation which enters the groundwater system within
the recharge region of a well governs the ultimate renewable
supply of water for the well. Should well consumption exceed
recharge, water is removed from storage in the openings of
the rocks and results in a lowering of the water table. Thus,
during drought or summer months when recharge rates are low,
a well's cone of depression may expand and deepen as water is
removed from aquifer storage.
Therefore, it is important that a production well be located
in a position where it may be fed by a large recharge area and
away from the area of recharge and potential well interference
of a neighboring well's cone of depression. A groundwater con-
tour map was constructed to determine the general groundwater
flow directions in the study area and to identify areas where
cone's of depression presently exist from large groundwater
consumers. Data was gathered on March 16, 1984, from represen-
tative private water wells (Table 1). The water table eleva-
tions were then plotted to construct a groundwater contour map
(Figure 3).
The results of the study indicate that, in general, groundwater
levels rose 10 to 15 feet since January 28, 1984, which indi-
cates that recharge during that period was greater than demand.
RRIOOOI70
13
TABLE 1 "___j*MARCH 16, 1984 - WELL WATER DATA (feet) ..^
DUBLIN, PA. (See.JSqte atend OT 'table)Wate^r Level
Surface Distance Change sineElevation Water Level Total from Dublin Jan. 23,198
____Well__________M.S.L. B.T.C./M.S.L. Depth fl Well Static Leve
1 Landis 615 54.05/560.95 530 700 + 8.20
2 Fray (Hosiery) 618 50.30/567.70 145 600 +12.95
3 Coleflesh 622 54.30/567.70 580 500 +10.17
4 Dublin #1 (Pumping) 615 P53.45/561.55 350 0 +0.06
5 Dublin #2 615 55.05/559.95 290 75 +10.10
6 Hallman 610 42.87/567.13 250 450 +11.18
7 Osterman 590 68.78/521.22 200 900 +12.32
8 P. Meyers 545 49.90/495.10 225 2,100 +19.70
9 Lamellza 590 10.40/579.60 370 2,400 +15.95
10 Firehouse 500 66.17/433.83 220 4,000 + 1.86
M. Detweiler 580 49.45/530.55 355 1,200 +12.12
12 Nester 575 48.23/526.77 310 1,500 +14.42
13 Shiel 582 57.35/524.65 180 1,750 +11.37
14 Stever 570 32.10/537.90 150 3,400 + 6.57
15 C. Meyers 560 41.87/518.13 155 2,000 +12.33
16 G. Moyer 555 38.60/516.40 165 2,100 +14.15
17 Hagar 530 17.15/512.85 470 2,750 +15.36
18 Dublin Mews #2 505 74.70/430.30 310 4,000 + 2.18
19 Boehret 550 30.98/519.02 310 2,100 +13.29
20 Swartz #1 618 52.50/565.50 460 900 +11.25"
21 Swartz #2 618 42.70/575.30 520 925 + 9.40
22 Miller 610 50.50/559.50 185 1,300 +11.25
23 Phy 610 46.20/563.80 NA 1,350 +10.15• Ail 00018
Rissi 630 48.88/581.12 210 3,900 -+-7.02
25 Nicoletti 560 40.05/519.95 100 3,400 +13/25
26 J. Meyers 570 4.85/565.15 230 3,900 + 7.71
14 '-
Water LevelSurface Distance Ch%rtc[e sineElevation Water Level Total from Dublin Jafij ' "~"
_____Well___________M.S.L. B.T.C./M.S.L. Depth. #1 Well
27 Graybill 565 10.30/554.70 200 4,100 + 3.72
28 Webb ** 570 15.00/555.00 50 4,400 NA
29 Ott 570 Artesian NA 4,200 NA
30 Ragusa 625 7.90/617.10 NA 4,500 NA
31 Philipps 620 10.75/609.25 NA 2,700 NA
32 #1612 640 76.10/563.90 NA 6,500 NA
33 Haines 520 Artesian 65** 5,700 NA
34 Painter 420 26.50/393.50 NA 7,300 NA
35 Mosser * 460 15.00/445.00 32 7,800 NA
36 Rhines 440 47.50/392.50 NA 8,800 NA
37 Clemmer 460 65.05/394.95 NA 8,100 NA
38 Keifer 440 90.30/349.70 165** 10,000
39 Kringe ** 430 35.00/395.00 265 10,300
40 Kringe (Farm)** 460 35.00/425.00 230 9,900 NA
41 Luby Stone Bridge "AII+ 500 79.5/415.5 NA 6,200 NA
42 Otts 600 56.30/543.70 NA 700 NA
43 Dublin Mews #1 500 78.82/421.18 NA 4,600 NA
Stonebridge +44 Well #2 (Pumping)+ 490 180P/310.0 NA 4,800 NA
Leatherman45 S.B. Well "E" 530 33.8/496.2 NA 3,400 NA
Reiff46 S.B. Well "D" + 505 95.0/415.0 NA 3,700 NA
Smith47 S.B. Well "C" 480 74.4/405.6 NA
Leatherman48 S.B. Well "B" + 480 24.1/455.9 NA
Stonebridge49 Well #10 + 460 53.5/406.5 NA
15
Surface Distance _ _Chan^fe^*sincElevation Water Level Total from Dublin Jan. 3,19?
Well__________M.S.L. B.T.C./M.S.L. f'^oth____#1 Well Static Levc
50 S.B. Well #1 + 490 93.1/396.9 NA 5,800 NA
51 Hoffman 480 52.15/427.85 NA 5,900 NA
52 Bishop 505 Artesian 125** 4,500 NA
---is.
MOTE: Static water levels measured on January 23, 1984, were taken afterthe Dublin well had been shut down for six days. Water levelmeasurements made on March 16, 1984, were under normal pumpingconditions averaging 20,000 gpd from the Dublin #1 well. Thus,water level recovery was much higher then indicated.
* Dug well - not currently used.
** Not actually measured - information given by landowner.
NA Not available.
Average of measurements made by Stonebridge on 4/15 & 4/17/84i.rj
p Pumping
16
Water levels in wells near and including the Dublin #1 well
have probably increased much more than indicated on Table 1 •>
since the water levels on January 28, 1984, are static levels
measured after the pump had been shut down for 5 days. The
water levels of the same wells measured on March 16, 1984,
represent pumping levels. Thus, the present pumping level of
the Dublin #1 well is at the same level as it was while static
in January indicating that a substantial replenishment of water
into the aquifer has occurred since being drained away during
the dry summer months.
Additional information learned from the groundwater map is that
a significant cone of depression may exist surrounding the
Stonebridge Apartments, and lesser but important cones of de-
pression are visible around other major groundwater consumers
(Figure 5). Any proposed well site should avoid being located
near these regions since any area where cones of depression
overlap one another decreases vertical recharge to each of the
wells in that area by half. Also, a well should not be located
down or up gradient of a major groundwater consumer since the
new well may respectively be robbed or rob groundwater under
normal flow.
