U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey
Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida
CYCLE NUMBER 12 3 4 567 8910 11 12 13 14 15 16 120 100
VERED 80 EXPLANATION
80 RECHARGE 60 STORAGE PERIOD
40 RECOVERY 40 POTABLE WATER RECOVERY
PERCENT RECOVERY EFFICIENCY 20
PER CYCLE, IN MILLIONS OF GALLONS 0 VOLUME RECHARGED OR RECO VOLUME 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
400 14
350 8 13 11 7 6 10 3 5 9 16 300
TION, IN 12 2 4 250
200
Cycle 2 Cycle 9 150 15 Cycle 3 CycleCycle 10 9 Cycle 4 CycleCycle 11 10 Cycle 5 Cycle 12 100 Water-Resources MILLIGRAMS PER LITER Cycle 6 Cycle 13 Cycle 7 Cycle 14 Cycle 8 CycleCycle 15 14 CHLORIDE CONCENTRA 50 Investigations CycleCycle 16 15 − Cycle 16 Report 02 4036 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 PERCENT RECOVERY Prepared as part of the U.S. Geological Survey Place-Based Studies Program Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida
By Ronald S. Reese
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4036
Prepared as part of the U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PLACE-BASED STUDIES PROGRAM
Tallahassee, Florida 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director
The use of trade, produce, or firm names in this publication is for identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey.
For additional information Copies of this report can be pur- write to: chased from:
District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services 227 North Bronough Street Box 25286 Suite 3015 Denver, CO 80225-0286 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 888-ASK-USGS
Additional information about water resources in Florida is available on the World Wide Web at http://fl.water.usgs.gov CONTENTS
Abstract ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Purpose and Scope ...... 7 Previous Studies ...... 7 Factors Affecting Optimal Recovery of Freshwater in Aquifer Storage and Recovery ...... 7 Hydrogeologic Factors ...... 7 Design and Management Factors ...... 9 Hydrogeology ...... 10 Acknowledgments ...... 14 Inventory of Well and Test Data ...... 14 Construction and Testing Data ...... 14 Well Identification and Construction Data ...... 15 Hydraulic Well-Test Data ...... 15 Ambient Water-Quality Data ...... 18 Cycle Test Data ...... 25 Case Studies of Selected Aquifer Storage and Recovery Sites ...... 31 Boynton Beach East Water Treatment Plant ...... 31 Springtree Water Treatment Plant ...... 35 Marco Lakes ...... 36 San Carlos Estates ...... 38 Summary and Conclusions ...... 40 Selected References ...... 41
FIGURES 1-2. Maps showing: 1. Study area and locations and status of aquifer storage and recovery sites...... 2 2. Storage zone aquifers for aquifer storage and recovery sites in southern Florida ...... 6 3. Diagram showing aquifer storage and recovery well in a confined aquifer depicting idealized flushed and transition zones created by recharge...... 8 4. Graph showing simulated improvement of potable water recovery efficiency with successive injection and recovery cycles for a variety of dispersion models ...... 10 5. Chart showing generalized geology and hydrogeology of Lee, Hendry, and Collier Counties...... 11 6. Map showing trace of hydrogeologic section in Palm Beach County ...... 12 7. Hydrogeologic section extending east-west across Palm Beach County...... 13 8-10. Maps showing: 8. Thickness of open interval in storage wells at aquifer storage and recovery sites in southern Florida ...... 16 9. Map showing transmissivity determined for storage zones in the Floridan aquifer system at aquifer storage and recovery sites in southern Florida...... 18 10. Ambient water salinity of storage zones in the Floridan aquifer system at aquifer storage and recovery sites in southern Florida...... 24 11. Column showing location of the storage zone in relation to geophysical logs, lithology, flow zones, and geologic and hydrogeologic units for aquifer storage and recovery well PB-1194 at the Boynton Beach East Water Treatment Plant site in Palm Beach County...... 32
Contents III 12-13. Graphs showing: 12. Operational cycles at the Boynton Beach East Water Treatment Plant site in Palm Beach County and relations of volumes recharged and recovered, time, and percent recovery for each cycle...... 33 13. Percent recovery of recharged water during operational cycles in relation to chloride concentration of recovered water at the Boynton Beach East Water Treatment Plant site in Palm Beach County ...... 34 14. Column showing location of the storage zone in relation to gamma-ray geophysical log and geologic and hydrogeologic units for aquifer storage and recovery well G-2914 at the Springtree Water Treatment Plant site in Broward County ...... 35 15. Photograph showing wellhead piping, valves, and control system for the aquifer storage and recovery well at the Springtree Water Treatment Plant site in Broward County ...... 36 16. Column showing location of storage zone in relation to gamma-ray geophysical log, flow zones, and geologic and hydro-geologic units for aquifer storage and recovery well C-1208 (ASR-2) at the Marco Lakes site in Collier County ...... 37 17. Graph showing percent recovery of recharged water during operational cycles in relation to chloride concentration of recovered water at the Marco Lakes site in Collier County...... 38 18. Column Showing location of storage zone in relation to gamma-ray geophysical log, flow zones, and geologic and hydrogeologic units for aquifer storage and recovery well L-5812 at the San Carlos Estates site in Lee County ...... 39
TABLES 1. Historical and current aquifer storage and recovery sites in southern Florida ...... 3 2. Well Identification, location, and construction data for aquifer storage and recovery system wells in southern Florida...... 44 3. Hydraulic test data from aquifer storage and recovery well systems in southern Florida...... 50 4. Ambient water-quality data collected from aquifer storage and recovery well systems in southern Florida...... 19 5. Cycle test data from aquifer storage and recovery wells in southern Florida...... 26
Conversion Factors, Vertical Datum, Abbreviations and Acronyms
Multiply By To Obtain inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter foot (ft) 0.3048 meter mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer gallon per minute (gal/min) 3.785 liter per minute gallon per minute per foot (gal/min/ft) 12.418 liter per minute per meter million gallons (Mgal) 3,785 cubic meter million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 3,785 cubic meter per day square feet per day (ft2/d) 0.0929 square meter per day square feet per day (ft2/d) 7.48 gallon per day per foot inverse day (1/d) 7.48 gallon per day per cubic foot
Sea level: In this report, “sea level” refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929)—a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.
IV Contents ACRONYMS AND ADDITIONAL ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REPORT
ASR aquifer storage and recovery CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority GPS global positioning system GWSI Ground-Water Site Inventory (U.S. Geological Survey database) µs/cm microsiemens per centimeter mg/L milligrams per liter MOR monthly operating report SFWMD South Florida Water Management District USGS U.S. Geological Survey WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Contents V VI Contents Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida
By Ronald S. Reese
Abstract recovery efficiency achieved per cycle was 84 percent for cycle 16 at the Boynton Beach site. Aquifer storage and recovery in southern Factors that could affect recovery of fresh- Florida has been proposed on an unprecedented water varied widely between sites. The thickness scale as part of the Comprehensive Everglades of the open storage zone at all sites ranged from 45 Restoration Plan. Aquifer storage and recovery to 452 feet. For sites with the storage zone in the wells were constructed or are under construction Upper Floridan aquifer, transmissivity based on at 27 sites in southern Florida, mostly by local tests of the storage zones ranged from 800 to municipalities or counties located in coastal areas. 108,000 feet squared per day, leakance values indi- The Upper Floridan aquifer, the principal storage cated that confinement is not good in some areas, zone of interest to the restoration plan, is the aqui- and the chloride concentration of ambient water fer being used at 22 of the sites. The aquifer is ranged from 500 to 11,000 milligrams per liter. brackish to saline in southern Florida, which can Based on review of four case studies and greatly affect the recovery of the freshwater data from other sites, several hydrogeologic and recharged and stored. design factors appear to be important to the per- Well data were inventoried and compiled formance of aquifer storage and recovery in the for all wells at most of the 27 sites. Construction Floridan aquifer system. Performance is maxi- and testing data were compiled into four main cat- mized when the storage zone is thin and located at egories: (1) well identification, location, and con- the top of the Upper Floridan aquifer, and trans- struction data; (2) hydraulic test data; (3) ambient missivity and salinity of the storage zone are mod- formation water-quality data; and (4) cycle testing erate (less than 30,000 feet squared per day and data. Each cycle during testing or operation 3,000 milligrams per liter of chloride concentra- includes periods of recharge of freshwater, stor- tion, respectively). The structural setting at a site age, and recovery that each last days or months. could also be important because of the potential Cycle testing data include calculations of recov- for updip migration of a recharged freshwater ery efficiency, which is the percentage of the total bubble due to density contrast or loss of overlying amount of potable water recharged for each cycle confinement due to deformation. that is recovered. Calculated cycle test data include potable water recovery efficiencies for 16 of the 27 sites. INTRODUCTION However, the number of cycles at most sites was Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in southern limited; except for two sites, the highest number Florida has been proposed as a cost-effective water- of cycles was five. Only nine sites had a recovery supply alternative that can help meet the needs of agri- efficiency above 10 percent for the first cycle, and cultural, municipal, and recreational users and can be 10 sites achieved a recovery efficiency above used for Everglades ecosystem restoration. Plans have 30 percent during at least one cycle. The highest been made to utilize ASR on an unprecedented scale
Abstract 1 in the Central and Southern Florida Comprehensive aquifer through a well during times when water is Review Study as proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of available, and recovery of the water from the same Engineers and the South Florida Water Management well during times when it is needed.” District (1999). This review study is also known as the ASR technology has been tested and imple- Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). mented in some areas of southern Florida; 26 ASR About 330 ASR wells have been proposed for south- sites have been constructed and 1 is under construction ern Florida, each with an assumed capacity of 5 (fig. 1 and table 1). The status for 10 of the sites is Mgal/d during recharge or recovery. Pyne (1995) has “operational testing,” which is a multi-year period of described ASR as “the storage of water in a suitable regulatory review during the first phase of operation.
82°30´ 82°00´ 81°30´ 81°00´ 80°30´ 80°00´
27°30´ ATLANTIC OCEAN HARDEE OKEECHOBEE MANATEE COUNTY ST. LUCIE COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY SARASOTA COUNTY HIGHLANDS 20 (LO) DE SOTO COUNTY 27 (SL) COUNTY MARTIN COUNTY 27°00´ CHARLOTTE GLADES COUNTY COUNTY Lake 6 (EW) 21 (JU) 5 (SC) Okeechobee 14 (OL) 24 (WPB) 11 (NR) Caloosahatchee River 9 (LC) PALM BEACH COUNTY LEE HENDRY COUNTY COUNTY 22 (BB) 26°30´ 12 (WA) 25 (SY3) 10 (CS) GULF OF MEXICO 26 23 13 (SCE) (WHC) (DRB) 1 (DFB) 2 (BC) BROWARD COUNTY 4 COLLIER COUNTY 3 (ST) 8 (ML) (FA) 26°00´ 7 (MR)
STUDY 15 (HI) AREA 16 MONROE COUNTY (MB) 17 (WWF) 18 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (SWF) 25°30´
EXPLANATION Location, site number, and abbreviated site name - see table 1 for full name SITE STATUS 26 (WHC) Under construction 25°00´ 18 (SWF) Construction complete 17 (WWF) Operational testing 10 (CS) Operating 19 (MA) Experimental and inactive Northern boundary of study area 0 10 20 30 MILES Canal 19 (MA) 0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS 24°30´
Figure 1. Study area and locations and status of aquifer storage and recovery sites. Status is as of April 2001.
2 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida 1 0 0 3 2 1 1 1 zone No. of wells in storage monitoring 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 orida Keys Aqueduct Author- Aqueduct Keys orida wells No. of of No. injection Source water nd Sewer Department; FKAA, Fl nd Sewer ed drinking water drinking ed 1 1 ounty Water Utilities Department. Storage zone aquifer: B, ounty Water ucie. Utility or operator: BCOES, Broward County Office of Envi- ucie. Utility or Office operator:County BCOES, Broward Treated drinking water drinking Treated water drinking Treated drinking water (future Treated raw ground water) water drinking Treated water drinking Treated water surface Raw and treated water drinking Treated water drinking Treated Raw ground water ther abbreviations: WTP, water treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater wastewater treatment water plant; WWTP, WTP, ther abbreviations: tion complete drinking water Treated 1 2 Status ational testingational Treat eratingwater drinking Treated 5 5 y; MDWSD, Miami-Dade Water a Water Miami-Dade MDWSD, y; ee; PB, Palm Beach; STL.ee; St.PB, Palm L Construction complete Construction testing Operational complete Construction Operating Experimental and inactive testing Operational testing Operational Experimental and inactive otection; PBCWUD, Palm Beach C otection; PBCWUD, Palm UFA UFA testing Operational UFA Raw ground waterUFA 1 1 UFA UFA UFA UFA UFA testing Operational water surface treated Partially 3 2 UFA complete Construction water Reclaimed 1 1 zone MHA aquifer Storage ndstone aquifer; UFA, Upper Floridan aquifer. O aquifer. Floridan Upper UFA, aquifer; ndstone uderdale UFA testing Operational Utility or Utility or operator y Regional Water Supply Authorit Supply Water Regional y a Department of Environmental Pr of Environmental a Department Deerfield Beach Deerfield Sunrise Punta Gorda County Collier USGS Lee County Springs Bonita USGS Florida Water Florida Water Services Englewood District Water ami-Dade; MO, Monroe; OK, Okeechob L L L B B CH CO CH MD County idan Aquifer; MHA, mid-Hawthorn aquifer; SS, sa aquifer; MHA, mid-Hawthorn idan Aquifer; Site name and abbreviation Historicalcurrent and aquifer storagerecovery andsites southern in Florida Deerfield Beach West WTP (DFB) WTP West Beach Deerfield WTP Springtree (ST) ShellWTP Creek (SC) (MR) Manatee Road Lee County WTP (LC) (NR) Reservoir North (SCE) Estates San Carlos (HI) Hialeah Englewood South Regional Englewood South WWTP (EW) 1 11 1 3 5 7 9 13 15 2(ML) Broward County WTP 2A (BC) CO 4 Fiveash WTP (FA) B Lakes BCOES 6 8Marco B Fort La 10(CS) Corkscrew WTP 12(WA) Avenue Winkler 14WTP (OL) Olga L LCRWSA L Myers Fort MHA Op L UFA Oper County Lee UFA Construc Site No. Biscayne aquifer; LFA, Lower Flor Lower LFA, Biscayne aquifer; ity; SFWMD, South Florida Water Management District; FDEP, Florid Management District; FDEP, Water SFWMD,Florida ity; South treatment plant] ronmental Services; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; LCRWSA, Lee Count LCRWSA, ronmental Services; USGS, U.S.Survey; Geological Table 1. Table CH, Charlotte; CO, [County: B, Broward; Collier; L, Lee; MD, Mi
Introduction 3 1 1 1 0 1 2 duct Author- zone No. of wells in storage monitoring 3 1 1 1 1 1 11 orida Keys Aque orida Keys wells No. of injection eatment plant; WWTP, wastewater wastewater eatment plant; WWTP, Source water Source nd Sewer Department; FKAA, Fl nd Sewer ounty Water Utilities Department. StorageB, zone aquifer: Utilities Department. ountyWater ucie. Utility or operator: BCOES, Broward County Office of Envi- County Office ucie. Utility or operator: BCOES, Broward Raw surface water 1 1 Raw ground water ground Raw water drinking Treated Raw surface water water drinking Treated water drinking (future Treated water) ground raw water ground Raw Treated surface water (future water (future surface Treated water) surface raw ther abbreviations: WTP, water tr water WTP, ther abbreviations: tructiondetermined yet Not 1 1 l testing water drinking Treated 1 Unknown Status Experimental and Experimental inactive Operational testing Inactive and Experimental inactive complete Construction complete; Construction permit on waiting and Experimental inactive A complete Construction water Raw ground 2 0 SS UFA UFA UFA UFA UFA zone MHA, aquifer Storage ach UFA Operating water drinking Treated 1 0 Utility or operator Department Protection;of Environmental PBCWUD, Beach Palm C aquifer; SS, sandstone aquifer; UFA, Upper Floridan aquifer. O aquifer. Floridan Upper UFA, aquifer; sandstone SS, aquifer; MDWSD FKAA FDEP Beach Delray PBCWUD SFWMD ounty Regional Water Supply Authority; MDWSD, Miami-Dade Water a Miami-Dade Water Supply Authority; MDWSD, Water ounty Regional very sites in southernvery sites Florida --(Continued) ami-Dade; MO, Monroe; OK, Beach; STL. Okeechobee; PB, St. Palm L PB PB PB OK SFWMD LFA MD MO STL County Site locations are shown in figure 1. in figure Site locations are shown 1 (WHC) 1 PB SFWMD UFA cons Under ach County (SY3) Site name and abbreviation Historical andHistorical current aquifer and storage reco West Well Field (WWF) Well West (MA) Marathon Jupiter (JU) Beach North Storage Delray Reservoir (DRB) System 3 Palm Be (SL) County Lucie St. Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (Lake Creek/Nubbin Taylor Okeechobee) (LO) Site numbers refer only to this report. 1 1 16 (MB) Beach Miami 17 19 MD Beach21 Miami B23 Operationa 25 27 18 Field (SWF) Well Southwest 20 MD MDWSD22 Beach East WTP (BB) Boynton UF 24 PB (WPB) WTP Beach Palm West Boynton Be 26 PB Hillsboro Canal, Site Western Beach Palm West UFA testing Operational Site No. ity; SFWMD, South Florida Water Management District; FDEP, Florida Management District; FDEP, ity; SFWMD, South Florida Water Biscayne aquifer; LFA, Lower Floridan Lower Aquifer; MHA, mid-Hawthorn Biscayne aquifer; LFA, treatment plant] Table 1. CH, Charlotte; CO, Collier; [County:L, Lee; B, Broward; MD, Mi ronmental Services; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; LCRWSA, Lee C LCRWSA, ronmental Services; USGS, U.S. Geological Survey;
4 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida During this time, the ASR well system is tested prior supply, or operational problems, the time between to being given a full operating permit by the Florida cycles may be extensive (months or years). After ini- Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). tial testing and under fully operational conditions, Three of the sites have been given an operating permit. cycles continue but the duration of cycles and storage Additionally, six sites are no longer active after experi- periods and the volume of water recharged during each mental testing was completed (fig. 1). These sites were cycle usually increase. operated by government agencies including the U.S. In southern Florida, ASR is largely used to store Geological Survey (USGS), South Florida Water Man- water in an aquifer that contains brackish water. Ambi- agement District (SFWMD), FDEP, and the Florida ent ground water in the storage zone at most of the Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA). ASR is a relatively ASR sites in the study area is brackish (greater than recent development in southern Florida, in terms of its 1,000 mg/L dissolved-solids concentration) to saline use as a municipal or countywide source of water; (greater than 10,000 mg/L dissolved-solids concentra- 20 active sites in this category were constructed in the tion); salinity appears to greatly affect the recovery of 1990’s (with 14 of these sites having been constructed the recharged freshwater. The salinity of the recharged since 1996). The strategy for this use of ASR in south- and recovered water is closely monitored, usually on a ern Florida has been to store excess water available daily basis. Because of the high ambient water salinity during the wet season and recover this water during of the storage zone, much of the recharged freshwater the dry season when it is needed. is not recovered largely due to dispersive mixing in the Existing and historical ASR sites in southern aquifer. Florida are mostly located along the east and west The recovery efficiency for each cycle is the coasts (fig. 1). At most sites, the proposed or planned total volume of water recovered, expressed as a per- purpose of the recovered water is to serve as a supple- centage of the volume of water recharged. The salinity mental supply for municipalities. Under CERP, ASR of water during recovery increases with time, and wells will be constructed in inland areas around Lake recovery is terminated at a salinity level that is prede- Okeechobee, in central Palm Beach County, and along termined by operational considerations. Generally, this the Caloosahatchee River in Hendry County (U.S. limiting salinity level is at the potable water limit of Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water 250 mg/L chloride concentration, or slightly higher if Management District, 2001). Recovered water is to be the recovered water is mixed with potable water at a used for additional purposes that include maintaining water-treatment plant (WTP). water levels in Lake Okeechobee and wetland areas Few regional investigations of the hydrogeology and reduction of surface-water flows to tide (estuarine of the Floridan aquifer system in southern Florida have and bay areas) during storm events. been conducted, and those studies focused on issues The storage zone being used at most ASR sites unrelated to ASR. Lacking a regional ASR framework is in the Floridan aquifer system (fig. 2). Shallower to aid the decision-making process, placement of ASR storage zones are in the mid-Hawthorn and sandstone well sites in southern Florida have primarily been aquifers of the intermediate aquifer system and the based on factors such as land availability, source-water Biscayne aquifer of the surficial aquifer system. The proximity (preexisting surface-water canal systems or proposed storage zone aquifer in the CERP ASR pro- surficial aquifer system well fields), or proximity to a gram is also in the Floridan aquifer system. This aqui- WTP. Little effort has been made to link information fer system is continuous throughout southern Florida, collected from each site into a regional hydrogeologic and its overlying confinement is generally good. analysis. Additional tools and data are needed to make ASR wells are evaluated and operated through a informed decisions that incorporate constraining cyclical process. Each cycle includes periods of injec- hydrogeologic factors in the placement and construc- tion (recharge) of freshwater into the ASR well, stor- tion of ASR sites in southern Florida. age, and then withdrawal (recovery) with each period This study is part of the USGS South Florida lasting days or months. In southern Florida, the recov- Place-Based Studies Program, which was established ery phase may commence immediately after the cessa- for the purpose of providing physical and biological tion of recharge with no period of storage, and science data and information on which to base ecosys- depending on the source of water supply, municipal tem restoration management decisions. The purpose of
Introduction 5 82°30´ 82°00´ 81°30´ 81°00´ 80°30´ 80°00´
27°30´ ATLANTIC OCEAN HARDEE OKEECHOBEE MANATEE COUNTY ST. LUCIE COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY SARASOTA COUNTY HIGHLANDS 20 DE SOTO COUNTY 27 COUNTY MARTIN COUNTY 27°00´ CHARLOTTE GLADES COUNTY COUNTY Lake 6 5 Okeechobee 21 24 11 Caloosahatchee 9 14 River PALM BEACH COUNTY LEE HENDRY COUNTY 12 COUNTY 22 26°30´ 25 10 GULF OF MEXICO 26 23 13 1 2 BROWARD 3 4 COLLIER COUNTY COUNTY 8 26°00´ 7
15 16
MONROE COUNTY 17 18 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY 25°30´
EXPLANATION STORAGE ZONE AQUIFER-- Location and site number 16 Biscayne aquifer 19 Sandstone aquifer 25°00´ 10 Mid-Hawthorn aquifer 18 Floridan aquifer system NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF STUDY AREA 0 10 20 30 MILES 19 0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS 24°30´
Figure 2. Storage zone aquifers for aquifer storage and recovery sites in southern Florida.
