Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

ON GROUND AND SURFACE WATER RESOURCES by ing15204

VIEWS: 10 PAGES: 69

									-   Fii$p,,  Suite 120 10751 Stelibridge Way
                      ~




             Richmond, British Columbia
             Canada     V6X2WB
             Telephone (604) 273-1601
             Telex: 04-357721




                               Date: June 8, 1982
                                  File: K4635




                           - CREEK
                           HAT                 PROJECT
                  ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPACT
               OF CONSTRUCTION WATER SUPPLY:
               LONGTERM PUMP TEST PROGRAM
        ON   GROUND AND SURFACE WATER RESOURCES




                                PREPARED FOR:

        BRITISH COLUM131A HYDRO & POWER AU’T’HORITY
                      VANCOUVER, B.C.




                                 SUBMITTED BY:

                      BEAK CONSULTANTS LIMITED
                                    B.C.
                          ‘VANCOUVER,




                          A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP
r- -    Beak




       REPORT SECTIONS


       SECTION A   -   REPORT SUMMARY

       SECTION B   -   SURFACE WATERSTUDY

       SECTION C   -   GROUND WATERSTUDY




       K4635                                - I -




                               . A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP   CWh   loo-3
    SECTION A     - REPORT SUMMARY




L   MEMBEROFTHE
         A           SANDWELLGROUP -
-   @j
     Beak




      TABLE OF CONTENTS                                        Poge

      1.0    INTRODUCTION

      2.0    DISCUS!;ION
      3.0    CONCLIJSIONS

      4.0    RECOMMENDATION                                     5




     K4635                               - 1 -




                            - A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP
-   3.
    aBeak




     I.O    INTRODUCTION


     This report is to provide fulfilment of work presented im BEAK'S 22 January 1981
     proposal to B.C. Hydro and ihe 22 May I98 I revision.

     The scope of this project was    to examine the surface water and ground water
     effects of long-term pumping of ground water at t h e site of B.C. Hydro's future
     thermal electricol generating station at Hat Creek. Ground water is going to be
     required during the constructionof the generating station.


     BEAK investigated the surface water effects and retained Golder Associates     to
     provide interpretation of the ground water regime.


     This
        report    h a s been
                           divided three
                                 into sections. section
                                              This    (Section                     A)
     provides a summary of theoverallfindings      of thewholeproject.SectionB
     provides a description of the surfoce water monitoring and Section C contains a
     report to BEAK by Golder P.ssociotes on the ground water aspects the study.
                                                                       of




     K4635                                 -I-



                                 A MEMBER OFTHE SANDWELLGROUP
                                                                                         I
2.0            -
         DISCUSSION


Twowells     capable of pumping ground water from two different                aquifers have
been drilled at the Hat Creek site.


Well PWI produces water from        a intervalof
                                     n                 100 t o I13 metres below ground
level.    Since PWI produces from a deep aquifer and theaquiferlies                below 67
      of
metres impervious                      Golder
                         s i l t y cloy,          Associates determinedthat         pumping
from here would not affect Hat Creek. Hence, this well wos neither pumped nor
assessed for impact during     .this investigation. A further investigation       is planned
                     and cttaracteristics of this aquifer at the northern pit rim.
to identify the extent


               was
Pumping well PW2             theonlywell        pumped duringthis     study.     It produces
ground water from the Marble Canyon aquifer which is located downstream and
north of the Hat Creek aquifer of PW I. The producing interval of PW2 is located
from 26 t o 29 metres below ground level andhence           WQS     believed that pumping
from here might affect the flows      in Hat Creek. Hence, PW2was pumped for 30
days from 6 October until 5 November, 1981 in order t o investigate possible
effects on the creek from long term pumping.


Pumping well PW2 was pumped at a near constant rote of 9.4 I/s (148 U.S. gpm)
for 30 days. This resulted in o drawdown of approximately 14 m in the well after
30 days. Three metres of clvoilable drawdown remained at the             end of the test.
Approximately 95 per cent recovery of the well occurred within               one hour after
pumping ceased. The pumping test was carried out at the end of the dry season
(which usuall:y occurs from September t o October) topermit                    moximum
                                                                             the
impact on the creek flows t o be assessed.


BEAK established stream qauging stationsapproximately 400 metres apart on
Hat Creek, upstream and downstream of the pumping well. For              the first 24 days
of pumping, the upstream flow measured             IO t o 14% greaterthan downstream
flows. Immediately before pumping commenced on 6 October, the upstream flow
was 14% grealter thanthe downstream measurement. This I
                                                      O                  -   14% upstream/


K4635                                      -2-


                               A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP   -
downstream difference was 4 t o 6 times greater than tkle removal rate of ground
water. On the last 6 days of pumping, the upstream/downstream flow difference
wos virtually zero.


Since the difference in   upstream and downstreamcreek flows did not           increase
over the pumping period (in fact     it decreased), it is concluded that long-term
ground water removal will not affect the volume of H a t Creek. This bears out
the conclusion from the ground water monitoring program.            While the pumping
well was drawn down by 14 metres, thewaterlevelinthe                 observationwells
dropped by only 2 and 0.13 metres at distances of 47 and 90 metres respectively.
Golder Associates accounts for the early difference in lupstream and downstream
                                                                   gravel deposits
creek flows by the loss of creek water in this interval to surficial
because of the depression of the water table during the dryseason.


Twenty-five water qualityparameters were examined on water sampled from the
well and in thecreekattheupstream           and downstream gauging stations.       The
                                                     creek did not suffer during
water analyses indicated that the water quality in the
the pumping.    In addition, baththe     ground water and creekwater        had water
acceptable for aquatic life clnd drinking health standard:;.     Only manganese in the
well water wa,s high which is, aesthetically undesirable far drinking water.




U4635                                    - 3-


L                             A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP -
3.0   CONCLUSIONS


The following conclusions are drawn from the overall study:


I.    Long-term pumping o f ground water will not affect           the flow volumes in
      Hat Creek.
2.    Long-term pumping of ground water will not affect the water quality           of
      Hat Creek if the ground water is used as a source of supply.
.
3     The creek’s water and the ground water should be acceptable for the health
                                 water
      of aquatic life and drinking               standards.     However, slightly high
      manganese concentrations make the ground water aesthetically undesirable
      for drinking water use.
4.                  in
                     this
      The pumping well test                    appears t o be capable of pumping
      continuously a maximum of 800 cubic metres per day (at least 9.4 litres per
      second or 148 U.S. gal Ions per minute).
5.    The cone of drawdown of the pumping well in this test appears t o be
      limited in extent.




K4635                                    -4-



                           - A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP -
4.0   RECOMMENDATION


        the
Because of difference           flow
                               in rates         measured at the upstream and
downstream gauging stations in this study, it would be advisable t o re-monitor
the flows at these same points at a similar time of the year in 1982. Another set
 similar would
of     data         the      of
             solidify findingsthe                                     upstream/
                                                             unexpected
downstreom flow differences encountered in this study and would provide more
of a data base for the future: comparison.