Groundwater Recharge
Precipitation falling on the earth may flow over the surface as
runoff or be absorbed by plants and transpire into the air,
17
evaporate directly or may -=>ep into the subsurface to bel
part of the groundwater system. ^
The rate and amount of water seeping into the groundwater
system is referred to as recharge and is of primary importance
in determining well performance. Recharge rates fluctuate
throughout a year primarily in relation to precipitation and
evapotranspiration. During summer months, plants can remove
a substantial amount of available water (approximately 60
percent) that could have or has entered the groundwater aquifers,
Studies have shown that effective recharge rates may be reduced
by typically 30 percent as a result of evapotranspiration from
roots entering the groundwater during the growing season.
Generally, groundwater recharge is the highest from December
through May, while the summer and fall months it may. be sub-
stantially lower} more as a result of plant evapotranspiration
than precipitation.
As recharge waters enter the groundwater system, surplus waters
flow out of the system through springs and seeps into streams.
During periods when surface runoff does not flow into the
streams (usually at least 5 days after a rainfall), this ground-
water outflow can be observed as stream base flow. Measurement
of stream base flow is a method for estimating the effective
groundwater recharge. In actuality, base flow represents sur-
plus to the groundwater budget that would be available for well
18
consumption. Thus, base flow rates are of primary concern in 'c;
order to ensure that an adequate renewable supply of ground-
water exists for well consumption.
Base Flow Rates
Regional studies indicate a wide fluctuation in base flow rates
for areas having similar geology as the Dublin study area.
Variations may result from differences in surface conditions,
geology, measurement accuracy and precipitation trends. A
review of published average base How rates is presented in
Table 2 as follows:
TABLE 2
Published Base Flow Rates for the Brunswick
and Lockatong Formations
Drought YearNormal Year Base Flow Yield
Base Flow Yield (7 day, 10 year low flow)______Source___________gpd/sq. mi._________in gpd/sq. mi._____
COWAMP (Brunswick-Lockatong) 300,000-400,000 20,000
R.E.Wright (Skippack Study) 220,000 53,000
Cowan (Brunswick ofSpringfield Twp.) 221,000-310,000 66,900
These values represent yearly averages where, in reality, histori-
cal evidence indicates that major seasonal variations may exist
such as during extreme droughts. Historical data on lojWpfiLews fd
streams near the Dublin area indicate that during extensive
19 &RLOQ023
possibly 100 year droughts, major streams in the area may have% i-
no base flow:
TABLE 3
Low Flow Data from Pa. Water Resources
Bulletin No. 1
Location
Near Sellersville
Tributary to Perkiomen Creek
No flow on August 16, 1950 \
Location
Tohickon Creek at Point Pleasant -
Drainage area: 107 sq. mi.
. Average discharge: 30 years (1883-1913), 200 cfs
Extremes: 1883-1913 - Maximum recorded 11,500 cfs- 5/21/1894
Minimum: No flow 10/17-22/18847/22-23/1885
More specific base flow data was obtained from the Bucks County
Planning Commission, who measured base flow on the East Branch
of Deep Run at Stony Bridge Road in August and September of
1975 as well as September and October of 1976. The lowest base
flows measured during the study periods are presented below in
Table 4:
•ARt OOQ2U
20
tTABLE 4 'eg.
Historical Base Flow Data: East Branch of
Deep Run Creek at Stony Bridge Road
*August 28, 1975 (B.C.P.C.)
Gauge Height: 13.47'
Gross Measured Discharge: .194 cfs = 125,385 gpd
Dublin Sewage Discharge;____________-39,000 gpd
Net Stream Flow: 86,385 gpd2
Base Area: 3.47 mi
Base Flow - 24,895 gallons per day per square mile (gd mi2)
*September 20, 1976 (B.C.P.C.)
Gauge Height: 13.9'
Gross Measured Discharge: .1703 cfs » 110,068 gpd
Dublin Sewage Discharge;_____________-58,000 gpd
Net Stream Flow: 52,068 gpd2
Basin Area: 3.47 mi
Base Flow - 15,005 gd mi
*Stonebridge Development not producing effluent until June of1983. These are lowest base flows recorded by the B.C.P.C.for August, 1975 and September/October 1976.
Prior to the time of the August 28, 1975, measurement, June
and July of that year experienced extremely high amounts of
rainfall while August was 1.65 inches below average
21
the time of the September 20, 1976 measurement, August and
September had experienced slightly below average rainfall.
Recent base flow measurements of the three watersheds in the
Dublin area were made by INTEX February 25 to April 13, 1984,
at three representative monitor stations (Figure 1). Water
levels were recorded from bridge rails to determine when base
flow occurs (Figure 4-a,b,; Appendix 1). The results indicate
that for winter months, a period of at least 4 days should
exist without rainfall before measuring for base flow, and
that base flows were generally constant from March to April 13,
1984. Base flow measurements for the 3 stations, which repre-
sents base flow for March and half of April 1984, is presented
in Table 5:
TABLE 5
Base Flows for the Dublin Study Area
for March through April 13,1984
Station 1 (April 13, 1984 Base Flow Measurement)
* Total Stream Flow 3,554,743 gpdDublin Sewage Outflow - 240,000 gpdStonebridge Sewage Outflow
(est) - 29,000 gpd
Net Corrected Stream Flow 3,285,743 gpd
Groundwater Consumption inWatershed Removed bySewage System;____________+30,390 gpd
TOTAL 3,316,133 gpd
Drainage Area: 3.47 mi2 R81800262
Corrected Base Flow: 955,658 gpd/mi
22
tn(fl 4J 4_) rtfQ) 4-1 U C -H •D C <U <1) rH t3
MH d <1) SH g (C OO (L) g -H 0) > rH
4-> rH (tS 2 4-J <U &>i H 4-4 (U •> W 0 tfl 0d 3 d SH tn <o d rci Ho tn -H 4-> a) CD ,Q MHIH -p Q) Cn B Q) (!)oco M ^ a t s - i s - i m tntn
W O& HD EH
CO
CQPiQ)
-P
s C O l f l - H H Q J O -HrH
Cn - t n x l - P n J C O) (U -P C 0) S -H
QPQ 534-*OQjtntn -H
0
too
'*-oom
*
•
0
0
. o
r 2
XU2$5
- Vn
CQIU
o UL
tl ^^ CO CM T- O*wa aoaina MOiaa
23 AR 100027
••••"•••i
•**•
** 1c~
-•••g ^ ^
en
•Km
m
rH-Q(0
21 tnO (CH (UEH gEH 4JH 0CM dHU 4->W 3PH ,Qcu
4->x;Cn•rHHtnI*
CnC4->rH0)
Od«,
rH
0)U-4 CndS -H 4->O 4-1 (Dd rH QJtn (U rH
g tnM-i *v.0 S £o o• G £oo in tnI I Ico E tn
O
CO
CO>, 0) rH(d rH CDT3 -H t>
Cn || g QJ<U -H &(U -P OQ 0) H<u mS (U
Ow
O -HI CN
QJ-Pm -P o(d Q) (U-P to !H
to d D ing H
00cu 3 o o12 P5 ffi U
an & Mr-id oco 3 rHCD1 «Wo co a)H enr-H M (0m a) xjCn &
T)H -HIT) rH
VDH
*> toMHOCNenCN
CO *m i
'goo I ,-qCM I PM
w I Woo m c/3«* O I <!