6 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida this study was to compile data on existing ASR sites in into the feasibility of cyclic injection of freshwater in southern Florida and identify various hydrogeologic, southern Florida have been described in reports by design, and management factors that control the recov- Khanal (1980) and Merritt (1985). Merritt (1997) also ery of freshwater recharged into ASR wells. included numerical simulations of the salinity of recovered water in his study of Hialeah ASR site. Purpose and Scope Some regional or local hydrogeologic studies of the Upper Floridan aquifer that encompass or include The purpose of this report is to inventory well part of southern Florida are Bush and Johnston (1988), construction, hydrogeologic, and operational data on Meyer (1989a), Miller (1986), Reese (1994), Reese ASR sites in southern Florida and assess site perfor- (2000), and Reese and Memberg (2000). The reports mance. A secondary purpose is to identify hydrogeo- by Meyer (1989a), Reese (1994; 2000), and Reese and logic, design, or management factors that influence the Memberg (2000) are specific to southern Florida. success of ASR. Recovery efficiency, defined as the percent of recharged freshwater that is recovered for each cycle, is used to evaluate this performance. Four Factors Affecting Optimal Recovery of ASR case studies are described to determine possible Freshwater in Aquifer Storage and technical factors that influence the success of ASR. Recovery The study area includes all of southern Florida and includes Charlotte, Glades, Lee, Hendry, Collier, Recovery of freshwater stored in brackish- to Monroe, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, and Martin Counties, and parts of Okeechobee and St. saline-water aquifers is controlled by a wide variety of Lucie Counties (fig. 1). The 27 ASR sites located in factors that pertain to hydrogeologic conditions, well the study area represent the source of data for this or well field design, and operational management. The study. However, this report focuses on the 23 ASR hydrogeologic factors of a storage zone that are impor- sites in which the Floridan aquifer system serves as the tant to recoverability include (1) ambient salinity, (2) storage zone. Principal hydrogeologic and construc- aquifer permeability and distribution, (3) aquifer tion related attributes determined for each ASR site are thickness, (4) confinement, (5) ambient hydraulic gra- graphically and spatially illustrated to provide a com- dient, and (6) structural setting. Important design and parative analysis. management factors to consider are (1) thickness and location of the storage zone within the aquifer, (2) vol- Previous Studies ume of injected water, (3) duration and frequency of cycles and cycle storage periods, (4) well performance It has been nearly 20 years since Merritt and problems such as wellbore plugging, and (5) multiple- others (1983) provided a retrospective overview and well configurations. Most of these factors and their status of ASR well development in southern Florida. control on recoverability have been numerically simu- Merritt and others (1983) presented data from three lated (Merritt and others, 1983; Merritt, 1985); how- experimental ASR sites that are also included in this ever, conclusions on some factors, 95 discussed in the report, and Meyer (1989b) published additional data following sections, came from consulting reports and on experimental ASR sites in southern Florida. Other experimental ASR test data were obtained in reports or other literature. written communications for the Jupiter site (fig. 1, map no. 21; J.J. Plappert, Florida Department of Envi- Hydrogeologic Factors ronmental Protection, written commun., 1977), the St. During recharge of water by an ASR well, a Lucie County site (fig. 1, map no. 27; Wedderburn and radial zone of mixing forms around the well in the Knapp, 1983), the Lee County site (fig. 1, map no. 9; Fitzpatrick, 1986), the Hialeah site (fig. 1, map no. 15; aquifer. This zone, referred to as the transition zone Merritt, 1997), and the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough – (Merritt, 1985), separates native water from an inner Lake Okeechobee site (fig. 1, map no. 20; Quiñones- flushed zone containing mostly injected water, and this Aponte and others, 1996). Theoretical investigations inner zone can be described as a freshwater bubble
Introduction 7 AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY WELL equates to about 2,500 mg/L chloride concentration (Reese, 1994). On the basis of numeri- cal simulation, recovery effi- ciency has been shown to decrease with increasing salinity in saline aquifers only because CONFINING UNIT of dispersive mixing in the tran- CASING CASING sition zone − no buoyancy strati- fication (Merritt, 1985). Ambient water salinities mod- AQUIFER eled in Merritt’s study, as defined by chloride concentra- UNINVADED TRANSITION FLUSHED ZONE FLUSHED ZONE TRANSITION UNINVADED ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE tion, were 2,000, 7,000 to 8,000, (ZONE OF (ZONE OF MIXING) MIXING) and 19,000 mg/L (seawater-like salinity). The permeability or CONFINING UNIT hydraulic conductivity of the storage zone may greatly affect recoverability. The probability of buoyancy stratification Figure 3. Aquifer storage and recovery well in a confined aquifer depicting increases as permeability idealized flushed and transition zones created by recharge. Flushed zone increases (Merritt, 1985). Addi- contains mostly recharged water. tionally, mechanical dispersion is related to the distribution of permeability within the storage zone. Higher permeability can (fig. 3). The degree of mixing between the injected and equate to higher dispersive mixing, and an increase in native water and the width of the transition zone is this dispersion lowers recovery efficiency (fig. 3). primarily controlled by hydrodynamic dispersion. Thus, recovery could be better in a sand aquifer of uni- Hydrodynamic dispersion or dispersive mixing refers form permeability where dispersion results primarily to the effects of molecular diffusion and mechanical from flow through intergranular pore spaces, as dispersion. Mechanical dispersion results from the opposed to a limestone aquifer having diffuse and con- unevenness of flow through porous media, and at flow duit flow components, particularly if thin zones of velocities occurring during ASR recharge and recov- high permeability occur within the limestone aquifer. ery, this dispersion will dominate over diffusion. Loss of injected freshwater could occur if a stor- The ambient salinity of water in the storage age zone is not well confined. Injected water may zone is of primary importance in controlling recovery move upward or downward out of the storage zone, or of freshwater because of mixing with this water and saline water may move up into the storage zone during potential buoyancy stratification. Buoyancy stratifica- recovery. tion occurs where the ambient salinity is high, pro- Recovery efficiency is greater in a thin aquifer vided permeability in the aquifer is also high (Merritt, than in a thick aquifer because of the lower vertical 1985); the injected freshwater moves upward and extent of the transition zone along which mixing flows out over the native ground water. During the occurs. However, this effect can be partially offset by recovery phase, such stratification increases mixing. increasing the volume of water recharged during a Buoyancy stratification should be considered possible cycle. Minimizing the thickness of the storage zone when the ambient ground water has a dissolved-solids within a thick aquifer can also be beneficial depending concentration greater than 5,000 mg/L (Pyne, 1995); on the aquifer’s distribution of vertical hydraulic con- in the Floridan aquifer system of southern Florida this ductivity.
8 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida Downgradient movement of a bubble of Interlayer dispersion causes mixing between injected recharged water due to the background hydraulic gra- and ambient waters in addition to the mixing in the dient could reduce recovery efficiency. Based on an transition zone. estimated gradient at the Hialeah ASR site in the Recovery efficiency increases with repeated Upper Floridan aquifer, reduction in recovery due to cycles. Twelve successive cycles of injection and this effect was simulated to be minor for a storage recovery, with recovery of up to only 250 mg/L chlo- period of 6 months, but not for 5 years (Merritt and ride concentration for each cycle, were simulated for a others, 1983). The average velocity of ambient flow, variety of longitudinal and transverse dispersivity referred to as the average linear velocity, is a function coefficients. Recovery efficiency improved substan- of both hydraulic conductivity and porosity as well as tially for all cases with repeated cycles, but the rate of the background hydraulic gradient (Freeze and Cherry, improvement diminished with increasing cycles 1979). (fig. 4). Recovery efficiency improves with repeated The structural setting of the storage zone at an cycles because much of the recharged water from a ASR site could be important to recovery (Water previous cycle is left in the aquifer, and during the next Resources Solutions, Inc., 1999a). Freshwater recov- cycle, recharged water mixes with water of a lower ery at a site located in an area that is structurally high salinity. or where the dip is low could be more favorable than in Well plugging can occur during recharge in the an area that is in a structural depression or where the Upper Floridan aquifer, reducing the recharge rate and dip is relatively high due to the tendency of the bubble freshwater recovery. This plugging is usually caused by of recharged water to move updip because of buoy- deposition of particulate matter in the injected water or ancy forces. This factor is likely to be more important by the formation of a precipitate or sludge caused by as the contrast in salinity and fluid density increases. reactions that occur at the wellbore face or in the aqui- Structural deformation may influence storage zone fer. One method used to restore formation injectivity is confinement due to fracturing, faulting, or vertical dis- periodic backflushing of the well during the recharge solution features. phase. At the Hialeah site, well backflushing produced very fine particles of calcite and an iron compound that Design and Management Factors had precipitated (Merritt, 1997). Plugging at the Lee The location of the storage zone relative to the County site is attributed to suspended material in the aquifer may be important. If a storage zone extends injected water and bacteriological growth at the open over only a portion of an aquifer’s thickness, this could borehole face (Fitzpatrick, 1986). Well plugging may negatively affect recovery. Merritt (1985) simulated affect one flow zone in an open-hole interval more than recovery in a case where the ASR storage zone another, reducing overall recovery. During recovery, extended only over the lower part of the important the less affected zone contributes most of the flow, and flow zone (zone with high permeability) near the top the salinity of water from this zone exceeds the limiting of the Upper Floridan aquifer. Results indicated that salinity level before all the recoverable freshwater from recovery efficiency was virtually unaffected compared the plugged zone is obtained. to the case with the well open to the full thickness of Various numbers and configurations of multiple the zone. However, the low ambient salinity (1,200 to storage wells at a site were modeled by Merritt (1985). 1,300 mg/L chloride concentration) and the moderate In that study, the number of wells were varied from hydraulic conductivity values that were used in the one to nine, and the well patterns were varied from a simulation prevented any appreciable buoyancy effects linear array to eight wells in an octagonal pattern with from occurring (effects that could cause vertical flow an additional well in the center. Greatest recovery effi- and mixing to increase). ciencies were attained in arrays consisting of a central The volume of injected water affects the recov- well surrounded by perimeter wells. Though in all ery efficiency. On a per cycle basis, recovery effi- cases, the recovery efficiencies for the multiple-well ciency generally increases as the total volume of configurations were no better than the single-well case injected water increases (Merritt, 1985). However, the injecting the same total volume as the array of wells. effect is much less beneficial when interlayer disper- Recovery efficiency could improve, however, when the sion (the transverse dispersion between layers of dif- total volume injected increases as the number of wells fering hydraulic conductivity in the aquifer) increases. injecting at a site increases.
Introduction 9 100
(2,0) 90 (4,0) (8,0)
80 (4,1)
70 (30,0) (30,10)
, IN PERCENT (20,0) 60
50
Y EFFICIENCY 40
EXPLANATION 30 INJECTION AND RECOVERY CYCLE (2,0) DISPERSION MODEL VALUES, IN FEET--First RECOVER value is longitudinal dispersivity coefficient. 20 Second value is transverse dispersivity coefficient
10 123456789101112 CYCLE NUMBER
Figure 4. Simulated improvement of potable water recovery efficiency with successive injection and recovery cycles for a variety of dispersion models. The Upper Floridan aquifer at the Hialeah aquifer storage and recovery site was used in the design of the model (modified from Merritt, 1985).
Hydrogeology fined above by thick units in the Hawthorn Group con- sisting of clay, marl, silt, or clayey sand; hydraulic The three principal hydrogeologic units in head in the aquifer is above land surface. The middle southern Florida are the surficial, intermediate, and confining unit of the Floridan aquifer system underlies Floridan aquifer systems. These aquifer systems in the the Upper Floridan aquifer and provides good to leaky western part of the study area (Lee, Hendry, and confinement. This confining unit consists of micritic Collier Counties) are described in figure 5. Water- limestone (wackstone to mudstone), dense dolomite, bearing rocks in the intermediate aquifer system grade and in some areas, beds of gypsum (fig. 5). The upper or pinch out to the east, and in southeastern Florida the and lower boundaries of the middle confining unit are intermediate aquifer system becomes the intermediate difficult to define, but its thickness has been estimated confining unit. The Floridan aquifer system consists of to range from 500 to 800 ft in southwestern Florida. the Upper Floridan aquifer, middle confining unit, and In southwestern Florida, the Upper Floridan Lower Floridan aquifer. Three of the aquifers used for aquifer includes the lower part of the Hawthorn Group, ASR in southern Florida are shown in figure 5; Suwannee Limestone, Ocala Limestone, and in some namely, the sandstone and mid-Hawthorn aquifers of areas, the upper part of the Avon Park Formation the intermediate aquifer system and the Upper Flori- (fig. 5). In southeastern Florida, the Suwannee Lime- dan aquifer. stone and Ocala Limestone are commonly absent The Upper Floridan aquifer is 500 to 1,200 ft (Reese, 2000; Reese and Memberg, 2000). In both thick in southern Florida (fig. 5; Reese, 1994 and eastern and western areas, the top of the Upper Reese and Memberg, 2000). This aquifer is well con- Floridan aquifer usually is contained within a basal
10 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida 0-60 0-130 0-100 (feet) 1,200? 20-100 10-250 25-160 20-100 500-800 100-400 700-1,200 thickness 1,400-1,800 Approximate 400 0-300 ZONE BOULDER UNIT MIDDLE UPPER AQUIFER AQUIFER AQUIFER AQUIFER FLORIDAN CONFINING PRODUCING ZONE LOWER HAWTHORN AQUIFER SANDSTONE SUB-FLORIDAN CONFINING UNIT WATER-TABLE CONFINING UNIT CONFINING UNIT CONFINING BEDS
CONFINING UNIT MID-HAWTHORN LOWER TAMIAMI
AQUIFER
LOWER FLORIDAN
QIE SYSTEM AQUIFER
SYSTEM
SYSTEM AQUIFER
Hydrogeologic unit FLORIDAN SURFICIAL EAQUIFER TE INTERMEDIA Lithology Fine-grained, micritic to fossiliferous limestone, dolomitic limestone, dense dolomite, and gypsum Silt, sandy clay, micritic limestone, sandy, shelly limestone, calcereous sand- stone, and quartz sand Dolomite and dolomitic limestone Quartz sand, silt, clay, and shell Massive anhydrite beds Interbedded sand, silt, gravel, clay, carbonate, and phosphatic sand Chalky to fossiliferous, calcarenitic limestone Sandy limestone, shell beds, dolomite, phosphatic sand and carbonate, sand, silt, and clay Fossiliferous, calcarenitic limestone ? 0-600 0-400 0-175 0-70 1,200? (feet) 50-400 900-1,200 800-1,400 500-700 400-550 thickness Approximate RIVER PEACE ? Unit ARCADIA FORMATION Geologic FORMATION OCALA TAMIAMI
OLDSMAR FORMATION AVON PARK LIMESTONE SUWANNEE FORMATION FORMATION ATONGROUP HAWTHORN LIMESTONE FORMATION CEDAR KEYS
UNDIFFERENTIATED
TE AL IDELA MIDDLE EARLY TO Generalized geologyhydrogeology and of Lee, Hendry, and Collier Counties(modified from2000). Reese, EARLY Series PLIOCENE HOLOCENE MIOCENE AND LATE OLIGOCENE PALEOCENE OLIGOCENE EOCENE Figure 5.
Introduction 11 Hawthorn unit, which is defined by an overlying stone, Ocala Limestone, and Avon Park Formation. marker unit composed of micritic limestone or marl Unconformities that formed at the end of the Oligocene (fig. 5; Reese and Memberg, 2000). In some areas and Eocene Epochs are present at these contacts (Miller, along the east coast, the Suwannee Limestone is either 1986), and zones of dissolution occur in association interpreted as being absent (Miller, 1986; Reese and with these unconformities in southern Florida (Meyer, Memberg, 2000) or present in the lower part of this 1989a). In southwestern Florida, the most important basal Hawthorn unit. flow zone tends to be associated with the top of the The Upper Floridan aquifer generally consists of Suwannee Limestone, whereas in southeastern Florida several thin water-bearing zones of high permeability it is the top of the Avon Park Formation or, if present, (flow zones) interlayered with thick zones of much the top of the Ocala Limestone. In both of these areas, lower permeability. Commonly, only one or two major the basal Hawthorn unit lies above this contact. flow zones provide the bulk of the productive capacity. The basal Hawthorn unit is shown in an east- These flow zones are often less than 20 ft thick each and west hydrogeologic section that extends across Palm tend to be in the upper part of the Upper Floridan aqui- Beach County near the southern end of Lake fer, typically at or near the top of the Suwannee Lime- Okeechobee (figs. 6 and 7). This unit is thickest along
80°45´ 80°30´ 80°15´ MARTIN COUNTY PB-1144 PALM BEACH COUNTY PB-1197
LAKE OKEECHOBEE L-8 PB-1182
INTRACOASTAL WEST PALM BEACH CANAL PGA Blvd WATERWAY
PB-1180
26°45´ PB-1689 PB-1690 PB-1186 PB-1132 A´ PB-1187 CANAL US 441 PB-1700 PB-1693 C-51 CANAL PB-1695 PB-1136 C-51 CROSS PB-1173 HILLSBORO PB-1172 A L-7 CANAL
NORTH CANAL HE-1087 PB-1163 BOLLES
CANAL NEW C-16 PB-1192
'S TURNPIKE
MIAMI WATER
CONSERVATION US 441 AREA NO. 1 26°30´ RIVER PB-1190
FLORIDA
CANAL C-15 CANAL
Y COUNTY PB-1168 I-95 L-6 CANAL
HENDR US 1
PALM BEACH COUNTY PALM BEACH COUNTY BROWARD COUNTY ATLANTIC OCEAN WATER CONSERVATION EXPLANATION AREA NO. 2A A A´ Hydrogeologic section CS-M2 26°15´ PB-1132 Well location and number CS-I1
0 5 10 MILES
0 5 10 KILOMETERS Figure 6. Trace of hydrogeologic section in Palm Beach County (modified from Reese and Memberg, 2000).