K4635                                  -5-


                             A MEMBEROFTHE SANDWELLGROUP -
SECTION €3 - SURFACE WATER STUDY




      4 MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP   -
-   Beak




    TABLE OF CONTENTS                                        Page

    10
     .     INTRODUCTION                                        I
    2.0    DESCRIPTION OF FELD WORK                           2

    3.0    SURFACE WATER FLOW RESULTS                         3

    4.0    WATER QUALITY                                      5
    5.0    CONCLUSIONS                                        6
    6.0    RECOMMENDATION                                     7


    FIGURES


    FIGURE I HAT CREEK


    TABLES


    TABLE I    FL.OW DATA

          1
    TABLE I WATER QUALITY ANALYSES DURING THE PUMP TEST

    TABLE 111 WATER QUALITY ANALYSES BEFORE AND DURING THE PUMP TEST


    APPENDICES


    APPENDIX I     WATER QlJALlTYDATA OCTOBER 6, 198 I

    APPENDIX I I   WATER QlJALlTYDATA OCTOBER 13, 1981

    APPENDIX 111   WATER QlJALlTYDATA OCTOBER 26, 1981

    APPENDIX I
             V     WATER QlJALlTY DATA NOVEMBER 3, I98 I




    K4635                                 - I -




                            A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP
-   @jBeak


       1.0   INTRODUCTION


      During the 30 day test (October 6   - November 5, 198 I) of continuous pumping of
      ground woter from the Hat    Creek aquifer, Beak Consultants Limited examined
      the possibility for changes .that could have occured in the surface woter of   Hot
      Creek.


      Two stream gauging station!; were established t o determine creek flows upstream
      and downstream of the pumling well.      In addition, water somples were token for
      chemical analysis from the two    gauging stations and the pump dischorge. The
      following is o report on these aspects of the ground woter pumping test.




      K4635                                   -I-



                                   A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP   .
                                                                    .
                                                                    -
2.0   DESCRIPTION OF FIEYLD WORK


Twositeswereselected      on Hat Creek t o serve as stations for water quality
sompling and discharge measurements.            It was desired t o locatebothstations
outside of the drawdown ccmne of pumping well PW2(see Figure I). One gauging
station was located upstre'am and the other downstream from the potentially
affectedportionofHat     Creek.      It was decided thattheDownstream            Gouging
Station would be situated upstream of where the pump water was discharged into
Hat Creek i n order t o best simulatethesituation              vvhich would result if the
           camp
construction  were                                          To
                          consuming the pumped groclnd water.                   ease the
                                       Hat   received
analysis of results, it was ensured that Creek                             no tributaries
between the two gouging stlltions so that the pump test was the sole influence on
thisportionofthe    creek.     In addition, t o ensure optimiumresultsforstreom
discharge, the gouging stations were located in a section of the creek where the
flow regime was uniform and unimpeded and where thevelocityofflow                    was
within theideal range of the velocity meter.


           proceding
Based on the                 1:onsiderations,     the Upstre,om Gauging Station was
located about 300 metres uixtreom from the B.C. Hydro Information Centre and
the Downstream Gauging Station was situated about 100 metres downstream
from the Information Centre.      Water samples were taken at         these two gauging
stations and from the pumping well's (PW2) discharge. The locations of the two
gauging stations, pumping well and observation wells are shown in Figure I.




K4635                                    - 2-

                              A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP
-   Beak




    3.0    SURFACE WATER FLOW RESULTS


    Before the results of the creek's flow measurements arce presented and discussed,
    a brief description of the rneans by which these measurements were determined
    will be made.


    The objective of stream     discharge measurement procedure is t o determine the
    volume of water passing through a selected cross section of the stream ina given
    period of time. First,    a chonnel profile is constructed by measuring the water
    depth at regular intervals across the width of the stream. Next, the velocity of
    flow is measured at the scme positions ocross thestreamwidth.                  The velocity
    measurements are made ai 60% depth (where the average velocity in vertical
    section is found)usinga        velocitymeter.Forthis            \project,a   velocitymeter
    manufactured by A.Ott (Kenpton, West Germany) was 'employed. The Ott meter
    consists of a propeller   momted on a rod and an electrical digital counter which
    counts rotations of the propeller. Hence, this instrument has been calibrated by
    the           to
       manufacturer allowcalculation stream
                                    of     velocity    the
                                                   from rate                                 of
    revolution of the propeller.


    When measurements have Ibeen completed, usually at ten or more points across
    the stream width, the velocities are calculated and the corresponding depths are
    recorded. A plot of veloci'!y X depth versus the strearn width is then mode after
    whichthe    stream discharge i s determined by measuring the area under the
    resulting curve.


    Since it was expected that any changes i n the surfoce water flow regime in Hat
    Creek during the pump test would be relatively small, it was thought worthwhile
    t o determine the Ott meter's sensitivity with whichdischarge could be measured.
    To carry out this determination, two measurements were made in a very short
    time space during which there was no roin. These two measurements were made
    on October 5, 1981, the day before the 30 day pump test began.               Measurements
    were made at the Upstream Gauging Station and at a site 3 metres upstream of
    the Upstream Gauging Station. Based on the flows calculated at these two sites,


    K4635                                      - 3-

L                                  A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP
the accuracy for the    Ott lneterinthisproject               appears t o have been within
+
- 0.003 cubic metres per
                       second:


                        SITE                                             -
                                                                         TIME        FLOW (m3/s)


3 m upstream of the Upstream Gauging Station                             I7:OO               0.363
Upstream Gauging Station                                                 I7:45               0.360



                                                the
Creek dischorge (flow) r-teasurements were made at                                  Upstream and
Downstream Gauging Stati'ms on f i v e d a p ofthe              3Cl day pumping period.              In
addition, on October 6, 19E'I just before the            pumping commenced, flowswere
measured at the two stations. This data along with the pumping well's discharge
rate is presented i n Table I   I




From Table I , after the pumping began, it i s seen that the first three upstream
flow measurements were IO             -   14% higher thanthe         corresponding downstream
flows.   These firstthree       measurements span the first 24
                                                             days                    ofthe    30 day
pumping period. Before the pumping began, the upstr,eam flow was14%                           higher
than the downstream flow.           The last two flow determinations show the upstream
and downstream flowswhich                                        when
                                          are close to being equal               considering the
accuracy of the Ott meter Ireviously discussed.


The f i r s t upstream/downstreom flow measurements i n Table I, which were taken
just
   before
        the        pumping began, indicates the
                                          that                           upstream    -   downstream
difference in the first 24 dayswas not caused by the pumping.                       In addition, the
differences of the first three upstreom/downstream measurements after pumping
began were 4   - 5 times greater than the pumping rate.




K4635                                           -4-

                                    A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP   -
-   Beak




    4.0    WATER QUALITY


    Samples analyzed for 25 water quality parameters,
                                                    were                  collected on four
    occasions from each stream gauging station on October. 6, 13, 26 and November
    3, 1981. The October 6 sample was taken just before the pumping commenced.
                                                       1
    The pump discharge water was sampled for the same 2 5 analyses on October 13,
    26 and November 3.      The water quality analyses varied l i t t l e t o not at all for
    each sampling source. The water quality parameters (after pumping began) were
    averaged and are presented in Table II.      Table 111 compares the analyses before
    and during the pump test.


    All of the 25 parameters analyzed fall within the recommended heolth limits for
    acceptable water far aquatic life    and drinking water standards.        However, the
    mmganese level in the well water      is higher than the recommended (0.05 mg/L)
    and objective (0.01 mg/L) levels for drinking water.        Manganese concentrations
    aver 0.05 mg/L are not aesthetically ideal far drinking water. The pumping does
    not appear to hove affected the water quality at the Upstream and Downstream
    Gauging Stations.    Further, the discharging of all of the        pumped ground water
    into Hat Creek during the test does not appear t o have changed the water quality
    i n the creek as seen in the 1 . column of Table 11.
                                  wt


    The total dissolved solids (nsnfiltrable residue) of the well water averaged about
    350 mg/L which is typical o f ground water from surficicll materials as sampled by
    B.C.    Hydro*.                        water
                        The Hat Creek surface                  total    dissolved solids of
    approximately 290 mg/L i s d s o within the range of previously measured samples
    although this parameter has been shown to vary widely during theyear*.


    This sampling program should now provide a baseline water qualityagainst which
    any progressive changes in thecreek or ground water can be assessed.




