science for a changing world
In cooperation with the POWells and Armstrong Creeks Wäſe
Tºrs
scrºSSOCſation and t
he Dauphin County Conservation District
Surface-Water and Ground-Water Quality in the Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek
Watersheds, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, July-September 2001
Why Study Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek
Watersheds?
Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek Watersheds are in Dauphin
cally are similar to Valley soils except the percentage of larger-grained
particles is greater than in the valley soils. Soils on the ridges are typi-
cally well-drained and the subsoil is channery sandy loam to channery
loam or rubble (Kunkle and others, 1972).
County, north of Harrisburg, Pa. The completion of the Dauphin
Bypass Transportation Project in 2001 helped to alleviate traffic con-
gestion from these watersheds to Harrisburg. However, increased
development in Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek Watersheds is
expected. The purpose of this study was to establish a baseline for
future projects in the watersheds so that the effects of land-use
changes on water quality can be documented. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) (2002) indicates
that surface water generally is good in the 71 perennial stream miles
in the watersheds. PADEP lists 11.1 stream miles within the Arm-
strong Creek and 3.2 stream miles within the Powell Creek Water-
sheds as impaired or not meeting water-quality standards (fig. 1).
Siltation from agricultural sources and removal of vegetation along
stream channels are cited by PADEP as likely factors causing this
impairment.
What are the characteristics of the Watersheds?
The drainage areas of the Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek
Watersheds are 39.2 and 32.3 square miles (mi’), respectively. The
watersheds are in the Ridge and Valley Physiographic Province of
Pennsylvania, where valleys are used primarily for agriculture, and
the ridges generally are forested (fig. 1). Land-use data from the early
1990s show that the Armstrong Creek Watershed has a higher per-
centage of agricultural land (50 percent) than the Powell
Creek Watershed (35 percent). The remaining land
use is primarily forest for both watersheds; the
only area of concentrated residential
development is in the western part
of the Powell Creek Water-
shed. According to the 2000
census, approximately 5,000
people live in the watersheds
(Tri-County Regional Plan-
ning Commission, written
commun., 2002).
The gray siltstone and
sandstone of the Pocono and
Spechty Kopf Formations
form the ridges (fig. 2). The
Catskill and Trimmers Rock
Formations underlie the val-
leys and are similar to the for-
mations on the ridges but
contain some shale layers and
generally are more grayish-
red (Taylor and Werkheiser,
1984).
Soils in the watersheds
vary with topography. Valley
soils are deep to shallow,
well-drained, and shaly silt-
loam in Subsoil. The lower to
mid-slope soil series typi-
76°40'
- A26
32 A33A&º JACKSON
2. y^*
A21A73:224
40°30'
5 MILES
O 2.5 5 KILOMETERS
EXPLANATION
LOW-INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL/
TRANSITIONAL
Powell Creek Watershed
[]
40°25'
BASIN BOUNDARIES
------- MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
ROADS
IMPAIRED STREAM
SEGMENTS
D HIGH-INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL
| COMMERCIAL – INDUSTRIAL
PENNSYLVANIA = ºvº.
[] WETLAND
Eſº Hºme
!"
º Ö
º
º
LOCATION OF MAPPED AREA
AP10 SURFACE-WATERSITES
AND NAMES
Figure 1. Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek Watersheds, major streams, land use and land cover, major
roads, municipal boundaries, and surface-water sampling sites.
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Geological Survey
USGS Fact Sheet FS-052-03
June 2003































The climate of the watersheds is typical of the northeastern
United States. The average amount of precipitation in the area is
about 40-42 inches per year; the average annual temperature is
about 50°F (Rossi, 1999). Terrain differences cause varia-
tions in rainfall and temperature in the watersheds.
Water use in the watersheds primarily is
residential and agricultural. Most home-
owners use private wells for water sup-
ply. The reported median
domestic well yield is
12 gallons per minute
76°55.