12 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida Aquifer storage and recovery Contact not penetrated in well. Position estimated Total depth of well, in feet below sea level Depth at which salinity increases to more than 10,000 milligrams per liter dissolved solids concentration Upper Floridan aquifer Middle confining unit of the Floridan aquifer system Lower Floridan aquifer South Florida Water Management District EXPLANATION ? * LFA UFA ASR MCU (1,110) SFWMD 600 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 200 800 Sea Level 1,600 1,200 1,800 1,400 1,000 400
A´ EC S WELL ASR BEACH
EAST ETPALM WEST ? PB-1693
(1,170)
ETWELL TEST
FM PBF-3,4,5 SFWMD PB-1695
(2,475) NETO WELL INJECTION LIMESTONE, SHELL, AND SAND
SAND, AND SILT ITITWASTEWATER DISTRICT
CEIMPROVEMENT ACME B17,1173 PB-1172, 00 5 5 10 10 KILOMETERS MILES AND SAND
DOLOMITE,
I ETWELLS TEST OIL B13 n PB-1700 and PB-1136 UNIT LIMESTONE, Beach County (modified from Reese and Memberg, 2000). LIMESTONE LIMESTONE DOLOMITE
CLAY, MARL, MICRITIC LIMESTONE,
I ETWELL TEST OIL
UHS&HUGHES & HUGHES PB-1132
* BASAL
INTERFACE UNIT HAWTHORN UNIT
CONFINING NETO WELL INJECTION SYSTEM AQUIFER
INTERMEDIATE WASTEWATER FLORIDAN
EL GLADE BELLE B18,1187 PB-1186, LFA UFA MCU UNIT
SURFICIAL AQUIFER SYSTEM
W-10080 DOLOMITE PB-1163
(1,110)
SALTWATER
2TS WELL TEST L2 (2,220) E18,SFWMD HE-1087, ? Hydrogeologic section extending east-west across Palm A WEST 200 400 600 800
1,400 1,600 1,000 1,200 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600
LEVEL EO SEA BELOW Sea Level FEET IN ALTITUDE, Figure 7.
Introduction 13 the coast and thins toward the center of the peninsula. visor at the Boynton Beach East WTP, was especially Also shown on the section (fig. 7) are the depths of the helpful in providing detailed water-quality records of saltwater interface in the Floridan aquifer system and a all cycles for the ASR well. Offices of the Under- unit composed mostly of dolomite and dolomitic lime- ground Injection Control Program of FDEP in West stone referred to as the dolomite unit (Reese and Palm Beach, Ft. Myers, and Tallahassee graciously Memberg, 2000). The saltwater interface (fig. 7) is provided additional ASR technical information and defined as the depth below which total dissolved solids data. Mark Pearce of Water Resource Solutions, Inc., concentration is greater than 10,000 mg/L. Cape Coral, Fla., provided helpful technical input. The dolomite unit of the Floridan aquifer system generally is considered to be within the uppermost per- meable unit of the Lower Floridan aquifer in southern INVENTORY OF WELL AND TEST DATA Florida (fig. 7; Meyer, 1989a). In some areas of Palm Well data were inventoried and compiled for all Beach County, however, the top of this unit is as high as wells at existing and historical ASR sites in southern 1,200 to 1,300 ft below sea level, as shown (for exam- Florida, and cycle test data (also available for many ple) by wells PB-1172 and PB-1173 in figure 7. In these sites) were synthesized. Consulting reports on the con- areas, it is uncertain whether all of the dolomite unit struction and testing of wells and on cycle testing pro- would be included in the Lower Floridan aquifer. vided much of these data. The consulting reports used The altitude of the basal contact of the Haw- to compile these data are listed in the selected refer- thorn Group (same as the base of the basal Hawthorn ences section at the back of this report. unit) was mapped for most of southern Florida in three Historical and current ASR sites are listed in previous studies (Reese, 1994, fig. 6; Reese, 2000, table 1 along with the utility or operator of the site, the fig. 7; and Reese and Memberg, 2000, fig. 6). Deter- aquifer being used for the storage zone, site status, mination of the depth of this contact was primarily type of source water used for injection, and number of based on lithology and gamma-ray geophysical log wells drilled at each site. The locations of these sites patterns. As described above, this contact does not are shown in figure 1. The number of injection (stor- necessarily correspond with the top of the Upper Flori- age) wells at each site ranges from one to five, and dan aquifer, but the most important flow zone(s) in the most sites have at least one monitoring well in the stor- Upper Floridan aquifer is typically associated with the age zone. contact. The altitude of this contact varies consider- The type of source water used for injection in ably in southern Florida, ranging from less than 600 ft southern Florida has included treated drinking water, to greater than 1,200 ft below sea level. Local relief raw ground or surface water, and reclaimed water can be as much as several hundred feet, particularly in (table 1). Treated drinking water is the most common southwestern Florida. source water type, but raw ground water also is used, Complex structure in the Hawthorn Group has or has been proposed for use, at a number of sites on been identified in Lee and Hendry Counties along the the east coast. The source water planned for the CERP Caloosahatchee River (Cunningham and others, 2001). ASR program is raw or partially treated ground water The wavy configuration patterns of seismic reflection or surface water (table 1, Western Hillsboro Canal, data show this structure, and these patterns are proba- site 1). Special permits, obtained through the FDEP bly related to karstic collapse of deeper limestone that Underground Injection Control program and the U.S. could be in the Floridan aquifer system. Environmental Protection Agency, are required to inject raw surface or ground water because these Acknowledgments waters sometimes exceed maximum contaminant levels for primary or secondary drinking water stan- A number of individuals, private consulting dards for some constituents. firms, water utilities, and regulatory agencies assisted in this study by providing data and technical input. Construction and Testing Data Maintenance supervisor John Reynolds of the Boynton Beach East WTP and lead operators Guy Bartolotta Construction and testing data were compiled (Broward County WTP 2A), John Cargill (Fiveash into three main categories. These categories are well WTP), and Howard Erlick (Springtree WTP) were identification, location, and construction data; hydrau- very helpful in providing information and conducting lic well-test data; and ambient formation water-quality tours of their sites. Steve Evans, Water Quality Super- data.
14 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida Well Identification and Construction Data came from consulting reports in the selected refer- ences listed at the back of this report. For the purpose of this study, all ASR storage and associated monitoring wells were assigned a Some tests reported in table 3 (at end of report) USGS number, and data from these wells have been are single-well step drawdown tests run to determine stored as part of the USGS Ground-Water Site Inven- the specific capacity of a well. These tests provide tory (GWSI) database. Well identification, location, insight into the productive capacity of a well and are and construction data are given in table 2 (at end of used to determine the size and depth of a pump to be report). The construction information includes total used in the well for a multiwell test or for long-term hole depth, ending date of construction, casing depth operation. At some sites, the transmissivity of the and diameter, type of each casing string set in the well, tested interval was estimated from a step drawdown and the completed (constructed) open interval and its test using the specific capacity at each step. At the diameter. In most cases, the completed interval is open Marco Lakes ASR site, transmissivity was determined hole, but a gravel-packed screen was installed in a few during a step drawdown test of ASR-3 by analyzing wells. At many sites, the first well drilled was plugged the resulting drawdown data from nearby wells using back to the selected storage zone after being drilled the Cooper and Jacob (1946) solution. Transmissivity deeper to test other potential zones or to determine was estimated at the Boynton Beach East WTP site water-quality changes with depth. In many instances, from a step drawdown test of ASR-1 using the Cooper the latitude and longitude provided herein were and Jacob (1946) solution, but without any monitoring obtained from the construction permit, and this loca- wells. Specific capacity determined from step draw- tion is representative of the storage well only; how- down tests of storage zones range from 2.7 gal/min/ft ever, in some instances, the latitude and longitude at the Marathon site to 390 gal/min/ft at the West Palm were more precisely determined for all wells at a site Beach site, well ASR-1 (table 3 at end of report). Spe- by the use of a hand-held global positioning system cific capacity was reported to be 1,600 gal/min/ft on (GPS) (see footnote 1 in table 2 at end of report). the basis of a multiwell test at the Taylor Creek/Nub- bin Slough (Lake Okeechobee) site. The thickness of the open interval ranges from 45 ft at the Marco Lakes (well C-1206) and Marathon Packer tests are tests of open-hole intervals con- (well MO-189) sites to 452 ft at the West Well Field ducted during drilling using inflatable packers set on a site (well G-3706) (fig. 8; table 2 at end of reort). Open string of drill pipe for the purpose of isolating the intervals for ASR wells in the Floridan aquifer system interval to be tested. Often, only specific capacity data average 172 ft thick. The diameter of the open interval are reported for packer tests (table 3 at end of report). ranges from 5.125 in. at the St. Lucie County site to However, transmissivity can be estimated either from 29 in. at the West Well Field site in Miami-Dade the specific capacity results, or from analysis of the County. Large diameter open intervals are constructed recovery of water level after a period of constant rate for the purpose of obtaining a high rate of flow. Each pumping during a packer test. This latter method, of the storage wells at the West Well Field site is known as the Theis (1935) residual drawdown or designed for a pumping rate of up to 5 Mgal/d. recovery analysis, gives a more reliable estimate than the specific capacity method. Packer test results can be unreliable because of partial penetration, a low pump- Hydraulic Well-Test Data ing rate, a short pumping period, or incomplete isola- Reported data describing hydraulic tests were tion of the interval tested (leaky packers). compiled for ASR well systems. The data include the Hydraulic properties determined from a multi- reported results of packer tests conducted during drill- well, constant rate, drawdown test include transmissiv- ing, step drawdown tests, single-well constant rate ity, storage coefficient, and leakance. Solutions recovery tests, and multiwell constant rate tests commonly used to analyze water-level data from this (table 3 at end of report). Tests of other permeable type of test include Theis (1935) and Cooper and intervals at a site that are shallower or deeper than the Jacob (1946) for confined aquifers and Hantush and interval selected to be the storage zone are also Jacob (1955) and Walton (1962) for semiconfined, included (table 3 at end of report). Water-level data leaky aquifers. Depending on the amount of drawdown were not analyzed as part of this study; rather, all of (pumping rate) and the degree of background varia- the analytical results given in table 3 (at end of report) tions in water level, such as tidal fluctuations,
Inventory of Well and Test Data 15 82°30´ 82°00´ 81°30´ 81°00´ 80°30´ 80°00´
27°30´ ATLANTIC OCEAN HARDEE OKEECHOBEE MANATEE COUNTY ST. LUCIE COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY SARASOTA 20 COUNTY HIGHLANDS 442 175 DE SOTO COUNTY 27 COUNTY MARTIN COUNTY 27°00´ 193 169 GLADES 5 CHARLOTTE COUNTY Lake 290 6 COUNTY Okeechobee 21 61 24 102 9 14 11 215 155 PALM BEACH COUNTY 12 98 HENDRY COUNTY 22 LEE 105 26°30´ COUNTY69 25 10 90 GULF OF MEXICO 104 13 210 23 51 26 1168 2205 160 BROWARD COUNTY 8 4 45 COLLIER COUNTY 3 7 145 26°00´ 63
150 15
MONROE COUNTY 452 17 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
25°30´
EXPLANATION 17 WELL LOCATION AND SITE 452 NUMBER AND THICKNESS OF 25°00´ STORAGE INTERVAL--Thickness in feet
0 10 20 30 MILES 45 0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS 19
24°30´
Figure 8. Thickness of open interval in storage wells at aquifer storage and recovery sites in southern Florida. All wells represent first storage well at each site (see table 2).
16 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida background water-level measurements should be made aquifer is included in the storage zone. Transmissivity for at least 1 day prior to the beginning of the pumping values range from 800 ft2/d at the Lee County site to test, and these measurements should be subtracted nearly 590,000 ft2/d at the Lake Okeechobee site. The from the drawdown water-level data collected during highest value in the Upper Floridan aquifer is 108,000 the test. Single-well constant rate tests usually provide ft2/d at the West Palm Beach WTP site. The average only an estimate of transmissivity, and solutions used value for sites in the Upper Floridan aquifer is 21,100 to analyze the recovery water-level data from these ft2/d, and values greater than 30,000 ft2/d are consid- tests include the Theis (1935) solution for residual ered to be high in this study. drawdown and the Cooper and Jacob (1946) solution. The high transmissivity estimate at the Lake Multiwell constant rate tests of the storage zone Okeechobee site (fig. 9) is a function of the large thick- were performed at 16 of the ASR sites (table 3 at end ness of the open interval and the dominant lithology in of report), and not including packer tests, single-well this interval, which is dolomite. The storage zone con- constant rate recovery tests of the storage zone were tains several highly permeable flow zones that may run at 4 sites, 2 of which also had a multiwell-test run. have secondary fracture permeability. The open inter- Constant rate test results could be affected by pretest val in the ASR well for the Lee County WTP site is well treatment designed to increase specific capacity. confined to the lower Hawthorn producing zone of the Acidization of the ASR well prior to the multiwell test basal Hawthorn unit (Reese, 2000). A second ASR site was done at the Springtree WTP and West Well Field was later constructed at the same location (Olga WTP sites. The Western Hillsboro site planned recharge site). The Olga WTP site storage zone is deeper in the well (EXW-1) also was acidized after the reported step Upper Floridan aquifer and is contained within the drawdown test (table 3 at end of report). Suwannee Limestone, about 150 ft below the top of Hydraulic properties determined from tests of this formation (Water Resources Solutions, Inc., storage zones may apply only to the storage zone or to 2000a). The estimated transmissivity for the Olga stor- a thicker interval if the aquifer containing the storage age zone is 9,400 ft2/d (fig. 9; table 3 at end of report). zone is thicker than the storage zone. In the case where Leakance of the tested aquifer was determined the aquifer is thicker than the storage zone, the hydrau- at eight sites in the Floridan aquifer system by multi- lic conductivity of a storage zone will be less than that well aquifer tests, and values are higher than expected obtained by dividing the transmissivity determined (table 3 at end of report). Leakance is a measure of the from a test by the thickness of the storage zone. How- degree of aquifer confinement and is defined as the ever, in the Upper Floridan aquifer where thick zones vertical hydraulic conductivity of a confining unit, of relatively low permeability separate flow zones, divided by the thickness of the confining unit. How- tests of part of the aquifer are typically not influenced ever, leakance determined from an aquifer test applies by the entire thickness of the aquifer. Thus, the value to both the upper and lower confining units of the of transmissivity obtained is less than the total trans- aquifer, unless it is known that one of the confining missivity of the aquifer (Wedderburn and Knapp, units is nonleaky. Leakance estimates ranged from 3.9 1983). x 10-5 1/d at the West Well Field site to 6.3 x 10-2 1/d For 18 sites where the storage zone is in the at the Deerfield Beach West WTP site. Leakance esti- Floridan aquifer system, the most reliable or represen- mates less than 1 x 10-3 1/d have been used to indicate tative values for transmissivity from storage zone tests confining conditions in the surficial aquifer system in were selected and then plotted on a map of southern southern Florida (Reese and Cunningham, 2000). Of Florida (fig. 9). In most cases, these values came from the eight values determined for leakance (table 3 at drawdown analysis of constant rate multiwell tests; if end of report), five exceed this limiting value. Lea- performed, the leaky aquifer solution was used. The kance was greater than 4.0 x 10-2 1/d at the Deerfield storage zone is in the Upper Floridan aquifer in all Beach West WTP, Olga WTP, and the St. Lucie cases, except at the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (Lake County sites. Leakance may also be high at the West Okeechobee) and the West Well Field sites. At the Lake Palm Beach WTP site. The confined aquifer Theis Okeechobee site, this zone is in the Lower Floridan (1935) solution was used to analyze the multiwell-test aquifer (Quiñones-Aponte and others, 1996), and at the data collected at this site, despite a large observed West Well Field site, some of the mid-Hawthorn aqui- departure below the type curve during the latter part of fer in addition to the upper part of the Upper Floridan the test indicating a leaky aquifer.
Inventory of Well and Test Data 17 82°30´ 82°00´ 81°30´ 81°00´ 80°30´ 80°00´
27°30´ ATLANTIC OCEAN HARDEE OKEECHOBEE MANATEE COUNTY ST. LUCIE COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY SARASOTA 20 COUNTY HIGHLANDS 590,000 5,900 DE SOTO COUNTY 27 COUNTY MARTIN COUNTY 27°00´ 1,300 GLADES 5 6 CHARLOTTE COUNTY Lake 4,700 COUNTY Okeechobee 9,400 8,300 14 Caloosahatchee 108,000 24 11 9 800 River 27,000 PALM BEACH COUNTY LEE HENDRY COUNTY 12 COUNTY 9,400 26°30´ 22 GULF OF MEXICO 70,000 13 24,000 1 2 29,000 20,000 8 BROWARD 3 9,100 COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY 4 26°00´ 5,700
11,000 15
MONROE COUNTY 15,000 17 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
25°30´ EXPLANATION 8 SITE LOCATION, NUMBER AND 9,100 TRANSMISSIVITY--Transmissivity in square feet per day
0 10 20 30 MILES 0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS
25°00´
Figure 9. Transmissivity determined for storage zones in the Floridan aquifer system at aquifer storage and recovery sites in southern Florida. The production well used for the test at all sites was ASR-1, except for sites 15 and 27 where MW-1 was used.