I CQ
• X5
XU
21
00
£ ••••••
••K*•
*P
* P
^ ————
CO
••
QJ-HrH'-PrQ , — |
rd 0)rl ^3
23 MOO <C CH QJ
i=C HEH -P rHH O Q)P( CH 4-1 &iH CU -P 5 -Hw 2 2 "^Hi M QJ
K(~^ iii
•H OrH • CW 00 CO
1 1 1
* to g
-PQJQJ
OM
1
/. 9 - CO CM r- O'wa aDQine Moiaa13A3T
24
« m•O «
>H . «0) "
H .rl £O rl O
CQ4jnj n3
ns,M O<U PH
O W Q) UH -H rH 0)
o S d£ G. , O 0) Ocol g « U
in •ecuo iHrH -H
(0g
U a) tn 0)^ * S
00 3r- cr<
en
oo a)in Cm
enM-Io
. . Q.oCM
BfrnW
CQ
S
_i>n =:
g •^ m
*•1C
•K^
* B
d1 —W
*••
•
20HEH$HpjHUWPH&
8 b °' CO CM T- O' *wa aDQina MOT:aa
enCQJ -HrH -MXJ rHfC QJ>H g
ojgr74J rHO Q)C 4H tr>
C•P S -H -P3 O -P 0)XJ C rH 0)
W <1) rH•P g Wx: UH \0)0 5 5-H O OrH • C fiw oo tn wI I I I
I- vn | * OT g
m1U-
o U.
25 &R1QQQ29
Station 2 (April 13, 1984 Base Flow Measurement)
Stream Flow 188,724 gpd
Groundwater Consumptionin Watershed Removedby Sewage System;________+54,278 gpd
TOTAL 243,002 gpd•j
Drainage Area: 1.44 mi
Corrected Base Flow: 168,751 gpd/mi
Station 3 (April 13, 1984 Base Flow Measurement)
Stream Flow 2/798,552 gpd
Groundwater Consumptionin Watershed Removed bySewage System;______________67,806 gpd
TOTAL 2,866,358 gpd2Drainage Area: 4.86 mi
2Corrected Base Flow: 589,785 gpd/mi
* Flow obtained by extrapolating stream level on April 13,1984, to a stream level-discharge chart constructed fromthe B.C.P.C. data (see Appendix I).
Base flow values between the three watersheds are quite dif-
ferent and are not believed to be the result of measurement
errors in the case of Stations 2 and 3. The results from
Station 1 are questionable because of the influence of the
sewage treatment plant outlets upstream of the site. Also,
the discharge information was extrapolated from measurements
taken in 1975 and 1976. A possible hydrologic explanation for
the variations in base flow may be that the West Branch of
Deep Run and Morris Run watersheds contain the relativao |
26
majority of groundwater consumers in the area. Recharge waters
may be "filling up" the groundwater lost from aquifer storage
during over pumping of the aquifers from the drought of 1983.
Water level recovery in the various watersheds supports this
theory as levels in the immediate area of Dublin average 45 feet
below the surface where water levels at the Graybill and J.
Meyers wells, 3/4 of a mile outside of town, are only 10 and
5 feet below the surface and exhibited relatively smaller
water level rises since January 28, 1984.
Therefore, recharge rates, which should be similar to base
flow rates for March and the early part of April of 1984, mayo
be as high as 955,658 gpd/mi . Generally, base flow values are
the highest during March and April for any given year and total
rainfall for March of 1984 was at least 1.5 inches above normal.2
To conclude, base flow rates as high as 955,658 gpd/mi and as
low as 15,005 gpd/mi^ are possible in the Dublin area indicating
that large fluctuations in recharge rates occur depending on
conditions. Historical records show that during extreme ex-
tended droughts base flow may not exist.
Storativity
When groundwater recharge is lower than groundwater withdrawal,
water is removed from aquifer storage. Storativity or effective
porosity for fractured shales is generally low and results in
large drawdowns being required to obtain
27
Storativity values for the Brunswick Formation have been
reported to range from .3 x 10~5 to 3 x 10~2 with a median
of 1 x 10~4 (Longwill and Woo-*, 1965; McGreevy and Sloto,
1977). Storativity of the rocks in the Dublin area are
governed by fracture spacing, bedding plane frequency, pri-
maring porosity and fracture cementation. Thus, Storativity
can vary considerably depending on aquifer conditions.
Should dewatering occur, the general dewatering formula
applies: ' Bw = Ah (A) (7.48052) S
Vw = Volume of water (gallons)
Where: Ah = Change of head or drawdown (feet)
A = Area of depletion (ft2)
S = Storativity (percent of volume)
During periods of high recharge, the dewatered aquifer can be
replenished, thus raising the water table to normal conditions
as has been seen in the Dublin area since November of 1983.
Consumption
The estimated current water needs of all of Dublin Borough is
presented in Table 6:
28
TABLE 6
GROUNDWATER CONSUMPTION WITHIN DUBLIN BOROUGH
(Based on 1980 Census and PA.DER sewage production rates)
Apartment Units: 496 x 2.5 p/u x 60 g/p/d = 74,400 gpd
One & two family dwellings: 233 x 3.5 p/u x 75 g/p/d = 61,162 gpd
Dublin #1 Well (58 homes) = 20,552 gpd
Restaurants & Hotels: 3 = 400 customers/day (approx)x 10 g/c/d = 4,000 gpd
Industrial Employees: 254 x 10 g/e/d = 2,540 gpd
Commercial Establishments: 34 x 4 e/e (approx)x 10 g/e/d = 1,360 gpd
TOTAL 164,014 gpd
These are average rates which may vary depending on the time
of day or year. Care should be taken to see that well per-
formance or storage facilities exist that are able to accept
peak consumption rates. All population forecasts obtained
by INTEX for Dublin Borough have been underestimated, indicating
that future growth in the area is certain.
29
WATER QUALITY
Groundwater generally contains small concentrations
of suspended and dissolved materials. The dissolved
solids content in groundwater is the result of leaching
of soluble material from the atmosphere, soil, and
rocks through which the water moves. In addition, ground-
water is vulnerable to pollution as a result of a variety
of human activities.
tThe Dublin study area has several types of ground waterproblems which were identified and analyzed. These in-
clude:
a) Concentrations of dissolved minerals and com-
pounds exceeding potable drinking water standards
(particularly iron, manganese, and sulfate).
b) Induced infiltration from surface waters and
contamination from non-point agricultural sources.
c) Problem areas of domestic sewage disposal system
failures. " -
Dissolved Minerals in Groundwater
The factors which influence the chemical quality of
groundwater are: the composition of soil and bedrock, cli-
mate, temperature, pressure, length of time water has
been in contact with soil and rock, and human activit:Le& j
30
such as disposal of waste and sewage.
Groundwater quality is variable with respect to different
rock formations. Water quality may also vary locally
within a rock type due to the uneven distribution of
minerals.
Review of existing data on groundwater quality indicated
an insignificant amount of information specific to the
study area. However, published well data on the same
rock types in other parts of Bucks County were utilized.
