ARCHIVED REPORTS_XR0011159 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CA IA 1 The distances from the pumping well to the observation wells were large, requiring a significantly longer pumping duration 2 The diameter (2-inch) of the pumping well limited pumping equipment The pump capacity was less than the yield of the aquifer 3 Sand and silt within the pumping well inhibited pump operation The pump had to be raised to operate effectively Therefore, the aquifer's entire thickness could not be utilized to determine maximum yield and drawdown Since significant pumping influence was not discernible in the observation wells, water level analysis is limited to well S-1-85 recovery data analysis Cambria analyzed the recovery data using AquiferTest for Windows® version 3 01 software from Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc Appendix I presents the analysis reports The aquifer appears to be confined based on boring logs and pump test data Step discharge test recovery data from well S-1-85 were analyzed by the Theis Recovery method to estimate the transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of this water-beanng zone The Theis Recovery method assumes the following 1 The aquifer is confined and has an apparent infinite extent (a correction can be made for an unconfined aquifer within the analysis program) 2 The aquifer is homogenous, isotropic, and of uniform thickness over the area influenced by pumping 3 The piezometric surface was horizontal prior to pumping 4 The well is fully penetrating and pumped at a constant rate 5 Water removed from storage is discharged instantaneously with decline in head 6 The well diameter is small, so well storage is negligible Since the aquifer may not be of uniform thickness, the wells may not fully penetrate the water- bearing zone, and the aquifer wasn't adequately stressed, the assumptions are not completely satisfied, and the results should be considered approximate The hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity yielded from the Theis Recovery analysis of well S-1-85 step test data are 25 7 meters per day (m/day) and 165 meters squared per day (m2/day) This hydraulic conductivity is between medium-and coarse-grained sand (Todd, 1980) The limiting factors encountered during testing of well S-1-85 discussed above were also encountered during testing of well S-1 The results were similar, therefore, analysts is similarly limited as discussed above During the S-1 step test and constant rate test, water level data in well S-3 and S4 fluctuated approximately 0 1 feet This fluctuation is believed to be within the natural background fluctuation of the water table The effect on water levels in wells S-3 and S-4 due to pumping from well S-1 is not readily discernible 0797 9