The high leakance estimates from the Upper The inventoried data describe formation water salinity Floridan aquifer are probably best attributed to leakage and include the sampled interval, sample date, specific from below the tested interval rather than from above conductance, dissolved chloride concentration, dis- because of the good confinement generally accepted as solved solids concentration, temperature, and dis- being present above the aquifer in southern Florida solved sulfate concentration. The sampling methods, (Bush and Johnston, 1988). This leakage either origi- listed in order of increasing reliability, include (1) col- nated from intervals lower in the Upper Floridan aqui- lected during drilling by the reverse-air rotary method, fer or from the middle confining unit of the Floridan (2) collected from packer tests, (3) collected from a aquifer system. pump out test of an open interval below casing before final construction of the well, and (4) collected from a Ambient Water-Quality Data completed open interval. Intervals sampled include the Ambient water-quality data were collected from storage zone, intervals deeper and shallower than the storage and monitoring wells at ASR sites (table 4). storage zone, and intervals that include more than the
18 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida
------400 400 250 644 21 664 1,106 204 sulfate per liter) Dissolved (milligrams ------25.0 31.0 21.0 21.0 ature Temper- Celsius) (degrees rmined or not reported. ------solids 3,800 3,400 3,700 2,600 4,520 279 2,020 1,918 10,267 31,133 22,100 6,000 5,032 per liter) Dissolved (milligrams packer test interval; R, sample testcol- packer interval; ------11,595 19,350 24.2 1,279 1,850 2,000 3,800 1,900 3,800 22.73,200 25.0 -- 3,600 -- 400 3,524 6,030 380 7,880 28.0 -- 774 900 1,900 725 -- 380 837 2,090 -- -- 2,450 17,0005,287 -- -- 723 -- -- 2,000 1,600 1,800 1,900 2,200 2,449 4,000 -- 24 -- 850 -- 5,200 12,00017,500 21,10010,997 4,458 2,875 --8,040 2,754 881 10,000 21.018,000 535 4,000 chloride per liter) Dissolved (milligrams ------5,400 6,000 7,310 7,800 3,540 16,800 50,100 21,600 8,410 8,030 -- Specific conductance (microsiemens per centimeter) plant; PD, post development; --, not dete --, not postplant; development; PD, -- -- ] Date 11-90 11-90 11-90 sampled 12-11-92 11-18-97 09-30-92 09-09-92 03-12-97 07-31-97 01-15-98 03-02-00 03-06-00 04-20-00 04-18-00 10-15-91 well systems in southernFlorida Collier County Broward County Broward Charlotte County P 11-05-97 -- PP 12-18-90 11-90 -- -- P 02-26-00 31,600 P P P C CC C 09-03-92C C 09-30-925,430 C 12-03-965,400 C CR -- C 01-13-98C 03-17-989,300 R C 9,345 C 08-07-99CC -- 03-31-00C 27,000 C C C 11-90 -- R --4,300 C 04-18-00 11,780 O of Type interval 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Interval sampled (feet below land surface) 700-755 764-933 507-700 320-398 1,220-1,270 360-500 960-1,128 960-1,128 960-1,128 990-1,200 1,110-1,270 1,055-1,300 180-200 700-1,040 700-764 295-808 630-808 510-700 170-205 465-528 970-1,110 1,330-1,610 650-770 960-1,120 960-1,128 1,110-1,270 563-583 1,110-1,340 995-1,200 1,055-1,175 om aquifer storageom aquiferrecovery and treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment wastewater treatment plant; WWTP, local USGS C-1102 C-1202 G-2887 G-2916 G-2917 G-2919 CH-315 CH-318 CH-319 CH-321 number TPW Other Other MW-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 G-2889 MW-A IMW-1 CH-320 280-320 SMW-1 SMW-1 FMW-1 G-2918 identifier SZMW-1 Ambient water-quality data collected fr Site name Springtree WTP ASR-1 G-2914 Deerfield Beach West Deerfield Beach West WTP Fiveash WTP WTP Creek Shell Englewood South Regional WWTP Road Manatee Broward County WTP 2A County Broward Table 4. water [USGS, U.S. Geological WTP, Survey; casingdrilling; during P, below C, constructedO, pump (completed) out of interval: interval test of openopen interval; Type lected during reverse-air rotarydrilling being the base of casing withduringlectedinterval top of reverse-air
Inventory of Well and Test Data 19
------744 800 718 663 758 699 686 270 18 34 354 414 323 sulfate per liter) Dissolved (milligrams ------25.8 29.8 26.3 26.5 27.0 28.5 28.5 ature Temper- Celsius) (degrees rmined or not reported. not or rmined ------solids 6,620 5,500 6,180 5,620 4,280 5,665 5,816 3,920 1,520 336 348 1,770 2,998 2,410 per liter) Dissolved (milligrams packer test interval; R, sample col- R, sample test interval; packer 2,520 3,740 3,260 2,590 2,480 2,449 2,999 2,958 2,680 2,774 500 39 100 600 42 700 740 750 890 700 740 720 1,000 972 770 1,240 1,282 1,540 chloride per liter) Dissolved (milligrams ------6,000 8,500 6,860 8,700 9,120 9,120 8,860 2,500 640 1,930 2,400 2,450 2,450 3,230 2,640 2,710 2,450 3,244 3,860 3,240 Specific conductance (microsiemens per centimeter) per plant; PD, post development; --, not dete --, plant; PD,development; post -- PD PD ] Date sampled 11-24-99 12-11-98 11-01-99 11-01-99 06-24-97 07-01-97 07-01-97 09-20-99 09-20-99 10-01-99 09-25-79 09-09-95 08-17-94 08-24-94 04-04-97 03-02-99 03-04-99 03-10-99 12-07-98 12-09-98 12-16-98 12-18-98 06-16-99 06-17-99 09-16-99 Lee County P P P P P P P P P C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C of Type Collier County--Continued interval d recovery well systems in southern Florida --(Continued) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Interval sampled (feet below land surface) 745-790 745-790 293-352 745-817 735-780 735-780 440-470 725-774 735-780 735-780 475-615 328-397 524-578 744-778 340-402 540-642 540-642 540-642 480-518 529-619 640-703 808-890 904-977 455-574 455-575 455-553 455-553 150-200 treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment wastewater treatment plant; WWTP, local USGS L-5811 L-5855 L-5810 C-1211 C-1206 C-1207 C-1208 C-1209 number ed) open interval; O, pump out test of open interval below casing during drilling; P, casingduring drilling;below P, pump O, open out test ofed) interval open interval; Other MW-1 ASR-1 ASR-2 ASR-3 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 MW-A L-5856 DZMW LM3982 identifier SZMW-1 LM-6208 LM-6210 MHMW-1 ASRZMW C-1210 MHZ2MW Ambient water-quality data collected from aquifer storage an Site name Marco Lakes WTP Lee County WTP Corkscrew MW-1 L-2530 North Reservoir Avenue Winkler Table 4. 4. Table lected during reverse-air rotary drillingbeing base thewithlectedcasing top during ofreverse-air of interval [USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; WTP, water water WTP, Survey; Geological U.S. [USGS, constructed C, (complet interval: of Type
20 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida
------560 520 580 77 500 480 615 662 sulfate per liter) Dissolved (milligrams ------31.5 23.0 25.0 ature Temper- Celsius) (degrees rmined or notrmined or reported. ------solids 2,800 3,000 2,800 950 2,920 2,830 4,390 4,300 per liter) per Dissolved (milligrams packer test interval; R, sample col- R, sample interval; test packer 1,100 1,100 1,100 340 1,000 260 1,140 850 970 1,200 1,200 2,449 2,499 chloride per liter) Dissolved (milligrams 6,600 1,900 ------4,680 4,590 1,110 1,100 2,900 2,677 3,000 32.2 1,000 31.2 560 -- 520 -- -- 8,980 6,750 2,000 2,349 5,98049,000 4,040 25.0 20,800 -- 238 37,200 595 -- 2,910 4,660 4,700 4,570 1,694 2,690 1,427 3,420 3,461 2,928 2,793 1,000 2,948 900 -- 4,750 -- 4,200 -- 6,650 -- 6,520 -- -- 1,681 370 920 28.5 83 10,590 4,649 7,220 25.0 466 1,988 540 2,350 -- 790 ------Specific conductance (microsiemens per centimeter) per -- ] Date sampled 11-09-99 11-20-74 06-07-99 07-29-99 08-02-99 01-06-99 02-04-99 02-08-99 03-25-99 12-04-74 02-25-97 02-06-97 Monroe County Monroe Miami-Dade County P PP P 02-30-99 P 02-04-99 P P 01-05-99 P 03-25-99 C 07-24-75 R R-- C R-- C C CC 10-21-99 C C CC C 01-26-97 C 04-09-97 C 05-04-90 R-- C 02-06-97 of Lee County--Continued Type interval TP, wastewater treatment plant; PD, post development; --, not --, dete treatmentplant; PD, post development; wastewater TP, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Interval sampled (feet below land surface) 850-1,302 387-432 840-940 715-940 650-687 650-701 659-721 234-321 859-920 617-694 840-940 950-1,106 857-945 955-1,105 953-1,060 845-1,250 855-1,010 234-321 835-1,210 650-718 659-721 859-920 1,370-1,390 520-610 826-945 om aquifer storageom and recovery well systemssouthern in Florida--(Continued) ) open interval; O, pump out test of open interval below casing during drilling; P, casing during drilling;below pumpP, O, out open test of) interval open interval; local USGS L-5812 L-5816 L-5817 L-5818 G-3062 840-844 G-3061 G-3062 G-3707 G-3709 number Other MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 MW-3 ASR-1 ASR-1 G-3706 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-2 ASR-3 G-3708 SMW-1 L-5815 identifier LM-6086 LM-6209 LM-6615 SZMW-1R L-5814 Ambient water-quality data collected fr Site name Olga WTP West Well Field San Carlos Estates San Carlos Hialeah Marathon ASR-1 MO-189 Table 4. Table lected during reverse-air rotary being drillingcasing base the oflected with of top interval during reverse-air [USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; WTP, water treatmentplant;WW water WTP, [USGS, U.S. GeologicalSurvey; constructed (completed C, interval: of Type
Inventory of Well and Test Data 21
------210 570 630 760 930 400 436 617 430 sulfate per liter) Dissolved (milligrams ------35.0 28.5 28.0 30.0 29.0 28.0 27.5 27.0 25.0 ature Temper- Celsius) (degrees rmined or not reported. solids 5,730 7,180 656 4,000 4,230 5,740 6,710 820 5,230 4,060 3,910 21,900 5,670 4,363 4,752 8,000 3,800 4,150 3,830 3,550 per liter) Dissolved (milligrams packer test interval; R, sample col- R, sample test interval; packer 2,600 2,300 3,800 4,270 ------2,910 3,100 131 1,680 1,900 2,510 2,920 210 2,200 1,800 1,920 12,100 2,630 2,143 2,069 2,300 2,600 2,750 2,520 2,381 2,556 4,234 -- -- 2,669 2,057 5,529 4,255 -- 2,800 -- 5,056 ------2,060 2,100 3,650 -- 4,080 -- 23.7 -- 467 chloride per liter) Dissolved (milligrams ------7,700 7,970 6,810 9,270 800 4,800 4,800 7,500 7,500 6,400 6,670 33,100 9,160 7,440 6,930 7,700 8,290 7,120 7,350 8,480 6,800 7,600 6,860 7,820 Specific conductance (microsiemens per centimeter) ] Date sampled 11-04-89 11-16-96 04-17-91 04-20-88 04-25-88 04-25-88 04-24-88 04-23-88 04-17-91 04-17-91 06-19-74 05-21-92 05-21-92 06-05-96 06-14-96 07-26-96 09-20-96 08-22-96 09-01-96 09-06-96 Palm Beach County Palm Okeechobee County Okeechobee P P P P P P P P PP 06-11-96 06-18-96 P 09-14-96 C C C C C C C C C 07-17-97 C C 01-28-99 OO 08-29-96 09-04-96 O O 09-06-96 O O of Type interval and recovery wellrecoveryandsouthern systems in Florida --(Continued) mp out test of open interval below casing during drilling; P, casing during drilling;below P, mpoutopen test of interval 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Interval sampled (feet below land surface) 900-952 1,020-1,100 1,020-1,200 975-1,090 975-1,290 1,304-1,384 1,268-1,710 1,268-1,710 1,175-1,227 1,288-1,354 1,347-1,370 1,358-1,508 1,540-1,662 990-1,075 1,275-1,700 990-1,280 804-909 300-320 849-899 974-1,020 1,020-1,120 1,016-1,200 975-1,091 975-1,190 975-1,384 975-1,191 985-1,200 1,065-1,155 r treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; PD, post development; --, not treatmentplant; dete PD, post development; wastewater treatmentr plant;WWTP, local USGS number PB-1194 PB-1702 PB-1693 Other MW-1 PB-1195 MW-1 MW-1 OK -9001 MW-1 OK -9002 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 OK -9000 ASR-1 PB-1692 ASR-1 PB-1763 identifier Ambient water-quality data collected from aquifer storage Site name Taylor Creek/Nubbin Taylor Slough (Lake Okeechobee) JupiterBoynton Beach East WTP Delray BeachNorth Reservoir Storage ASR-1 PB-747 West Palm Beach WTP West System 3 Palm Beach Beach 3 Palm System County lected during reverse-air rotary being drilling thecasing with base ofof toplected interval duringreverse-air [USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; WTP, wate WTP, [USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; constructedpu C, O, (completed)openinterval: of interval; Type Table 4.
22 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida
------sulfate per liter) Dissolved (milligrams -- -- 23.9 23.8 27.8 27.8 ature Temper- Celsius) (degrees rmined or not reported. not or rmined ------solids 2,058 2,379 per liter) Dissolved (milligrams packer test interval; R,col- sample test interval; packer -- -- 1,390 2,706 888 955 chloride per liter) Dissolved (milligrams 3,898 8,223 6,900 9,440 3,400 3,325 3,200 1,015 1,888 27.8 -- 3,500 1,022 2,143 27.8 -- Specific conductance (microsiemens per centimeter) per systems in southern Florida --(Continued) ] Date sampled 11-18-00 03-11-82 04-05-00 04-07-00 01-24-01 03-12-82 St. Lucie County P P P P 03-12-82 C C C C 03-12-82 of Type wastewater treatment plant; PD, post development; --, not treatment --, dete plant; PD,development; postwastewater interval Palm Beach County--Continued Palm 1 1 1 1 1 pump out test of open interval below casing during drilling; P, casingduring drilling;P, below pump of open interval out test Interval sampled (feet below land surface) 770-1,000 1,160-1,225 1,015-1,150 1,015-1,225 1,015-1,225 600-766 600-775 600-775 om aquiferom and storage recovery well local USGS number PB-1767 STL-356 Other MW-1 STL-357 ASR-1 EXW-1 PB-1765 identifier PBF-10R Ambient Ambient water-quality data collected fr Site name Interval tested is the same (or about Interval the same) as the storage zone. 1 Western Hillsboro Hillsboro Canal, Western Site 1 County Lucie St. Table 4. 4. Table WWTP, plant; treatment water WTP, Survey; Geological U.S. [USGS, C, constructed (completed) O, of interval: open interval; Type rotary drillingbeinglected basewiththe duringcasing top ofreverse-air of interval
Inventory of Well and Test Data 23 selected storage zone (table 4). Upper Floridan aquifer 3,000 mg/L, and the average concentration was about ASR sites in southwestern Florida were usually sam- 2,300 mg/L. Storage zones containing water with pled from shallower permeable zones of the intermedi- 3,000 mg/L or greater were considered to have high ate aquifer system. chloride concentration in this study. The highest value The chloride concentration of ambient water in found in the east coast area was 3,600 mg/L at the ASR storage zones in the Floridan aquifer system is Springtree WTP site. The highest chloride concentra- shown on a map of southern Florida (fig. 10). Samples tion found in the upper part of the Upper Floridan used for this map were selected from table 4 based on the most reliable sampling method as described above. aquifer in southern Florida based on three previous Chloride concentrations ranged from 500 mg/L at the studies was 8,000 mg/L in northeastern Palm Beach Lee County WTP site to 11,000 mg/L at the Engle- County; the lowest concentration found was 400 mg/L wood South Regional WWTP site. At most sites, the in Lee County (Reese, 1994; Reese, 2000; and Reese chloride concentration ranged from about 1,000 to and Memberg, 2000).
82°30´ 82°00´ 81°30´ 81°00´ 80°30´ 80°00´
27°30´ ATLANTIC OCEAN HARDEE OKEECHOBEE MANATEE COUNTY ST. LUCIE COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY SARASOTA 27 COUNTY HIGHLANDS 2,900 950 DE SOTO COUNTY 20 COUNTY MARTIN COUNTY 27°00´ 900 GLADES 5 6 CHARLOTTE COUNTY Lake 1,800 11,000 COUNTY Okeechobee 21 14 1,100 11 Caloosahatchee 2,800 24 750 9 500 River PALM BEACH COUNTY 12 HENDRY COUNTY 1,200 LEE 1,900 22 26°30´ COUNTY 2,300 GULF OF MEXICO 23 13 26 1,100 2,700 1 2 3 3,500 8 BROWARD COUNTY 2,600 3,600 4 COLLIER COUNTY 26°00´
1,200 15
MONROE COUNTY 2,400 17 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
25°30´ EXPLANATION 17 SITE LOCATION, NUMBER AND 2,400 CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION-- Concentration in milligrams per liter
0 10 20 30 MILES
0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS 25°00´
Figure 10. Ambient water salinity of storage zones in the Floridan aquifer system at aquifer storage and recovery sites in southern Florida.
24 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida Cycle Test Data tree WTP sites had 5 cycles each; the number of cycles was 4 or less at all other sites. Additional cycles were Cycle test information was obtained from con- conducted at the Manatee Road site, but were not sulting reports, other published reports, monthly oper- reported. Recharge volume per cycle ranged from as ating reports (MOR) required by the FDEP as part of low as 0.6 Mgal for cycle 1 at the Lee County WTP the permitting process during operational testing, and site, to as high as 714.33 Mgal during cycle 3 at the in several cases, from daily records provided by a West Well Field site. The longest storage period was WTP. These data were compiled and are given in 181 days for cycle 3 at the Hialeah site. table 5. All of the test data given are only for the first storage well (ASR-1) at a site, except for the West The highest reported first cycle potable recovery Well Field site. Only 18 of the 27 ASR sites listed in efficiency was 47 percent for the Boynton Beach ASR table 1 are included in table 5; other ASR sites have site. The first cycle recovery efficiency of the Cork- not initiated operational testing or test data were not screw WTP site is greater but is not considered here available. Cycle testing at the Olga WTP and North due to the potable nature of water in its storage zone. Reservoir sites was postponed due to inadequate Except for the Jupiter site where no potable water was treated drinking water supplies that will be used for reported to be recovered on the first cycle, the lowest recharge. The number of days of storage in table 5 potable recovery efficiency was 2 percent at the San includes only the time between the recharge and Carlos Estates site. Of the 16 sites in table 5 with pota- recovery periods; it does not include days during the ble recovery efficiencies calculated, 9 sites had a pota- recharge period in which injection ceased due to a lack ble recovery efficiency of well over 10 percent during of source water or other operational problems. The the first cycle. The seven exceptions include Fiveash MOR provided insufficient data to calculate recovery WTP, Manatee Road, North Reservoir, San Carlos efficiencies at some ASR sites because the water qual- Estates, Lake Okeechobee, Jupiter, and St. Lucie ity of recharged and recovered water was not reported; County sites. Two of these, the Manatee Road and these data are not required by the FDEP in the report. Jupiter sites, showed improvement to a level substan- Two recovery efficiency numbers were deter- tially higher than 10 percent in succeeding cycles. The mined for each cycle (table 5). The first is total recov- Fiveash, San Carlos Estates, and Lake Okeechobee ery efficiency, and it is the percent recovery at the end sites did not; however, few cycles were conducted at of the cycle. The chloride concentration of the recov- these three sites (two, two and four, respectively). ered water at this point is also given in table 5. The Only one cycle was run at the North Reservoir and chloride concentration at the end of the cycle is usually St. Lucie County sites. in the range of 250 to 400 mg/L. The second recovery Ten sites achieved a potable recovery efficiency efficiency number is the potable water recovery effi- exceeding 30 percent during at least one cycle; how- ciency. It is the percent recovery when the chloride ever, at the Shell Creek WTP site, the recovery effi- concentration of the recovered water reaches only 250 ciency diminished to 9 percent during the third cycle mg/L. Potable water recovery efficiency numbers when the recharge volume was greatly increased. The (potable recovery efficiencies) are used in this report highest potable recovery efficiency of 90 percent was for performance comparisons between sites. during cycle 4 at the Boynton Beach East WTP site, Chloride concentrations of recharged and recov- but the recharge volume reported for this cycle could ered water for the West Palm Beach WTP site were not be too low. This recharge volume is based on flow reported or made available, and only the total recovery totalizer equipment readings, but calculation of the efficiencies are given in table 5. At the West Well Field recharge volume based on reported daily flow rates site, two storage wells were active during the second gives a higher number. The second highest recovery cycle and all three storage wells were active during the efficiency was 84 percent for cycle 16 at the Boynton third cycle. However, water was not recovered from Beach site. Recovery efficiency was 72 percent for well ASR-3 during the cycle 3 recovery period. For cycle 4 at the Marathon site; however, the storage zone cycle 3, recovery efficiencies were determined for at this site is within a siliciclastic sandstone aquifer. individual storage wells and also for all three wells Because of lower dispersive mixing, recovery from a combined (table 5). siliciclastic aquifer may be larger, having only inter- The Boynton Beach East WTP site underwent granular porosity as compared to carbonate rock 16 recharge-recovery cycles (table 5). The Marathon storage zones that probably also have secondary, con- site had 11 cycles, and the Marco Lakes and Spring- duit type porosity (Merritt, 1985).