(gal/min) (Taylor and o-º-º: \, º }
Werkheiser, 1984). Surface “939 - º A39 Wºº.
water is used for recreational
and agricultural purposes.
Stream uses in both water-
sheds include cold-water and
trout-stocked fisheries; one
tributary to Armstrong
Creek is designated as a
high-quality cold-water fish-
ery (Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, 2003).
40°25'
How was the Study
Conducted? O 2.5 5 MILES
The study was 0 2.5 5 KILOMETERS
designed to characterize sur-
face-water and ground-
water quality in the Powell
Creek and Armstrong Creek
Watersheds during a period
when precipitation was
lower than average. When
precipitation occurs, runoff
to streams and recharge of the ground water affect surface- and
ground-water chemistry and quantity. The surface-water sampling
sites were selected using a sampling design generally based on tribu-
tary inflows to the main channel (Sanders and others, 1983). Using a
grid approach, the ground-water sampling sites were distributed
evenly throughout both watersheds. The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) and the Powells and Armstrong Creeks Watershed Associa-
tion (PACWA) met with landowners to obtain permission to access the
sites, gather site information, and collect samples.
Water-quality sampling in the watersheds began in late July 2001
and ended in early September 2001. Only minor precipitation events
occurred during this time period. The precipitation events did not
strongly affect either the surface-water or ground-water systems. Thir-
teen surface-water sites in each watershed were sampled from Sep-
tember 4 to 10, 2001 (fig. 1). Thirty wells were sampled from July 27
through August 14, 2001; two additional wells were sampled on Sep-
tember 10, 2001 (fig. 2). On the basis of information from drillers for
the wells sampled, the median well depth was 195 feet and the median
well yield was 14 gal/min.
What were the Methods Used to Collect Data?
Location data, field data, and quality-assurance/quality-control
(QA/QC) samples were collected for surface- and ground-water sites.
Site-location data were determined through the use of global position-
ing system (GPS) units and topographical maps. The pH, dissolved
oxygen (DO), specific conductance (SC), and water temperature were
measured in the field using a four-parameter water-quality probe.
USGS laboratories analyzed all water-quality samples. Laboratory
analyses for chemical and suspended-sediment samples were per-
formed according to techniques described in Fishman and Friedman
(1989) and Guy (1969), respectively. Four QA/QC samples were col-
lected during the study to ensure data quality. QA/QC sample results
Armstrong Creek Watershed
-
DA-670 O . 3A.
…”
Powell Creek Watershed
76°40'
EXPLANATION
GEOLOGY
|] CLARKS FERRY MEMBER OF THE CATSKILL FORMATION
[T] DUNCANNON MEMBER OF THE CATSKILL FORMATION
[T] IRISH VALLEY MEMBER OF THE CATSKILL FORMATION
| SHERMAN CREEK MEMBER OF THE CATSKILL FORMATION
| TRIMMERS ROCK FORMATION
| SPECHTY KOPF FORMATION
|| POCONO FORMATION
- BASIN BOUNDARIES
––– MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
ROADS
HYDROGRAPHY
º GROUND-WATER WELLS AND NAMES
Figure 2. Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek Watersheds, geology, major streams, major roads, municipal
boundaries, and ground-water sampling sites.
indicated that sampling techniques did not compromise the samples
collected.
Surface Water
Surface-water data-collection methods followed Standard USGS
protocols (Wilde and others, 1998–99). Streamflow was measured
using a pygmy current meter. The four-parameter water-quality probe
was placed in the part of the stream where the flow was most concen-
trated (known as the thalweg). Grab samples submitted for chemical
and suspended-sediment analyses also were collected from the thal-
weg. Unfiltered samples were analyzed for total phosphorus (P) and
total ammonia plus organic nitrogen (N). Filtered (0.45 micron filter)
samples were analyzed for dissolved nitrate plus nitrite, nitrite,
ammonia, and P.