                                                                 -
    *      British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority. Thermal
                                                           GenerationProiects
           Division: "Hat Creek Project 1979 Envi;onmental Field Programmes"
           (April, I98 I ).




    K4635                                    -5-



                                  A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP -
 Beak




 .
50      CONCLUSIONS


I.      The pumping ofgrouldwaterfromwell             PW2 (does not appear t o have
        influenced the creek's flow because:


        (a)                               than
              The upstream flow was greater the            downstream flowbefore
              pumping started and continued t o be greater by about the same
              magnitude durin'g the first 24 days of the test. Before pumping, the
              upstream/downstream flow difference was 6 times greater than the
              ground water pumping rote and 4 - 5 times greater than the pumping
              rate during the first 24 days of the test.


        (b)   The upstream/downstream flowdifference on thelost        6 days o the
                                                                               f
              test was virtually zero. If the pumping had (affected the creek's flow,
              the upstream/domstream flow difference should have increased.


2.      The water quality of Hat Creek was not affected by the pumping of ground
        water from pumping well PW2.


3.      The woter
                quality       O F Hat Creek was not
                                                  materially        by
                                                            affected the
        discharge of ground wclter into thecreek (see Column 4 of Table I .
                                                                        O


4.      The water quolityof the creek appears t o be suitable for aquatic life.


5.      The ground woter appeors t o be generally suitable for drinking woter     and
        only i t s manganese concentration is slightly high from on aesthetic
        standpoint.




K4635                                     -6-
60
 .   RECOMMENDATION


The creek flow at the two gauging stations should be remonitored during the dry
season i n 1982 t o determine i f the upstream/downstream flowdifference   is a
normal phenornenon during ihis time of year.




K4635                                  -7-



                            A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP   -
                                                    I
                                                    I
                                                             INDIAN
                                                           RESERVATION
                                                    I




    '\
     1
      "
            -.



t
-
0
    SCALE
    200      900 meters




                                  /
                                        UPSTREAM WAT fR
                                        QUALiTY AND GAUGiNG
                                        STATION




                                          -~
                                          LEGEND
                                          e    Observation WeM
                                          @    Producfion Well.
                                          rn   Sfreom Gaugingand Wafer
                                               Quality Sampfing Station

          FIGURE I   :    HAT   CREEK
                      -    j
                          @Beak


                                                                     TABLE I

                                                              FLOW DATA (m3/s)




        (5)                    (4)              (3) ( 1 )           (2)
                                                        Downstream
                                                 Upstream        Difference
                                 Date             Gauging   Gauging             of                 Well      Sum o f
                                 (1981)    StationStation                 ( 1 ) - (2)           Discharge   (2) + (4)


0.055         0.387           October 6
                          0.442                                                             0.3964 0.0094
                             Pumping Commenced

                          0.3 October 27
                               0.358                                   I7          0.04 I         0.0094     0.3264

                                  0.047
                             October 28    0.340    0.387                                         0.0094     0.3494

                          0.355
              0.033 0.322 October 30                                                              0.0094     0.33 I 4

                             November I
                            0.34 0.00940.006 0.332 0.338                                                          I4

                 0.330       November 3
                             0.332                                                 0.002    0.33940.0094



                             Average During
                             Pumping 0.328
                            0.026                    0.354                             0.3374     0.0094




                                                             A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP -
-        Beak




                                          TABLE I I

          WATER QUALITY ANALYSES DURING THE PUMP TEST OF HAT CREEK
         WELL WATER AND THEORETICAL CALCULATION DOWNSTREAM OF THE
                    WELL WATEIR DISCHARGE INTO HAT CREEK



                                                              *THEORETICA
                                                              CALCULATIOI
                                    UPSTREAM DOWNSTREAM        DOWNSTREAA
                                          GAUGING
                                     GAUGING            WELL OF WELL WATE
             STATION
              ANALYSIS
           STATION                                      WATER   DISCHARGE



    Total Cyanide                       <0.005          <o.005        <O .005      <O .005
    Dissolved Fluoride                   0.09           0.08           0.12         0.08
    Nitrate Nitrogen                     0.02 I         0.01 I         0.01 I       0.01 I
    pH                                   8.3            8.3            7.9          8.3
    Filtrable Residue                   29 I          285            346          287
    Nonfiltrable Residue                 2               I            <I           <I
    Dissolved Aluminum                   0.006           0.012         0.007        0.012
    Dissolved Antimony                  <O.OOl          <o.oo I       <O.OOI       <O.OOI
    Dissolved Arsenic                    0.009           0.007        <0.005       <0.007
    Dissolved Cadmium                   <O .005         <O .005       <O .005      <0.005
    Dissolved Chromium                  <o.o I          <0.01         <o.o I       <0.01
    Dissolved Cobalt                    <0.01           <0.01         <0.01        <0.01
    Dissolved Copper                    <0.005          <O .005       <O .005      <0.005
    Dissolved Iron                       0.03            0.03          0.02         0.03
    Dissolved Lead                       0.02            0.02          0.02         0.02
    Dissolved Manganese                  0.01            0.01          0.12         0.01
    Dissolved Molybdenum                ~0.03           <0.03         <0.03        <O .03
    Dissolved Nickel                    <0.01           <O.Ol         <0.01        CO.01
    Dissolved Selenium                  <O.OOl          <o.oo I       <0.001       <o.oo I
    Dissolved Silver                    <0.01           <0.01         <o.o I       <O.Ol
    Dissolved Uranium                    0.0044          0.0043        0.0047       0.0043
    Dissolved Zinc                       0.008           0.007         0.022        0.007
    Total Arsenic                        0.009           0.007        <0.005       <O .007
    Total Mercury                       <0.00025        <o.0002ci     <O .00025    <0.00025
    Radium 226 Radioactivity
          (Bq/L)**                       0.02            0.02          0.02         0.02



    I.    All units are in mg/L except pH and Radium 226.
    2.    Upstream and downstream numbers tabulated are averages of 3 samples taken on
          separate days.

    * The theoretical concentrations are calculated from:
    (Average Downstream Flow X Concentration) + (Well Discharge Rate X Concentration)




-
                      Average Downstream Flow + Well Discharge Rate

    **    I BdL = 27 pCi/L
                                   A MEMBER OF
                                          THE     SANDWELL GROUP -
f
#
-        Beak                                                                                      ~




                                          TABLE 111

                            BEFOfIE AND DURING PUMP TEST



                                         -.
                               DOWNSTRFAM - . . .-. ... .
                                        IJPSTRFAM         - - . . . .- . . .-.             ... .
                                    GAUGING STATION GAUGING STATION
                                     DURING
                                     BEFORE
                                      DURING
                                    BEFORE
           TEST   TEST
             ANALYSIS          TEST  TEST



    Total Cyanide                        <0.005                     <0.005
                                                         <0.005 <0.005
    Dissolved Fluoride                    0.09            0.09        0.09             o .oa
    Nitrate Nitrogen                      0.025           0.021       0.019            0.01 I
    PH                                    8.3             8.3         8.2              8.3
    Filtrable Residue                    ma             29 I       289               285
    Nonfiltrable Residue                  3               2           3                I
    Dissolved Aluminum                    0.032           0.06        6.014           0.012
    Dissolved Antimony                   <O.OOI          <O.OOI     <0.001           <O.OOI
    Oissolved Arsenic                     0.009           0.009       o .ooa          0.007
    Dissolved Cadmium                    <0.005          <0.005     <0.005           <0.005
    Dissolved Chromium                   CO.01           <0.01      <0.01            <0.01
    Dissolved Cobalt                     <0.01           <0.01      <0.01            <0.01
    Dissolved Copper                     <0.005          <0.005     <0.005           <0.005
    Dissolved Iron                        0.03            0.03
                                                             0.03     0.04
    Dissolved Lead                        0.02            0.02        0.02            0.02
    Dissolved Manganese                   0.01            0.01        0.01            0.01
    Dissolved Molybdenum                 < 0.03          <0.03      <0.03            <0.03
    Dissolved Nickel                     <0.01           <0.01      <0.01            <0.01
    Dissolved Selenium                   <O.OOI          <0.001     <O.OOl           <O.OOI
    Dissolved Silver                     <0.01           <0.01      <0.01            <0.01
    Dissolved Uraniurn                    0.0032          0.0044    < 0.00002         0.0043
    Dissolved Zinc                        0.005            0.008         <0.005        0.007
    Total Arsenic                          0.009           0.009           0.014       0.007
    Total Mercury                        < 0.00025       < 0.00025       < 0.00025   < 0.00025
    Radium 226 Radioactivity   @dl.)       0.03            0.02
                                                           0.02            0.02



    I.    All units are in mg/L except pH and Radium 226.

    Results during pumping areaverages of 3 samples.
    Results before pumping arefrom one sample.