Inventory of Well and Test Data 25 15 30 9 24 32 NR 2 water 6.8 concen- chloride (percent) tration of of tration 250 mg/L Recovery recovered efficiency at >6.23 >20 >26 >28 >37.5 >10.9 solids concentration
15 20 >20 37 37 20 26 28 30 9 5 8 30 39 38 >38 2 6.23 (per- cent) at end ciency Recov- ery effi- 21.1 >21.1 37.5 10.9 27.5 >27.5 of cycle ] 250 225 225 213 222 225 250 250 300 300 300 300 cycle end of (mg/L) ater than water at at water concen- Chloride tration of recovered eports. DS, dissolved actedfrom monthly operating reports and 80 of 30 35 65 60 60 100 60 60 60 60 2 water (mg/L) tration 180-230 concen- Chloride recharge (Mgal) volume Recovery 4 52 11 15 1.2 1.47 1.8 .33 2.57 3.02 3.94 (Mgal) volume Recharge 20 196 40 40 120 11.04 33 4.9 NR 20.3 225 6.98 30.38 10 10 at the site (ASR-1). *Data extr (days) 10, 1, 2 10, 0, 1 21, 0, 9 24, 1, 3 14, 6, 2 periods storage, 87, 9, 22 87, 9, 10 40, 1, 6 46, 19, 6 20, 8 20, recovery 62, 32, 14 62, 178, 31, 31 Recharge, 1 Collier County Broward County Broward Charlotte County Charlotte End date 03-11-99 11-06-91 07-21-98 10-12-99 03-27-00 10-23-99 08-07-99 02-08-00 01-14-92 09-06-92 10-25-92 cle test data are frompublished consultingotherreports or r only for the first storageonly well for thefirst date ning Begin- 11-11-91 11-13-98 07-09-98 08-22-99 12-10-99 10-12-99 07-01-99 01-10-00 10-16-91 07-28-92 09-15-92 Cycle 1 07-29-09 08-17-99 20, 0, 4 20 4 70 61 23 08-16-99 09-08-99 01-10-00 17, 0, 8 02-08-00 1.6 24, 1, 3 .59 20.3 75 NA 250 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 1 07-27-983 11-12-98 91, 0, 17 10-13-99 171 12-09-99 42, 1, 14 36 40 35 15 225 60 225 No. 4* 1* 5* 2* 03-28-00 11-23-00 10-25-99 12-06-99 39, 1, 2 70.3 4.38 59 225 Test 3,600 3,520 830 2,750 2,000 tration (mg/L) chloride Ambient concen- Site name Cycle test data from aquifer storagerecovery andwells in southern Florida Springtree WTP Fiveash WTP Fiveash Broward County WTP 2A County Broward WTP Creek Shell Manatee Road Test data at all sites, excluding the West Well Field site, are Field site, Well the West excluding data at all sites, Test Table 5. 5. Table [ dailythe treatment water records by provided plant. All other cy in mg/L (milligrams per liter); Mgal, million gallons; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; WTP, Water Treatment Plant;gre >, Treatment Water in mg/L(milligrams per not liter);applicable;Mgal,NR, million reported; not gallons; NA, WTP,
26 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida 22 38 NA 3.3 water water 5.0 38.7 9.7 30.4 9.8 32.9 47.8 38.5 34.5 35.6 concen- chloride (percent) tration of of tration 250 mg/L Recovery recovered efficiency at erating reports and erating reports NR NR NR 31 30 75 150 NA 25 2 73 76 NA (per- cent) at end ciency Recov- 9.7 ery effi- 30.6 22.26 81.9 33.2 34.9 4 50.0 50.8 58.0 55.9 NR NR of cycle 38.7 30.4 9.8 9.4 ] NR NR NR 350 350 350 350 350 cycle 250 250 250 250 466 end of (mg/L) ater than DS=300 water at water at concen- Chloride tration of recovered eports.concentration solidsdissolved DS, acted from monthly op of of NR NR NR NR 110 60 155 90 65 65 65 NR water (mg/L) tration 60-100 150-350 concen- Chloride recharge 13.8 40.7 80.1 (Mgal) volume 3 3 3 Recovery 6.04 25.7 15.8 55 67 0.22 .66 8.82 22.8 .607 13 (Mgal) volume Recharge 19.763 86.686 21.054 110 132 0.6 6.83 29.03 31.3 6.179 138 41.9 85 208 at the site (ASR-1). *Data extr 926 (days) 13, 7, 1 13, periods storage, 39, 3, 12 26, 2, 27 53, 2, 98 recovery 179, 181, 88, 63, 37 88, 1.7, 0, 1.4 0, 36 175, 54, 79 65, 16, 47, 2.8 16, 47, Recharge, 134, 83, 68 134, 83, 76, 35, 122 79, 98, 40.8 140, 102, 77 140, Lee County Miami-Dade County Collier County--Continued NR NR NR End date 08-19-97 02-25-98 04-29-98 06-10-99 07-03-00 10-04-96 03-18-00 06-28-00 12-17-75 07-21-76 01-30-80 cle test data are from consultingpublishedother reports or r only for the first storageonly well for thefirst date ning Begin- 11-30-99 06-26-97 08-21-97 03-05-98 09-01-98 08-19-99 10-14-80 03-26-81 08-18-81 02-14-96 02-26-00 07-17-75 01-05-76 07-23-76 Cycle 1 10-25-95 11-14-95 1, 12 7, 2.001 2.963 NR DS=330 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 2 31 10-07-96 02-12-971 31, 34 63, 2 26.13 19.8 NR DS=225 No. 1* 06-26-97 3* 08-19-97 39, 3, 12 03-05-9819.763 04-29-986.045 26, 2, 27 11021.054 17.242 384 130 370 2* 08-21-97 02-25-98 63, 37 88, 86.686 30.222 115 398 4* 5* 09-01-98 06-20-99 08-19-9973 121, 98, 07-02-00 111109, 77 132, 132.30364.391 74 1* 130 110 420 395 Test 10-25-99 11-15-99 6, 5 10, 28 7 90 600 2,600 39 1,150 550 670 1,200 tration (mg/L) chloride Ambient concen- Site name Cycle testaquifer data from storage wellsrecovery and in southern Florida --(Continued) Corkscrew WTP Corkscrew Estates Carlos San Marco Lakes Lee CountyWTP North Reservoir Hialeah Test data at all sites, excluding the West Well Fieldare site, Well excluding the West data at all sites, Test Table 5. 5. Table [ in mg/L (milligrams per liter); Mgal, million gallons; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; WTP, Water Treatment Plant; >, gre Plant; >, Treatment Water in mg/L(milligrams not per applicable;NR, liter); millionreported; not Mgal, gallons;WTP, NA, daily records provided by the water treatment the water daily plant.Allrecords by provided other cy
Inventory of Well and Test Data 27 33 28 68 72 43 51 55 65 65 56 71 NA water 57.4 54.2 40.5 >7.7 >25.1 >22.3 concen- chloride chloride (percent) tration of 250 mg/L Recovery recovered efficiency at NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NA 113 35 79 76 (per- cent) at end end at ciency Recov- 112.8 ery effi- 7.7 25.1 22.3 106.1 254.7 of cycle ] No NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR See cycle 164 80 212 500 1,150 above values end of (mg/L) 16,200 290 ater than water at water concen- recovery Chloride tration of of tration recovered eports. DS, dissolved solids concentration solids DS, dissolved eports. acted fromacted monthly operating reports and of 48 43 43 41 41 41 41 42 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR water (mg/L) tration concen- Chloride recharge No (Mgal) 27.8 volume recovery Recovery 53.3 61.7 359.37 446.563 805.933 5.132 3.458 4.181 2.752 6.5 7.7 8.9 10.1 10.1 8.6 10.4 14 (Mgal) volume Recharge 359.7 212.2 276.1 338.56 175.3 200.47 714.33 4.528 9.698 5.322 3.623 15 15.1 15..8 15.4 15 15.3 4 299 above (days) periods storage, 146, 0, 7 146, 17, 0, 19 27, 0, 16 14, 0, 10 54, 0, 44 recovery 43, 34, 11 187, 0, 12 153, 0, 12 51, 39, 26 56, 36, 43 56, 35, 30 76, 21, 34 56, 35, 31 63, 81, 25 See values values See Recharge, 299, 18, 85 Recharge = 153, 123, 85 Monroe County Monroe NR NR NR NR NR NR NR End date Miami-Dade County--Continued above 07-21-99 02-15-00 02-15-00 03-23-01 03-23-01 03-23-01 09-17-90 12-13-90 01-25-91 02-20-91 See dates dates See plicable; NR, not reported; WTP, Water Treatment Plant; >, gre Treatment Water plicable;WTP, reported; NR, not e only for the first storage well at the site (ASR-1). *Datawell site extr storage at the only for the first e NR NR NR NR NR NR NR date ning above Begin- 02-18-99 07-31-99 09-03-99 02-15-00 03-27-00 02-15-00 08-12-90 09-17-90 12-13-90 01-28-91 See dates dates See very wellsvery in southern Florida --(Continued) Cycle plant. All other cycle testdata plant.consulting are from All otherreports or other cycle published r 11 3* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No. (ASR-1, (ASR-1, combined) 1* (ASR-1) 2* (ASR-1) 2* (ASR-2) 3* (ASR-1) 3* (ASR-2) 3* (ASR-3) ASR2, ASR-3 ASR-3 ASR2, 2,400 20,800 tration (mg/L) chloride Ambient concen- Site name Cycle test data from aquifer storagetest data from aquiferCyclereco and West WellField Marathon Test data at all sites, excluding the West Well Field site, ar Well data at all sites, excluding the West Test [ daily records provided by the water treatment the water by provided daily records in mg/L (milligrams per liter); Mgal, millionnot ap gallons; NA, Table 5.
28 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida 0 18 47 47 90 64 40 75 66 81 84 NR 3.1 2.7 7.2 water concen- chloride (percent) tration of 250 mg/L Recovery recovered efficiency at solids concentration 96.5 24 15 22 36 0 18 48 59 49 79 287 (per- cent) 4.7 4.7 at end 76.5 55.3 77.9 45.5 30 65.3 33.4 53.7 26.7 35.2 35.2 ciency Recov- 33.9 >33.9 ery effi- 79.1 63 87.2 70 83.4 98.6 90.6 82 of cycle ] NR 1,385 1,385 1,385 1,385 cycle 307 302 1,004 310 250 250 760 274 6 6 6 6 end of (mg/L) ater than water at water concen- Chloride tration of of tration 306.5 320.5 recovered eports. DS, dissolved eports. DS, dissolved acted fromacted monthly reports and operating of 150 less 65 65 60 50 51 47 52 48 49 62 65 250 65 250 NR NR water 100 or (mg/L) tration concen- Chloride recharge 70 orless NR 0 4.7 (Mgal) 55.5 36.1 volume Recovery 28.06 75.9 128 8 8 8 8 9.58 32.24 17.237 47.713 20.598 34.841 32.062 95.84 88.724 20.5 17.87 (Mgal) volume 100 306 102 Recharge 90.94 181.35 342.1 355 8 8 8 8 12.52 58.34 9 61.24 42.906 41.764 40.586 33.36 89.98 (days) 35, 0, 7 65, 5, 0 14, 0, 8 periods storage, 20, 0, 40 20, 8, 17 63, 5, 25 43, 8, 14 16, 2, 26 46, recovery 55, 57, 39 46, 52, 27 42, 81, 41 45, 1, 131 156, 4, 67 Recharge, Storage=15 Storage=30 Palm Beach County Palm Okeechobee County Okeechobee NR NR End date 11-04-89 11-10-92 05-29-91 09-20-91 12-02-91 04-06-93 05-28-93 07-25-94 07-03-95 05-22-96 06-16-97 08-20-98 01-28-00 e only for the first storagee only forwell the first at the site (ASR-1). *Dataextr NR NR date ning Begin- 09-05-89 04-17-91 06-24-91 09-23-91 10-21-92 01-25-93 04-20-93 02-24-94 04-20-95 01-18-96 01-03-97 02-24-98 06-15-99 very wellsFlorida in southern --(Continued) Cycle plant. All other cycle testdata consultingplant. are from All reports or other other cycle published r 4 1 2 3 1 3 1 3 24 NR2 NR NR 11-10-92 01-22-93 Storage=30 NR 0, 31 44, Storage=120 57.32 26.1 50 420 5 7 7 7 No. 11* 06-04-96 12-31-96 34, 149, 27 41.218 37.347 41 314 4* 6* 8* 10* 12* 14* 16* 3* 5* 01-25-93 04-06-93 7* 06-02-93 8, 22 41, 9* 12-06-93 07-25-94 54.31 55, 98, 34 02-13-95 32.04 60.16 09-27-95 44, 124, 3513* 12-20-95 60.058 39.302 47 33, 22, 29 20.05215* 40.091 46 06-19-97 300 31.701 48 02-23-98 11-13-98 300 35, 174, 40 06-03-99 42.496 52 302 83, 57, 62 37.061110.83 301 48 37.56 317.5 46 146 1,980 1,920 3,100 tration (mg/L) chloride Ambient concen- Site name Cycle test datastorage from aquifertest and reco Cycle Taylor Creek/Nubbin Creek/Nubbin Taylor Slough (Lake Okeechobee) Jupiter WTP Beach East Boynton Test data at all sites, excluding the West Well Field site, ar Well the West data at all sites, excluding Test [ Table 5. in mg/L (milligrams per liter); Mgal, million gallons; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; WTP, Water Treatment Plant; >, gre Treatment Water applicable; notmg/Lin (milligrams NR, not reported; WTP, millionliter); perMgal, gallons; NA, daily records provided by the water treatment water the by daily records provided
Inventory of Well and Test Data 29 3 33
NR NR 2 water concen- chloride chloride (percent) tration of 250 mg/L Recovery recovered efficiency at NR NR (per- cent) at end end at ciency Recov- ery effi- 14.8 41.5 56.5 51.2 NR NR of cycle ] NR NR NR NR cycle end of (mg/L) ater than water at water concen- Chloride tration of of tration recovered eports. DS, dissolved solids concentration solids DS, dissolved eports. acted fromacted monthly operating reports and 50 of 200 2 NR NR water (mg/L) tration concen- Chloride recharge illigrams per liter chloride concentration. minute). NA (Mgal) volume Recovery 40 58 3.41 (Mgal) volume Recharge 270.7 102.6 1.5 1.5 (days) periods storage, 93, 0, 17 37, 3, 28 67 3, 38, 67 3, 38, recovery Recharge, St. Lucie County End date Palm Beach County--Continued Beach Palm 01-22-98 06-08-98 02-04-83 02-04-83 plicable; NR, not reported; WTP, Water Treatment Plant; >, gre Treatment Water plicable;WTP, reported; NR, not ed to terminate recovery for whiched to terminate all equalscycles, 1,385 m recovery days of the (50 gallonsstorage per trickle flow period by e only for the first storage well at the site (ASR-1). *Datawell site extr storage at the only for the first e date ning arge chloride concentration. arge Begin- 10-04-97 04-01-98 10-19-82 10-19-82 very wellsvery in southern Florida --(Continued) Cycle ich had an ending chloride concentrationof 250 mg/L. ich would make the recovery efficiencies too high. too efficiencies the recovery make ich would nute, and recovery rate was 1,000 rate was nute,andgallonsrecovery minute. per plant. All other cycle testdata plant.consulting are from All otherreports or other cycle published r 1 1 No. 1* 3* 2* 4* 01-23-98 03-27-98 08-10-98 40, 1, 22 11-10-98 110.7 53, 3, 36 143.1 46 73.32 NR NR NR NR using a fictitious value for rech value using a fictitious 2,800 955 tration (mg/L) chloride Ambient concen- M Hill. 2 Site name Cycle test data from aquifer storagetest data from aquiferCyclereco and Cycle 5 had 52 days of down time during the recharge period. the recharge during time of down Cycle 5 had 52 days estimated efficiency Recovery wh volume, recovery past the reported continued Recovery An additional 5.2 during the million gallons werelast 57 recharged CH by Conducted us 5,000 microsiemens conductanceper centimeterof was A specific Survey. the Geological U.S. by Conducted 2,000 gallonsInjection per mi rate was for all cycles wh 4 could be too low, for cycle volume The recharge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 West Palm Beach WTP West County Lucie St. Test data at all sites, excluding the West Well Field site, ar Well data at all sites, excluding the West Test Table 5. [ daily records provided by the water treatment the water by provided daily records in mg/L (milligrams per liter); Mgal, millionnot ap gallons; NA,
30 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida CASE STUDIES OF SELECTED AQUIFER Cycle testing at the Boynton Beach site began in STORAGE AND RECOVERY SITES late 1992, and by early 2000, 16 recharge-recovery cycles had been conducted for an average of about Detailed information regarding four sites is pre- 2 cycles per year (fig. 12). Potable recovery efficiency sented in this section. For the most part, the sites were increased rapidly during the first four cycles to selected on the basis of the number of cycles that were 90 percent per cycle; however, as noted previously, the conducted. Two sites are located in southeastern Flor- 90 percent recovery for cycle 4 is questionable. During ida, and two are in southwestern Florida. The selected the next three cycles, recovery efficiency decreased to sites illustrate the contrast in hydrogeology between less than 30 percent, possibly because of longer stor- the coastal areas. Each case study includes a graphical age periods. Recovery efficiency for cycles 8 to 16 representation of the hydrogeology at the site and well generally increased to greater than 80 percent. construction information. Percent recovery is plotted against the chloride concentration of recovered water during each cycle in figure 13. For most cycles, water was recovered until Boynton Beach East Water Treatment the chloride concentration in the recovered water Plant slightly exceeded 300 mg/L (also see table 5). During cycle 14, however, recovery continued until chloride The Boynton Beach East WTP ASR site concentration increased to about 1,000 mg/L, con- located on the east coast in Palm Beach County is tributing to a lower recovery rate for cycle 15. The operated by Boynton Beach Utilities. The source of data points for cycle 15 are shifted to substantially water for recharge is treated drinking water from the lower recovery percentages than for cycle 14 WTP. The location of the storage zone in relation to (fig. 13). The recovery efficiency for cycle 16 is the lithology, geophysical log signatures, and hydrogeo- best obtained, with the exception of cycle 4, which logic units at the Boynton Beach site is shown in fig- has a recharge volume that could be higher than ure 11. Also shown are the location of flow zones as reported. However, the storage period for cycle 16 determined by flowmeter, fluid resistivity, and caliper was only 4 days, and the recovery efficiency for this logs for the interval extending from a depth of 804 to cycle could have benefited from the large recharge 1,200 ft below land surface. The flow zones in this volume (111 Mgal) and incomplete recovery (recov- interval primarily occur in the basal Hawthorn unit ery up to a chloride concentration of only 146 mg/L) (Reese and Memberg, 2000) or near its base. The for cycle 15. flow zones are thin, they tend to coincide with forma- Potable water recovery efficiencies for test and tion resistivity peaks possibly indicating cementation operational cycles at the Boynton Beach site appear to and secondary porosity, and they occur just below be greater than for all other Floridan aquifer system ASR sites in southern Florida. However, the number of intervals of higher gamma-ray response. These inter- cycles conducted at most other sites are limited, and vals of higher gamma-ray response indicate beds the chloride concentration of the recharge water used high in phosphate sand content. The base of the at the Boynton Beach site is only about 50 mg/L Upper Floridan aquifer was not penetrated in the (table 5). Several hydrogeologic, and design and man- ASR well but is estimated to be at a depth of at least agement factors are favorable at this site that may 1,500 ft below land surface. explain the higher recovery efficiencies. The storage The thickness of the storage zone open interval zone is located at the top of the Upper Floridan aquifer at the Boynton Beach site is 105 ft (fig. 9); transmis- and is thin in comparison to the average storage zone 2 sivity is reported to be about 9,400 ft /d (fig. 9; CH2M thickness (about 180 ft) for wells in the Floridan aqui- Hill 1993), and ambient water had a chloride concen- fer system (fig. 8). Transmissivity and ambient salinity tration of 1,900 mg/L (fig. 10). The site is located in a of the storage zone are moderate, being less than structurally high area along the east coast where the 30,000 ft2/d and 3,000 mg/L of chloride concentration, altitude of the Hawthorn Group basal contact is 930 ft respectively, and the site is located in a structurally below sea level (Reese and Memberg, 2000). high area.
Case Studies of Selected Aquifer Storage and Recovery Sites 31 quifer quifer FLOW ZONE--Determined using flowmeter, fluid resistivity, and caliper logs BASE OF UNIT NOT REACHED EXPLANATION
?
OFNN UNIT CONFINING
PE LRDNAQUIFER FLORIDAN UPPER
? INTERMEDIATE UNIT HYDRO-
GEOLOGIC ATONGROUP HAWTHORN UNIT ? BASAL UNIT HAWTHORN
FORMATION AVON PARK GEOLOGIC O DETERMINED NOT FLOW ZONES lithology, flow zones, and geologic andlithology, hydrogeologic for units a ZONE WELL CEMENT CASING DESIGN STORAGE st Water Treatment Plant site in Palm County. site in Palm Beach Plant Treatment st Water FORMATION FROM DEEP RESISTIVITY INDUCTION LOG and clay Sandy siltstone limestone limestone Calcareous Fossiliferous phosphatic LITHOLOGY HIGH HIGH NATURAL GAMMA RAY LOW LOW Location of the storage zone in relation to geophysical logs, logs, geophysical to relation in zone storage the of Location 400 500 600 800 700 900
1,100 1,000 1,200
ACE EO ADSURF LAND BELOW ET,I FEET IN DEPTH, storage and recovery well PB-1194 at the Boynton Ea Boynton Beach at the well PB-1194 recovery and storage Figure 11.
