Appendix IV Well depth Eval ASI 02.pdf

APPENDIX IV - Irrigation Supply Well Depth Evaluation

ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC

March 29, 2023

T4D02 Text Box

(ASI 02, 7/6/23)

Irrigation Supply Well Depth Evaluation

Long Island National Cemetery Site Farmingdale, New York ECS Project No. 44:1651-A

Mr. Brian Jacobson Walker Federal Services 7820B Wormans Mill Road, Suite 162 Frederick, Maryland 21701

ECS Project No. 44-1651-A

Reference: Irrigation Supply Well Depth Evaluation Long Island National Cemetery Site

2040 Wellwood Avenue, Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York

Dear Mr. Jacobson:

ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC (ECS) is pleased to provide Walker Federal Services with the results of our Irrigation Supply Well Depth Evaluation for the Long Island National Cemetery. If there are any questions regarding this report, or a need for further information, please contact the undersigned at (540) 785-6624.

Respectfully Submitted, ECS MID-ATLANTIC, LLC

Michael L. Maloy, C.P.G. Thomas P. Nelson, C.P.G.

Principal Geologist Principal Hydrogeologist

Robert S. Valorio Principal Geotechnical Engineer

Farmingdale, New York

CLIENT

Walker Federal Services

7820B Wormans Mill Road, Suite 162 Frederick, Maryland 21701

SUBMITTED BY

4004 Hunterstand Court, Suite 102 Charlottesville, Virginia 22911

PROJECT 44-1651-A

DATE March 29, 2023

Farmingdale, New York

ECS PROJECT NO. 44-1651-A

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 EXISTING GROUNDWATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF ANTICIPATED NEW WELL DEPTH

3.1 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting

3.2 Proximal Offsite Public Supply Well Construction Details

3.3 Discussions with Local Drillers

4.0 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

4.1 Information Summary and Recommended Approach

4.2 Step-Drawdown Pumping Test Methodology

4.3 Step-Drawdown Pumping Test Permitting and Costs

5.0 CLOSING

6.0 LIMITATIONS

7.0 REFERENCES

FIGURES

Figure 1 Proximal Wells with Available Record Information

TABLES

Table 1 Hydrogeologic Unit Depths and Thicknesses at the Project Site Table 2 Details Related to Proximal Offsite Public Supply Wells Table 3 Budgetary Costs for a Step-Drawdown Pumping Test

APPENDICES

Appendix A Proximal Well Records

1.0 INTRODUCTION

ECS Mid-Atlantic, LLC (ECS) is pleased to provide this report documenting our findings from an Irrigation Supply Well Depth Evaluation of the Long Island National Cemetery (hereinafter referred to as the site or project site), located at 2040 Wellwood Avenue in Farmingdale, New York. Work completed as part of this evaluation expands upon findings outlined in our previously submitted Irrigation Supply Well Desktop Evaluation Report, dated January 21, 2022. The primary goal of the previously submitted report was to evaluate the feasibility of developing a replacement irrigation groundwater supply well at the project site and included evaluating hydrogeologic site conditions, outlining permitting requirements related to the installation of a new irrigation well and the abandonment of the site’s existing well, and providing performance-level construction document specifications related to the installation of a new irrigation well and the abandonment of the site’s existing well. This Irrigation Supply Well Depth Evaluation expands upon the previously completed evaluation by focusing on the assessment of the planned well’s anticipated maximum depth, as described within our Proposal for Irrigation Well Construction Evaluation and Permitting Services, dated August 5, 2022. Findings provided herein represent the completion of Phase One of the aforementioned proposal.

Phase Two services include the completion of permitting documents, which will be performed following discussions with the Client and finalization of the irrigation well’s preliminary design.

2.0 EXISTING GROUNDWATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

ECS understands that the project site currently uses one irrigation well to supply the irrigation water needs of the site. The well is located within a maintenance yard approximately 30 feet east of the site’s western boundary and 150 feet south of the site’s W. Fifth Drive entrance off of Wellwood Avenue. The well is located approximately 47 feet east of Wellwood Avenue’s eastern edge. A records request submitted to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) revealed that the agency does not have records of the well. As such, our understanding of the well’s construction is based on information provided by Complete Well & Pump, Inc., who are familiar with the well from repair actions performed in July 2020.

The irrigation well is located within a brick well house, which has a footprint of approximately 24 feet by 24 feet. The brick well house consists of a ground-level floor and also a subgrade level. Two underground water storage tanks are present at the northern and southern ends of the subgrade level of the well house. The tanks are reported to be approximately 10 feet in diameter and 40 feet in length.

The irrigation well began experiencing performance issues prior to July 2020. Complete Well & Pump, Inc. was contracted to perform a camera survey of the well to characterize the nature of the problem and to determine the well’s construction. The camera survey showed that the well was installed to a depth of 316 feet and was constructed of 16-inch diameter casing and 14-inch diameter screen. Casing was installed from above the ground surface to a depth of 272 feet bgs and screen was installed from 272–316 feet bgs. The well appears to be completed within the Magothy Aquifer, based on the depth of its screened interval. Specifications pertaining to the casing and screen were not provided and the well’s construction as it pertains to its gravel pack and grout is unknown.

Following the camera survey, it was determined that a repair was required to fix the damaged well. Complete Well & Pump, Inc. was contracted to repair the well by placing 8-inch diameter screen and casing within the existing well and gravel packing the annular space between the replacement screen/casing and the original screen/casing to a level 10 feet above the top of the replacement screen. Replacement screen was installed from the base of the well (i.e., 316 feet bgs) to 256 feet bgs (60 feet total) and 30 feet of replacement casing was affixed to the top of the screen from 226–256 feet bgs. A packer was not placed between the top of the replacement casing and the original larger diameter casing. The reported maximum capacity of the well prior to the completion of repair activities was approximately 1,500–2,000 gpm and the aforementioned well repairs resulted in a reduction to the well’s maximum capacity, although the actual current production capacity is not known. The well currently uses a line-shaft vertical turbine pump set at a depth above the top of the replacement screen and casing.

3.0 ASSESSMENT OF ANTICIPATED NEW WELL DEPTH

3.1 Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting

The project site is located within the Coastal Plain physiographic province, which is underlain by a thick sequence of unconsolidated sediments. Sediment layers dip and thicken toward the south to form a wedge that extends beyond the Atlantic coastline.