                                   .4 MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP   -
-        Beak




                                       APPENDIX I

                         WATER QUALITY DATA OCTOBER 6 , I981

                           BEFORE PUMP TEST COMMENCED



                                        UPSTREAM                    DOWNSTREAM
                                         GAUGING GAUGING
           ANALYSIS                      STATION



    Total Cyanide                          ‘0.005                     ‘0.005
    Dissolved Flouride                      0.09                       0.09
    Nitrate Nitrogen                        0.025                      0.019
    PH                                      8.3                        8.2
    Filtrable Residue                     298                        289
    Nonfiltrable Residue                    3                          2
    Dissolved Aluminum                      0.032                      0.014
    Dissolved Antimony                      <O.OOI                    <o.oo I
    Dissolved Arsenic                        0.009                     0.008
    Dissolved Cadmium                       <0.005                    <O .005
    Dissolved Chromium                      <0.01                     <0.01
    Dissolved Cobalt                        <0.01                     <0.01
    Dissolved Copper                        <0.005                    <O .005
    Dissolved Iron                           0.03                      0.04
    Dissolved Lead                           0.02                      0.02
    Dissolved Manganese                      0.01                      0.01
    Dissolved Molybdenum                    <0.03                     <O .03
    Dissolved Nickel                        <0.01                     <0.01
    Dissolved Selenium                      <O.OOI                    <O.OOI
    Dissolved Silver                        <0.01                     <0.01
    Dissolved Uranium                        0.0032                   <0.00002
    Dissolved Zinc
                ~                           <O .005                   <0.005
    Total arsenic                            0.009                     0.014
    Total Mercury                           <0.00025                  <0.00025
    Radium 226 Radioactivity (Bq/L)          0.03                      0.02


    Results are in mg/L except pH and Radium 226.




                                 - A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP
                                     APPENDIX II

                     WATER QUALITY DATA OCTOBER 13, I981




                                        UPSTREAM   DOWNSTREAM
                                         GAUGING PUMPGAUGING
          ANAL.YSIS        STATION       STATION                              WATER



Total Cyanide                             <o.005                  <O .005     <0.005
Dissolved Flouride                         0.09                    0.08        0.12
Nitrate Nitrogen                           0.022                   0.009       0.010
PH                                         8.3                     8.3         7.8
Filtrable Residue                        292                  216            340
Nonfiltrable Residue                        I                   I             <I
Dissolved Aluminum                          0.005               0.013          0.005
Dissolved Antimony                        <O.OOI                  <O.OOI      <O.OOI
Dissolved Arsenic:                          0.009                  0.006       0.005
Dissolved Cadmium                         <0.005                  <0.005      <0.005
Dissolved Chromium                        <0.01                   <0.01       <0.01
Dissolved Cobalt                          <0.01                   <0.01       <0.01
Dissolved Copper                          <0.005                  <0.005      <0.005
Dissolved Iron                             0.04                    0.03        0.02
Dissolved Lead                              0.03                   0.03        0.03
Dissolve Manganese                          0.01                   0.01        0.11
Dissolved Molybdenum                       <0.03                  <0.03       <0.03
Dissolved Nickel                           <0.01                  <0.01       <0.01
Dissolved Selenium                         <o .oo I               <O.OOI      <O.OOI
Dissolved Silver                           <0.01                  <0.01       10.01
Dissolved Uranium                           0.0042                 0.0042      0.0038
Dissolved Zinc                              0 .OOl                 0 .OOl      0.023
Total Arsenic                               0.008                  0.006      <0.005
Total Mercury                              <O .00025              <0.00025    <0.00025
Radium 226 Radioactivity (Bq/L.)            0.03                   0.03        0.02



Results are in mg/L except pH and Radium 226.




                               A MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP -
     Beak




                                   APPENDIX 111

                     WATER GlUALlTY DATA OCTOBER 126, 1981




                                     UPSTREAM      DOWNSTREAM
                                      GAUGING        GAUGING      PUMP
            ANALYSIS                  STATION        STATION     WATER



Total Cyanide                          <0.005        ~0.005       <0.005
Dissolved Flouride                      0.09          0.08         0.12
Nitrate Nitrogen                        0.015         0.007        0.012
PH                                      8.3           8.3          7.9
Filtrable Residue                     294           292          35 I
Nonfiltrable Residue                    2             I           <I
Dissolved Aluminum                      0.005         0.014        0.005
Dissolved Antimony                     <0.001        <O.OOI      <O.OOI
Dissolved Arsenic                       0.009         0.007      < 0.005
Dissolved Cadmium                      <0.005        <0.005      < 0.005
Dissolved Chromium                     <0.01         <0.01       <0.01
Dissolved Cobalt                       <0.01         <0.01       <0.01
Dissolved Capper                       C0.005        <0.005      <0.005
Dissolved Iron                          0.03          0.03         0.02
Dissolved Lead                          0.02           0.02        0.02
Dissolve Manganese                      0.02           0.01        0.12
Dissolved Molybdenum                   <0.03         < 0.03      < 0.03
Dissolved Nickel                       <0.01         <0.01       < 0.01
Dissolved Selenium                     <O.OOI        <O.OOI      <O.OOI
Dissolved Silver                       CO.01         <0.01       <0.01
Dissolved Uraniurn                       0.0046        0.0040      0.0046
Dissolved Zinc                           0.008         0.005       0.023
Total Arsenic                            0.009         0.007     < 0.005
Total Mercury                          < 0.00025     < 0 A0025   < 0.00025
Radium 226 Radioactivity (Bq/L.)        0.01          0.01         0.02


Results are in mg/Lexcept pH (nndRadium 226.
r
                                        APPENDIX IV

                        WATER C!UALITY DATA NOVEMBEF: 3, 1981



                                               DOWNSTREAM
                                          UPSTREAM
                                           GAUGING
                                        GAUGING                                  PUMP
                ANALYSIS                    STATION
                                       STATION                                   WATER



    Total Cyanide                            <   0.00s               <0.005      <O .005
    Dissolved Flouride                           0.08                 0.08        0.1 I
    Nitrate Nitrogen                             0.027                0.018       0.012
    pH                                           8.4                  8.4         8. I
    Filtrable Residue                        286                 288            346
    Nonfiltrable Residue                       2                   2             <I
    Dissolved Aluminum                            0.009               0.010       0.010
    Dissolved Antimony                           <O.OOI              <o .ooI     <o .oo I
    Dissolved Arsenic:                           0.010                0.007      <O .005
    Dissolved Cadmium                            <O .005             <O .005     <O .005
    Dissolved Chromium                           <0.01               <0.01       <0.01
    Dissolved Cobalt                             <0.01               <0.01       <0.01
    Dissolved Copper                             <O .005             <O .005     <O .005
    Dissolved Iron                                0.03                0.03        0.02
    Dissolved Lead                                0.02                0.02        0.02
    Dissolve Manganese                            0.01                0.01        0.12
    Dissolved Molybdenum                         ~0.03               <0.03       <O .03
    Dissolved Nickel                             <0.01               <0.01       <0.01
    Dissolved Selenium                           <O.OOI              <o.oo I     <o.oo I
    Dissolved Silver                             <0.01               <0.01       CO.01
    Dissolved Uranium                             0.0044              0.0048      0.0056
    Dissolved   Zinc                             <0.005               0.007       0.021
    Total Arsenic                                0.010                0.008      <0.005
    Total Mercury                                <0.00025            <0.00025    <0.00025
    Radium 226 Radioactivity (Bq/L.)              0.02                0.02        0.03



    Results are in mg/L except pH m d Radium 226.