A study of ten public supply wells in Bucks County show
the following analyses for the Brunswick Formation:
TABLE 7
Analyses of Water from theBrunswick Lithofacies (Greenman, 1955)
(parts per million)
Low Range High RangeConcentration Concentration
Iron (Fe) .01 .1
Total Iron .04 1.8
Calcium (Ca) 15 77
Magnesium (Mg) 3.8 26
Sulfate (804) 30 144
pH ' 7.4 8.9
Total hardness 53 284as Cac°3 IE 100035Table 7 shows that water from the Brunswick is moder-
31
ately mineralized and moderately hard to hard. Iron
content is low and while some samples contain relatively
large amounts of sulfate, the concentration is not
excessive. The water is of satisfactory quality for
most uses without treatment. It meets the standards of
the U.S. Public Health Service and is suitable for
public supply.
Water in the Lockatong Formation characteristically is
moderately to highly mineralized and hard. Although
water of the Lockatong Formation is generally suitable
for domestic water supplies, iron can be a problem in
areas where iron sulfide minerals are concentrated. Sul-
fate in these areas can also be high (165 ppm). Water
softeners are often utilized in areas underlain by Locka-
tong rocks.
'In some wells, high mineral content appears to be a func-
tion of well depth. Excessively mineralized water bearing
zones are typically localized.
Groundwater quality in the study area appears to be of
good quality and is expected to be suitable for domestic
supplies.
32
Induced Infiltration of Surface Waters
A source of contamination to groundwater is the poten-
tial for wells to induce infiltration of polluted sur-
face waters. Contaminated water can enter the aquifer
through fractures and may possibly be intercepted by
wells inducing infiltration. Where fractures are open,
contaminated water can move without the benefit of ab-
sorption, ion exchange, or filtration processes.
While surface water in the study area is generally con-
sidered of good quality, contamination of streams due
to discharges of sewage during floods and pollution from
non-point agricultural sources poses a problem. A 1977
study of water quality for Deep Run Creek reported that
during storm events raw sewage from the Dublin Borough
wastewater treatment facility is discharged without
treatment to the stream (personal communication, 10/28/81
Bucks County Planning Commission). Other potential
stream quality problems include contamination from ag-
ricultural lands, e.g. cow pastures.
Well construction techniques are available to minimize
problems related to induced infiltration. The length
of casing of wells located near streams should be in-
creased below the zone of surficially contaminated waters,
33 RRI00037
Domestic Sewage System Failures
Groundwater contaminated by sewage from malfunctioning
domestic sewage systems is characterized by high concen-
trations of bacteria, nitrates, and suspended solids.
The pollution tends to be near the ground surface and
poses the greatest threat to shallow residential wells.
Large public or industrial supply wells tend to be deep
and are usually cased below the zone of pollution. The
presence of bacteria is not a major problem in,that water
can be chemically treated with chlorine.
Personal communication with the Bucks County Health
Department (October 29, 1981) concerning a 1977 random
survey of domestic sewage disposal systems revealed that
the area east of Dublin Borough was characterized by a
27 percent failure rate. The survey further concluded
that there was no observed correlation between density
and rate of failure.
An investigation of soil types within the 201 study area
of Bedminster indicates that no soils are suitable for
conventional on-lot systems. Only the soils of the
Readington series are suitable for alternate on-lot dis-
posed systems and spray irrigation. Occasionally Reaville
soils can be suitable for alternate on-lot disposal sys-
tems. A few other soil types which can be used for someft R itype of disposal system are present in minor amounts.
35
Most of the aquifers in the study area consist of fractured
rock of the Brunswick and Lockatong and are water table or "'4vv"L
semiartesian aquifers; highly sensitive to contamination.
Direct infiltration of water and the local source nature of
recharge, common to the Dublin study area are major factors
for this sensitivity. Groundwater flow in fractured rock
can be rapid and as a result, contaminated water can travel
long distances in relatively short intervals of time. Sus-
ceptability of aquifers to pollution in the study area is
moderate.
34
The distribution of soils suited to waste water disposal
is limited, however the aerial extent of soils is somewhat
greater in the northern portion of the study area.
Due to the lack of suitable soils the use of spray irri-
gation and on-lot disposal systems is limited. Soils are
also not recommended for use by community on-lot systems.
36
V. POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR PRODUCTION WATER WELLS
The factors influencing well performance such as geology,
hydrologic location, well interference and hydrologic budget
must all be considered in the placement and design of a pro-
duction water well. Production well sites are not recommended
within Dublin Borough as a result of the current high density
of identified well interference (Figure 5) and the restricted
areas for well recharge resulting from hilltop sites. Two
prospective well sites have been located specifically for the
installation of high yielding supply wells (Figure 5) and are
described below:
Location #1 - Quarry Road Site
The proposed site is located in predominantly Brunswick rocks
and is in the vicinity of fracture traces. Thus, relatively
good well yields are anticipated. The estimated area of ground-
water recharge for the well is 2.90 square miles with no major
groundwater consumers being present in the estimated area of
influence. Using the measured base flow obtained from Station2
3 of 589,785 gpd/mi , the recharge area could conceivably pro-
vide 1.7 million gallons of water per day. During normal summer
drought periods, the recharge area could provide 43,500 gallonsoper day of water using a base flow of 15,000 gpd/mi . During
extreme droughts when dewatering of the aquifers may occur,
well interference is anticipated to be minor.
37
Location #2 - Scott Road Site g$
The well site is located in predominantly Lockatong Formation
rocks, but occurs along a straight stream segment that is
indicative of highly fractured rock. Well yields are antici-
pated to be relatively fair. The recharge area for the well is
estimated to be 2.17 square miles with no major groundwater
consumers in the general area of influence. Using a measured2
base flow from Station 1 of 955,658 gpd/mi , the recharge area
could provide 2.1 million gallons of water per day. The re-
charge area during drier periods of the year could provide,2
using a base flow of 15,000 gpd/mi , 31,500 gallons of water
per day. During extreme droughts, the estimated area of influ-
ence of the well is not expected to effect any major ground-
water consumers and should quickly recover once recharge rates
return to normal.
38
VI. CONCLUSIONS
1. As a result of this hydrologic study, two potential well
sites have been identified within one mile of Dublin.
The well sites have been located so as to obtain the
highest available well yields and recharge areas. The
recharge areas for the two sites are estimated to be 2.9
and 2,1 square miles and do not contain other large ground-
water consumers that could interfere with yields. If all
of Dublin's current water needs of 164,000 gallons per day
(114 gpm) were to be satisfied by one well, an average
yearly minimum recharge rate of 56,556 to 78,100 gpd would
be required.
Such high well yields are possible, but consumption at
these rates (114 gpm) may cause well drawdown during
drought periods that would be able to be replenished during
winter and spring months.
2. Recharge rates to the groundwater system were investigated
for the Dublin area through the study of stream base flow.
Base flow rates measured for the three watersheds in the2
area during March of 1984 were 955,658 gpd/mi for the
East Branch of Deep Run, 168,751 gpd/mi for the West2
Branch of Deep Run, and.589,785 gpd/mi for Morris Run.
The wide variability between these rates may be the
result of local groundwater consumption or hydroloftiffi: I
39
differences of the watersheds. These rates generally
represent the highest yearly rates. Historical records
of base flow show that for a relatively normal late
summer-early fall period, when base flow rates are the2
lowest, rates ranged from 24,895 to 15,005 gpd/mi for
the East Branch of Deep Run. During extreme droughts,
historical records show that base flow may not exist.