Crystalline basement bedrock underlies the thick sediment wedge, with sediment thickness ranging from 0 feet at the contact between the Coastal Plain and the Piedmont province to approximately 2,000 feet at the southeastern portion of Long Island (Smolensky et al., 1989). Sediment thickness at the project site is estimated to be 1,300 feet. The upper 60 feet of sediment is comprised of glacial deposits (i.e., till and/or outwash) and the underlying sediment, which extends to crystalline bedrock, is comprised of fluvial and deltaic sediments related to sea level advance and retreat.

Sedimentary deposits within the Long Island Coastal Plain are divided into three regional aquifers and one regional confining unit (Smolensky et al., 1989). The aquifers, from shallowest to deepest, consist of the surficial glacial aquifer, the Magothy Aquifer, and the Lloyd Aquifer. The Raritan Confining Unit separates the Magothy Aquifer from the underlying Lloyd Aquifer. Aquifers are composed primarily of sand and gravel with lesser amounts of silt and clay, and groundwater flow is transmitted primarily through connected pore spaces between sediment grains. Confining units are composed primarily of clay with lesser amounts of sand, gravel, and silt.

A review of hydrostratigraphic mapping of the project site region indicates that the surficial glacial aquifer is present from the ground surface to approximately 60 feet bgs. The surficial glacial aquifer is directly underlain by the Magothy Aquifer, which reportedly extends from approximately 60–770 feet bgs. The Raritan Confining Unit underlies the Magothy Aquifer and has an estimated thickness of 160 feet (i.e., 770–930 feet bgs). The Lloyd Aquifer underlies the Raritan Confining Unit and is reportedly present from approximately 930–1,300 feet bgs. The estimated depths of the aforementioned aquifers and confining units are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Hydrogeologic Unit Depths and Thicknesses at the Project Sitea.

Hydrogeologic Unitb Depth to

Top of Unit (ft bgsc)

Depth to Bottom of Unit

(ft bgs)

Estimated Unit Thickness

(feet)

Surficial Glacial Aquifer 0 (Ground) 60 60

Magothy Aquifer 60 770 710

Raritan Confining Unit 770 930 160

Lloyd Aquifer 930 1,300 370 Crystalline Basement Bedrock 1,300 --- ---aElevation and thickness values are estimated based on information from Smolensky et al. (1989).

bAquifers are designated by blue shading and confining units are designated by orange shading.

cft bgs = feet below ground surface.

The Magothy Aquifer is the only viable aquifer target in which to install the planned irrigation well. Available information indicates that the aquifer is sufficiently permeable to meet the irrigation water needs of the site, as further evidenced by the existing well’s completion within this aquifer. The surficial glacial aquifer is not a viable drilling target because the saturated zone of the aquifer appears to be too thin to meet the water demands of the planned irrigation well. The Lloyd Aquifer is not a viable drilling target due to New York’s existing moratorium on new groundwater withdrawals from the aquifer.

The Magothy Aquifer is the principal aquifer used for public water supply on Long Island and is the aquifer in which the site’s existing irrigation well is completed. The Magothy Aquifer is in direct hydraulic connection with overlying glacial deposits (Pope et al., 2016), and as such, the upper portion of the aquifer is likely to be unconfined at the project site.

Lower permeable layers are likely to be under confined conditions due to the presence of thick clay layers within the aquifer, which become increasing effective as confining layers with depth (McClymonds and Franke, 1972). The basal 50–200 feet of the Magothy Aquifer is distinguished by the presence of a gravel layer (McClymonds and Franke, 1972), which grades upward to the sands and clays that forms the bulk of the unit (Smolensky et al., 1989). Aside from the basal gravel layer, the Magothy Aquifer is comprised of fine- to medium-grained quartz sand interbedded with layers of coarse sand, sandy clay, and clay. Although most layers within the Magothy Aquifer have low to moderate permeability, some highly permeable layers do exist and can generate high yields in wells producing from these layers. Specific capacity values of wells completed in the Magothy Aquifer range from approximately 1–30 gpm/foot of drawdown, although values as high as 80 gpm/foot have been reported (McClymonds and Franke, 1972).

Groundwater equipotential mapping indicates that Magothy Aquifer groundwater levels are approximately 40 feet bgs (i.e., 60 feet amsl) at the location of the site’s existing irrigation well.

3.2 Proximal Offsite Public Supply Well Construction Details

ECS submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to DEC for public supply well records for wells located within one mile of the site as part of our previously submitted Irrigation Supply Well Desktop Evaluation Report. We also reviewed the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS’s) online GeoLog Locator application, which is a geodatabase of known wells and associated records.

DEC provided well records for three public supply wells in response to this request. The nearest well, numbered S-79105, is located 1.1 mile west-southwest of the project site at 1919 Broad Hollow Road in Farmingdale. The remaining two wells, numbered S-20042 and S-39709, were installed at the same address of 200 E. Sunrise Highway in Lindenhurst, located approximately 3.4 miles south of the project site. One well, identified as number S-126817, was identified within the USGS well database as being located within approximately two miles of the project site. This well is located approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the site’s existing irrigation well, near the intersection of Ridge Road and Circle Drive. Details related to these wells are provided in Table 2 and a map showing their approximate locations is included as Figure 1. Well records for each well are included as Appendix A.

It is unknown whether the production capacity of the project site’s existing irrigation well is greater than or less than the production capacities of the four offsite wells. The project site’s well had a reported yield of approximately 1,500–2,000 gpm prior to the well repairs that reduced the well’s screen and casing diameters. Although the yields of the offsite wells are stated to be as high as 1,575 gpm, it is important to note that these yields were likely limited more by the pump’s capacity as opposed to the well’s production capacity, as the minor drawdown observed during the pumping tests indicates that the wells were capable of producing at higher yields. Based on pumping rate and drawdown information provided within the offsite wells’ logs, it was possible to calculate specific capacity values of 35.4 gpm/foot (S-79105), 43.8 gpm/foot (S-126817), 36.4 gpm/foot (S-20042) and 20.3 gpm/foot (S-39709). Using an average specific capacity value of 34.0 gpm/foot, pumping at a rate of 1,500 gpm would result in approximately 44 feet of drawdown and pumping at a rate of 2,000 gpm would result in approximately 59 feet of drawdown. Using the lower-range specific capacity value of 20.3 gpm/foot, pumping at a rate of 1,500 gpm would result in approximately 74 feet of drawdown and pumping at a rate of 2,000 gpm would result in approximately 99 feet of drawdown. The actual specific capacity of a well producing at 1,500–2,000 gpm could be less than the aforementioned values due to the comparatively higher pumping rate. According to McClymonds and Franke (1972), the specific capacity of Magothy Aquifer wells typically ranges from 1–30 gpm/foot, although values as high as 80 gpm/foot rarely do occur.