32 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida
Y RECOVER PERCENT 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 15 16 h County and relations of relations and h County 14 13 ent Plant site Beac in Palm ent Plant site RECOVERY--Total volume during cycle POTABLE WATER RECOVERY EFFICIENCY-- For each cycle (percent recoverychloride using concentration limiting of 250 milligramsShown per at liter). the end of each cycle 11 12 CYCLE NUMBER YEAR EXPLANATION 8910 7 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 56 RECHARGE--Total volume during cycle STORAGE PERIOD--Between recharge and recovery 146 milligrams per liter. 1993 4 3 12 1992 Operational cycles at the Boynton Beach East Water Treatm Beach East the Boynton cycles Water at Operational 0
80 60 40 20
120 100 OA OUE NMLIN FGALLONS OF MILLIONS IN VOLUME, TOTAL Figure 12. volumes recharged and recovered, time, and percent recovery for each cycle. Recovery for cycle 15 was 34 percent for an ending ending an for percent 34 was cycle 15 for cycle. Recovery each for recovery percent and time, recovered, and recharged volumes chloride concentration of
Case Studies of Selected Aquifer Storage and Recovery Sites 33 14 Cycle 9 Cycle 10 Cycle 11 Cycle 12 Cycle 13 Cycle 14 Cycle 15 Cycle 16 16 4 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Cycle 4 Cycle 5 Cycle 6 Cycle 7 Cycle 8 EXPLANATION 11 . Recovery for cycle 14 was 13 12 10 9 tion to chloride concentration of 6 5 3 ant site in Palm Beach County 1,000 milligrams per liter. 8 PERCENT RECOVERY r during operational cycles in rela during r 15 2 7 loride concentration of about Percent recovery of recharged wate 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0
50
400 350 300 250 200 150 100
IN NMLIRM E LITER PER MILLIGRAMS IN TION, HOIECONCENTRA CHLORIDE recovered water at the Boynton Beach East Water Treatment Pl Treatment Water Beach East at the Boynton water recovered Figure 13. continued until reaching a ch
34 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida Springtree Water Treatment Plant zones in the well were not run. Unlike the Boynton Beach site, the storage zone is not located at the top of The Springtree WTP ASR site located in Bro- the Upper Floridan aquifer. Casing was set through ward County is operated by the City of Sunrise. virtually all of the basal Hawthorn unit. The thickness Treated drinking water is used for recharge. The loca- of the storage zone open interval at the Springtree site tion of the storage zone in relation to lithology, geo- is 160 ft (fig. 8). A photograph of the Springtree site physical log signatures, and hydrogeologic units at the wellhead site is shown in figure 15. Springtree site is shown in figure 14. Geophysical Storage zone transmissivity at the Springtree logs, such as the flowmeter, used to identify flow site is reported to be about 5,700 ft2/d (table 3 at end
HYDRO- NATURAL WELL GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC GAMMA RAY DESIGN UNIT UNIT LOW HIGH 500
600
700 EXPLANATION ? BASE OF UNIT NOT REACHED
ACE
800 TE CONFINING UNIT CASING
HAWTHORN GROUP
900
INTERMEDIA
BELOW LAND SURF 1,000 BASAL HAWTHORN UNIT
1,100
AQUIFER
DEPTH, IN FEET STORAGE 1,200 ZONE AVON PARK FORMATION
1,300 CEMENT
UPPER FLORIDAN ??
1,400
Figure 14. Location of the storage zone in relation to gamma-ray geophysical log and geologic and hydrogeologic units for aquifer storage and recovery well G-2914 at the Springtree Water Treatment Plant site in Broward County.
Case Studies of Selected Aquifer Storage and Recovery Sites 35 STORAGE WELL
Figure 15. Wellhead piping, valves, and control system for the aquifer storage and recovery well at the Springtree Water Treatment Plant site in Broward County. Storage well on left side of concrete pad as shown by arrow. of report; Montgomery Watson, 1998a). This value is recharge water is partially treated surface water. The lower than at surrounding sites (fig. 9), perhaps storage zone at the site straddles the contact between because only a small part of the basal Hawthorn unit is the basal Hawthorn unit and the Suwannee Limestone included in the open interval. The chloride concentra- (fig. 16). The Suwannee Limestone is thick and well tion of ambient water in the storage zone is developed in the area, unlike southeastern Florida 3,600 mg/L (fig. 10). The altitude of the Hawthorn where the formation is thin or absent. The thickness Group basal contact is 1,105 ft below sea level, and the and diameter of the open interval for the storage zone site is located at the edge of a structurally low area in well ASR-1 at the Marco Lakes site are 45 ft and (Reese, 1994). 10 in., respectively (fig. 8; table 2 at end of report). By Cycle testing at the Springtree site began at the comparison, these dimensions are 44 ft and 12.25 in., end of July 1999, and five recharge-recovery cycles respectively, for well ASR-2 (fig. 16; table 2 at end of had been completed by the end of November 2000 report). (table 5). The ending chloride concentration for all Transmissivity of the storage zone is reported to cycles was 225 mg/L or less. The increase in recovery be about 9,100 ft2/d (fig. 9; ViroGroup, Inc., 1998b). efficiency during the first four cycles was not as great Storage zone ambient water is brackish; the reported as the Boynton Beach East WTP site, increasing from chloride concentration is about 2,600 mg/L (fig. 10; 20 percent for the first cycle to 37.5 for the fourth well DZMW, table 4). Chloride concentration ranged cycle. Although the volume recharged for the fifth from about 2,500 to about 3,700 mg/L in other wells cycle (120 Mgal) was at least three times that completed in the storage zone at the Marco Lakes site recharged in each of the first four cycles, recovery effi- (table 4). The site is located in a structurally high area ciency diminished to 27.5 percent. The lower recovery where the altitude of the Hawthorn Group basal con- efficiencies at the Springtree site relative to the Boyn- tact is 742 ft below sea level (Reese, 2000). ton Beach East WTP site could be explained by high Five recharge-recovery cycles were conducted storage zone ambient water salinity and the storage at the Marco Lakes site in ASR-1 between June 1997 zone position relative to the top of the aquifer. and July 2000 (table 5). The ending chloride concen- tration for the recovery period used for comparison of Marco Lakes cycles was 350 mg/L (Water Resources Solutions, Inc., 2000d), and the recovery efficiencies at this chlo- The Marco Lakes ASR site located on the west ride concentration level increased from 31 percent for coast in Collier County is operated by Florida Water the first cycle to about 51 percent for the fifth cycle. Services for the City of Marco Island. The source of The total volume of water recharged per cycle
36 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida HYDRO- NATURAL WELL FLOW GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC GAMMA RAY DESIGN ZONES UNIT UNIT LOW HIGH 0
UNDIFFERENTIATED WATER TABLE/ AND TAMIAMI LOWER TAMIAMI 100 FORMATION AQUIFERS
200
ACE CONFINING UNIT
CASING 300
NOT DETERMINED MID-HAWTHORN 400 AQUIFER
BELOW LAND SURF
500
HAWTHORN GROUP
DEPTH, IN FEET
600 CONFINING UNIT
700 BASAL HAWTHORN Figure 16. Location of UNIT storage zone in relation to STORAGE UPPER SUWANNEE FLORIDAN gamma-ray geophysical ZONE LIMESTONE AQUIFER log, flow zones, and ? ? geologic and hydro- 800 geologic units for aquifer storage and recovery well EXPLANATION C-1208 (ASR-2) at the FLOW ZONE --Determined using Marco Lakes site in Collier flowmeter and caliper logs County ? BASE OF UNIT NOT REACHED increased from about 20 to 132 Mgal, respectively. Solutions, Inc., 1999c). Calcium carbonate is the likely The potable water recovery efficiency increased from precipitate causing plugging, and acidification of the 22 to almost 36 percent for the same two cycles. recharge water prior to injection has reduced or elimi- Percent recovery was compared with the chloride nated the problem in later cycles. concentration of recovered water during each cycle at The Marco Lakes recovery efficiencies at an the Marco Lakes site (fig. 17). On the basis of numerical ending chloride concentration of 350 mg/L rather than simulation, the erratic recovery curve and poor recovery those at 250 mg/L concentration could serve as a better efficiency for cycle 2 is attributed to preferential well comparison with the Boynton Beach East WTP site plugging during recharge of one of two receiving inter- potable recovery efficiencies. The chloride concentra- vals (flow zones) in the storage zone (Water Resources tion of the recharge water at Marco Lakes averages
Case Studies of Selected Aquifer Storage and Recovery Sites 37 450 4 400 1 2 5 3 350
TION, 300
250
200
150
IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER EXPLANATION
CHLORIDE CONCENTRA 100 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 50 Cycle 4 Cycle 5
0 0102030 40 50 60 70 80 90 PERCENT RECOVERY
Figure 17. Percent recovery of recharged water during operational cycles in relation to chloride concentration of recovered water at the Marco Lakes site in Collier County.
120 mg/L (table 5), whereas the concentration at Compared to the Marco Lakes site, transmissiv- Boynton Beach averages about 50 mg/L. Perhaps cal- ity of the storage zone at the San Carlos Estates site is culations of recovery efficiencies based on a mass-bal- high; it is reported to be about 70,000 ft2/d (fig. 9; ance approach would provide a better means of CH M Hill, 1999b). The chloride concentration of comparison between these two sites. These calcula- 2 ambient water in the storage zone is only 1,100 mg/L tions would include the chloride concentrations of both the ambient and recharged water. Although the (fig. 10). The site may be located in a slightly low area Marco Lakes site is in early phases of testing and oper- structurally (Reese, 2000); however, additional wells ation, several factors could explain the moderate to that intersect the basal contact of the Hawthorn Group good recovery efficiencies. The storage zone is thin are required to confirm this setting. and located near the top of the Upper Floridan aquifer Two cycles, one a short test cycle, were con- (fig. 16). The storage zone has moderate transmissiv- ducted at the San Carlos Estates ASR site (table 5). ity, and the site is located on a structural geologic high. Despite a second cycle recharge volume of 138 Mgal, potable recovery efficiency has been no greater than San Carlos Estates about 3 percent. High transmissivity of the storage zone and the distribution of permeability within it may The San Carlos Estates ASR site located near explain the poor recovery efficiency obtained thus far. the west coast in Lee County is operated by Bonita Flowmeter log data indicate that most flow in the stor- Springs Utilities. Treated drinking water is used as the age zone occurs within a 4-ft-thick interval between recharge water source. The storage zone at the site is located within the basal Hawthorn unit (fig. 18). The 698 and 702 ft below land surface (fig. 18). The high top of the Suwannee Limestone was not reached in any permeability of this thin flow zone may cause high dis- of the wells at the site. The thickness of the ASR well persive mixing within the storage zone resulting in the storage zone is only 51 ft (fig. 8). poor recovery.
38 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida HYDRO- NATURAL WELL FLOW GEOLOGIC GEOLOGIC GAMMA RAY DESIGN ZONES UNIT UNIT LOW HIGH 100 LOWER TAMIAMI/ TAMIAMI SANDSTONE FORMATION AQUIFERS
200 CONFINING UNIT
ACE MID-HAWTHORN 300 AQUIFER
NOT DETERMINED
400 CASING
BELOW LAND SURF 500 CONFINING UNIT
HAWTHORN GROUP
600
DEPTH, IN FEET STORAGE BASAL UPPER ZONE HAWTHORN FLORIDAN 700 UNIT AQUIFER CEMENT ? ?
800 EXPLANATION FLOW ZONE --Determined using flowmeter and caliper logs ? BASE OF UNIT NOT REACHED
Figure 18. Location of storage zone in relation to gamma-ray geophysical log, flow zones, and geologic and hydrogeologic units for aquifer storage and recovery well L-5812 at the San Carlos Estates site in Lee County.
Case Studies of Selected Aquifer Storage and Recovery Sites 39 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ambient formation water-quality data; and (4) cycle testing data. Intervals for which data were inventoried Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells were and compiled include the ASR storage zone interval constructed at 27 sites in southern Florida with most and deeper and shallower intervals. sites located in coastal areas. Twenty ASR were con- Factors important to efficient ASR operation structed by local municipalities or counties in southern vary widely between the sites. The thickness of the Florida in the 1990’s and 14 since 1996. Six of the 27 sites were experimental in nature and are no longer open storage zone ranged from 45 to 452 ft. Open active. The storage zone at 23 of the 27 sites is con- intervals in the 150 to 200 ft range are most common. Transmissivity of the Upper Floridan aquifer storage tained within the Floridan aquifer system; of these 23 2 sites, 22 are in the Upper Floridan aquifer and 1 is in zone for 17 sites ranged from 800 to 108,000 ft /d. the Lower Floridan aquifer Transmissivity at the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Regional ASR in southern Florida has been pro- (Lake Okeechobee) site, completed in the Lower Flori- 2 posed in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration dan aquifer, was reported to be 590,000 ft /d. Storage Plan (CERP) as a cost-effective water-supply alterna- zone transmissivity for most sites ranged from 5,000 2 2 tive that can help meet needs of agricultural, munici- to 30,000 ft /d; greater than 30,000 ft /d is considered pal, and recreational users and help provide ecological high. Leakance of storage zone confining units, deter- benefits. About 330 high capacity wells have been pro- mined from multiwell aquifer tests at seven sites in the posed for southern Florida, with most to be sited Upper Floridan aquifer, ranged from 3.9 x 10-5 to 6.3 x inland, such as around Lake Okeechobee. Water salin- 10-2 1/d; of these, five had leakance greater than 1 x ity in the Upper Floridan aquifer, the hydrogeologic 10-3 1/d, indicating that confinement is poor in some unit of interest in the CERP, is brackish to saline at all areas. These high leakance estimates are probably best current ASR sites in southern Florida. The ambient attributed to leakage from below the storage zone salinity of water contained in the storage zone can sub- rather than from above. Chloride concentration of stantially affect recovery of water recharged and ambient water from storage zones in the Upper Flori- stored. dan aquifer ranged from 500 to 11,000 mg/L. At most This study was performed to inventory construc- sites, the chloride concentration ranged from about tion, hydrogeologic, and operational data on ASR sites 1,000 to 3,000 mg/L; greater than 3,000 mg/L is con- in southern Florida and to compare site performance to sidered to be high. hydrogeologic, design, or management factors that Cycle test data were compiled for 18 ASR sites, may influence their degree of success. Each ASR and potable water recovery efficiencies were calcu- cycle includes periods of injection of freshwater, stor- lated at 16 of these sites. To date, the Boynton Beach age, and recovery, with each period lasting days or East WTP site has experienced the highest number of months. Potable water recovery efficiency of individ- recharge-recovery cycles (16 cycles). Recharge vol- ual cycles at a site is the primary measure used to eval- ume per cycle ranged from as low as 0.6 to as high as uate the performance of sites, and this efficiency is the volume of water recovered when chloride concentra- 714 Mgal. Cycle 3 at the Hialeah site had the longest tion reaches 250 as a percent of the volume recharged. storage time (181 days). The highest potable water The basal contact of the Hawthorn Group lies recovery efficiency for the first cycle was 47 percent at close to the top of the Upper Floridan aquifer, and the the Boynton Beach East WTP site, and except for one most important flow zones in this aquifer commonly site with incomplete information, the lowest was 2 occur at or near this contact. The altitude of this con- percent at the San Carlos Estates site. Nine of the 16 tact varies considerably in southern Florida, ranging sites had a recovery efficiency above 10 percent for the from less than 600 ft to greater than 1,200 ft below sea first cycle, and 10 sites achieved a recovery efficiency level. Local relief on this contact can be as much as above 30 percent during at least one cycle. The highest several hundred feet. recovery efficiency achieved was 84 percent for cycle Well data were inventoried and complied for all 16 at the Boynton Beach East WTP site. Recovery wells at existing and historical ASR sites in southern efficiencies for test and operational cycles at Boynton Florida. Construction and testing data were compiled Beach appeared to be better than all other Floridan into four categories: (1) well identification, location, aquifer system sites. However, the number of cycles and construction data; (2) hydraulic well-test data; (3) conducted at most other sites was limited, and the
40 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida chloride concentration of the recharge water used at Lake Okeechobee, Florida: Engineering report Boynton Beach was low (about 50 mg/L). prepared for South Florida Water Management The increase in potable water recovery effi- District, p. 1-1 to 4-9, appendixes, 3 v. ciency during the first five cycles at the Springtree ——— 1991, Preliminary results of the Florida Keys aqui- WTP site was not as favorable as at the Boynton Beach fer storage recovery test program at Marathon: Final East WTP site. Recovery started at 20 percent for the report prepared for Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, first cycle and ended at 27.5 percent for the fifth cycle, 46 p. 12 app. despite a recharge volume for the fifth cycle (120 ——— 1993, Boynton Beach aquifer storage and recovery system: Engineering report prepared for the City of Mgal) that was three or more times greater than in all Boynton Beach, Florida, p. 1-1 to 7-1, 13 app. previous cycles. Recovery efficiencies at the Marco ——— 1997, Construction and testing of the aquifer stor- Lakes site for the first five cycles increased from 22 to age and recovery (ASR) system at the BCOES 2A 36 percent, with 132 Mgal recharged during cycle 5. Water Treatment Plant: Engineering report prepared However, these numbers may not be comparable to for the Broward County Office of Environmental Ser- those from the Boynton Beach and Springtree sites vices and Montgomery Watson, p. 1-1 to 6-3, 13 app. because the chloride concentration of the recharged ——— 1998a, Construction and testing of the aquifer stor- water at the Marco Lakes site was two or more times age and recovery facility at the West Palm Beach Water higher than at the other two sites, lowering the potable Treatment Plant: Engineering report prepared for the water recovery efficiencies. City of West Palm Beach, Florida, p. 1-1 to 7-1, Based on review of four case studies and review 15 app. of data from other sites, several hydrogeologic and ——— 1998b, Construction and testing of the aquifer stor- design factors appear to play a substantial role in the age and recovery (ASR) system at the MDWASD West performance of ASR in the Floridan aquifer system in Wellfield: Engineering report prepared for Miami- southern Florida. Recovery efficiency appears to be Dade Water and Sewer Department, p. 1-1 to 6-2, 13 app. maximized if the storage zone is thin and located within the uppermost part of the Upper Floridan aqui- ——— 1998c, Construction and testing of the aquifer stor- age and recovery facility at the City of Delray Beach’s fer, and transmissivity (less than about 30,000 ft2/d) North Storage Reservoir: Engineering report prepared and ambient salinity (less than 3,000 mg/L chloride for the City of Delray Beach, Florida, p. 1-1 to 5-1, concentration) of the ASR storage zone are moderate. app. The structural setting of a site could also be important ——— 1999a, Cycle testing report for the BCOES 2A because of the potential for updip migration of Water Treatment Plant ASR facility: Report prepared recharged freshwater or the lessening of overlying for Underground Injection Control Program Manager confinement due to deformation. Avoiding areas that of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, lie within a structural low or which are structurally 4 p., figures and attachments. complex or have higher dip could improve recovery ——— 1999b, Potable water aquifer storage recovery phase efficiency. II drilling and testing at the San Carlos Estates ASR site, Bonita Springs, Florida: Well completion report prepared for Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc., p. 1-1 to 7- SELECTED REFERENCES 2, 9 app. ——— 2000a, San Carlos Estates potable water ASR 5-day Bush, P.W., and R.H. Johnston, 1988, Ground-water aquifer performance test, water quality and aquifer hydraulics, regional flow, and ground-water characteristic data: Technical memorandum TM-5 pre- development of the Floridan aquifer system in Florida pared for Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc., 14 p. and and in parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama: attachments. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-C, ——— 2000b, San Carlos Estates potable water ASR, cycle 80 p. test 1 recovery water quality results: Technical memo- Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., 1993, Floridan aquifer randum TM-7 prepared for Bonita Springs Utilities, test/production well and monitor well: Completion Inc., 15 p. and attachments. report prepared for the City of Deerfield Beach, Cooper, H.H., Jr., and Jacob, C.E., 1946, A generalized Florida, and South Florida Water Management District, graphical method for evaluating formation constants 29 p. and summarizing well-field history: American CH2M Hill, 1989, Construction and testing of the aquifer Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 27, no. 4, p. 526- storage and recovery (ASR) demonstration project for 534.