L                                  4 MEMBER OFTHE SANDWELL GROUP -
-   @j
     Beak




            SECTION C - GRWND WATER SlUDY




                 4 MEMBER OF THE SANDWELL GROUP -
                        REPORT TO
                    BEAK CONSULTANTS
                          ON THE
                     EXTENSION TO THE
                 HAT CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL
                 GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT

                       BRITISH COLUMBIA




DISTRIBUTION:

                2 copies   -   BeakConsultants,
                               Richmond, British Columbia

                2 copies   -   GolderAssociates,
                               Vancouver, British Columbia




January 1982                                                         812-1512




L                              ,4 MEMBER OF THE SANOWELL GROUP   -
                           - OF CONTENTS
                           TABLE




1.0   INTRODUCTION                                                     I
2.0   PROJECT OBJECTIVE                                                1
3.0   TEST PROCEDURE                                                   2
4.0     RESULTS
      TEST              ANALYSIS
                       AND                                             3

5.0       AND
      SUMMARY           CONCIJJSIONS                                   5



                               APPENDICES

      Appendix A                 Results
                           Purap Test

      Appendix A-1         Data

      Appendix A-2         Theis Analysis

      Appendix A-3         Jacob Analysis




                             - O F FIGURES
                             LIijT

      Figure 1       Well Location Plan

      Figure 2               Sketch
                     Schematic     Section                        System
                                              Marble Canyon Aquifer

      Figure 3       Long TermPump Test Hydrograph,
                                                  Marble Canyon Aquifer
                     System

                             - OF TABLES
                             LIST
      Table 1        Summary of Pump Test Results

      Table 2                 Measurement
                     Streamflow                    Creek
                                              in Hat




                              Ciolder Associates
1.0       INTRODUC-


          The terms of reference :lor the work covered by this report are contained
in Golder Associates proposal 812-1512 dated January 1981. The work involved the
assessment of the impact on the ground and surface water resources at Hat Creek,
caused by the long-term pump testing of wells drilled for the purpose of providing a
water supply for construction purposes. The details of the exploration, design and
construction of the wells has been reported on in Golder Associates report 812-1507
submitted to British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BCH) in January 1982.


          GolderAssociateshydrogeologicalstaffcarriedoutthe              ground water
field work during October and November 1981. Field work for the surface water
programinvolving         quality
                     water                   and
                                      sampling       stream gauging was separately
undertaken byBeak Consultants. Routine ground water measurements were made
by the BCH site staff.


20
 .         PROJECT OBJECTIVE


          Production wells havebeen       installed in two separate aquifers; one the
Hat Creek Valley aquiferlies       jutit north of the proposedpit   and theotherthe
Marble
     Canyon        aquifer is at t h ( a Hat   road     close
                                           Creek junction                 tothe   BCH
temporary office (see Figure 1). Ilecause of the proximity of these aquifers to Hat
Creek itself, it was considered necessary to assess the impac:t that pumping from
them would have on the flows in the creek. This has particular significance due to
the fact that the water is abstracted from the creek by the Boneparte Indian Band
downstream of the well sites. It was decided that the       optimum time for carrying
out this assessment would be a t tht! end of the dry season in sag September/October
time when flows would be minimal.


          Of the two wells installed, only that in the Marble Canyon aquifer (PW2)
i considered to be able to impact the creek
 s                                               flows. Well PW:linstalled in the Hat
Creek aquifer was s a e e n e d between 100 and 113 m below ground; some 67 m of
silty clay overlies thesandy gravel aquifer in this well.




                                    (;older Associates
     January 1982                                  2                           812-1512

                 The methods used to assess the impact of pumping on the creek were as
    follows:

                 -      establishment of gauging stations on Hat Creek bothupstream and
                        downstream of the area likely tobeimpacted       bypumping    (see
                        Figure 1).
                 -      monitoring of creek flows both before, during and after pumping.
                 -                                          well
                        execution of a 3Ccday pumping test on        P W 2 with monitoring
                        in the surrounding:observation wells.
                 -      measurement of flows from the well Get:urned tocreek
                                                                     the
                        downstream of th'e test)
                 -      sampling and ch,emical analysis      of creek and well water at
                        periodic intervals during testing.
                 -      analysis of data and assessment of potentialimpacts.


    3.0          TEST PROCEDURE


                 During June and July 19131, two production wells 203,mm (8") in diameter
    (PW1, PWZ), three observation wells 152 mm (6") i diameter (OW2,OW3, OW4) and
                                                     n
    twostandpipepiezometers     (Owl,OW51 werecompleted in the Hat Creekarea
    north of the proposed pit for the purpose of providing a water supply for
    construction purposes. The locations of these installations are shown on Figure 1
    andpresented   in schematic hydrogeological section in Figure 2; t h e wells are
    described in GA report 812-1507 dated January, 1982. Following the completion of
    the wells, andprior     to the long-term pump testing, a program of ground water
    monitoring was carried out by B.C. Hydro staff during August and September. Over
    this period water levels in all completed installationswas recorded daily.


                 A five horsepower submersible pump was installed in production well
    P W 2 by A and H Construction of Abbotsford, B.C. under the wpervision of Golder
    Associates.      The pumped water   WilS   dischargedthrougha   100 mm diameter hose
    into Hat Creek at the location      shown on Figure 1. This site! was selected to be
    downstream of the stream gauging 1.ocationsso as not to interfere with the pumping
m
    test
      results.          A digital flow meter was attached
                                                       the
                                                       to                  discharge pipe
    approximately 2 m from the well.



                                         Golder Associates
  January 1982                                 3                                812-1512


            Pumping of this well commenced on the 6th of October 1981 and was
continued for 30 days.        A nearconstant pumping rate of 9.4 1/s was maintained
throughout the length of the test.       It was found that as the drawdown in the well
increased, the pump rate decreased, since the water         had to be pumped against an
increasing hydraulic head.       It was thus necessary to   occasion,ally adjust the pump
rate.


            It w a s intended to produce as much      in
                                               drawdown                   the well as was
available,andhence         create as huge an impact as possible on the surrounding
ground water regime.        Thisaim w,as achieved, since at the end of the test period
only 3 m of available drawdown in the pump well remained.


            The response of the ground water regime to pumpingwas monitored in
the nearby wells and piezometers. For the first two days of the test, water levels
were monitored by Golder Associates field staff. Thereafter BCH staff took daily
readings of water levels and pumping rates and reported to Go1,der Associates.


            Pumping ceased on the 5th of November. The          first day of the recovery
was monitored by Golder Associates with BCH field staff continuing the monitoring
program until sufficient stabilisationhad been achieved.