Table 2: Details Related to Proximal Offsite Public Supply Wells.

Well Detail Public Supply Well Number

S-79105 S-126817 S-20042 S-39709

Location Relative to Existing Site Irrigation Well

1.1 mile west-southwest

1.3 mile southeast 3.4 mile south 3.4 mile south

Ground Elevation 75 feet amsla 73 feet amsl 35 feet amsl 30 feet amsl

Estimated Upper and Lower Surface Elevations of the Magothy Aquiferb

-10 feet amsl

-680 feet amsl

10 feet amsl

-710 feet amsl

-50 feet amsl

-880 feet amsl

-50 feet amsl

-880 feet amsl

Well Depth and Elevation of Bottom of Well

740 feet

-665 feet amsl

603 feet

-530 feet amsl

585 feet

-550 feet amsl

712 feet

-682 feet amsl Aquifer Testing Results (Well Yield / Drawdown / Specific Capacity)

1,204 gpmc / 34 feet /

35.4 gpm/foot

1,575 gpm / 36 feet /

43.8 gpm/foot

1,309 gpm / 36 feet /

36.4 gpm/foot

1,421 gpm / 70 feet /

20.3 gpm/foot

Installation Year 1985 2007 1961 1971 Casing Diameter 20 inches 24 inches 20 inches 20 inches Screen Diameter 12 inches 14 inches 12 inches 12 inches Depth to Uppermost Screen Interval 629 feet 530 feet 494 feet 650 feet

Combined Screen Length 60 feet 70 feet 85 feet 55 feet Depth to Static Water Level 33 feet 23 feet 25 feet 36 feet

Lignite or Pyrite Encountered?

Yes (various depths from 218–682 feet)

Yes (various depths from 152–613 feet)

Yes (various depths from 374–560 feet)

Not Noted aamsl = above mean sea level.

bEstimated upper and lower surface elevations of the Magothy Aquifer at the project site are 40 feet amsl and -670 feet amsl, respectively.

cgpm = gallons per minute.

ECS compared the well screen position within the Magothy Aquifer of the project site’s existing well to the screen positions of the four offsite wells. Hydrostratigraphic mapping of the upper and lower surfaces of the Magothy Aquifer at each well location was used to complete this evaluation. The Magothy Aquifer at the project site is approximately 710 feet thick and the site’s well is screened from 272–316 feet bgs. Based on the estimated depth to the top of the aquifer at the site (i.e., 60 feet bgs), the site’s well screens the zone from approximately 212–256 feet below the top of the aquifer. In comparison, the Magothy Aquifer at well S-79105 is approximately 670 feet thick and the well screens zones from approximately 544–650 feet below the top of the aquifer. The Magothy Aquifer at well S- 126817 is approximately 720 feet thick and the well screens zones from approximately 467–537 feet below the top of the aquifer. The Magothy Aquifer at wells S-20042 and S-

39709 is estimated to be 830 feet thick and the wells screen zones from approximately 409–495 feet below the top of the aquifer (S-20042) and 570–625 feet below the top of the aquifer (S-39709).

Overall, the project site’s well screens the middle to mid-upper section of the aquifer and the offsite wells screen the lower (S-79105), middle (S-20042), and middle to mid-lower (S-126817 and S-39709) sections of the aquifer. Reported specific capacity values for the wells screened in the lower (S-79105) and middle (S-20042) sections of the aquifer are similar (i.e., 35.4 gpm/foot and 36.4 gpm/foot, respectively), whereas the specific capacity values of S-126817 and S-39709, which appear to be screened in the middle to mid-lower section of the aquifer, were higher (i.e., 43.8 gpm/foot) and lower (i.e., 20.3 gpm/foot), respectively. Specific capacity values for each of the four offsite wells were relatively high, and based on very limited well record information, there does not appear to be a strong correlation between specific capacity and the depth within the Magothy Aquifer in which wells in the vicinity of the project site are screened. It is important to note that this observation is based on limited data and the actual distribution of specific capacity with depth may be highly variable at and in the vicinity of the project site.

3.3 Discussions with Local Drillers

ECS spoke with Mr. John Viniotis, the owner of Complete Well and Pump, Inc., on February 15, 2023 to discuss the planned well’s anticipated depth. Based on his experience drilling in the area of the site, Mr. Viniotis agreed that a well depth of approximately 400 feet bgs should be adequate to obtain a yield of 1,500–2,000 gpm.

4.0 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

4.1 Information Summary and Recommended Approach

Information obtained as part of the literature and well log review is useful but inconclusive in determining the planned irrigation well’s anticipated depth. The upper surface of the Magothy Aquifer is approximately 60 feet bgs at the project site and has a thickness of approximately 710 feet. The lower section of the Magothy Aquifer is reported to be more permeable than the middle and upper sections of the aquifer and specific capacity values for the aquifer generally range from 1–30 gpm/foot, although higher values have been documented. Limited offsite well records indicate that a well screened in the lower section of the Magothy Aquifer (S-79105) had a similar specific capacity as a well screened in the middle section of the aquifer (S-20042) (i.e., 35.4 gpm/foot and 36.4 gpm/foot, respectively), whereas the specific capacity of S-39709, which appears to be screened in the middle to mid-lower section of the aquifer, was lower (i.e., 20.3 gpm/foot) but remained relatively high.