Summary and Conclusions 41 Cunningham, K.J., Locker, S.D., Hine, A.C., and others, preliminary report: Addendum to report prepared for 2001, Surface-geophysical characterization of ground- Collier County Utilities Division, 5 p., 5 app. water systems of the Caloosahatchee River Basin, ——— 1991b, Phase I – deep aquifer hydrogeologic study, southern Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Collier County, Florida: Final report prepared for Col- Resources Investigations Report 01-4084, 76 p. lier County Utilities Division, 61 p., 5 app. Fitzpatrick, D. J., 1986, Tests for injecting, storing and ——— 1993, Phase II Collier County aquifer storage and recovering freshwater in a saline artesian aquifer, Lee recovery project: Preliminary report prepared for Col- County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water- lier County Utilities Division, 47 p. Resources Investigations Report 85-4249, 53 p. Montgomery Watson, 1998a, Springtree Water Treatment Freeze, R.A., and Cherry, J.A., 1979, Groundwater: Plant aquifer storage and recovery system: Well Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 604 p. construction report prepared for the City of Sunrise, Hantush, M.S., and Jacob, C.E., 1955, Nonsteady radial Florida, p. 1-1 to 5-1, 13 app. flow in an infinite leaky aquifer: American ——— 1998b, Exploratory ASR well drilling and testing at Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 36, no. 1, p. 95- the Shell Creek Water Treatment Plant: Interim report 100. prepared for the City of Punta Gorda, Florida, and Jacob, C.E., and Lohman, S.W., 1952, Nonsteady flow to a Southwest Florida Water Management District, p. 1-1 well of constant drawdown in an extensive aquifer: to 5-4, appendixes. American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 33, ——— 1998c, Fiveash Water Treatment Plant aquifer stor- p. 559-569. age and recovery system: Well construction report pre- Khanal, N.N., 1980, Advanced water-supply alternatives for pared for the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, p. 1-1 to the Upper East Coast Planning Area; Part I – feasibility 6-1, 14 app. of cyclic storage of freshwater in a brackish aquifer ——— 2000a, Exploratory ASR well drilling and testing at and Part II – desalination alternative: South Florida the Shell Creek Water Treatment Plant: Final report Water Management District Technical Publication prepared for the City of Punta Gorda, Florida, and no. 80-6, 75 p. Southwest Florida Water Management District, p. 1-1 Lukasiewicz, John, Switanek, M.P., and Verrastro, R.T., to 5-5, appendixes. 2001, Floridan aquifer system test well program, city ——— 2000b, Springtree Water Treatment Plant aquifer of South Bay, Florida: South Florida Water storage and recovery (ASR) system: Cycle testing Management District Technical Publication WS-2, report prepared for the City of Sunrise, Florida, 27 p., 34 p., appendixes. 2app. Merritt, M.L., 1985, Subsurface storage of freshwater in south Florida: a digital model analysis of PBS&J and CH2M Hill, 2000, Reclaimed water ASR well recoverability: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply construction and testing summary at the South Paper 2261, 44 p. Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant: Final report ——— 1997, Tests of subsurface storage of freshwater at prepared for Englewood Water District and Southwest Hialeah, Dade County, Florida, and numerical simula- Florida Water Management District, p. 1-1 to 6-1, tion of the salinity of recovered water: U.S. Geological 14 app. Survey Water-Supply Paper 2431, 114 p., 2 pls. Pyne, R.D.G., 1995, Groundwater recharge and wells, a Merritt, M.L., Meyer, F.W., Sonntag, W.H., and Fitzpatrick, guide to aquifer storage recovery: Boca Raton, Fla., D. J., 1983, Subsurface storage of freshwater in south Lewis Publishers, 376 p. Florida: a prospectus: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Quiñones-Aponte, Vicente, Kotun, Kevin, and Whitley, J. Resources Investigations Report 83-4214, 69 p. F., 1996, Analysis of tests of subsurface injection, Meyer, F.W., 1989a, Hydrogeology, ground-water storage, and recovery of freshwater in the Lower movement, and subsurface storage in the Floridan Floridian aquifer, Okeechobee County, Florida: U.S. aquifer system in southern Florida: U.S. Geological Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-765, 32 p. Survey Professional Paper 1403-G, 59 p. Reese, R.S., 1994, Hydrogeology and the distribution and ——— 1989b, Subsurface storage of liquids in the Floridan origin of salinity in the Floridan aquifer system, aquifer system in south Florida: U.S. Geological Sur- southeastern Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Water- vey Open-File Report 88-477, 25 p Resources Investigations Report 94-4010, 56 p. Miller, J.A., 1986, Hydrogeologic framework of the ——— 2000, Hydrogeology and the distribution of salinity Floridan aquifer system in Florida and in parts of in the Floridan aquifer system, southwestern Florida: Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina: U.S. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investiga- Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-B, 91 p. tions Report 98-4253, 86 p., 10 pls. Missimer & Associates, Inc., 1991a, Phase I – deep aquifer Reese, R.S., and Cunningham, K.J., 2000, Hydrogeology of hydrogeologic study, Collier County, Florida, the gray limestone aquifer in southern Florida: U.S.
42 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations ——— 1970, Groundwater water resources evaluation: Report 99-4213, 244 p. New York, McGraw-Hill, 664 p. Reese, R.S., and Memberg, S.J., 2000, Hydrogeology and Water Resources Solutions, Inc., 1999a, Lee County the distribution of salinity in the Floridan aquifer Utilities observation well #1 (LM-6208) at the North system, Palm Beach County, Florida: U.S. Geological Reservoir site, Lee County, Florida: Completion report Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 99- prepared for Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc., 27 p., 4061, 52 p., 2 pls. 9app. Theis, C.V., 1935, The relation between the lowering of the ——— 1999b, Lee County Utilities ASR Well #1 (LM- piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge of a well using ground-water storage: 6210) at the North Reservoir site, Lee County, Florida: American Geophysical Union Transactions, v. 16, Completion report prepared for Hole, Montes & Asso- p. 519-524. ciates, Inc., 26 p., 9 app. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water ——— 1999c, Marco Lakes aquifer storage and recovery Management District, 1999, Central and Southern project cycle 4: Report prepared for Florida Water Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study: Final Services, Inc., 33 p., 1 app. Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic ——— 2000a, Lee County Utilities observation wells #1 Environment Impact Statement, 27 p. (LM-6209) and #3 (LM-6615) at the Olga WTP site, ——— 2001, Lake Okeechobee aquifer storage and recov- Lee County, Florida: Completion report prepared for ery pilot project, project management plan, final draft: Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc., 39 p., 9 app. Central and Southern Florida Comprehensive Ever- glades Restoration Plan, 66 p. ——— 2000b, Lee County Utilities ASR Well #1 (LM- 6086) at the Olga WTP site, Lee County, Florida: ViroGroup, Inc., 1998a, Lee County Corkscrew Water Treatment Facility aquifer storage and recovery pilot Completion report prepared for Hole, Montes & Asso- well: Well completion report prepared for Lee County ciates, Inc., 32 p., 9 app. Utilities, figures and appendixes. ——— 2000c, Marco Lakes ASR expansion project: Well ——— 1998b, Marco Lakes aquifer storage and recovery completion report prepared for Florida Water Services, pilot project: Final report prepared for Florida Water Inc., 24 p., 3 v., app. Services, Inc., 51 p., 8 app. ——— 2000d, Marco Lakes aquifer storage and recovery ViroGroup, Inc., and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc., project cycle 5: Summary report prepared for Florida 1994, Lee County Regional Water Supply Authority Water Services, Inc., 17 p. ASR test well #LM-3982, east Lee County, Florida: Water Resources Solutions, Inc., and Pitman Hartenstein & Completion report prepared for Lee County Regional Assoc., Inc., 1999, Corkscrew ASR expansion project: Water Supply Authority, 37 p., 6 appendixes. Well completion report prepared for Lee County ——— 1997, Corkscrew Water Treatment Facility aquifer Utilities, 40 p., 2 v., appendixes. storage and recovery pilot project: Final report pre- pared for Lee County Regional Water Supply Author- Wedderburn, L.A., and Knapp, M.S., 1983, Field ity, 108 p. and appendixes, 2 v. investigation into the feasibility of storing fresh water Walton, W.C., 1962, Selected analytical methods for well in saline portions of the Floridan aquifer system, St. and aquifer evaluation: Illinois State Water Survey Lucie County, Florida: South Florida Water Bulletin no. 49, 81p. Management District Technical Publication 83-7, 71 p.
Summary and Conclusions 43 interval of open of (inches) Diameter Diameter 2 10.63 5.875 16 6 16 13 12.25 15 6 4 6 ill or ream out hole. Abbre- (feet) 180-200 Completed open interval 960-1,128 960-1,128 995-1,200 990-1,200 1,110-1,270 1,055-1,200 16 1,055-1,175 3 764-933 507-700 510-700 280-320 170-205 of of Type PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel casing is size of bit used to dr eter eter diam- Casing (inches) 26.00 12.00 24.00 16.00 6.00 36.00 26.00 16.00 24.00 14.00 6.63 26.00 16.00 26.00 16.00 14.00 6.63 12.00 2.00 2.00 24.00 16.00 12.00 30.00 24.00 16.00 20.00 14.00 6.00 14.00 4.00 14.00 6.00 (feet) casing casing top and top 180-200 Depth to Depth bottom of 2 vinyl chlorinated; vinyl not NR,reported] ?, unknown; 0-400 0-960 0-42 0-402 0-960 0-40 0-397 0-995 0-40 0-400 0-990 0-170 0-1,110 0-198 0-1,055 0-370 0-1,055 0-20 0-180 0-34 0-700 650-764 0-37 0-295 0-507 0-42 0-290 0-510 0-40 0-280 0-40 0-170 l for open-hole completions completions l for open-hole tion 10-92 07-97 04-99 end of Date at Date at construc- 01-11-98 12-10-92 12-03-96 09-25-96 12-30-97 03-15-98 03-30-00 04-17-00 04-06-00 03-23-00 hole Total (feet) depth 1,128 1,128 1,200 1,200 1,345 1,300 1,175 210 1,043 807 700 320 205 (feet) of land surface surface Altitude Altitude 13.17 12 16.6 17 10 NR NR NR 19.4 6 NR NR NR Broward County Broward Charlotte County ted otherwise. Diameter of open interva and 801540 261857 800726 261901 800726 261735 800625 261033 261030 800915 265831 815607 265415 821604 Latitude longitude fer storage and recovery system wellssouthern in Florida 1 Land-net location feet north of ASR-1 TPW-1 Same as for MW-1 Same as for SENE S2, 48S,42E; 370 42E SE S12, 48S, NW S21,49S,41E 40S, 24E S29, 41S, 20E S16, TPW-1 west of 400 feet of feet northwest 2,200 TPW-1 east of 150 feet ical Survey; WTP, water treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; PVC, poly wastewater treatment water plant; WWTP, WTP, ical Survey; mpleted open intervals are open hole unless no mpleted open intervals MW-1 MW-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 TPW-1 TPW-1 IMW-1 FMW-1 SMW-1 SMW-1 identifier (ASR-1) Other well SZMW-1 no. USGS USGS G-2887 G-2888 G-2889 G-2916 G-2914 G-2917 G-2918 G-2919 CH-315 CH-318 CH-319 CH-320 CH-321 local well well local WellIdentification, location, and constructionaqui data for Site name Beach West Beach West WTP WTP WTP South Regional Deerfield Deerfield Broward County WTP 2A Springtree WTP Fiveash Creek Shell Englewood WWTP viations and annotations: USGS, Geolog USGS, U.S. annotations: viations and Table 2. 2. Table Co land surface. [Depths are in feetbelow
44 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida interval of open (inches) Diameter Diameter 12 8 8 10 9.625 9.625 12.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 2 4 4 9 (feet) Completed Completed open interval 465-528 360-500 650-770 465-520 465-520 110-150 745-790 293-352 745-817 736-780 440-470 725-774 736-780 475-615 60-705 460-620 445-600 t used to drill or ream out hole. Abbre- or ream out to drilltused ? ? of nued) NR NR NR NR NR Type PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel casing eter diam- Casing Casing (inches) 24.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 24.00 16.00 12.00 10.00 6.00 26.00 16.00 16.00 6.90 16.00 6.90 26.00 16.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 10.00 (feet) casing casing top and Depth to bottom of vinyl chlorinated; ?, unknown; NR, not NR, not reported] ?, unknown; chlorinated; vinyl 0-40 0-100 100-465 0-360 0-650 0-465 0-465 0-110 0-40 0-152 152-745 0-293 0-745 0-27 0-736 0-31 0-440 0-38 0-725 0-30 0-736 0-475 0-60 0-460 0-445 l for open-hole completions is size of bi tion 1991 1991 1991 1991 1977 1980 11-90 end of 04-79 Date at Date 7-8-96 construc- 11-08-99 04-26-96 08-26-99 09-10-99 10-01-99 12-05-78 system wells in southernFlorida --(Conti hole Total (feet) depth 528 1,608 520 520 150 790 817 780 470 774 780 614 705 622 602 (feet) of land surface surface Altitude Altitude NR 5 NR NR NR NR NR 7.5 7.5 9.25 7.5 7.2 8 9.99 10.72 Lee County Collier County ed otherwise. Diameter of open interva and 814136 260247 814141 260249 814145 260247 814141 260247 814141 260247 814141 260356 260353 814133 264308 814049 264309 814051 264309 814057 264309 814052 Latitude longitude 1 ter treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; PVC, poly wastewater ter treatment plant; WWTP, on data for aquifer storage and recovery Land-net location Land-net MW-A ASR-1 400 feet southeast of E 26 SWNE S10, 51S, NE S3, 51S, 26E 375 feet southeast of SE S34, 50S, 26E S34, 50S, 26E 1,750 feet northeast of ASR-2 S34, 50S, 26E NESE S23, 43S, 26E SE S23, 43S, 26E NESE S23, 43S, 26E NESE S23, 43S, 26E mpleted open intervals are open hole mpletedunless not open intervals MW-1 MW-2 ASR-1 MW-B MW-C ASR-1 ASR-2 ASR-3 ASR-1 MW-A MW-D DZMW identifier CO-2080 Deep test Other well well Other ASRZMW MHZ2MW no. USGS USGS L-2530 L-2901 L-3224 L-3225 C-1102 C-1211 C-1202 C-1203 C-1204 C-1205 C-1206 C-1207 C-1208 C-1209 C-1210 local well Well Identification, location, and constructi Site name Site WTP Manatee Road Manatee Marco Lakes Lee County viations and annotations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; WTP, wa WTP, Survey; Geological USGS, U.S. and annotations: viations Table 2. [Depths land are Co in feet surface. below
Summary and Conclusions 45 interval of open (inches) Diameter Diameter 12 8 4 4 10.63 10.63 10.63 10.63 5.5 5.5 5.5 8 5.5 5.5 (feet) Completed open interval 328-397 340-402 452-504 330-400 337-397 285-347 310-368 253-291 358-410 283-354 355-411 540-642 12 537-615 455-553 9.625 455-553 150-200 it used to drill or ream out hole. Abbre- of of nued) Type PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel casing eter eter diam- Casing (inches) 18.00 12.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 20.00 12.00 20.00 12.00 20.00 12.00 20.00 12.00 16.00 6.00 16.00 6.00 16.00 6.00 30.00 24.00 16.00 18.00 12.00 6.00 20.00 12.00 16.00 6.00 6.00 orida --(Conti (feet) casing casing top and top Depth to Depth bottom of bottom vinyl chlorinated;vinyl ?, NR,unknown; not reported] 0-30 0-328 0-340 0-452 0-330 0-33 0-337 0-41 0-285 0-40 0-310 0-21 0-253 0-41 0-358 0-39 0-283 0-41 0-355 0-40 0-499 0-540 0-42 0-495 0-537 0-91 0-455 0-16 0-455 0-150 in southern Fl l for open-hole completions is size of b tion end of Date at construc- 02-11-99 06-23-95 09-06-94 02-27-95 03-03-95 06-23-99 06-10-99 05-25-99 02-01-99 01-20-99 02-23-99 03-02-99 01-27-99 06-23-99 08-05-99 08-06-99 hole Total (feet) depth 397 780 504 400 397 347 368 329 410 354 411 642 980 647 553 200 d recovery system wells d recovery system e. Diameter of open interva 12 12 NR NR NR (feet) of land surface Altitude Altitude 23.31 24.37 25.29 24.55 27.18 27.32 27.03 29.14 23.44 28.64 25.15 Lee County--Continued and 814211 262752 814216 262752 262749 814218 262752 814220 262744 814216 262818 814232 262805 814226 262831 814238 262720 814215 262821 814233 262735 814217 264238 815019 263608 815253 Latitude longitude aquifer storage an aquifer storage ter treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; PVC, poly wastewater ter treatment plant; WWTP, e open hole unless noted otherwis Land-net location NENW S22, 46S, 26E NENW S22, 46S, 26E NENW S22, 46S, 26E NENW S22, 46S, 26E NENW S22, 46S, 26E 26E 46S, S15, SW 26E 46S, S15, SW NE S16, 46S, 26E 26E 46S, S22, SW 26E 46S, S15, SW NENW S22, 46S, 26E 43S, 25E SWSW S20, ASR-1 south of 260 feet S35, 44S, 24E of feet southwest ~220 ASR-1 ASR-1 ~80 feet south of and construction data for MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-1 ASR-1 MW-B MW-C ASR-2 ASR-3 ASR-4 ASR-5 ASR-1 ASR-1 MW-A identifier Other well SZMW-1 LM-6208 LM-3982 LM-4627 LM-6210 MHMW-1 no. USGS USGS L-5811 L-5855 L-5856 L-5857 L-5858 L-5859 L-5860 L-5861 L-5862 L-5863 L-5864 L-5865 L-5810 L-5871 L-5872 L-5873 local well well local Well Identification, location, Site name WTP Corkscrew Corkscrew North Reservoir Winkler Avenue Table 2. 2. Table [Depths ar land are surface. Completed open in feetintervals below wa WTP, Survey; USGS, Geological U.S. viations and annotations:
46 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida interval of open (inches) Diameter Diameter 11 12 5.5 5.5 13 8 8 12 29 29 29 12 2 (feet) Completed Completed 1,370-1,390 open interval 650-701 Abandoned 659-721 234-321 859-920 850-895 864-945 955-1,105 840-844 953-1,060 850-1,302 845-1,250 835-1,210 855-1,010 3 t used to drill or ream out hole. Abbre- or ream out to drilltused of nued) Type PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel casing eter diam- Casing Casing (inches) 20.00 12.00 16.00 6.00 16.00 6.00 16.00 6.00 34.00 24.00 16.00 18.00 12.00 8.00 4.00 18.00 12.00 6.00 24.00 14.00 14.00 6.63 2.38 40.00 30.00 40.00 30.00 40.00 30.00 24.00 12.00 12.00 2.00 (feet) casing casing top and Depth to bottom of vinyl chlorinated; ?, unknown; NR, not NR, not reported] ?, unknown; chlorinated; vinyl 1,370-1,390 0-93 0-650 0-19 0-655 0-19 0-659 0-19 0-234 0-35 0-737 0-859 0-30 0-525.5 0-674.5 0-850 0-35 0-742 0-864 0-201 0-955 0-198 0-953 0-862 0-170 0-850 0-170 0-845 0-170 0-835 0-170 0-855 0-1,370 2 l for open-hole completions is size of bi tion end of Date at Date construc- 11-19-74 03-11-97 08-03-99 07-26-99 07-29-99 08-02-99 10-22-99 09-08-99 05-13-99 12-09-74 06-04-80 12-23-96 02-14-97 01-03-97 system wells in southernFlorida --(Conti hole Total (feet) depth 718 657 721 321 920 1,200 945 1,105 1,064 1,302 1,350 1,300 1,643 6 6 6 NR NR NR NR (feet) of land surface surface Altitude Altitude 8.4 5.43 NR NR NR NR Miami-Dade County Lee County--Continued ed otherwise. Diameter of open interva and 814625 262319 814625 264312 264309 264313 254941 801717 254944 801718 254200 802830 Latitude 814056 814100 814100 262321 1 longitude 1 1 1 ter treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; PVC, poly wastewater ter treatment plant; WWTP, on data for aquifer storage and recovery Land-net location Land-net 1, abandoned 1, replacementwell of ASR-1 of ASR-1 1 of ASR-1 S14, 47S, 25E ~200 feet south of ASR- ~200 feet south of ASR- ~100 feet east of ASR-1 NESE S23, 43S, 26E 470 feet southwest of ASR-1 370 feet west-northwest 41E 53S, S18, NWSW 289 feet north-northwest 975 feet north of ASR-1 1,955 feet north of ASR- 270 feet north-northwest mpleted open intervals are open hole mpletedunless not open intervals MW-1 MW-3 MW-1 MW-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-2 ASR-3 TPW-1 TPW-1 SMW-1 identifier Test 711 Test (ASR-1) Other well well Other SZMW-1 LM-6068 LM-6209 LM-6615 SZMW-1R no. USGS USGS L-5812 L-5813 L-5814 L-5815 L-5816 L-5817 L-5818 G-3061 G-3062 G-3706 G-3707 G-3708 G-3709 local well Well Identification, location, and constructi Site name Site Estates Field San Carlos Olga WTP Hialeah West Well viations and annotations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; WTP, wa WTP, Survey; Geological USGS, U.S. and annotations: viations Table 2. [Depths land are Co in feet surface. below
