Water Works 19 - 3/31/03

Well Tests Show Impacts on Lockatong Creek

( Excerpts from Fellow Correspondent’s letter, continued. )

The next major point to be discussed concerns the wells that did respond. (i) The vertical scale of the NJGS plots makes it difficult to tell, but many of the wells did not appear to fully recover. Even wells that showed vertical leakage (ii), such as QVF-2, did not fully recover. The t/t’ recovery plots presented in the NJGS report should intercept to the right of the origin of the graph for wells affected by leakage. QVF-2 initially appears to follow that track, but falls away from that trend late into the recovery period. This, and the fact that some wells did not even come close to recovering, means a permanent dewatering of some zone in the aquifer that supplies water to well QVF-2.

That some of the wells failed to fully recover, despite the extent of vertical leakage observed during the test, is not an unexpected result when dealing with this aquifer. As previously stated by the NJGS, the soil zone is thin and cannot continue to supply vertical leakage to the water producing zones deeper in the aquifer. Permanent dewatering during a 96-hour test is a serious shortcoming and indicates future dewatering problems. The NJGS must discuss the apparent lack of recovery in some of the wells. This is critical.

Which wells appeared to recover and which did not?

Recovered wells: GSG-3; Lot 25; Neave.

Did not fully recover: GSG-5 (based on hydrograph); Cruz; QVF-2; Sendelski.

The wells that recovered are all located in the east-west fracture zone that contains Lockatong Creek. The wells that did not show full recovery are the wells that lie away from Lockatong Creek. This clearly illustrates that Lockatong Creek recharged the aquifer through vertical leakage during the 96-hour test of well QVF-3.

It also says that wells that depend on storage in shallow soil zones do not even have enough storage to recover from a 96-hour test. This observation has tremendous implications on the future survival of Lockatong Creek. At the proposed full pumping rates, the Lockatong Creek flow will be used up by the new well. Impacts to the stream and associated wetlands should not be allowed under NJAC 7:20A, yet this test clearly shows that a significant source of leakage to QVF-3 is Lockatong Creek.

The NJDEP must evaluate local impacts to Lockatong Creek prior to granting this application. The NJDEP has mapped wetlands in the upper Lockatong Creek watershed. The wetlands along the Lockatong Creek headwaters to the east of Route 579 appear to be slowly shrinking already, under the 3.1 mgm water registration. The NJDEP must examine these wetlands and evaluate if damage is occurring.