A Comparison of Office-Derived vs. Field-Derived Water Table Maps for a Sandy Unconfined Aquifer

This study compares the accuracy of two types of water table maps both of which were constructed with the object of optimizing future mapping efforts in similar environments. The. first type of map is based solely on office information, with no field verification. The second type of map is based on careful field mapping using numerous measurement points.
The office-derived maps were based on topography, surface water features, existing reports, maps and data in the files of the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey; the data were not field-verified. The field-derived maps used a dense network of 236 piezometers at 176 sites in an area of approximately 170 square miles. The field project was much more expensive and labor-intensive than was the construction of office-derived maps for the same area.
The two methods produce water table maps which agree to an appreciable extent, the greatest agreement being in areas having ground water-fed streams. Differences in water table elevations indicated by the two methods range from negligible to approximately 5 feet. Thus, depending upon the availability of existing information, relatively accurate water table elevations can be delineated in similar sandy unconfined aquifers without time-consuming and expensive field work that drilling and piezometer installation entails.
Preliminary construction of office-derived water table maps enables researchers to use their resources efficiently. In some situations, expensive installation of wells and piezometers for a regional monitoring network may add little accuracy to the regional map. For localized problems, collection of additional field data will always be necessary, but can be guided by the office-derived maps. The authors caution that this technique may only be applicable to sandy, unconfined aquifers in humid climates.