It was reported to ECS that the maximum capacity of the site’s existing irrigation well prior to the completion of repair activities was approximately 1,500–2,000 gpm, although the well’s current maximum production rate is unknown. Assuming that this is accurate, it is possible to provide a rough approximation of the existing well’s specific capacity prior to being repaired based on this production range, the well’s construction with screen from 272–316 feet bgs, an estimated static groundwater level of 40 feet bgs, and assuming water levels declined to the level of the top of the screen during pumping. Based on these criteria, the well’s specific capacity would have minimally been 6.5–8.6 gpm/foot and would likely have been greater, as it is unlikely that drawdown reached the top of the screen during pumping. These values are within the published range of reported values for the Magothy Aquifer.

It is ECS’s opinion that installing the planned irrigation well to a depth of 400 feet bgs, as recommended within our Irrigation Supply Well Desktop Evaluation, would likely provide the desired production of 1,500–2,000 gpm if the existing irrigation did in fact produce this same yield prior to repair activities. The planned irrigation well location is located in close proximity to the existing well and it can be assumed that subsurface conditions are reasonably similar. Additionally, the preliminary depth of the planned well is 84 feet deeper than the existing well, which introduces the possibility of encountering deeper permeable zones for screening.

It is important to emphasize that our opinion that the planned irrigation well would likely provide the desired production of 1,500–2,000 gpm is critically dependent on statements provided to ECS indicating that the existing well produced this same yield prior to being repaired in 2020. Our reliance on this information is especially important given the lack of available records for the existing irrigation well and the limited number of available proximal offsite records.

Given the high cost associated with the installation of a new supply well, and to reduce possible uncertainties regarding the existing well’s yield capacity, ECS recommends that the site’s existing irrigation well be used to complete a 9-hour duration step-drawdown pumping test to measure the well’s specific capacity at various pumping rates. This information could then be used to estimate the overall production capacity of the existing well in its current state. In lieu of this test, ECS recommends that a test well be installed prior to installing the planned production well to verify that a well depth of 400–600 feet bgs would meet the site’s water demands. Installation of a test well would be expected to be significantly more expensive than completing a step-drawdown test of the existing well.

4.2 Step-Drawdown Pumping Test Methodology

ECS recommends that a 9-hour duration step-drawdown pumping test be completed using the site’s existing irrigation well. The purpose of the test would be to evaluate the existing well’s specific capacity at various pumping rates. This information could then be used to estimate the specific capacity, and subsequently the yield, of the planned irrigation well at a similar well depth.

It is recommended that the step-drawdown test consist of three steps of increased pumping rates at intervals approximating three hours in duration per step. It is also recommended that the step-drawdown test be completed prior to the start of the irrigation season, if possible, to minimize disturbances to irrigation operations. A few possible approaches exist regarding the pumping system and discharge method to be used during testing. The recommended approach, which would also be the least expensive approach, would involve using the well’s existing pump, water distribution system, and irrigation piping to complete the test. Using the existing pump instead of a test pump would significantly reduce costs associated with removal of the existing pump. An opening would be cut in the aboveground section of well casing to allow for the insertion of a water level measuring device during testing. It is recommended that a flexible stilling tube be installed through the opening, if possible, to prevent entanglement of water level measurement equipment with the down-well equipment. Following the conclusion of testing, a repair clamp would be placed over the opening to provide a seal. This approach would require replacing the well’s non-functional water meter to allow for pumping rate monitoring. It is expected that the new water meter could be used for the site’s planned new well in the future. Additionally, a technician knowledgeable of the well’s existing variable frequency drive (VFD) would need to be present during testing to operate the VFD for the purpose of adjusting the pump’s discharge rate. The recommended discharge approach would involve discharging water at the land surface using the site’s existing sprinkler irrigation system.

A possible alternative discharge approach would consist of discharging water directly to Suffolk County’s stormwater sewer. A curb inlet that could possibly be used as a discharge point is present on the east side of Wellwood Avenue, approximately 30 feet from the well building. ECS has spoken with representatives at the local Health Department (Mr. Jason Hime), the DEC (Mr. Paul Harding), and Suffolk County (Mr.

Robert Hillman) to explore this option. Additionally, ECS spoke with Mr. Felipe Gonzalez with Suffolk County to evaluate whether discharge to the sanitary sewer system was possible. Due to the accessways to the sanitary sewer system being located in the center of Wellwood Avenue, discharge to the sanitary sewer system was deemed to not be a viable option. A permit is not required by the local Health Department to discharge water to the storm sewer system. Conversations with Mr. Hillman revealed that either a DEC discharge permit, or a statement from DEC indicating that this permit is not required, would be necessary to discharge into the storm sewer. A water quality sample of the well water showing that contaminants are not present would also be required. Additionally, Suffolk County would limit the discharge rate to ensure that discharge does not exceed the capacity of the stormwater system. Mr. Paul Harding with DEC informed ECS on February 2, 2023 that a discharge permit would not be required through DEC but that a water quality sample should be collected to ensure that contaminants are not present in the water.

However, during a subsequent conversation with Mr. Harding on February 15, 2023 he was less conclusive in his statements and indicated that additional permitting review and approval may be appropriate. It is expected that significantly higher costs would be required to proceed with the aforementioned water discharge approach.

4.3 Step-Drawdown Pumping Test Permitting and Costs

A budgetary cost estimate to complete a 9-hour step-drawdown pumping test is provided as Table 3. Budgetary costs assume that the existing pump, water distribution system, and irrigation piping system and sprinklers will be used to complete testing. Removing the well’s existing pump and replacing it with a test pump would incur additional costs.

Additionally, discharging water to the Suffolk County stormwater sewer instead of applying water at the land surface of the site would incur additional costs.

The following tasks are included within ECS’s Table 3 costs:

ECS Costs

• Mobilization to and from the site.

• Use of a water level meter to record groundwater levels during testing.

• Labor for the completion of a 9-hour step-drawdown pumping test.

• Analysis of testing data and completion of a summary report describing testing methods, findings, and implications related to the planned well’s construction.

Driller Costs (provided by Complete Well and Pump, Inc. without markup)

• Mobilization to and from the site.

• Supply and install a new in-line water meter.

• Cut an access port in the casing stickup to allow for water level measurements and patch the port opening following the conclusion of testing.

• Labor to be present during completion of a 9-hour step-drawdown pumping test.

The costs provided within Table 3 do not include the following anticipated costs:

• A technician knowledge of the well’s VFD who is capable of operating the VFD during step-drawdown testing.