Ground Water
Ground-water samples were collected from domestic wells. A
downhole electric measuring tape was used to measure the water level
below land surface. To purge water from the well system and collect
water-quality samples, an outlet or spigot was selected that bypassed
water filters or other treatment systems. Water in the borehole or hold-
ing tank was considered “stale.” To determine when the stale water
was adequately purged from the well system, water temperature and
SC were monitored prior to sampling. Ground water was discharged
to a 5-gallon bucket where the water-quality probe was positioned to
monitor water temperature and SC. Field measurements were
recorded once conditions were appropriate for sampling (stable tem-
perature and SC) or there were indications that the well was starting to
go dry. Samples were collected for the analysis of radon gas, dissolved
iron, manganese, arsenic, and nitrate plus nitrite according to tech-
niques described by Wilde and others (1998–99). Total coliform bacte-
ria samples were collected according to methods described by the
Hach Chemical Company (1998).




















What are the Results/Findings?
The water-quality sampling program was designed to gather as
much information in the shortest amount of time possible. This
ensures that hydrologic conditions are relatively unchanged (precipi-
tation inputs to either the ground-water or surface-water systems are
minimal), hence permitting reliable comparisons between sites.
Surface Water
No water-quality problems were evident in the surface-water
samples collected in the Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek Water-
sheds during the low-flow sampling period. Concentrations of
nitrate-N were well below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water of
10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of nitrate-N (table 1). Virtually no
ammonia N was detected in the low-flow samples. The median con-
centration of dissolved P was 0.02 mg/L. Although there is no drink-
ing water standard for dissolved P. Correll (1998) indicated that
concentrations of dissolved P equal to or exceeding 0.1 mg/L could
cause eutrophication in most water bodies. DO concentrations were
suitable for the support of aquatic life. Suspended-sediment concen-
trations were low.
Measuring surface-water flow in the Armstrong Creek Watershed
increased dissolution of rock material. Forest soils have a low pH and
need to be amended with lime to grow crops, which increases soil pH:
thus, lower pH values are expected in streams draining forest land.
The higher concentrations of suspended sediment for areas draining
agricultural land were expected because soil-erosion rates typically
are greater for agricultural land than for forest.
Land use significantly affected SC, pH, and suspended-sediment
concentrations of surface water (table 2). SC and pH were signifi-
cantly lower in samples from surface-water sites dominated (>75 per-
cent) by forest in comparison to samples from sites with less forest
cover. Agricultural lands are predominantly in the valley, and hence
streams in this area receive ground water that has traveled consider-
able distances compared to streams near ridge tops. This generally
results in an increase in SC as a result of greater residence times and
Differences in SC measured during this low-flow period also
were evident between Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek Watersheds
(fig. 3). The median SC for samples collected in the Armstrong Creek
Watershed was 99 microsiemens per centimeter (us/cm); for Powell
Creek Watershed, the median SC was 56 uS/cm. The mainstem sites
on Powell Creek showed a significant relation between drainage area
and SC during this sample period. The regression relation indicated
that SC increased by 1.8 LS/cm for every square mile increase in
drainage area. The mainstem of Powell Creek flows almost entirely
Table 1. Summary statistics for surface-water samples collected in
early September 2001 during low-flow conditions in the Powell Creek
and Armstrong Creek Watersheds
|Units are in milligrams per liter unless otherwise noted; ſtºls, cubic foot
per second, SC, specific conductance; us/cm, microsiemens per
centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; 'C, degrees Celsius; 3, less than] 5 150.0 AP6 As A14
Constituent "*" Minimum Median Maximum à # iſ 1125. Azzº *...*
of sites 9 i g ^. cC24 o
Streamflow (ft'ſs) 26 0.01 0.36 1.4 ## sol "ºs P5 - P4 AP2
Field SC (us/cm) 26 18 80 140 §§§ AP12 Ps-P7
Field pH (standard units) 26 5.5 6.7 7.3 i = É 37.51° AP29 P10. Bg
Field temperature (“C) 26 14.1 17.1 21.6 # * A30 -"
Dissolved oxygen 26 6.7 8.0 9.7 CD P13
Dissolved ammonia (as N) 26 <.04 <.04 .083 0
Total ammonia N plus 26 .07 .26 .48 O 1.6
organic N (as N) 3 *
Dissolved nitrate plus 26 ,092 .292 1.45 1.2|
nitrite (as N) ă É - * -
Dissolved nitrite (as N) 8 .003 <,006 .025 # 0.8 H * , a
Dissolved P 26 .004 .020 .077 i H A23,
Total P 12 .019 ,040 , 113 #5 0.4 | * A . A22 A18
Suspended sediment 26 | 6 18 g " o o ...