These fluctuations in base flow are important to monitor
in order to determine when conservation measures are re-
quired.
3. The groundwater contour map from well measurements made
on March 16, 1984, indicates that a general rise of the
water table has been occurring since the last measurements
taken on January 28, 1984, indicating that a general sur-
plus of recharge waters existed to "refill" aquifers de-
watered during the previous summer drought. Areas of
well interference were noted as a result of the monitoring
study. These aioas of well drawdown may expand substan-
tially during the summer months when groundwater recharge
rates decline.
4. Investigation into the construction of a surface reservoir
for water storage and use indicates that such a project
would not be cost effective considering Dublin's consump-
tion rate. Currently, the best option available for a
ARID'40
source of water other than purchasing from an outside ^
company is to develop a well system to obtain relatively'•%>,"''
high quality groundwater locally.
41
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Prior to construction of a production well system, a
hydrologic data base of the area surrounding the well
should be obtained. Base flow and groundwater levels
should bo measured at various times of the year to de-
termine maximum and minimum recharge rates and ground-
water le/els. An inventory of water wells in the area
of the proposed site should be gathered noting the well's
yield, total depth, present water level and pump setting.
Such information will prove beneficial in determining the
proposed well's maximum consumption rates and identify
when co- servation measures are needed.
2. The pro, osed well sites should be field checked to con-
firm fr icture trace locations and to note whether any
potential groundwater pollutants exist. During drilling,
geologic descriptions of the rock and well yields encoun-
tered should be noted in order to assist in the optimum
well dt sign.
3. Upon completion of the well, variable rate step and con-
stant -'ate pump tests should be made during a period of
low groundwater recharge as well as during early spring
when tiie recharge rates are highest. These tests will
allow a more complete understanding of well performance
and its effects on the surrounding aquifers in order to
obtain maximum well production with minimal afrelt*dnU UHb
the environment.
42
4. The recharge basin for the well should be protected from*?
pollution and overpumping by regulation of agricultural
practices, sewage discharge, industrial activities,
gasoline stations and stockpiling of road salt and manure.
ARIOOOfc?
43
f :V'o -'
\
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bush & Shaw, L.C., 1966, Pennsylvania Stream Flow CharacteristicsLow-Flow Frequency and Flow Duration. Pennsylvania WaterResources, Bulletin No. 1.
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, 1975. COWAMP/208 Draft Report.
Greenman, D.W., 1955, Ground Water Resources of Bucks County,Pennsylvania. Bulletin W-1.1, Pennsylvania Geological Survey,Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 66 pp.
International Exploration, Inc., 1981. Water Supply Study ofHilltown Township.
Longwill, S.M., and C.R. Wood, 1965. Groundwater Resourcesof the Brunswick Formation in Montgomery and Berks Counties,Pennsylvania. Groundwater Report W-22, Pennsylvania GeologicalSurvey, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 55pp.
McGreevy and Sloto, 1977. Groundwater Resources of ChesterCounty, Pennsylvania. U.S.G.S. Water Resources Investigations.
Pennoni Associates Inc., 1982. Groundwater Resource Study ofBedminster Township.
Wright, R.E., Special Groundwater Study of the Middle DelawareRiver Basin Study Area II.
44
APPENDIX 1
STREAM LEVEL DATA
February 25 - April 13, 1984
DUBLIN STUDY AREA
STREAM MONITOR STATION 1E. Branch of Deep Runat Stony Bridge Road
. ..HAIK.NAL LAi'u.,HAiKJi. Down strearn side of bridge at3/7 s,«.R«.n,,i.om, N.iAu Drainage Area 3.47 mi
"
DATE
2/25/84
2/27/84
3/1/84
3/4/84
3/9/84
3/12/84
3/16/84
19/84
3/21/84
3/28/84
3/30/84
4/3/84
4/5/84
4/13/84
^Flow meas
TIME '
9:45 A.M.
6:00 P.M.
12:20 P.M.
12:15 P.M.
3:43 P.M.
2:15 P.M.
5:30 P.M.
5:30 P.M.
8:00 A.M.
10:00 A.M.
9:15 A.M.
6:05 P.M.
2:40 P.M.
12:15 P.M.
urement made
WATER LEVELFrom TOP Of Bridae Down
12.825'
13.11'
12.98'
13.15'
13.02'
13.20'
12.40'
12.92'
13.02'
12.95' *(13.58 CFS)
12.55'
12.99'
12.10'
12.95'
REMARKS
Sewage treatment plants discharg-ing 5,0 yds. upstream of 1.Np volumftf-.Ti r. Tn^aRii-r^m^n-1- tv?ken-
ii ii ii it
No ice
- . ___ __
No ice
Muddy - - - -
Clear water _
Clear water
Both sewer pipes flowingrain/hail - muddy water
Snow on ground __-
No flow from Stony bridgeRain gauge 2.2"
Muddy water, rained 3.4"
_= ••:-
_ —
—————— flfUOOO&O--
- - - - .
STREAM MONITOR STATION xg W. Branch of Deep Run *%.
n.i. .tNAiioi4«L i-M-. ..(.,oiot. at Irish Meetinghouse Rd. '*•'3/7-...v.M.,.,.,.0.... n.,,.1, Upstream side of bridge
at white marker on bridgeDrainage Area =1.44 mi^
|VM rtNU, IJA, I M*J /
i<: i a) i-i-^-a^ou
DATE
2/25/84
2/27/84
3/1/84
3/4/84
3/9/84
3/12/84
3/16/84
3/19/84
3/21/84
3/28/84
3/30/84
4/3/84
4/5/84
4/5/84
4/13/84
*Flow mea
TIME
10:00 A.M.
6:00 P.M.
12:15 P.M.
12:10 P.M.
3:35 P.M.
1:45 P.M.
5:20 P.M.
5:25 P.M.
8:15 A.M.
12:00 P.M.
9:30 A.M.
6:00 P.M.
2:45 P.M.
3:45 P.M.
12:20 P.M.
urement made
WATER 1, :VKLProm .top of bridge down
6.60'
6.75'
6.76'
6.84'
6.70'
6.90'
6.30'
6.73'
6.77'
6.65'
6.35'
6.76'
5.75L>5.80'
5.85'
6.95'
REMARKS ^^
No Volumetric Measurement taken
H it M ii
No ice
No ice
No ice
Little ice
Muddy
Clear water ^Bk
Muddy water * (10. 677 CFS)rain/hail
2-3" Snow on ground
Muddy - receeding waters
Flow measured - *(48.28 CFS)
Flow measured - *(.292 CFS)
ARI0005I
—————— •
STREAM MONITOR STATION 3Morris Run
Old Bethlehem Rd. Bridge "' " ^Downstream side @ white marker . on bride
Drainage Area 4.86 mi'\\J1l rtNU, t'A. I U'J /
mr —DATE
2/25/84
2/27/84
3/1/84
3/4/84
3/9/84
3/12/84
3/16/84
fc/19/84
3/21/84
3/28/84
3/30/84
4/3/84
4/5/84
4/5/84
4/13/84
1 ————*Flow meas
TIME
10:15 A.M.
6:15 P.M.
12:00 P.M.
12:00 P.M.
3:30 P.M.
12:40 P.M.
2:45 P.M.
5:15 P.M.
8:25 A.M.