In summary, ECS estimates that the cost to complete a 9-hour step-drawdown pumping test of the site’s existing irrigation well would be approximately $43,500. Please be advised that it could require 1–2 months to receive the new water meter. Upon request, we would be happy to provide the Client with a formal proposal for step-drawdown testing.

Table 3: Budgetary Costs for a Step-Drawdown Pumping Test.

Estimated Driller Pricing (No Markup Included)

Description Total Cost

• Mobilization

• Supply and install a new in-line water meter

• Cut an access port in the casing stickup for water level measurements and patch following the conclusion of testing.

• Labor to be present during completion of step-drawdown testing.

$28,000

Total Driller Estimated Cost: $28,000

Estimated ECS Pricing

Description Estimated Quantity Unit Cost Unit Total

Cost ECS Mobilization 1 $5,000 each $5,000 Step-Drawdown Test Setup and Testing Labor 1 $3,500 LS $3,500

Equipment/Per Diem 1 $1,000 LS $1,000 Data Analysis/Reporting 1 $6,000 LS $6,000

Total ECS Estimated Cost: $15,500

Total Estimated Cost (ECS & Driller Combined): $43,500

5.0 CLOSING

ECS is pleased to provide this report documenting our findings from an Irrigation Supply Well Depth Evaluation of the Long Island National Cemetery, located at 2040 Wellwood Avenue in Farmingdale, New York. Work completed as part of this evaluation expands upon findings outlined in our previously submitted Irrigation Supply Well Desktop Evaluation Report, dated January 21, 2022. This Irrigation Supply Well Depth Evaluation expands upon the previously completed evaluation by focusing on the assessment of the planned well’s anticipated maximum depth. Findings provided herein represent the completion of Phase One of the aforementioned proposal. Phase Two services include the completion of permitting documents, which will be performed following discussions with the Client and finalization of the irrigation well’s preliminary design.

Findings from our evaluation lead to the recommendation that a 9-hour duration step-drawdown pumping test be completed using the site’s existing irrigation well. The purpose of the test would be to evaluate the existing well’s specific capacity at various pumping rates. This information could then be used to estimate the specific capacity, and subsequently the yield, of the planned irrigation well at a similar well depth. Following the completion of step-drawdown testing, the preliminary well design provided as part of the Irrigation Supply Well Desktop Evaluation Report, dated January 21, 2022, should be reviewed to determine whether adjustments to the well design are warranted.

6.0 LIMITATIONS

The work performed in conjunction with this project, and the data developed, are intended as a description of available information at the tested locations indicated and the dates specified. Generally accepted industry standards were used in the preparation of this report.

Results from future testing may vary significantly as a result of natural conditions, a changing environment, or the limits of analytical capabilities.

7.0 REFERENCES

McClymonds, N.E. and Franke, O.L. 1972. Water-transmitting properties of aquifers on

Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 627-E, 24 p.

Pope, J.P., Andreasen, D.C., McFarland, E.R., and Watt, M.K. 2016. Digital elevations and extents of regional hydrogeologic units in the Northern Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System from Long Island, New York, to North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 996.

Smolensky, D.A., Buxton, H.T., and Shernoff, P.K. 1989. Hydrogeologic framework of

Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-709, 3 plates.

Figures

S-20042 S-39709

S-79105

S-126817

Figure 1: Proximal Wells with Available Record Information

³ Long Island National Cemetery Site

Suffolk County, New York

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

Legend Subject Site

&( Existing Onsite Irrigation Well &< Proximal Public Well with Record Information

Appendix A

Proximal Well Records

Well S-79105

Well S-126817

-ff^^ r> County Suffolk

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CC iRVATION

©WSM10941

COMPLETION REPORT—LONG ISLAND WELL

Well Number g-1 2681 7 sIP* ts^'W

OWNER

ADDRESS

Suffolk nmmt-y Water Authroity

3525 Sunrise Highwat, Great River NY 11739

LOCATION OF WELL

Circle Drive No.5, Wyandanch

DEPTH OF WELL BELOW SURFACE

-6£3-

DIAMETER

24 in. |

LENGTH

313 tL

SEALING

Neat Cement Grout

MAKE

Kg. grre* Moss

DIAMETER

JLA.

LENGTH

2SL ft.

DEPTH TO TOP FROM TOP OF CASING

j -53^

DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER FROM SURFACE

23_!

CASINGS

in.

CASINGS REMOVED

SCREENS

OPENINGS

50 Slot

PUMPING TEST

in.

DATE

10/22/07 & 10/23/07

TEST OR PERMANENT PUMP?

Test

DURATION OF TEST MAXIMUM DISCHARGE

days 1 fi hours 1 575 gallons per mln.

STATIC LEVEL PRIOR TO TEST

2J_!LJ

in. below top of casing

LEVEL DURING MAXIMUM PUMPING

_~ u I {n- below 59 N- I top of casing

MAXIMUM DRAWDOWN

36 «.

TYPE MAKE

MOTIVE POWER MAKE

CAPACITY

Approximate time of return to normal level after cessation of pumping

2 hours I min

PUMP INSTALLED

MODEL NUMBER

H.P.

g.p.m. against ft. of discharge head

NUMBER OF BOWLS OR STAGES

ft. of total head

DROP LINE SUCTION LINE

DIAMETER

LENGTH

METHOD OF DRILLING

CI rotary Lj cable tool D other

WORK STARTED

B/307Q7

DIAMETER

LENGTH

USE OF WATER

COMPLETED

11/21/07

DATE

12/6/07

DRILLER

Eagle Control Corp.

REGISTRATION NO.

NOTE: Show log of well materials encountered, with depth below ground surface, water bearing beds and water levels in each, casings, screens, pump, additional pumping tests and other matters of interest. Describe repair Job. See instructions as to Well Driller's Registration and Reports.

ORIGINAL—Environmental Conservation Copy

•log

Ground surface is located Ft.

above/below (+)(-) MSL

Top of casing is located Ft.

above/below (+)(-) MSL

TOP OF WELL

A o o

SKETCH OF LOCATION

4 Z)^ *

J_ j > ^

Circle Or.Vd.

Locate well with respect to at least two streets or roads, showing distance from corner and front of lot.

