Evaluation of Cleaning and Evaluation of Cleaning and gRehabilitation of University of Idaho Well #2 on the Local Groundwater

gRehabilitation of University of Idaho Well #2 on the Local GroundwaterWell #2 on the Local Groundwater Systems, in the Moscow, Idaho AreaWell #2 on the Local Groundwater Systems, in the Moscow, Idaho Area

byby

Chad C. Opatz

Major Professor:

James L. Osiensky Ph.D.James L. Osiensky Ph.D. 

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements 

PBAC

Jim Osiensky

Tim Link

Gary JohnsonJim Osiensky

Jerry Fairley

J h B h

Gary Johnson

IDWR

John Bush

Hannah Hernandez, Mark Nell, Aaren Fiedler, John Livingston

ID

WA

ORID

History of Well UI#2History of Well UI#2 

Construction started in 1950 

Completed in 1958Completed in 1958

Sand invasion problems

Production terminated 1964Production terminated 1964

Attempt to place back on line in early 80’s

History of Well UI#2History of Well UI#2 

University of Idaho road extension

Proposed well UI#2 abandonmentProposed well UI#2 abandonment

2004 borehole video on well UI#2

Well UI#2 Borehole Conditions ‘04Well UI#2 Borehole Conditions  04

Proposal of Well UI#2 ProjectProposal of Well UI#2 Project

UI#2 conditions were proposed to PBAC as aUI#2 conditions were proposed to PBAC as a feasibility study.

Attempt to increase flow downward in UI#2 borehole pby cleaning and rehabilitation.

PBAC granted the funding for UI#2 Project starting g g j g2005

PurposePurpose

Investigate borehole water movement within the University of Idaho Well #2 to provide a background for comparison to hydraulic effects resulting from the cleaning of the well.

General ObjectiveGeneral Objective

Delineate the effects of well cleaning and well development on the groundwater flow systems indevelopment on the groundwater flow systems in the vicinity of well UI#2.

Specific ObjectivesSpecific Objectives

Describe the geologic and hydrogeologic controls on groundwater movement in the Moscow Idaho areagroundwater movement in the Moscow, Idaho area.

D l t l h d l i d lDevelop a conceptual hydrogeologic model.

l h ff f l h l lDelineate the effects of UI#2 cleaning on the local groundwater flow environment.

Palouse Basin GeologyPalouse Basin Geology

Local GeologyLocal Geology

UI#2 Site GeologyUI#2 Site Geology

Conceptual Hydrologic Model Before Cleaning

C’C

Monitoring ProgramMonitoring Program

Monitor ground water levels and ground waterMonitor ground water levels and ground water temperatures in the following:

• Paradise Creek

• Sediments of Bovill

• Lolo basaltLolo basalt

• Vantage sediments

Monitoring Program

UI#2 Site Geology (Paradise Creek)UI#2 Site Geology (Paradise Creek)N1 N2 N3 fbls

Monitoring Program

Cleaning ActivitiesCleaning activities began on February 10, 2006 at 08:30 hours 

Cl i i i i d d F b 15 2006Cleaning activities ended on February 15, 2006 at 1700 hours.

Cleaning Activities

Conditions in well UI#2 borehole after cleaningcleaning.

Problem!Problem!

When did UI#2 start to effect the local groundwaterWhen did UI#2 start to effect the local groundwater flow environment (i.e., injection)?

Total cleaning process was completed over 129 hours g p pspread over the daylight working hours of three days.

Physical EvidencePhysical Evidence

In the morning of February 14, 2006 pieces of steelIn the morning of February 14, 2006 pieces of steel well casing were bailed from the bottom of UI#2.

This evidence was considered to be when a change in gflow occurred in well UI#2 borehole.

Conceptual Hydrologic Model as a Result of Cleaning 

Analysis

Water level data collected in well UI#2

Analysis

Water level data collected in well UI#2

Data collected in sediments of Bovill and Paradise Creek (T6) adjacent to UI#2( ) j

Data collected in local monitoring wells and USGS gauging station.g g g

UI#2 Water Level Data AnalysisUI#2 Water Level Data Analysis

Date of hand measurement of wl in UI#2 Water level elevation

02/01/2006  2502.65 famsl*

02/10/2006 note: after bailing ended 2497.48 famsl

02/14/2006 note: after pumping for  2507 famsl50min at 40 gpm

2/22/2006  2502.65 famsl*

03/03/2006 2502 famsl/ /

D iDarcy equation:Q = KIA

where:Q = discharge rate (l^3/t)K = hydraulic conductivity (l/t)I = hydraulic gradient (l/l)I = hydraulic gradient (l/l)A = cross sectional area (l^2)

Analysis of Paradise Creek and Sediments of Bovill Water Level

Analysis of Paradise Creek and Sediments of Bovill Water Level

Analysis of Paradise Creek and Sediments of Bovill Temperatures

Analysis of Water Levels in Local Monitoring W ll

Water level rise in local monitoring wells appeared to 

Wells

g ppcoincide with cleaning activities.

The water level data from local monitoring wells were analyzed in AQTESOLV to show theoretically weather or not cleaning activities were the cause.

Analysis of Water Levels in Local Monitoring W ll

Theis Equation (1935) for a confined aquifer system

Wells

Theis Equation (1935) for a confined aquifer system where:s = Drawdown [L]Q = Pumping rate [L^3/T]Q Pumping rate [L 3/T]T = Transmissivity [L^2/T]t = timeS = Storativity [dimensionless]r = Radial distance from

P mping ell [L]

Additi l ti

Pumping well [L]W(u) = The well function of u

Additional assumptions: 1) Injection can be treated as pumping in AQTESOLV by changing the sign of

the water level displacements. 2) D i ti f th Th i (1935) ti d t i ifi tl2) Deviations from the Theis (1935) assumptions do not significantly 

affect the analysis.  

Analysis of Water Levels in Local Monitoring W ll

INEL‐D

Wells

Analysis of Water Levels in Local Monitoring W ll

AQTESOLV parameters:

Wells

Two  hour lag time

Aquifer thickness (b) 225 ft

AQTESOLV parameters:

Aquifer thickness (b) 225 ft

Fully penetrating well

Di ( ) f UI#2 INEL 2000 fDistance (r) from UI#2 to INEL = 2000 ft

Injection rate was estimated by trial‐and‐error for a range of Transmissi it and Storati it al esrange of Transmissivity and Storativity values.

Analysis of Water Levels in Local Monitoring W llWells

Type curve match to INEL‐D displacement data

Analysis of Water Levels in Local Monitoring W llWells

D19D

Analysis of Water Levels in Local Monitoring W llWells

AHC well

Analysis of Water Levels in Local Monitoring W llWells

Analysis of Water Levels in Local Monitoring W llWells

Analysis of Water Levels in Local Monitoring W llWells

Analysis of Water Temperature in Local M it i W llMonitoring Wells

ConclusionsConclusions

No permanent change in the borehole flowNo permanent change in the borehole flow environment in well UI#2.

Water levels in the sediments of Bovill wereWater levels in the sediments of Bovill were not affected by cleaning.

W l l i i l l i i llWater level rise in local monitoring wells were a result of a recharge event from Paradise C kCreek.

RecommendationsRecommendations

Conduct visual dye tracer tests in well UI#2Conduct visual dye tracer tests in well UI#2.

Stress well UI#2 under pumping conditions to verify hydraulic connection between Lolo andverify hydraulic connection between Lolo and sediments of Bovill.

E bli h i l i i kEstablish a continual monitoring network at the UIGFL into order to characterize the 

h di i (i fl )recharge conditions (i.e., flux).

Thank you. 

Questions?