4.0           RESULTS
            TEST               AND ANALYSIS


            The pump testdata         was reduced using Golder Associates' pump test
program. The reduced data was then used to plot hydrographs 1:o permit analysis by
conventional methods.


            The pump test hydrograph ahown in Figure 3 illustriltes the response of
the wells in Marble Canyon to pumping. Threeconventionalmethods                of analysis
were used for test.
            this                                           were
                                 The Theis and Jacob methods              used to analyze
drawdown data and the Theis recovery method was used to analyze the recovery
data. Although many of the assumptions inherent in all these methods could not be
completelysatisfied,due        mainly to the   geological nature of thematerial      being
tested, it is felt that the results    of analysis are adequate for the    purposes of this
study.    In the
               absence         of analytical
                                           techniques complex
                                                    for     situations,
                                                                      it                   is
         to
acceptable utilize                     techniques
                            conventional               as long as tAe limitations and
inaccuracies are kept in mind.
                                       Golder Associates
  January 1982                              4                                   812-1512

            For the interpretation a pumping rate of9.4      l/s (148 U.S. gpm) was used
although at times during the pumping a slight fluctuation was :recorded. Analysis of
the recovery data should be considered more reliable since           the curves are smooth
and not influenced by a fluctuating pump rate.      It was only considered possible to
analyse the responses in OW3 and PW2 to pumping.               i:;
                                                             OW2       screened in a lower
aquifer, while the piezometers i OW5 and OW1 showedonly
                                n                                       slightresponse     to
pumping PW2 even though they   screened
                            were                                 same
                                                        within the         It
                                                                    aquifer. is
considered that the decline     in water level of 70 mm inOW5         is due to the natural
ground water recession associated      with a period ofno     rechauge. Waterlevels in
OW4 and PWI, completed in the deep Hat Creek Aquifer, continued to rise during
the pump test in PW2. The recovery of water levels in these wells was associated
with the pump test carried out      in PW1 during July, 1981 and reported in Golder
Associates' report 812-1507 submitted to B.C. Hydro and Pow,er Authority, January
1982.


            The results of the analysis are contained in Table 1.


            Itcanbeseenthat the results from the various methods are ingood
                                                                           -5
agreement with a median hyraulicconductivityforthe   sandy gravel of 5 x 10
m/s. The value of storage calculated is in the order of 1 x 10 -'4.


            The time drawdown graphs for both PW2 and OW3 can be matched to the
Theis type curvefor       early times [lessthan 10 minutes). Thereafter the response
can be matched to "leaky" typs curves        a
                                    indicating                  pro'bable semi-confined
recharging aquifer system.      At times greater than    1000 minutes, a deviation     from
the leakage curves is observed and this is assumed to be due t o a boundary effect
limiting the extent o f the expandin,g cone of depression.


            A schematic geological :section of Marble Canyon is presented in Figure
2. This area i s a zone of ground w.ater discharge to Hat Creek and is characterized
by increasing hydraulic heads     with depth (Le. near vertical upward ground water
flow).   It issuspectedthatthercxhargingresponseseen             in thetime      drawdown
curves is due to leakage from the underlying gravelly sand aquifer screened in OW2.
A value of hydaulic conductivity for the intervening aquitard iis calculated as 78 x
                                                                                 .
     m/s.




                                     Golder Associates
      January 1982                               5                               812-1512


               The results of streamflow gauging of Hat Creek during the pumping test
    is shown in Table 2. The results indicate a greater    decline in upstream flows over
    downstream flows over the duration of the test.     This is contrary to what would be
    expected if test pumping
                           was        afrectingstreamflow.It       is considered thatthis
    decline in streamflow
                        upstream                                    abstraction
                                         is possibly due to increased                   for
    irrigation purposes or due to the 1013s of stream water flow into’ the surficial gravels
    as ground water levels declined se.nsonally. Pumping PW2 does not appear to have
    had any effects on the aquifer in the vicinity of Hat Creek.


    5.0        SUMMARY AND CONCIJJSIONS


              Drawdown in PW2 w a s agproaching stabilization after only 100 minutes
    of pumping at 9.4 11s. Fluctuations after this time are considered more a function
    of fluctuating pumping rate rather that aquifer characteristics.


               The cone of drawdown appears t o be very steep and limited in extent. A
    drawdown of approximately 14 metres at the       pump well-produced only 2.0 metres
    of drawdown at a distance of
                               47                         only
                                           metres (OW3) and          about .13 metres of
    drawdown at a distance of 90 metres (Owl). Approximately ‘95 per cent recovery
    of the pumping well, after 30 days of pumping occurred within I hour.


               There are no indicatiom; thatthe               well
                                                     pumping of         (PW2) a t therates
    being considered will have any impact on flow rates in Hat Creek.


              We trust that this    repoxt provides theinformation you requireatthis
    time.   If you should have any questionsorcomments,         pleast? do nothesitateto
    contact us.

                                                          Yours very .truly,
                                                          GOLDER A.5SOCIATES


                                                          G.E. Rawlings, P. Eng.


                                                          R.S. Guiton

    GERfRSGIkm
    812-1512


a                                      Gdder Associates
                                         I
WELL      c
         L 9CA7/ON PLAN                      Figure   1
       , ,- 7
       Y A ,-   L-R€EK




                             /




                (>older   Associates -
I                             I




    Golder   Associates   -
                    LONG TERM PUMPT€ST HYDROGRW
                    MARBLE CANYON AQUIFER SYST€A4
                                                    F1gur-e   3

c   Start Pumping
      PWZ




                                      U




                                                      Drawn   R D.
                        Golder   Associates
    I    I   I     I         I   I       I           I   I       I         1   I       I      L      I          I    L




                                     TABLE 1 Summary of Pump Test Results


                                                                                                         Estimated
                                                                                                         Acquifer
Well         Method of               Vmissivity              Storage               Hydraulic             Thickness
Number       Analysis                m Is                    Coefficient           Conductivitym/s          m


PWZ          TheisDrawdown           1.52 x                  "
                                                                                   1.52 x                10.0
I
             TheisRecovery           2.25 x                  -    ~        -       2.25 x                10.0
I
             JacobDrawdown           4.3 x I O - ~                                 4.3 x                 10.0

OW3          JacobDrawdown           1.92 x                  1.31 x                3.0 x                  6.4
I
             TheisDrawdown           9.6 x    IO-^           1.67 x                1.5 x                  6.4
n
             TheisRecovery           2.04 x                  ~-                    3.2 x                  6.4
                TABLE 2 Streamflow Measurements in Hat Creek
                                (Beak Consultant)

                         Upstream               D0wnstrea.m
      Date(1981)
           Station       Station                               CZuIQd
                         1/s                    l/s
 October
442   6th               1.14                      387
  October
  358 27th              1.13                      317
  October
  387 28th                                        340          1.14
  October
  355 30th               1.10                     322
              338
      1 s t November                              332          1.02
            332
      3rd November       1.01                     330




                            Golder Associates
APPENDIX A


A-I Data
A-2 Theis Analysis
A-3 Jacob Analysis
........................................
                                         Gwotw          rssnclrlts

..... ...................................
      PULP l t 9 1 S I , * * I Y .   f 0*YL L / Y I E I l ' * t l L *
                                         f                              UllrHrY   -   P.?,
                                                                                             .
........................................ ?u/t1/nt-t?.o1.w
o   n   0.0
      V1l"P      l t 91

         I I*)            n~sc+qhn(.t
                            #.It
        HY e l k          LllYtSlS

