My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP04273
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
4001-5000
>
WSP04273
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:54:38 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:15:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8277.400.10
Description
Las Vegas Wash Unit- Nevada
State
NV
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1993
Author
USGS
Title
Shallow Ground Water in Whitney Area - Southeastern Las Vegas Valley - Clark County NV -- Part II. Assessment of a Proposed Strategy to Reduce the Contribution of Salts to Las Vegas Wash
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />N <br />C"') <br />N Results of the slug-test analyses are preiented in table 2. Differences in results are due to the <br />N differing assumptions inherent in each Iechnique and the differing equations based on well design, Several <br />c:.. assumptions had to be made to use the three techniques: <br />;:;.. <br /> <br />I. The method of Hvorslev (1951) was assumed to be applicable for screened intervals that are <br />small in relation to aquifer thickness, This is a major assumption, as it decreases the effective <br />radius used in the solution, jeopardizing the assumption of horizontal steady-state flow, which <br />in turn may make estimated hydraulic conductivities too low. <br /> <br />2. The screened interval was used as the aquifer thickness in the method of Cooper and others <br />(1967). TIris may introduce errors because vertical flow almost certainly occurs to some degree <br />when a slug of water is introduced, probably resulting in higher esliri1~ted hydraulic <br />conductivities than actually exist. The radius of the screened interval was considered to be equ8J <br />to the radius of the well. This is acceptable if the sand pack is assumed to have a hydraulic <br />conductivity on the same order as that of the aquifer. <br /> <br />3. No changes in storage were assumed to occur due to water-table fluctuations in any of the <br />methods. <br /> <br />TABLE 2.--Estimated Iwrizontal and venical hydraulic conductivities at <br /> cluster-well sites, from slug-test data <br /> Estimated hydraulic conductivity (feet per day). and <br /> method of estimation used <br /> Depth Horizontal Vertical <br /> interval <br />Site and (feet below Bouwer Cooper and <br />cluster.well land and Rice Hvorslev others <br />designation surface) (1976) (1951) (1967) K,.=K2/Kh <br />WG035AN 4-6 (a) (a) (a) (a) <br />BN 8-10 6 12 47 3 <br />CN 13-15 13 24 88 6 <br />DN 16-18 2 4 8 1 <br />EN 28-30 I 2 6 .4 <br />WG044AN 6-8 5 10 20 4 <br />BN 10-12 5 9 26 3 <br />CN 20-22 I 2 8 .5 <br />DN 31-33 .4 .2 .6 .04 <br />WG053AN 6-8 ,3 (b) (c) (e) <br />BN 10-12 23 43 150 12 <br />CN 16-18 8 12 42 3 <br />DN 18-20 8 12 52 3 <br />EN 23-25 2 3 8 ,5 <br />WG062A 4-6 .9 2 (e) (e) <br />B 10-12 .3 ,8 2 .3 <br />C 15-17 .4 1 1 ,7 <br />D 20-22 4 6 22 2 <br />E 26.28 .01 .04 .15 .01 <br />a Water table below screened interval. <br />b Method not applicable for well screens extending above the water table. <br />C Method not applicable for shallow unconfined conditions. <br /> <br />-12- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.