1:00 P.M.
10:00 A.M.
4:20 P.M.
3:50 P.M.
5:00 P.M.
1:10 P.M.
urement made.
WATER LEVELFrom top of bridae _down
9.6'
9. 77'
9.75'
9.86'
9.75'
9.84'
8.28'
9.70'
9.75'
9.45'
9.35'
9.68'
8.75'
/ 8.8318.90/
9. 85'
REMARKS
No Volumetric Measurement taken
ii n ii ii
Iced over - hard to break
Ice
Ice -= ——
Some ice
Moderately muddy
Clear water
Rain/hail - muddy "water
Snow on ground - 2-3"
Clear-flow measured *(10.22 cfs!
Muddy-receding waters
Flow measured * (1 20. 94 cfs)
Flow measured *(4.33 cfs)
AR 100052
t\
\A
-J ^jflHi*''
t>3
<£<£/> TO
o "nS- 2 <5 * !
^oJC.A«
. _ y •IA
s£••»
S
(S) (3)
0 - 2
*.
n cR ?2 1fM; j
1
t
OO"E1
•»C
oo
«3;•
a.sp
ft(JC
2C
L
t
T~ r7C
- :ci
?i•»•7
^2
K)uIQt
V
i.
o-
=12rt
if3
Vcror*rr1**0
35O-
nE»
~
g"r*c•or1Q.O
3
Ula:
_^i"T30
•
a.
=ro
5'
t
sjr
ipc
sr
f i"*i
\i
fi
S^
r !£c3t\V
-,,-,
f li
-
-
£C
ctr
H
»|a.
a!
f•(
™
3)
•11r3.
.
'1_
"
O
sm52S
H^S,31
•S"oCL.ns.
?•<[oI
u>:5 "[
2aj"
•
K ;-y : "o" ; t a -~i '• 'it If S V
•? b 3& 0>»
K, < >3a i^ i riI i? ji/i? i^i "i«3
-
AJO
00
0
-O•A
roO
o
VN
UJ
o |O
r-J
(F
CO
A>co
OO
o
uo
00
Cio
-P
00ro
00
00
OO<Aoo
<JV
OOJ (X
?a60
0
JCO
Angle c«ef-hcirnt
rgi?
ps
ObKTVI-lion depth
r,.rfr ft *
ro
$&1
?
SP J§ iryI*?.'P•3\~f-~i*ij>! ~" II-t- ir6"01.:-(-»\-\'c>I?JtT•'5_': ^f~ i£> '
°t£* 5
Irj\i
ii:
\|Sm n- ; S i ! j
k*O . i ->. ^ c*iv ic> t> T-US. Hi• ;- o •"T\ :> Cr (VJip. :p :X>>;!o # *TCX>!VMit :Q ?> ' a-• S i— :C*V :-> § : *
i : !H "- U :?! i ij s ^ :3• UC/ 3 !-0 ;r7!'«l fr:i"--^.- °- i ^
i ..t- ' \ il'4-c. i i'W, . p ] ;L 'iT*- i :
|. 1 i: : < J 1 '•C' • •i n.j' ;-»; " '^:-> : i. *? >i^7 : iT » =1-JO i ^> H :i3 j !• ! I^ ^c| !: t*i -n -n: • r£. (3)
i i j ii i i i
3O
3
S*-4\
Qu>
&» 'l>
»
V*
8 S"fc I5- 32 30 72 aM tl.
M *f* -i t0 ^3 J
rf
t j
'CJ»»ooO-
w>^(**
'-Jfl,. J
o<s
5g-r>a.§£L«5'OQ
r•£
pI
r~ft<•
'/.'ottair.ed
ps
i•
o0on
*!
f
PX
n
1IO
•It
._.
r3
- £7T
?|Ci.
2i
- .
,
"
.._
naiq•»i>33-
i
F|
r
~
. „.
rr"4S
f3.»*ar»
rr
._
*3(Ua.3'nn6>
IFn"A
1§?§-f.37It^
v»fT3
a
,-s '.
o_sti
BJr>3*JQ
1
<y135ITA,o•1r»36»
;
Si,•i
;
_
*rtn
•H
B*
|<i
|cP
S,**»INC3~
_...
-_.
: c* is?
%
c
8Or*3
r-.„i2Sr
?t
?'
•
'
oSs1pCn
HSUa,§5
v*r»WOO-
8,
[
i»n^
/>5 'n^
**\?#
•
1
A}1:
o1r»rwr»
3*
T">
/I
1
---'ffff *! ? i s Z- !? i-u z Ck,o- * p5 HU • ™>C f »
,M !~C ! « i
>iSi *-c00 :) : . !>/_/»*• • ' ;! ' " g s)S : : — • & .\f ' ~£io o -s> r
•s ire S r S>fcfciS £ »°h^iv g », s>:' 3 -i ™... p O ~
j£ ? jr- « o•? « 2 «7 c•!-»-> m 3> t7! ! - , > " Zl "*U>*^ J2 ™CX/I-* <=° te« 5 i ?"W s i*! ;XN 2S ?> O'. V<*-> Si rt"! ->•1 -1 i o " ^?i ;V4 " C? •<V !f m;c : . </>:i. NN -<P ^ £- -3
M? s P f f r^a? a II? S?^L- | «r ? Fi t!-- i *^' •3'" ' fT-: iu~ ! ^o; :V : t\j 81 i* ! ! c"fe•7^ 1 i
CP
CO
tfVA UN
*
8
Ul
Ul0
00
S00
OJo8?c-
fcs
US)
H£
O
IA
An«lc c«tf-ficictit
Obwrva*
Iff.-
ft- CO CD a N> o 8o 1*r
Ml
v^ I *co G- o 0 0NO
LA)C O
NJ
ONi rvi tAJ
-Juovu
rJ-J
oCoO O 0
OJ-0
Frs
0:0sr
vrvi
rr, L •' ' !- >* * *.
P S> 3
it) i r»•0!\: : : ^
(Si <r>i
Tl i
.
:>-
nq
:<i
.
r•T.
oIT-
ID
1
OX3ri
r
Oo*
*3a,M
S.SPX|
O3o»3
3
;
fa
ranri7
O
g3a,
•
^it.
1
|1
t
!
1
quQ»
U3
t
IT
fl .JO
3
S"^
^D<:
?a.5'nonVo-rt
ri
sr&>T)
s-nD
aln
Vnp*
T7o
;
^
5iM1a>
ja
:
c/"2
fr0n
irf;
t»rt
;
> %f
5
W
§1
3C
O
f'•
a
?|0nr
r-
-
O
o(1
H^
7)»a.%
1!s-Pf:
pf
L.
->
Ci
apiSo~&G
i1ai5
£ToOr
1,
;
o»a
n1
;1
(A
5 's1
1C!i£
If"
-Cs
-C.col ~"~
o-AT,
O
.O s
0
vN-CJ
CB
N
CD
§
0'
Anile c«(.ZcHiit
i
OUctv.-
itrM
3?
r-0•s- s
r\. V
o--Ao
S) N Ki
•JU p 00.
,Kj£o|s
NJ
,cotoooo 03-c.