: * * co A20 A14
MEDIAN–Data in this report are primarily summarized in 0. ſo 20 30 40
tables using median values. The median is a summary statistic
used in reporting water-quality data. Fifty percent of the values in
a given data set fall above the median value and 50 percent of the
values fall below the median.
NITRATE PLUS NITRITE–Laboratory analysis of nitrate
typically involves determination of nitrate (NO3) and nitrite
(NO3) together. Nitrite is then analyzed separately and nitrite
concentrations are subtracted from the sum of nitrate plus nitrite
to determine nitrate concentrations. For this study, virtually no
nitrite was found; thus, it was assumed that nitrate plus nitrite
concentrations were equal to nitrate concentrations. º
DRAINAGE AREA, IN SQUARE MILES
EXPLANATION
A14 ARMSTRONG CREEKSURFACE-WATER SAMPLING
SITES AND NAMES
P13 POWELL CREEK SURFACE-WATER SAMPLING
SITES AND NAMES
P12 POWELL CREEK TRIBUTARIES SURFACE-WATER
SAMPLING SITES AND NAMES
Figure 3 The relation between specific conduc-
tance and streamflow and drainage area for surface-
water samples collected in the Powell Creek and
Armstrong Creek Watersheds during low-flow
conditions, September 2001.


Table 2. Median values of selected chemical and physical constituents for surface-water
samples collected in the Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek Watersheds during low-flow
conditions, September 2001
IQ, streamflow; ſtºls, cubic foot per second, SC, specific conductance; IS/cm, microsiemens
per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; N, nitrogen; mg/L, milligrams per liter; P phosphorus;
Sed., suspended sediment]
Field Dissolved Dissolved
Numberoſ |º º Field pH SC nitrate-N P i.
S1teS OreSte (ft”/s) (LIS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) 8
10 76–100 O.47 6.40% 47a 0.26 0.021 6a,b
10 51–75 .54 6.850 88b .34 .023 3a
6 26-50 .14 6.85b 1148 .22 .018 11b
*Superscripts indicate statistically significant differences within each chemical measurement,
values with different footnotes are significantly different from one another at an alpha level equal to
0.05. Data significantly different at an alpha level of 0.05 indicate that there is a 95-percent likelihood
that the results of the statistical test are accurate. Tests for significant differences between more than
two groups (such as when comparing between different land uses) required two different
procedures, the Kruskal-Wallis and the Tukey multiple-comparison tests (Helsel and Hirsch, 1995).
through the Sherman Creek Member of the Catskill Formation,
whereas Armstrong Creek flows through this unit and through the
Irish Valley Member of the Catskill Formation. Possible factors influ-
encing SC include lithology, topographic setting, and land use. For
example, agricultural land use is more common in the Armstrong
Creek Watershed than in the Powell Creek Watershed.