II        n       0.0         P.31
I2        n       o.n         P. Jb
I3        a       00
                   .          P.Jb      H L I t UW I L D I N G     lbb1150
I U       n       o.n         V . Ib    I N C Y t l S t YU*P       Yllt
15        ll      (1.0        9.UU
I8        fl      0n
                   .          V.U5      M L l t YU t I U I N ( i   1525100
I 1       n       u.n         9.4"
IP        n       o.n         9."*
I*        u       00
                   .          9 . U?
?n        8       0.0         P."?
?I        8       0.0         P."*
72        n       0n
                   .          *.VI
21        (I      nin         P. 3,4
"
r-                :
                  .
                  n           v.u3
75        m       n.n         9. ,e
2D        R       0.0         q.y11
27        a       n.0         P.UI
71        II      0.0         v.00
29        II      o.n         P. 3"
SO        n        .
                  00          P. 3 Y
31        m       8.0         0.y0
 I        7      s1.n         9.21
 2        R       0.n         P. 3 1
 3        n       o.n         P.37
 u        n       0.0         P.   3v
 5       II       0.0
 5       II         .?
 5       II         .5
 5       II         .I
 5       II       1.n
 5       II       1.1
 5       II       1.5
 5       II       1.0
 5       II       2.s
 5       II       3.0
 5       II       5.5
 5       11       u.n
 5       II       5.n
 5       II        .
                  b0
 5       I1       *.n
 5       I I 1o.n
 5       I I 85.n
 5       I I 2o.n
I   I   I   I   I   I
I   I   I   I   I   I   I   I




                                ,203 m
                                         SIIR*FUSIHLt
 u     n     0.0               n.nn
 n     n     n.n               o.on
 b     9 52.n                  2.u3
 b    IO    n.n                2.51
 b    I " ??.O                 2.53
 h    I n u1.n                 ?.5?
 b    I U 53.0                 2.51
 b    I b 4.0                  1.5.
 b    I b U5.0                 2.5.
 h    1 7 15.0                 7.5n
 b    10 ? 5 . 0               7.54
 b    zn   5.0                 2.53
 L    >I
      "      2"
            ..                 >:S!
 7    I n 40.0                 ?.57
 7    I * 211.0                ?.57
 7    I b0 7 . 0               ?.5b
 n      8 0.6                  ?.5n
 II   1 0 o,n                  2.hl
 0      n 0.0                  ?.52
 0    I b 0.0                  2.52
10      8      00
                .              2.5b
10    I b 0.0                  2.55
11      8 o.n                  2.57
I2     n     0.0               ?.5b
I3     n     o.n               2.5b
IU     n     0.0               2.w
15     n     0.0               2.59
lb     (I    n.n               2.57
I7     7 52.0                  2.50
       7 55.0                  2.5u
       7 55.0
       i
       n
        .    7.G
             n.m
                               1  .
                               -.,-
                               2.5n
                               2.5"
                                   L



       7 5110                  2.53
       7 55.0                  ?.51
       7 57."                  ?.52
       n 8.0                   2.UH
       7 57.0                  ?.TU
       7 55.n                  ?.55
       7 55.0                  2.55
       7 55.n                  ?.57
       7 55.n                  7.5b
       n     5.0               ?.T7
       7 55.11      37107.0    ?.57
       7 55.n       115~7.11   ?.+,I
II   m   I   I   I   I     m             1      I   I   I   I   I             m


                         ,I*StYY.IIIIN   .llL




                                                                ..n3
                                                                .."l
                                                                ..n3
                                                                -.OS
                                                                -.03
                                                                      .on
                                                                      .OU
                                                                       .I15
                                                                       .03

                                                                    -.I?%
                                                                     .l
                                                                    .O

                                                                    -.Oh
........................................
I   m   I   Y   1   I   I   m          I   I        I   i   i   i   i   i   I   m   I




                                           n.??
                                l,\?       fl..'"
                                1.6"       0. I b
                                l.bU       n.sb
                                l,*l       a. 3 9
                                1.b9
                                1.11
                                1.12
                                1.1"
                                1.15
                                1.11
                                i.ii
                                1.LO
                                1.nz
                                l.*J
                                 .1
                                111
                                1:rs
                                1.111
                                1.111
                                1.M
                                Tino
                                1.00
                                7 . w
                                1.93
                                1.Y"
                                7.q5
                                1.9b
                                1.91
                                1.01
                                1;w
                                n.nn
                                n.n?
                                1.16
                                1.15
                                1.15
                                 .6
                                16
                                1.65
                                r.51
                                1.w
                                1.hn
                                1b1
                                 .1          . .
                                1.5V       0.11
I   I   I   a   I   m   a              I       I   I   I   I   I




                            1LIPStlr    II*l
                                  Ill
         "Y.*IIlI".I

            wt   Int s
n.no
n.nn
*.I1
6.11
h.13             n.w
*.I"             "."*
h.1h             n.15
D . JY           n.?3
0.UI             n. I n
*."I!            0.31
b.60             n.up
b.10             n.5v
6.11             Il.hb
0.w              n. 1'
b.011            n.nl
?.!!             !."?
1.lM             I."l
?.??             1.11
1.?5             1.1'1
l.??             1.lh
1.?6             1.11
1.30             1.19
1.31             I.?"
1.33             I .2?
1 . $5           I .2"
1.M              I .?5
1. I 1           l.?b
1.30
1.31
                 I .m
                 I .?b
?.IC             I .Zl
).an             I.?Q
1.UI             1.30
l.U?             1.31
I."S             I . 3u
i.ri             i. i u
l."P             I . 3-
1.50             I . 19
1.5U             I.UJ
1.55             1.1111
7.51             I.Uh
1.50             t.un
1.61             I .5n
1.6"             1.53
                 1.51
                 I .en
1   I    I   I   I   L




                                  IIYL)IIIU"U

                                    rt1uts

    15                   1.1b           I.b5
    Ih                   1.1H           1.61
    I1                   1.m            I .OP
    In                   1.w            1.11
    19                   1.M            1.13
    20                   1.86           1.1;
    21                   1.m            1.11
    22                   1.90           I.lP
    ?1                   1.9?           1.81
    ?U                   1.P3           I .nz
    ?5                   1.P.           I .IT
    2b                   7.Yl           I.Yb
    ?I                   1.om           I.ni
    _"
    m
    z
    r-                   .
                         ,.....
                         C.00
                            "-          .
                                        ....
                                        !.nv
                                           n.

    30                   8.03           I .'I2
    31                   n.03           I .02
     I                   n.na           I .v5
     2                   n.01           I .9"
     3                   m . ne         I.PI
     4                   n.10           I .PO
     5                   *.I1           ?.on
     5                   *.I1           2.00
     5                   *.IO           I .99
     5                   H.Db           I .95
     5                   n.nn           1.80
     5                   1.Pl           I .no
     5                   1.113          7 .I?
     5                   1.15           I .hU
     5                   1.02           1.51
     5                   1.52           I.UI
     5                   1.815          I .TU
     5                   1.3U           l,?l
     5                   i.ia           i.ii
     5                   1.lb           I .05
     5                   1.OP
                         1.05
                                        0. vu
     5                                  11.9"
     5                   1."2           0.PI
     5                   b.90          n.nl
     5                   6.06           0.*5
     5                   b.95           n.*4
     5                   b.nq           n.lm
     5                   b.81           07.16
     5                   h.IU           0.13
                         b.@?           0.11
L   c        I   t   I   I          I   I   1   I   I   I   I




         5                   *.#I
         5                   *.On
         5                   ~ . 7 n
         5                   h.17
         5                   C. 76
         h                   h.72
         b                   h.56
         6                   h.55
         7                   h.53
         7                   D.50
         "                   h.UH
         9                   b.U5
        IO                   h . 19
        $1                   D . 39
        I2                   b. 38
........................................
                              GttIIrlY   lSSIIC1AllS


........................................
      PUW   ICSI   SUWIYI                     *w
                            t w t.tIL/Pltzu*trtn ntw   -   ll.0,