Show North Point Arrow

CHECK THE TOWN IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS LOCATED:

Nassau County:

D Hempstead • North Hempstead D Oyster Bay

Suffolk County:

J3 Babylon DBrookhaven D Huntington D Islip D Shelter Island D Smithtown DSouthold

Well Location Coordinates

Latitude

Longitude, Method used: GPS

D East Hampton D Riverhead

D Southampton

Other(specify)_

Depth From Depth To Description S_NUMBER 12 72 Medium-coarse sand & gravel, rocks and boulders S126817 72 93 Fine-medium gray sand, streaks of clay, hard pan S126817 93 109 Medium orange/tan sand S126817

109 112 Medium orange/red sand S126817 112 114 Coarse sand & gravel S126817 114 117 Solid gray clay S126817 117 130 Medium tan sand, some clay S126817 130 152 Medium gray sand, bits of clay, hard pan S126817 152 256 Fine gray sand, gray clay/lignite S126817 256 330 Medium-fine tan sand, streaks of clay/lignite S126817 330 341 Mulit. Colored clay, some hard pan & pyrite, a little sand S126817 341 346 Fine-medium tan sand, hard pan, some clay S126817 346 374 Solid dark gray clay (very hard to drill through) S126817 374 376 Fine gray sand S126817 376 384 Light tan clay S126817 384 416 Fine- medium gray sand/streaks of gray clay S126817 416 430 Gray clay with some pyrite S126817 430 442 Medium gray sand bits of clay, pyrite/streaks S126817 442 493 Medium-coarse gray sand iron oxide/pyrite S126817 493 497 White and gray clay S126817 497 503 Fine-medium gray sand S126817 503 523 Medium-coarse gray sand & gravel, some clay S126817 523 527 White and gray clay, some medium sand S126817 527 530 Medium gray sand some streaks of clay S126817 530 535 Medium coarse gray sand S126817 535 548 Medium-fine gray sand bits of clay /pyrite S126817 548 565 Medium-coarse gray sand, hard pan S126817 565 578 Coarse sand bits of white clay & gravel S126817 578 607 Medium gray sand S126817 607 613 Gray clay, lignite, pyrite and a little sand (poor formation) S126817 613 Solid gray clay S126817

Well S-20042

Well 2-2 O~GINAL-TO COMMISSION

County ..... . ~)-:1.f.f.9.t~............ WA-401 Well No ..... S.:-:29.Q:42 ..•................. :

State of New York ( on prellmlnal'y rei><>rt) , Ii LOG Department of Conservation

Division of Water Power and Control Ground Surf., El.. ....... ft. above sea :

A COMPLETION REPORT-LONG ISLAND WELL ............ ft.

V Top of Well

Owner .......... l'.9.wn ... o.f .. ;a~y.lon:7E .•... F.,u:ming.clale ... wa:ter .. Dis.t- LOG ATTACHEDi

Location of well

Depth of well below surface ....... ................. ?.sl.?. ......................... ........................ feet

Depth to ground water from surface ........ ............ ~a? ......................... .. .. ............... feet

WINGS:

Diameter ... 2.0.'.'. .. .x .. .12. .. in. . ................... in. . ................... in. . .................. .in.

Length ........... . ~.?.1 ........... ft. . ................... ft. . .... ............... ft. . ................... ft.

Sealing ··························-· .. ················································································· Casings removed

Scn:ENs: Make. ....... -J.ol:J.rutQn ... E.v.e.-1:s;l.u:i: ....... Openings ........ 6.0 ... s.lo.t Diameter ... ........ .. .. J.i. ....... in. . ... ,"· ............ in. . ..... .... ..... ..... in. . ................... in.

Length ..........•...... ~.1 ........ ft. . ............ : ...... ft. ··· ·················ft. ····· ···············ft.

Depth to top from top of casing ................. ~.i~ ............................................. ft.

PUMPING TEST: Date. ..... ]/J.5./..6L ................. Test ·~r permanent pump ? ... T.es.t Duration of Test .. ................. ........ .... . ... ............... days ....... ......... 5 .............. hours Maximum Discharge ............. ..........• . 1:45.Q ........................ gallons per minute Static level prior to test. ....... .25 ......•... ft .. ................... in. below top of casing

Level during Max. Pumping ...... 6J, •... ft ............... .... . .in. below top of casing Maximum Drawdown .................. ............. ............... .1§ .................................. .ft.

Approx. time of return to normal level after cessation of pumping ....... ......... ...................... .. hours ... ... ........ .... ......... ......... minutes

PUMP INSTALLED:

Type..D ... W ... l' ......... Make. ...... JQOO§.t9.n ........................ Model N ol2~C Motive power .... e.J.e.c •....... Makc ... ll • .S ........................ ........... H.P ...... 19.Q Capacity ..... l4.QQ ..... g.p.m. against} ...... ............ .. ..... ...... ft. of dischar~~~:-+-+---- No. bowls or stages ... ;? .... ~t.?.-.9:~.~ ................. ?.1.9. .............. ft. of to YORK l)aop LINE: SUCTION LINE:

• : • 1~..;cs

Diameter ·······································-············in .............................................. in. JU N l 2 962 J Length .... ..... ..... . ··- . .......... ·······-··-···'' -·· .... .... . ....... . ... .. . t .. ft. '

Use of water ..... .MJ.mi.c.~al ... S.up.pJ.}!'.............. ~ '. ', . -•.,; ~ I '! ··

Work started ...... 7.J.l.';./6l ................................... Completed ..... §/.l/fai ............. ...-- -- - .

Date ........... ........ §/1-.!/.?.?. ............................... DriUer .... ~~.~~~.E::~ ... ~~.!.!L.~ ... !?um Co , , Inc·

License N'''-··············· l'S 3

Nora: Show ~ -of well-materials cncounter:ed, with depth below ground surface, water bearing beds .and water levels ,in each, casings, screens, pump.

additional pumping tests and other matters of interest. Describe re.pair job.

Sec Instructions as to Well Drillers' Licenses and Reports-pp. 5-7.

' l .

' I i

F I t r

• lo

Locate well with respect to at least two streets or roads, showing distance from comer and front of fot.