Differences in streamflow were measured between the water-
sheds and between sites along each mainstem. The loss of streamflow
in Armstrong Creek became evident at site A22 near Fisherville
(fig. 3). At A14, only 0.17 cubic foot per second of water was mea-
sured for a site draining 28.8 mi”. Regression analysis indicated site
A14 had about 20 percent of normal flow. This loss of water equals
about 570,000 gallons per day. The loss of water from the stream may
be the result of water withdrawals of unknown origin, loss of water
through fractures or bedding planes, and (or) infiltration of water into
unconsolidated materials beneath the stream channel.
Ground Water
Some water-quality problems were indicated in ground-water
samples collected in the Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek Water-
sheds during July–September 2001. Water from some wells exceeded
the USEPA MCL and secondary maximum contaminant level
(SMCL) for total coliform bacteria, iron, manganese, and arsenic
(table 3). Iron and manganese do not pose health problems; however,
the usefulness of the water can be affected if concentrations of these
constituents exceed SMCL levels, because materials coming in con-
tact with the water can be stained (Hem, 1985, p. 77, 85). Although
arsenic naturally occurs in rocks, other sources may include pressure-
treated lumber (wood preservative) and pesticides. Long-term expo-
sure to arsenic at or above the MCL of 10 micrograms per liter (ug/L)
can cause different types of cancer; short-term exposure to arsenic
levels exceeding the MCL also could cause health problems (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2002). Concentrations of radon-
222 exceeded 300 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) in 28 of the 30 wells
sampled. Elevated concentrations of radon-222, however, are not
uncommon. Lindsey and Ator (1996) found that 80 percent of wells
sampled in the Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins contained
radon-222 in concentrations greater than 300 pCi/L. The proposed
MCL for radon-222 was 300 pCi/L; however, this MCL was with-
drawn in 1997 (Senior, 1998). Nonetheless, Mose and others (1990)
found that cancer occurrences increase as radon-222 concentrations
increase in private water systems. Water releases radon gas into the
atmosphere when agitated. For example, shower spray could release.
radon to the air. The presence of radon in domestic ground-water sup-
plies would indicate a greater likelihood of elevated radon concentra-
tions in unvented airspace within the home. Total coliform bacteria
were detected in the water from 22 of the 30 wells sampled. Possible
local sources of total coliform bacteria include septic systems, bacte-
ria in the soil, or larger organisms (such as earwigs, spiders, warm-
blooded animals) living in or near the well. Total coliform bacteria
usually do not cause disease; however, their presence is correlated
with that of other water-borne organisms that cause disease (Francy
and others, 2000; Zimmerman and others, 2001).
Table 3. Summary of selected chemical constituents and properties in ground-water samples collected in the Powell Creek and Armstrong
Creek Watersheds, July through September 2001
ſuS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; ~, less than; >, greater than; ‘C, degrees Celsius; ugl micrograms per liter;
mg/L, milligrams per liter; pCi/L, picocuries per liter; col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; NA, not applicable]
Number of Wells
Chemi º Number Maximum Secondary Containing water Maia: e
emical Constituent COntaminant maximum Minimum &m Maximum
or property of wells or action contaminant that exceeds reported Median reported
prop sampled | 1 2 contaminant p p
- evel level |
evel
Field specific conductance (1S/cm) 32 NA NA NA 22 144 390
Field pH (standard units) - 32 NA <6.5 × 8.5 13 5.2 6.6 7.5
Field temperature (°C) 32 NA NA NA 11.1 12.8 14.8
Dissolved arsenic (ug/L) 17 10 NA 2 .1 1.9 19.9
Dissolved iron (ug/L) 32 NA 300 2 <10 <10 15,400
Dissolved manganese (ug/L) 32 NA 50 5 <.1 1.5 5,650
Dissolved nitrate (as N) (mg/L) 30 10 NA 0 .028 1.2 4.81
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 32 NA NA NA .3 4.2 9.0
Radon-222 (pCi/L) - 30 NA NA NA 83 1,925 4,600
Total coliform (col/100 mL) 30 0 NA 22 O 8 800
"U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000.