CO
Oft
r
Ocr
:r\ i
3 i-
i!St~Hf ' ^ ?. f S- s" '8 ? SJ g" 1- sT ^ f f^ r. rr _ ^ ,^_
•»• —— • 3 " " S .X 3 O • —— !"* '•*•? o ~> Q ^ '" •• a, :: £ : • : : > _ « * ° ? ! 3 ? 'i -: i : "!!•
« • • ;.»-I" i i ! US'O- ' ! . »
! i ; ci,» £: : <5 > <
£>^
I
r*i»"IT*
*
O *
3 <$-ted M. C. !
correction.
i
?rt
_
._
r3- nU 7^- ?3" £c
3Cl
u•* >
5«
,
....
s«V3X
(i
i
53
....
CT
5.KJn
I
3ruJ-%
[;r*
—
e*"Q.15
nb
V*
£cj
f.J-»
1
g"b
•*
rti
i
«,i
-
ry5o™Q
ft>
1
1
*
r!
-
^
P*S•*?O
>J>fn•«
——
• EPt-
' oouo
C
Hi'
IEpis;
3
•
.
in
H
5'
P j— K>
^A g
i—i ••>-5. s- sr r». • ~xSTtf
jv/* I1? |)O: ' h . _ CN
•°
sftO'
i '/ "»
T ,!?'. OI . T "- '\«/»
<*• I* j» p |>Aif E J
i
i* iT-S. if j g-
7 IT :F i
P i o : o 9 3 2" ' " ' S §" ,S 8 8VIIo £
U H^ arJ 0 S
2 ?f"\ «t VJ--n s 2o *"»
.. 5"
po
't lori ^ j ^
I Ir.i j<trir ]y f i £trl ' I I If
™ S. •* ;
^1 fr ! i'" ' S. j i ire; [ !
o o I
© © I
p\
n
•*_0
,1
i
c?
1|
Og
**»'
I
pI
j
(ii
i
f5- ii;? •* {i
i
->
^ :r•n331.
1
Lcr3Js
f3^furr
D_3'OQ
ft
§•-.J*
g-
."
C•Dt.fT'
1"
a.a.
g
"2.
0*
a.
-T%
3
33*( a
< c•i
s!(
IV
E5
r =r §i
r-
aSnr
p SI£Cfrn
?!i•*-
r
i- 1
C• c' ?
si9
»1i*f
I
3
i
,
•
gg
5zS
r5
2§-0
§,
8sSmr*ii
i\i
/) i: i5 1[
iT
2*
a
IfvJ =S ' —!\! 52 i
GAGE READINGS
te73
O
o
o
o
-C.
o
Q -co
VA)
<
P>
-000
f*
O
N
is & k 's "3 s s 9 s s is s k
tr
tt
y\
IVJ
oo
Angle coenh,,rnt
IT- (X.X-IV4-him dfplli
g-2»
O
o
SO
0*^
P
i
•an3rr
I
1
i
ocrQ
?osa.I
!a. •
i"JLrs
rre
<
On
*3V
?
Oi
o?•
>1*
otl
I!i
!r
i f^ ni' iMl P
p 3o ?ra o-excellentsection .
NJ
«9ocu"d"•Q3"
^-
•s~5OO
cr
O-
o;.0- .
Correct M. 1nIE!
rocrsrI
n£*
r .
p3
|
PI
ii
1
£
• _
r IUr c
C
t-
pr 'r ''r
iX.
g™Cu
g.
cr
r
r3rMr»
rr
la-s'
8cr
n'
H"5*c•op
f-•1
fo"n:
T
j_K
\
E5'< q
C/
1
!TI
"
b
c
;
pIUgStj
1S*f
Mi
*
3
- io* c- 1
r
\ Recorder
1=
fS".a.n
r!'
«
O
1I
r
-
ipr*
?tu
1.f"0^
Ac;i
&\z.
•
1I
Un:
0T"3;
T-i3iqr*
5*
y
S)
j
s p *_j 'C*— • ' 1. lAj ""i&^i^^|O* i L- ^! J2»* 'TT *» i • t * *
r |l,* iO* 23 i(\) cojO& i" ?t" *"l ^
; »TJ ! °
» El 1•5 i 3i . i m
D ' t 'x M 1•*- i "••
b |r~i ' '?' i^ : 0 0"U L f 1: ; 2 .0-: i 5- *«
I '' j~°i 1 !r\
1 * *
•t
GAGE HEADINGS
O
?\-r -i*Jt
CO»r-
O
-
i
0
B0
\
«o
•JJ
*
-c.
o&<?
\^o
oo
*
I_
O
8G
1
•
0
4
*
l
a00
0
1
M
0
o
£•x
*\~
1*
<T-c
oISf
1
fft
^
U)
u—
5X
o
8c?
\^0
2~
—
so
8a
\—
o
S-~*.A
O
|
-
-t-b--o
P:
^i
r>U
S
i-t—o0
^'M.
I
a§o
'
••m0
ct
d—
N
3*o
1MOwOD
-*»
-
0
$
0
1
*0
CP
o*
*
*\^§
§~SN
Angle coel- jfiuent ,
III?ss-ir
Obscrva-lion depth
Itf
§.?sf
snElf9
Bl •*,>•3 ° £•trtr*
3 %
P !
in Is
" rr-I I*
»-•<
o
• NT:v
O O TI 2* r * § si- 3S- 2
"° I' I
." §•ya
1 \C »-'
O'
CO! :-..- :r . ® <§>*^v;
>a1 s.-I S. ___
n O s.
o"I'
n3M
2oX
1i
Levels obtained
nX1
noa
.
13
1SpX
c
c1
!
_
<•1 ~,r rt
[^r i
c
»
rr•*33
a.
cr
Q
ri,•»"W
?•>
£
(«""Q.5'UQ
SI
K'rt
8T(U
C•a
F
3OI
— .O
£
- '
Hi-*-,o
5'00
LT
sJf
1Ci
u
t
" S' s"
r-
tu
S
5C
C
<ntieE
Mi
*
-
r
C
- 10
: p
r
FQ.
F?
firiu
0
S|e
a.
_,n
n
a:
1Q
P.
f!
M
5^
o
1 !~» —* b. S? !i> m- a :L~ _
j5 is
$0|jSfe :?T~
fc^ «a jj !;f!• i» ;>73- R 4
tili • I 1 I .-\ I I/1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 ..... I____J_____I .
M
MilVuiiy
-pn
VI
u.
cr
-i-O
N5ij<QMCO
s
"
V>
N;
VnCO
00 a-
Vn
c-J
rO
r~
V,
OC)
IVv
V
\
\tv\
cr-f-Oo- s,-,
0
CS4
CvJ r-l
xrJVn
O
Vn
S j 0 • ,. -j -5 : S . : r E £ S . : • • ^ ' <5;V : s> «•=:"*•: .h « «
U, i_i>. _: .1 , • i 1= j> . ; : : . • i i . • "* *
en
CSCO
: •;!
: :• i
•••"J i*. ', * i
J$ aJ; £.-i-»; ,
-: it;i 3.!
i j
-! > i ac2: G o<?\ uii••"Ti i*l ^;*{! 1 >;. (~)i<8d-! J3i "*
j -j ro•!0 •A *i-4
J -
i Q ^
aum
J tS•?