Show North Point

~ /4 /? r ,<_p /n e

I

I r

SJ1PPL Y WELL LOG MATHIES WELL DRILLERS

LINDINHUIST, N. Y.

l of 2

Job ~ ~e Water Diatfff-40 Address

· . Ve •2

Date Started ..... -.......... JW,Y.. ... 19.1-..... 196.l .. _ ... ... ......... Completed ..... July 29, 1961 2i X 20

Driller f·:· .. ·i;a~-;'······-·--- Oiameter ..... _3 ........ ~ .... 1.?. ... _ ..... ln. Measured from Grade ~ Yes D No

D th ep ···· ·-············ ········-··········-····· Ft .................. -..................... -..... n. Ab ove ........................... Ft ............................ n. e1cm..,,,_ ...... .. ............. I BI Ft . ···········-·······-····· n.

Static Level ................... ~ ................................ Ft . ................ _ .......... _ ............ ..... In.

' s,, ~- ~, --

Elevation ............................................... Ft. ~ \ [ .: -~ . -'' ~- .. ... )RK

• it · -- - - ;,_ ( ~t, t..t~ ~.c.~m . '-~I'

•-ft. l f ft l .. !EMPERATURE I STRATU

'!H!CKN!:SS 1 DE!>TH - """~ifu !!:;( 'L WA EK

Top soil and brown clal 2 Ci

2 --is.,~ lSS:ON brown sand-grits and gravel 76 k~- -~1...:.1 vEh coarae fu lP1ne brown sand 12 90 -

1'1ne bl'Ollll sand & brown clay 2 92 BrollD silty clay 18 110

~e brown sand-streaks of bro11n cla~ 10 120

·'Pine brown sand {light) 15 135 ..

I

Pine tQ med.1.um. &aDd-atreBka of clay ~'5 170

Sand and gravel 20 190

Heavy- gravel & streaks of cla;,y: lO 200

Sand 10 210

Sand • clai: 10 220 stone-gravel & bardnan. s:; 22S

Heavy stones 4 229

Light gravel 11 240 I

Beau Q'B.'6§1 10 ~o I I 8 258 I Sand

Gravel 2 260

~ & ~t:R ~'5 2Q'5 - Pine brom sand & streaks of brown clay 9 304

Heav.v 21'8.vel & bardoan 6 ':(10

Pine sand & streaks of clay 9 319 I

Pine sand Id.th same grit 11 330 I Grits 2 332 I Gravel - clay - sand 5 337 I

I l Cla,r &: ha!'d.J)R_ !.3 31="" I ! -,-

MEASURING POINT GRADE

495•

BOTTOM

1.D.

O.D.

SLOT

..J w > w

3:

LU

I

VI

z u:

NOTE- If outer casings are used state diameter, length and whether or not leR in the ground:

NOTE - If screen is finished off with riser, give exact description cf top of riser--{size and male or female thread.)

REMARKS- 12" d1.a. steel casing plain end.

Dia. ot dri.11 hole for 20" casing

20" cas1ng grouted in place

36" UDderream tor screen area

24 11

Morie gravel 1D gravel pack. Top ot gravel - 396•

3 sets of guides on steel riser 40' apart.

L

2 Of 2 ... -s. . MATHIES WELL DRILLERS -liPPL \' WELL LOG LINDENHURST, N. Y. WPCC No ....... s~.2004 ....... 2 __ _

Job-~····~~····~~.~~ ... !>±.~& •if~ Address k_

- . e c:-c::: .

Date .Started 24~19..J .... l...9.6.l ............................... Completed ..... _ ___l.ul,y ,i9, 196J.. ....... Driller ···~·:--···t.W:r ·------ Diameter ....... 3(>.___.~ ..... i .:? ..... ..ln. Measured from Grade [jtYes sf'A.r'toF NfW .. : . , Depth ............... ~ ................. Ft ........................... ................ ln. Above .......................... Ft ........................ ..ln. Be~ . . q~····"·.c. ~ ~ ..... :., .... .,, .. 1 .•• • In.

\ ... ~)'J I .>

Static Level ;2-5 Ft In Elevation Ft j UN .. ·····--··-·····-·· ······· ·········-··········--··· . ·····-··········-··········-···-·····-····· ·····-·····•····-········---··········-····-

1 1962 I

STRf.TUM -ii~\ I s ·~ MPERATURE

TH::NESSr :: < r SA~ -1 WATER

Gravel • hardpan - - Bantpan - red olay - KNffl l ~, nae #t• end ~ ~':l - - S8Dd - mr.lte - Cl.a.Y 11 Wll

..._ • .__ •1•- aaA aaftal A ~~

1'1ne sand ~ lot of m.ca 8 ~n

1P1M sand lldJl84 With olav 20 410

PUie to meet. Gray eand-BtNaka of HamP&D •·wrtte I I I cla;r 115 c;~

Coarae rn..v · - ___ , __ nf' ...-h"I +.,,,. nlr1.v & 1-u,~,...~n Hi ch.1

1811te Cl&Y and hardnan '",l c::Jlh:

P1na gray IIIIDd• mca. hardpan & multi colored clay 4 548 coa.ne and and ~ta 6 "~4 Co&ftl8 aaD4 - clq and pyrite l 555 P1Jllt 81111d - 111ca - lli!Dite - cla:v 1 556 l

Clu - ltsnste - ha,J'l\pru\ 1 ,:;.,:;.'7

Pine 1111114 - 11m:ite - mica - claY stri~B '::t ~

,.J.. - .. _. h. e.~Jt. I -

I Illa.WI aaDd - gnta 2 566

Coane INIDll Id.th .la"ita 5',9.~ _,; ., .

I

I I

MEASURING POINT

...J

LU

UJ

...J

V'I

...J

...J

UJ

3:

Cl w I "' z u:

l _I

SKETCH OF LOCATION

Show North Point

I L

Locate well with respect to at least two streets or roads, showing distance from corner and front of lot.

Type of Screen-

••••••• • •••••-••••• • •- • • • • •• • ••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • ••• ••• • • •••••••• ••••-H••••-•o.- -•••----z

UJ

LLl cc L)

V'I

NOTE - If outer casings are used state diameter, length and whethe; or not left in the ground.

NOTE- If screen is finished off with riser, give exact description of top of riser~size and male or female thread.)

REMARKS-- Nea gurement s or screen assembly trom grade.