Land use likely affected concentrations of nitrate-N and field
parameters in the ground-water samples. Ground water with concen-
trations of nitrate-N greater than 2 mg/L may indicate anthropogenic
sources such as fertilizer or sewage from septic systems (Madison and
Brunett, 1985). Only 1 of 13 wells in forested land contained water
with concentrations of nitrate-N greater than 2 mg/L; 50 percent of all
other wells had concentrations of nitrate-N greater than 2 mg/L
(table 4). SC for ground water in forested land-use areas generally was
lower than in areas dominated by agricultural, mixed, and residential
land use (table 4). Elevated SC for other land uses probably was
related to agricultural liming, the greater number of septic systems in
valleys, and longer residence time of water in the soil-rock system. In
general, the temperature of natural ground water is about 12°C (Will-
iams and Eckhardt, 1987). However, with deforestation, agricultural
expansion, and wetland destruction, subsurface temperatures will
change and usually increase (Greenman and others, 1961, p. 84). Such
a change may be evident in table 4 where land dominated by forest
had a lower median ground-water temperature than the other land-use
categories. Water temperatures also could be higher for non-forested
sites because valley settings are topographically lower. Valley settings
have a greater potential to mix shallow, warmer (samples were col-
lected in summer) soil-rock water with deeper, cooler ground water.
Lower pH for wells at forested sites likely was related to lime applica-
tions in farmed areas of the watersheds.
Lithology also affected water quality. Ground-water samples
from wells completed in the Irish Valley Member had a median SC of
175 puS/cm; the median SC for wells completed in the Sherman Creek
Member was 146 puS/cm.
Unlike surface-water samples, ground-water samples did not
indicate any major differences between watersheds; however, SC and
arsenic increased from ridge top toward valley bottoms. In general,
wells near ridge tops intercept water with shallow flow paths and brief
residence times. This is in contrast to wells in valley bottoms that
intercept water with longer flow paths and greater residence times.
Ground water with long flow paths and residence times typically is
more enriched in dissolved constituents (Freeze and Cherry, 1979,
p. 241).
What Do the Results of the Study Tell Us?
On the basis of the water-quality samples obtained from July
through September 2001, surface water and ground water in the
watersheds were acceptable for most water uses. Surface-water data
collected during low-flow conditions indicated no water-quality prob-
lems in either watershed. Land use, however, significantly affected SC
and pH. Surface-water samples from sites dominated by forest had
lower SC and pH than sites with less forest cover. Sampling sites in
both watersheds showed increasing SC with increasing drainage area
but the relation was much stronger in the Powell Creek Watershed.
The Armstrong Creek Watershed showed a significant loss of water
from the surface-water system near the mouth of the watershed.
Ground-water samples collected in the watersheds indicated some
water-quality problems and land-use differences that affect water
quality. Over 90 percent of the ground-water samples collected con-
tained concentrations of radon gas that exceeded 300 pCi/L. Total
coliform bacteria were found in about 75 percent of the wells sam-
pled. Nitrate concentrations, SC, and pH were lowest in ground water
from areas dominated by forest cover. Ground water from wells in or
near valley bottoms generally had greater concentrations of dissolved
constituents, including arsenic, than ground water in wells near ridge
tops.
The comparison of surface- and ground-water quality data was
limited to SC, pH, and nitrate-N. The ground-water samples had a
higher median SC (by 64 puS/cm) than the surface-water samples. The
median pH for the surface-water samples was slightly greater
(0.16 standard units) than in the ground-water samples. The median
concentration of nitrate-N in the surface-water samples was
0.91 mg/L lower than in the ground-water samples. Differences in SC
may be related to a dominance of shallow and younger water in the
streams than in ground water. Given that surface water may have a
higher proportion of young water in relation to ground water, lower
concentrations of nitrate-N in surface water compared to ground water
may be the result of biological uptake of nitrate from soil water and
stream channels during the growing season.
Where Do We Go From Here?