.S
1o a.> «>>u
a:o
*SuJI! )c•
8 .8S V
12 JV t>« . •£
fcE*o
^
IA(iz9B»ni
.
-i
i^
gi!a:
St-
%•*J0
T) ^0
6
'
DS
N
r:u
0::o
1•"0
*
iZ
;
«.>
J
.
•n
851•
•
cfti
fU;-oI"
':
t>"S.
s•£
^»-ec
*a
Sjjti.Si
dSo
g-••aras*
r•
i
£
j
cnrj
i
i
sj
CA
SAO
-1 •tiI
i*:£ ^j
_
a
3
iM>= t»
3 Su
i6 js 5"5 JP =f U
*ut-c1o^
1
\
iJ
;
S5
j
»1o
gga,00
t*
-2-
i» -'
jrsy*i."U-o"StSt'N
C^ra- ia r*^ .2* £-a 3,- 2»c 0II? *PS 3Z
<&
I O
PRECIPITATION AND WEATHER CONDITIONS+ flted)
DURING STUDY PERIOD 2/25-4/13/84.
Date_____Precip. (in.)______________________Remarks___________
2/23/84 Rains heavy ended approx. 5 A.M. 2/24/8424 0 Runoff and streams high25* Light nhowers causing no runoff26 0 Cold,ground freezing27* 0 Sleet began approx. 11 P.M.28 .45 Moderate showers occurred overnight ending 11 A.M.29 0 No runoff
3/1* 0 Very cold night 15°F no runoff,ground frozen2 Q ii n II ii nO Q II II II II II
4* Q II II II II II
5 .9 Sleet to rain beginning at noon; sporadic thru night6 NM Light drizzle7 08 0 Snow started approx. 5 P.M.9* (8" snow) Snow ended approx. 3 A.M.10 0 No melting of snow11 0 " " "12* 0 " " "13 2.0+ snowmelt Began snowing 5 A.M. turning to rain @ noon heavy at14 0 Rain ended after heavy downpour at 12 A.M. night15 0+melt Snows melting, runoff occurring16** NM+melt Snows melting, runoff high17 NM Most snow gone18 0 Ground saturated19* 020 021* .2 (BCPC) Light showers began approx. 9:30 A.M.22 NM Trace of rain23 NM24 025 .1 (BCPC) Light shower26 027 028* .32 (BCPC) Rain, hail, Phil is in Tucson29 1.55 (BCPC) Snow " " "30* .6 (BCPC)31 04/1 02 03* 04 0 Rain began as drizzle, showers in afternoon, began5* 3.4 raining very hard 4/4 night into 4/5 stopped 8 A.M.6 07 0
j I ARIQGG*'11 012 013* 0+Measurements made in Doylestown * Stream measurements made.by Phil Getty unless noted. ** Well measurements made.
MAJOR GROUNDWATER CONSUMERS WITHIN EACH WATERSHED
THAT TRANSFER WATER INTO SEWAGE SYSTEMS
East Branch of Deep Run Watershed
Homes in Borough: 22 x 3.5 p/h x 75 gpd/p = 5,775 gpd1/4 of Stonebridge: 1/4 (28,000 gpd) = 7,000 gpd1/2 of Dublin #1 Well: 1/2 (20,000 gpd) = 10,000 gpd1/6 of Dublin Village: 1/6 (143 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 3,575 gpd1/6 of Woods Edge: 1/6 (72 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 1,800 gpd
28,150 gpd
West Branch of Deep Run Watershed
Homes in Borough: 71 x 3.5 p/h x 75 gpd/p = 18,637 gpd1/6 of Dublin Village: 1/6 (143 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 3,575 gpd1/6 of Woods Edge: 1/6 (72 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 1,800 gpd3/4 Dublin Mews: 3/4 (32 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 3,600 gpd3/4 Dublin Acres: 3/4 (54 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 6,075 gpdQuiet Acres: . 20 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 3,000 gpd1/4 Whistlewood: 1/4 (145 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 5,437 gpd3/4 Stonebridge: 3/4 (28,000 gpd) = 21,000 gpd
63,124 gpd
Morris Run Watershed
Homes in Borough: 103 x 3.5 p/h x 75 gpd/p = 27,037 gpd1/4 Dublin Mews: 1/4 (32 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 1,200 gpd1/4 Dublin Acres: 1/4 (54 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 2,025 gpd2/3 Dublin Village: 2/3 (143 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 14,157 gpd2/3 Woods Edge: 2/3 (72 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 7,128 gpd3/4 Whistlewood: 3/4 (145 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p) = 16,312 gpdTenley: 8 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p = 1,200 gpdGustafson: 5 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p = 750 gpdNyce: 3 u x 2.5 p/u x .60 gpd/p = 450 gpdShaddinger: 4 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p = 600 gpdWagner: 3 u x 2.5 p/u x 60 gpd/p = 450 gpd
71,309 gpd
0006
a
M
t1
101 1U-.3»M
I'o
n
<i /
J.r-.
7. 1• "\
SIMO
. LI A T c
K.lV'-,T">r";'!i
-
G.u'u,,ir\ '-i . M, 1 o -5 0^ Q M "~1
» ' i. ~t -\
\ 7, 3j C
\ '-is . i "i
D,v.«Aftoc-
•2-S3
:
• ..•'
U) \ DT «
3. V'6 -c
-A.S
-'
-
ft,w
U.-1
v . OS (i
S.WTIOW/>
if
^
OWG/AMLy g T /
. U-* 2.* i. M O. '^ S V
V - - A
.siii
PART -,^Oc.Str
Sc
* _>
-
me»VSM4terO
(Red)
APPENDIX II
MAJOR GROUNDWATER CONSUMERS
WITHIN THE DUBLIN STUDY AREA THAT
MAY CONTRIBUTE TO WELL INTERFERENCE
&RIOQQ65
(Red)
MAJOR GROUNDWATER CONSUMERS WITHIN THE DUBLIN STUDY AREA^- &
A x Stonebridge (90 homes) * 28,374 gpdB x Dublin #1 (58 homes) ** 20,552 gpdC Whistlewood (145 apartments) + 21,750 gpdD Dublin Village (143 apartments) + 21,450 gpdE t Woods Edge (72 apartments) + 10,800 gpdF "| Dublin Acres (54 apartments) + 8,100 gpdG ^ Dublin Mews (32 apartments) + 4,800 gpdH Quiet Acres (20 apartments) + 3,000 gpd
(95 employees) ++ 950 gpd
TOTAL 119,776 gpd
High Density Housing - Dispersed Consumption
J Maple Avenue (On Borough Sewage)K Deep Run Road (On Borough Sewage)L High Street (On Borough Sewage)M Main Street (On Borough Sewage)
+++ Total Single Family Dwellings in Dublin Boroughwith Individual Wells (233) = 61,162 gpd
N Tiffany DriveO Meadow Drive
x Anticipate substantial expansion in consumption.* January 1984 average from records (leaks reported).** March 1984 average from records (leaks reported).+ Figure based on 2.5 people per unit and a daily consumption of 60
gallons per person.++ Figure based on a daily consumption of 10 gallons per employee.+++ Figure based on 3.5 people per home and a daily consumption of 75
gallons per person. Future plans are to reduce this consumptionby providing municipal water to the borough from the Dublin #1well.