'?op ot 12" steal r1 ser

~ at 12" Bverdur Riser

'1'Qp ot lat ection EY:erdur

'fem ot 2Dd section Eventur

393'

474 1 screen screen

To» ot 3rd section Everdur Blank

Tot» ot 4th aect1an IYerdur screen

1'0J> ot 5th aectian Everdur S1mU>

Bottom of sump

494, - 4-3/4u

514 1 - 9½n

536• - 5 1

560 1 - ½II

580• - 2}-" 2

585' - on

Bi.11 hook measurements :inside 11,-7 ~ -n high 7-Ti~" C:.'-~"VOD UV~ r ao• - 6" 20' 1-l ' •;, 20' 4 1.11

21' - 7-3/411

23' - 7½" 20' - 2"

•• 9z:

S · ol r ~- 2 County ......... ...... :

ORIGINAL-TO COMMISSION

State of New York Department of Conservation

Division of Water Power and Control

Well No ....... ::.?9.Q~~~.T . ~ (/) ~/J . f{J/ !> ton preliminary report)

LOG

Ground Surf., El... ...... ft. above sea

A COMPLETION REPORT-LONG ISLAND WELL ............ ft.

V Top of Well

Log .

Address ............. ?99. ... J];.: .... ~~n-.:r.i.§~ .... lit f!:} .. <?:Y~.11n<":'l:~nh~E.9.t .; .... N.,.X~ .. attached :

Location of well Depth of well below surface ...................... R.~ .................................................... feet

Depth to ground water from surface ......... ... ..... ........ ................... .. ....... ..... ......... .feet

CAsINGS:

DiaJneter .................... ....... in. . ................... in. . ................... in. .. ................. .in.

Length .............................. ft. .. .................. ft. ······ .............. ft. . .................. . ft.

Sealing .......................... _ Casings removed

SanNs: Make. .................... ..... ............ .. .. .. ..... ... .. Openings Diameter .......... ................. in. . ................... in. .. ... .. ............. in. . ................... in.

Length ......... .... ................. ft. . ................... ft. ······· ............. ft. . ................... ft.

Depth to top from top of casing ...................................................................... ft.

PUMPING TEST: Date. ............. ..... .. ...................... Test or permanent pump?

Duration of Test .................................................. days ................................ hours Maximum Discharge. ......... .......... ... - ................................... gallons per minute

Static level prior to test. .................. - ... ft ........... .......... in. below top of casing Level during Max. Pumping ........... . ... ft .... .............. .. .in. below top of casing Maximum Drawdown ................. ....... ......... ............................ ......................... ft.

Approx. time of return to normal level after cessation - -:.-:;..-=,..-----,-~ 7 f • .h ,.l.•rHtt - (\ ?-J r I ' .. . 1

o. pumpmg......... .. .. ..... ....... .. .. ....... .... ours ................... .............. ..... ,i.~ .. ~ . 1; - 1, ,·.• • : , ' t V • • • ~'4 ~- n r. {'"" I~ • ; • ' Ai ::.n I \ C0 ~ ,., --->

PUMP INSTALLED: . • J

Type. ....................... Make. ....................................... ........... Model No ............... JU, 1 2 1901 Motive power ........................ Make .............................................. H.P

0. i I(' ~1 : i' I Capacity .................... g.p.m. against } .................... ........... ft. of discharg head C ;· Ir 11 '-' · ' ~·1

p. i::- .:- i n ::. D No. bowls or stages........................ . ................. .................... ft. of tota head , •- · ·-

SuCTION LINE:

Diameter ....................... ..... .... ..................... in. . ........ ....................................... in.

Length ................................ ........ ............... ft . ......... ........ .............................. ft.

Use of water ............ QQ.f.~ .... ?.§§P.JJ._D Work started ..... ITT.?. •• .1.~.: .. J .f:?J ....................... Completed ... J. ... ng ... J . .l. ••• J.. .91 Date ................ J.~1~ .. J.J.~ ... J- .QA ................... DriUer .... :@:t.b-J~.~ ... }J~11 ... ~ .. .fump' Co . , Inc .

License No .......... ... ..... J NOTE: Show log ,of well-materials encountered,, with depth below ground surface, water bearing beds and water levels in each, casings, screens, pump, additional pumping ,tests and other matters of interest. Describe repair job.

See Instructions as to Well DriUers' Licenses and Reports-pp. 5-7.

J

Locate well with respect to at least two streets or roads, showing dist~-ice f:- .... -:n come:- and front cf !ot.

Show North Point

Mo. 21.AM> Job B. ~• --..r l>iatriot ___ _ ;?~i: Sheet __ }__ ____ _ of __ 33._ __ _

,,,./ TEST Location )9:- W.R.C. Well N J - :2oo

- T . WELL Reference Pt. Grade s.W.L.---'-'."..:::~6:...1 _______ _

LOO f Date Started -6/i~ompleted 6/l9Al DrilJ er • .,, ... _.

l c sample: 1 . or Act. ;J.gth' bl1 w F No Dertti

I I ' I ;

s I :

B i I llGlllelU ,: I I l i

I .

~ I 1 f I

I

FORMATION tthid< deptt REMARKS nQ.s:,,1 -

2 2

~ l u2

' -·1

I ~, ._..

.. ., C

1- I

' ! I ...... _.... 12 1"6 i

-+-___._ _ ___..., ____ ~ -~==-=-==-==--===-----------4--=<=---i-=--=-4'---+-__.:.,_-----. r

~ l t !

I

I l j i

I i

I l

I I

I

I

I i nm-. ...... - - ,dala.,r .aia :

JP1JIII ......... 14 216 I

ftllll ..... 11111111 nfi n.. to -• IIIIIDll • ,_ D'S.ta 11 ~ ftM to .... 1111114 • .D."1'8

SNIJa: ot llM llr. WM1 • Mi 902

5 Y1f ' 10 '11

1• J3l

20 351

1111.tl-eol.ONIII rn1J elq ld.tb a6 ffl ' I n -= -- ·, r---l r

lo. 211W Job B. ft.nl.1 .... lt water m•net ---· 2-2

Loca t ion

LOO

Reference pt, Gr94e ·

Date Startecii/lw§l, Completed 6/)~

C amp e i l !·or Act. lgt bl w .,F No De

,,--r----t---"'1~ ,.

FORMATION

111 ... i,.,,te

Sh…