This study indicates that some additional investigations of
streamflow and water quality would be beneficial in further assess-
ment of land-use changes in the Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek
Watersheds. The significant loss of stream water from Armstrong
Creek beginning near Fisherville is not yet understood and may
adversely affect aquatic life. The elevated concentrations of dissolved
arsenic in ground water in valley bottoms may indicate a potential
health concern. Although the concentration of radon gas in wells in
the watersheds is not unusual, radon gas also constitutes a potential
health hazard.
This study did not address stormflow-related issues. Given that
recent PADEP assessments determined that siltation was impairing
sections of both watersheds, further work to identify the source of the
siltation and ways to reduce sediment loads to the streams during
stormflow may be considered.
Table 4. Median values of selected chemical constituents for ground-water samples collected in the Powell Creek and Armstrong Creek
Watersheds, July through September 2001
[Rn, radon-222; pCi/L, picocuries per liter, Mn, manganese; pg/L, micrograms per liter; Fe, iron; As, arsenic; TC, total coliform bacteria;
col/100 mL, colonies per 100 milliliters; NO3-N, nitrate nitrogen; mg/L, milligrams per liter; Temp., field temperature; *C, degrees Celsius; SC,
field specific conductance; puS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; DO, dissolved oxygen; :, less than]
Field pH
Number of Land use Hn Mn Fe As 1 TC NO3-N Temp SC (standard DO
wells (pCi/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (col/100 mL) (mg/L) (°C) (us/cm) units) (mg/L)
15 Forest” 1,780 2.5 <10 0.6 7 0.177 12.5 78 6.0 6.2
6 Agriculture 2,005 1.0 <10 7.6 1 1.80 13.1 161 6.6 2.8
5 Mix 1,870 .1 <10 1.4 40 2.33 12.8 152 6.6 4.1
6 Resident 1,845 3.2 <10 11.3 37 2.24 13.3 214 6.9 1.6
"Arsenic was analyzed in samples from nine wells in forested, three in agricultural, three in mixed, and two in residential land use.
Thirteen wells in forested land use were analyzed for radon, total coliform, and nitrate.
References Cited
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2003, Pennsylvania Code—Environ-
mental protection: Mechanicsburg, Pa., Fry Communications, Inc.,
25 Pa. Code § 93.9m, accessed on April 5, 2003, at
http://www.pacode.com/index.html
Correll, D.L., 1998, The role of phosphorus in the eutrophication of
receiving waters—A review: Journal of Environmental Quality,
v. 27, no. 2, p. 261-266.
Durlin, R.R., and Schaffstall, W.P., 2002, Water resources data for
Pennsylvania, water year 2001, Volume 2, Susquehanna and Poto-
mac River Basins: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Data Report
PA-01-2, 441 p.
Fishman, M.J., and Friedman, L.C., 1989, Methods for determination of
inorganic substances in water and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 5,
chap. A1, 545 p.
Francy, D.S., Myers, D.N., and Helsel, D.R., 2000, Microbiological moni-
toring for the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality
Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigations Report 00-4018, 34 p.
Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 604 p.
Greenman, D.W., Rima, D.R., Lockwood, W.N., and Meisler, Harold,
1961, Ground-water resources of the Coastal Plain area of south-
eastern Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser,
Water Resource Report 13, 375 p.
Guy, H.P., 1969, Laboratory theory and methods for sediment analysis:
U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investiga-
tions, book 5, chap. C1, 58 p.
Hach Chemical Company, 1998, Products for Analysis: Loveland, Co.,
Hach Chemical Company, 463 p.
Helsel, D.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 1995, Statistical methods in Water
resources: Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 529 p.
Hem, J.D., 1985, Study and interpretation of the chemical characteris-
tics of water: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2254,
263 p.
Kunkle, W.M., Lipscomb, G.H., and Kinnard, R., 1972, Soil survey of
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, 104 p.
Lindsey, B.L., and Ator, S.W., 1996, Radon in ground water of the lower
Susquehanna and Potomac River Basins: U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4156, 6 p.