........................................
                              ?O/II/MI-IZ.~~.I-
?.I1
7.21
?.21
I   I   I    i    I    I




            ........................................
L   I   I   I   I             I   I   i   I   1   t   I   I   I   I




                IUtY1"     1"
                    *.ltY
                    Mf 1 * t s

                       0.nn
                       n.nn
                       5.24
                       5.25
                       5.?5
                       5.2b
                       5,?5
                       5./5
                       5.25
                        .1
                       521
                       5.2u
                       5.2U
                       5.20
                       5.70
                       5.?U
                       5.21
                       5.i"
                       5.?U
                       5.?5
                       5.?5
                       5.2U
                       5.25
                       5.2a
                       5.2a
                       5.?7
                       5.2b
                       5.27
                       5.21
                       5.2n
                       5.211
                       5.28
                       5.20
                       5.?V
                       5.10
                       5.10
                       5.11
                       5.3n
                       5.w
                       5.30
                       5. In
                       5.30
                       5.?P
                       5 . 3"
                       5.30
                       5.3n
                            I           I            I               I              I          I




.........................                                       ...............
                                          L
                                   LllLlrtY SSOClhltS


.........................                                       ...............
      P8I"Y   I t 9 1 SI,*LI",   inn   "tLL/PltZD*t      ltll   NU*RtY        -         P"1,




.........................                                       ...............
                                   Z W I I / ~ I - I Z . ~ ~ . ? ~




                                                                         IINCIINf I N t D
                                                                         s r w r GuAvtL,
                                                                UNKNOWN
               -
    TIME DRAWDOWN GRAPH FOR PUMP TEST NO..,...! ....
                                                                   Figure                                      A . 2. I
    Well No. ....PW.2    Doto observed in.. . . f ; I ~ Z . . . ..
                               LEAKY
                                   AQUIFE..
                                         ANALYSIS                    f Honfush Mefhodj




      CALCULATIONS:




               WHERE.'

      r = Radius pumped
               from   well               .,..: ....(metres)      s = Drowdown.,4.9,,,(metres)
      a=      Pumping
                    rote,....9.4____._.._
                                     (litrc!s/sec.l              t   =   Time   since   pumping storted..,r,,,(minutes)
      m"- Averoge thickness of oquitord .__,.
                                           (metres)
      T = Transmissivity(metres*/sec.)                                            Motch    porometers
                                                                                       point         from
                                                                                  Hnntush leoky oquifcr type curve
      S = Storogecoefficient(froction)
      P   =   Hydraulic conductivity of oquitord (metres/sec.)

L                                                [Golder Associates         -I
    TIME     - DRAWDOWN GRAPH                  IFOR P U M P TEST No. ...........
                                                                           I
                                                                                 Figure A . 2. 2
    Well No. .......................
                     PWZ                                                F
                                                                       .! 3
                                                 Data observed in.. .. C . ....
+
                              LEAKY AQU/F€R         ANALYSIS    { H o n t u s h Method)
X




                                       TIME SlhICE PUMPING STARTED      (minuter I


       CALCULATIONS:




              WHERE:

       r = Radius pumped
                from   well,..47.,,l,metres)                   s=    Drawdown ..... 78,,(metresl
      0 = Pumping rate ,.._?:).4
                               .........(litr,es/sec.)         t =                            .(.6..,(minutesl
                                                                     Time smce pumping started.
      ml= Averagethickness of aquitard..5,jmetres)
       T = Transmissivity ( metres*/sec.)                                    Match point parameters from
                                                                             Hantush leaky aquifer type curve
       S=   Storagecoefficient(fraction)
       P=   Hydraulic conductivity of aquitord (metres/sec.)


                                              Golder Associates          -
TIME -DRAWDOWN GRAPH FOR PUMP TEST NO. /                    ............
                                                                                                                                               Figure                 A. 3. I
Well No. ....................
              PWZ             Doto observed in ....................
                                                       PW2


lava1
        .... m    .I                       I                     IO                        0
                                                                                          10                         1looO                         1oooo



                                                                                                                            Pump t el l : x d a t a point
                                                                                                                            R e c o v e r y : 0 d a t a point




..............m                                                                                                500 1 0 3 0                         1oow                   loom
                                   .5          I             5        IO             50        100

                            T I M E SINCE PUMPING STARTED (minutar)                                                         I         I     II111111                 I I I IlliU
                                                                                                                            I              3    5         IO           30 50 lo(
                                                                                                                                                     TIME Idoyr)
                  CALCULATIONS
                                                    1.83 0                                                                                         ...........
                  L.9    no. .........".    :
                                           1-
                                                    OSI 104                                                                                        ...........

                   L'Q no..........     ". T = n s I 104

                                               s:
                                                    1.83 0


                                                    135 T . t              135 I
                                                                                   1.831...........
                                                                                          ............
                                                                                          )(         1
                                                                                                         =    -
                                                                                                                                  I       1.831 ...._
                                                                                                                                          1
                                                                                                                                          0    I............
                                                                                                                                                                 z    -



                                                    +
                                                    .
                                                        r
                                                                 ::
                                                                               t               )*        ..............   a 10-
       TIME -DRAWDOWN GRAPH FOR PUMP TEST No.............              /                               ,


       Well No. ....................
                     PWZ                                    OW3
                                     Dato observed in ....................                                                 Figure              A . 3.2

                                          t/t' : Ratio of time since pumping storted to timr since pumping ce0s.d
      s t a t i c water
      level
                                                  I                        10        100                   1000              1oOoo                l o 001
                                                                                                                                                  o
                                                  I                         I           I                   1                  I




      aiazo lip
      ..............m
                          .I             .5           I                5   10   X)     o
                                                                                       lo           500 1 0 3 0             loo00                  0Doc
                                                                                                                                                  11 K)
                                 T I M E SINCE PUMPING STkRTEO (minutar)                                        II   I   I Illl111
                                                                                                                         3 5     IO
                                                                                                                                           I    I I I IIIU
                                                                                                                                               30 50 1   0
                                                                                                                               TIME Idoys)
                          CALCULATIONS
                                                              1.83 0                                                        ...
                          .
                          9
                          L    no.   .............. 1 ;
                                            I
                                                                                     ...                                    ...      ...
                                                              1.83 0
                          Leg no.    ......x.-
                                            ..,   T       =
                                                                                     ............                           ............



r P


1
                                                                                                                                                             ~~




TIME -DRAWDOWN GRAPH FOR PUMP TEST No
Well No. ....................
               PNZ                                   pM/2
                              Datu observed in ....................                                                                     Figure           A .3.3

                                   t/t'   : Ratio            of lime since pumpin9 starled lo time since pumping t l ~ s ~ .
l l o l i c roter
level
                                           I                         K)                          100                    1000               loo00             1 0 OO(
                                                                                                                                                              0




                    .I            .5           I                 5        O
                                                                          I               50         LOO           500 1 0 5 0            LOMX)             I(
                                                                                                                                                             O    I)

                             TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED (minutes)                                                   -          1
                                                                                                                               I     3 5        IO    30 50       IO
                                                                                                                                             TIME (days\
                    CALCULATIONS

                                   !
                    Leg no. ...... ....... T       =   -
                                                       1.83 0
                                                       O S   .104
                                                                                        1.83 x   ...........
                                                                                                 ............
                                                                                                                                   1.83 I ...........
                                                                                                                                    0.
                                                                                                                                   1"      ..    ....
                                                                                                                                                        2.25 x to4d




                                                         .42 rzS              .42              1'(              1"
                                                                                                                 ...........
                                          Li.      *         T
                                                                     ,*
                                                                                    L                 1                        m a

								
To top