Madison, R.J., and Brunett, J.O., 1985, Overview of the occurrence of
nitrate in ground water of the United States in National water sum-
mary 1984—Hydrological events, selected water-quality trends,
and ground-water resources: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 2275, p. 93-105.
Mose, D.G., Mushrush, G.W., and Chrosinak, C., 1990, Radioactive
hazard of potable water in Virginia and Maryland: Bulletin of Envi-
ronmental Contamination and Toxicology, v. 44, no. 4, p. 508-513.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2002, Com-
monwealth of Pennsylvania Section 303(d) list 2002, final:
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of
Watershed Management, accessed April 2, 2003, at
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/WQp/WQStan-
dards/303d-Report.htm.
Rossi, Theresa, 1999, Climate, in Shultz, C.H., ed., Geology of Penn-
Sylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey and Pittsburgh
Geological Society, Pennsylvania, p. 659-665.
Sanders, T.G., Ward, R.C., Loftis, J.C., Steele, T.D., Adrian, D.D., and
Yevjevich, V., 1983, Design of networks for monitoring water quality:
Littleton, Co., Water Resources Publications, 328 p.
Senior, L.A., 1998, Radon-222 in the ground water of Chester County,
Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investiga-
tions Report 98-4169, 79 p.
Taylor, L.E., and Werkheiser, W.H., 1984, Groundwater resources of the
lower Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geo-
logical Survey, 4th ser, Water Resource Report 57, 130 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000, Drinking water standards
and health advisories, EPA 822-b-00-001, 19 p.
2002, Current drinking water standards, accessed July 1, 2002,
at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html, 12 p.
Wilde, F.D., Radtke, D.B., Gibs, Jacob, and Iwatsubo, R.T., 1998-99,
National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality
Data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations, book 9, chaps. A1-A6, 2 v., variously paged.
Williams, J.H., and Eckhardt, D.A., 1987, Groundwater resources of the
Berwick-Bloomsburg-Danville area, east-central Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser, Water Resource Report
61, 76 p.
Zimmerman, T.M., Zimmerman, M.L., and Lindsey, B.L., 2001, Relation
between selected Well-construction characteristics and occurrence
of bacteria in private household-supply wells, south-central and
southeastern Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 01-4206, 22 p.
—Daniel G. Galeone and Dennis J. Low
For Additional Information
Most data collected for this study were published in the USGS
Annual Data Report for water year 2001 for the Susquehanna and
Potomac River Basins (Durlin and Schaffstall, 2002). For copies of
this report or other information concerning the USGS programs and
activities in Pennsylvania, please visit the Web site of the Pennsylva-
nia District office at http://pa, water.usgs.gov/or contact:
District Chief
U.S. Geological Survey, WRD
215 Limekiln Road
New Cumberland, PA 17070-2424
(717) 730-6960
Fax: (717) 730-6997
Email: dc_pagusgs.gov
Additional earth-science information can be obtained by access-
ing the USGS Home Page at:
http://www.usgs.gov/
For information on all USGS products and services, contact:
1-888-USA-MAPS
Fax: (703) 648-5548
Email: esicmail®usgs.gov
This fact sheet can be accessed online at:
pa.water.usgs.gov/reports/fsſ)52-03.pdf
A Coordinated Effort
This project was funded in part by PADEP through the Growing Greener
Grant process. The overall project proposal was submitted by the Dauphin
County Conservation District (DCCD) and PACWA. Upon acceptance by
PADEP, the USGS provided matching funds through the Federal-State Coop-
erative Program. Members of PACWA helped USGS personnel conduct the
investigation in both watersheds. Landowners permitted project personnel to
conduct sampling on private land or allowed access to a designated surface-
water sampling site. DCCD helped with the project design. Personnel from
PACWA, DCCD, and USGS helped to review and improve this fact sheet.
ned assºciatiºn
ITY OF MICHIGAN
|
|
90.15 08543 5983