Summary and Conclusions 47 interval of open (inches) Diameter Diameter 12 8 10 22 8 6 NR 16 4 18.5 (feet) 387-432 400-450 356-428 300-320 3 3 Completed open interval 3 1,268-1,710 990-1,075 1,275-1,700 1,275-1,700 990-1,280 995-1,270 804-909 3 1,016-1,120 ? of of it used to drill or ream out hole. Abbre- NR NR Type PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel nued) casing eter eter diam- Casing (inches) 30.00 16.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 4.00 4.00 16.00 10.00 4.00 4.00 42.00 34.00 24.00 24.00 12.00 6.00 1.50 20.00 12.00 12.00 5.00 36.00 26.00 16.00 4.00 4.00 20.00 14.00 orida --(Conti (feet) casing casing 387-427 top and top 388-428 413-435 300-320 Depth to Depth bottom of bottom 2 2 2 0-36 0-387 362-387 2 0-19 0-388 0-22 0-400 375-413 0-65 0-200 0-1,268 0-82 0-200 0-990 0-1,270 0-400 0-990 0-400 0-990 0-38 0-399 0-804 0-300 0-400 352-1,016 vinyl chlorinated;vinyl ?, NR,unknown; not reported] in southern Fl l for open-hole completions is size of b tion 1989 1975 06-74 end of Date at construc- 05-01-90 03-17-90 06-19-88 07-22-88 04-13-92 05-21-92 08-24-96 hole Total (feet) depth 450 428 550 1,710 1,800 1,280 1,270 1,260 435 1,200 d recovery system wells d recovery system (feet) e. Diameter of open interva of land surface Altitude Altitude NR NR NR 16 16 16 13 13 18.9 18.9 21.2 Monroe County Monroe Palm Beach County Palm Okeechobee County and 244239 810538 271420 804709 265604 800826 265608 800823 263050 262800 800600 Latitude 800346 longitude 1 aquifer storage an aquifer storage ter treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; PVC, poly wastewater ter treatment plant; WWTP, e open hole unless noted otherwis Land-net location ASR-1 S8, 66S, 32E 66S, S8, ASR-1 south of 126 feet southeast of 258 feet S24, 37S, 35E of ASR-1 north 560 feet 42E 41S, S3, ASR-1 from 500 feet NE S33, 45S, 43E ASR-1 ~50 feet south of S17, 46S, 43E and construction data for OW-1 OW-2 MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 identifier Test well in MW-1 Other well Deep mon- itoring tube no. USGS USGS PB-747 MO-189 MO-190 MO-191 local well well local PB-1145 PB-1194 PB-1195 PB-1702 OK-9000 OK-9001 OK-9002 Well Identification, location, Site name Creek/Nub- bin Slough- (Lake Okeechobee) East WTP North Stor- age Reservoir Marathon Taylor Jupiter Beach Boynton Delray Beach [Depths are in feet below land surface. Completed open intervals [Depths ar land are surface. Completed open in feetintervals below wa WTP, Survey; USGS, Geological U.S. viations and annotations: Table 2. 2. Table
48 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida interval of open (inches) Diameter Diameter 22 12 14 10 24 12 12 8 5.125 5.125 NR (feet) Completed Completed open interval 985-1,200 975-1,191 1,065-1,155 1,052-1,270 1,015-1,225 1,505-1,670 2,130-2,260 1,015-1,225 600-775 600-775 560-893 ? of t used to drill or ream out hole. Abbre- or ream out to drilltused NR NR Type PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC PVC Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel Steel nued) casing eter diam- Casing Casing (inches) 42.00 36.00 24.00 30.00 24.00 12.75 36.00 24.00 18.00 16.00 16.00 10.00 5.00 36.00 24.00 24.00 18.00 12.00 2.38 3.00 12.00 6.00 12.00 6.00 NR (feet) casing casing top and Depth to bottom of 0-56 0-389 0-985 0-65 0-379 0-975 0-60 0-365 0-223 215-1,065 0-155 0-1,050 0-1,052 0-205 0-1,015 0-375 0-1,000 0-1,505 0-2,130 0-1,015 0-130 0-600 0-130 0-600 0-560 vinyl chlorinated; ?, unknown; NR, not NR, not reported] ?, unknown; chlorinated; vinyl l for open-hole completions is size of bi ? ? tion end of 01-99 01-98 08-00 02-82 02-82 Date at Date construc- 11-13-96 01-29-97 03-31-00 system wells in southernFlorida --(Conti hole Total (feet) depth 1,200 1,410 1,155 1,500 1,225 2,370 1,225 1,000 775 893 (feet) of land surface surface Altitude Altitude 19.13 18.97 NR NR NR NR NR 31.75 25.56 25.09 St. Lucie County ed otherwise. Diameter of open interva and Palm Beach Palm County--Continued 800811 262119 264259 264257 262859 262120 262120 272017 802953 272019 802053 272020 802954 Latitude 800349 800350 801743 801746 801746 longitude 1 1 1 1 1 ter treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; PVC, poly wastewater ter treatment plant; WWTP, ld global positioning accuratesystem to ± 0.2 seconds. on data for aquifer storage and recovery Land-net location Land-net ASR-1 ASR-1 ~100 feet east of MW-1 NW S21, 43S, 43E S?, 46S, 42E NR 300 feet northwest of EXW-1 300 feet northwest of EXW-1 SE S14, 36S, 39E 148 feet northeast of 420 feet northwest of 4 mpleted open intervals are open hole mpletedunless not open intervals MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 MW-2 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 EXW-1 EXW-1 SLF-50 SLF-51 SLF-49 PBF-10 identifier (ASR-1) PBF-10R Other well well Other no. USGS USGS local well PB-1692 PB-1693 PB-1763 PB-1764 PB-1765 PB-1766 PB-1767 STL-356 STL-357 STL-355 Well Identification, location, and constructi Latitude-longitude determined in the field using a hand he a using hand in the field determined Latitude-longitude of screen. depth and bottom Top screen. or below pack above gravel plus Screened interval upper zone. Replacementwell to PBF-10, 1 2 3 4 Site name Site Beach WTP Beach County 1 Site Canal, County West Palm Palm System 3 Western Hillsboro St. Lucie viations and annotations: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; WTP, wa WTP, Survey; Geological USGS, U.S. and annotations: viations Table 2. [Depths land are Co in feet surface. below
Summary and Conclusions 49 10 minutes, which and and Problems comments Multiwell aquifer test planned in the future Walton method should give same Walton C-J as no leakance if transmissivity method(?) Curve matches look okay Acidization of well done after step test and constant before test.rate Interpretation data of recovery favored late time data may have affected data. FMW-1 data. FMW-1 may have affected apparently not24-hour used in test of ASR-1 Third packer test showed apparent about failure after Step-drawdown test was performed was performed test Step-drawdown prior to multiwell, but date of test was not given in report quifer; Walton, Walton (1962) leaky leaky (1962) Walton Walton, quifer; ysis: SC, specific capacity; Theis, Theis ysis: SC, specific NR NR NR NR NR ments measure- Background Data collected for multi- collected Data well test but no informa- tion on whether made were corrections 5 1 5 -- -- 20 46 4.7 4.4 ~3.5 ~17.5 3.8-3.6 5.5-4.0 1 (avg) 10.0-5.6 Specific (gallons 42.6-32.0 90.6-51.1 18.4-16.5 25.5-17.7 capacity per foot) 17.34 (avg) 13.87 (avg) per minute per , Hantush and Jacob (1955) leaky a leaky and Jacob (1955) , Hantush applicable; NR, not reported] ------overy; S, step drawdown. Method S, step drawdown. of anal overy; SC SC SC SC SC SC C-J C-J H-J analysis Theis Rec Theis Rec Theis Rec Theis Rec Method of of Method -2 ------None Walton -- (1/day) 6.3x10 Leakance -6 -4 -5 ------Fiveash WTP Fiveash Sprintree WTP Sprintree cient less) Broward County Broward (unit- Charlotte County Charlotte coeffi- 1.1x10 5.3x10 Storage 1.33x10 Shell Creek WtP Broward County WTP 2A WTP County Broward eis (1935) residual drawdown recovery; H-J recovery; residual eis drawdown (1935) Deerfield WTP Beach West Englewood South RegionalEnglewood WWTP ------NR day) sivity 450 300 24,200 37,200 4,700 8,000 23,500 19,500 1,300 1,300 4,700 3,700 2,300 (square (square per feet Transmis- 8 6 8 4 4 4 4 of 24 24 24 54 5.7 NR NR NR NR NR NR test 1.33 4.00 10 min Length (hours) nstant rate; P, Packer test; R, single well constant rate recrate single well constant test; R, Packer rate; P, nstant 10 per 480 160 160 600 164 546 131 rate 1,200 1,000 2,100 31-101 minute) 100-160 300-550 9.3-17.7 (gallons 28.3-59.5 Pumping 950-2,100 700-1,900 968-2,104 490-1,050 1,050-2,950 ------er storagerecovery ander well systems in southernFlorida well Moni- toring MW-1 MW-1 acob (1946) confined aquifer; Theis Rec, Th Rec, Theis aquifer; confined acob (1946) her annotations: WTP, water treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; -, not wastewater treatment water plant; WWTP, her annotations: WTP, S S S S P S S S P S --P S 610-600S S 8S ------10.6 R -- 2,115 48R 5,700 --R -- Theis Rec 22.75 M MM MW-1M ASR-1 1,000 1,000 24 24 28,900 44,000 -- -- Theis Rec NR P, R P, R P, R Test type 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (feet) Open tested interval 700-755 700-764 563-583 630-807 280-320 170-205 764-933 507-700 510-700 998-1,028 998-1,042 956-1,130 956-1,130 995-1,200 995-1,200 990-1,200 995-1,200 995-1,200 1,110-1,270 1,110-1,270 1,058-1,175 1,055-1,175 1,055-1,175 1,055-1,200 1,055-1,200 tion well MW-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 TPW-1 TPW-1 TPW-1 IMW-1 FMW-1 FMW-1 FMW-1 FMW-1 FMW-1 SMW-1 Produc- identifier SZMW-1 Hydraulic test data from aquifHydraulic NR NR Test date 11-26-96 ASR-1 11-26-96 ASR-1 11-21-96 11-26-96 11-05-97 11-17-9711-18-97 ASR-1 700-764 S -- 231-597 12 ------5.3-4.6 06-28-99 ASR-1 12-10-92 09-19-96 06-06-97 01-12-98 01-13-98 01-15-98 03-16-98 03-17-98 03-25-98 03-30-98 03-07-00 03-31-00 04-20-00 04-18-00 04-18-00 07-28-97 ASR-1 Table 3. 3. Table type: M, multiwellco Test landsurface. [Depths are in feet below aquifer; C-J, Cooper(1935) and J confined aquifer; J-L, Jacob and Lohman (1952). Ot (1952). and Lohman Jacob J-L, aquifer;
50 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida en a test of an and and Problems comments Estimated transmissivity in lower Hawthorn zone I (550 to 622 feet) was too low for consideration as an interval. and recovery storage aquifer No dates reported for any were tests. Good agreement between tests All of the step-drawdown tests are however, tests; be packer to indicated some could have be open interval below casing. For step test, transmissivity was determined at each step by an unspecified method (1970). Then an adjusted in Walton estimated valueof transmissivity was obtained by plotting transmissivity For step. for each flow rate against the multiwell test, 670 gallons per minute was an injection rate Storage zone in ASR-1Storage is located in the lower Hawthorn producing zone of the Upper Floridan aquifer as defined by (2000) Reese ysis: SC, specific capacity; Theis, Theis specific SC, ysis: NR NR ments measure- Background ------NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 17.4-15 220-170 Specific (gallons capacity perfoot) per minute , Hantush and Jacob (1955) leaky aquifer; Walton, Walton (1962) leaky leaky (1962) Walton Walton, aquifer; leaky (1955) Jacob and Hantush , applicable; NR, not reported] overy; S, step drawdown. Method of anal S, step drawdown. overy; C-J H-J H-J -- H-J NR NR Walton analysis Theis Rec Theis Rec Theis Theis Rec Theis Rec Method of of Method See comment See comment See comment See comment See comment See comment -4 -2 -4 ------7x10 (1/day) 3.7x10 1.0x10 Leakance -4 -4 -5 Lee County Marco Lakes Marco ------Manatee Road Manatee Collier County cient less) (unit- Lee County WTPLee coeffi- 6.5x10 Storage 1.00x10 1.00x10 day) sivity 8,100 2,400 20,000 15,000 6,700 6,300 5,700 9,400 12,000 67,000 47 16,300 12,000 8,000 to (square (square per feet Transmis- 4 of 17 17 8.3 8.3 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR test Length (hours) uifer; Theis Rec, Theis (1935) residual drawdown recovery; H-J recovery; drawdown residual (1935) Rec, Theis Theis uifer; water treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; -, not wastewater treatment plant; WWTP, water constant rate; P, Packer test; R, well Packer single constant rate rec constant rate; P, 5 NR NR NR NR NR NR per 670 670 463 463 rate 220-600 400-820 minute) (gallons Pumping ------well Moni- toring MW-B MW-B ASR-1 ASR-2, DZMW ASRZMW S S ASR-1 400-650 NR ------25-24 R -- 187 4.5 8,200 -- -- Theis Rec NR M M M MM DZMW 463 8.3M 9,100 NR 350 48 800 P, S P, S P, S P, S P, S P, S P, R Test type S, M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (feet) Open tested interval 360-460 680-760 465-528 296-399 550-622 745-811 745-790 465-530 465-528 745-790 745-790 736-780 736-780 445-600 930-1020 1,180-1,220 1,345-1,606 tion well ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-3 MW-A MW-A MW-A MW-A MW-A MW-A DZMW DZMW Produc- identifier Hydraulicaquifer test storage data from and recoverysystems wellsouthern in Florida--(Continued) NR DZMW 296-399 R -- 600 3 42,400 -- -- Theis Rec NR NR DZMW NR ASR-1 NR ASR-2 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR ASR-1 Test date 11-90 11-90 11-90 11-90 11-90 11-90 Table 3. type: M, multiwell land [Depths aresurface. Test in feet below aq confined Jacob (1946) and Cooper C-J, aquifer; confined (1935) WTP, annotations: Other (1952). Lohman and Jacob J-L, aquifer;
Summary and Conclusions 51 ll tests of ASR-1 and and Problems comments Test of MW-A, interval 744 to 778 of MW-A, Test feet, was of upper 34 of 240 feet thick Suwannee Limestone.Second multi- well test of ASR-1 followed back- to injection plugging of MW-A zone.Transmissivity values for step- drawdown test of ASR-2, 3, 4, and 5 were obtained by modified Walton method. Second step test of ASR-5 was post-acidization of the well. Additional multiwe and ASR-3 were conducted during the expansion project Fit data for to ASR-1 of line recovery multiwell test is poor quifer; Walton, Walton (1962) leaky leaky (1962) Walton Walton, quifer; ysis: SC, specific capacity; Theis, Theis ysis: SC, specific ments measure- Background Data collected for multi- collected Data well test in September 1995 Data collected3 days for prior to the multiwell test ------2.5 NR 1.3-0.6 7.4-5.2 9.7-3.5 6.6-2.8 2.8-1.8 10.5-3.1 Specific (gallons 26.9-19.4 44.4-41.3 8.65-7.00 capacity per foot) per minute per , Hantush and Jacob (1955) leaky a leaky and Jacob (1955) , Hantush applicable; NR, not reported] - overy; S, step drawdown. Method S, step drawdown. of anal overy; SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC C-J C-J C-J C-J H-J Hantush analysis Theis Rec (recovery) (recovery) Method of of Method -4 -5 ------C-J-- Theis-- -- Theis------(1/day) 1.6x10 7.33x10 Leakance -5 -5 -4 -4 -5 -5 -4 -4 ------North Reservoir cient less) (unit- coeffi- Storage 7.70x10 1.70x10 4.90x10 3.27x10 4.64x10 6.70x10 2.30x10 5.70x10 Corkscrew WTP Lee County--Continued eis (1935) residual drawdown recovery; H-J recovery; residual eis drawdown (1935) - day) sivity 500 13,000 3,410 3,460 1,900 3,410 7,350 14,400 5,200 2,040 680 9,590 2,220 8,290 8,740 8,570 (square (square per feet Transmis- 4 4 of 72 72 72 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 120 120 test 115.5 115.5 Length (hours) nstant rate; P, Packer test; R, single well constant rate recrate single well constant test; R, Packer rate; P, nstant NR per 400 400 415 415 379 379 379 rate 15-72 92-430 73-295 79-281 55-190 85-322 minute) 129-497 163-380 162-590 (gallons Pumping storagerecovery and well systems in southernFlorida --(Continued) ------well Moni- toring MW-1 MW-1 MW-C MW-C MW-C ASR-1 MW-A acob (1946) confined aquifer; Theis Rec, Th Rec, Theis aquifer; confined acob (1946) her annotations: WTP, water treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; -, not wastewater treatment water plant; WWTP, her annotations: WTP, P SS S --S S -- 115-410S NR -- 153-450 2,040 NR 130-490 4,020 NR --S 13,400 ------SC -- SC 7.8-6.6 SC 15.0-11.7 50.0-36.1 M MM MW-CMM MW-A 400MM MW-C 415 115.5 3,380 415 120 1,760 120 3,180 M M M P, S P, S P, S P, S P, S Test type 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (feet) Open tested interval 428-515 744-778 480-518 640-703 808-890 904-977 253-291 253-291 310-368 328-397 328-397 328-397 337-397 328-397 328-397 328-397 328-397 285-347 529-619 540-642 540-642 540-642 540-642 tion well MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-3 ASR-5 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 MW-A MW-A Produc- identifier Hydraulic test data from aquiferHydraulic NR MW-B 452-504 NR -- NR NR 100 NR NR NR NR Test date 09-95 ASR-1 06-96 ASR-1 06-96 ASR-1 08-94 09-95 09-95 06-96 06-96 12-11-98 07-20-99 ASR-5 06-25-99 ASR-4 07-13-99 ASR-2 08-24-94 02-12-99 07-08-99 12-07-98 12-09-98 12-16-98 12-18-98 03-03-99 03-08-99 03-08-99 03-08-99 08-17-94 MW-A 524-578 P -- 39 5 min. 500 -- -- SC NR Table 3. 3. Table type: M, multiwellco Test landsurface. [Depths are in feet below aquifer; C-J, Cooper(1935) and J confined aquifer; J-L, Jacob and Lohman (1952). Ot (1952). and Lohman Jacob J-L, aquifer;
52 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida and and Problems comments High specific capacity in TPW-1 due TPW-1 in capacity specific High to two pilot holes in open interval. Pumping rate for test on of 985 gallons per11/10/99 minute was natural flow. C-J solution for drawdown in is suspect.SZMW-1R Solution is for and background very late time only, changes due may to prior recharge response have affected Pumping rate for multiwell test was 1,540 for first 6.5 hours, then changed to 1,400. No attempt was made to analyze multiwell test data leakance. or coefficient for storage lower in the located is zone Storage Hawthorn producing zone of the Upper Floridan aquifer H-J results for multiwell test agree better with single well and packer test than C-J results. A second constant rate test was run but is not reported here. zone isStorage about 150 feet below top of Suwannee Limestone ysis: SC, specific capacity; Theis, Theis specific SC, ysis: ments measure- Background Unknown for multiwell followed 10 test. Test at 1,955 days of recharge gallons per minute and then 6-day static period. Ninety hours collected prior to multiwell test, but apparently not used datato correct drawdown Measured for multiwell for multiwell Measured buttest,used unknown if to correct drawdown ------NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 59.7 15-9.0 8.9-6.5 250-130 14.9-8.5 Specific (gallons capacity perfoot) per minute , Hantush and Jacob (1955) leaky aquifer; Walton, Walton (1962) leaky leaky (1962) Walton Walton, aquifer; leaky (1955) Jacob and Hantush , applicable; NR, not reported] ------overy; S, step drawdown. Method of anal S, step drawdown. overy; SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC C-J C-J C-J C-J C-J C-J C-J C-J C-J C-J C-J C-J H-J H-J analysis Theis Rec Theis Rec Theis (recovery) (recovery) (recovery) (recovery) Method of of Method -3 -2 ------NR (1/day) 5.2x10 6.0x10 Leakance -2 -5 -5 -5 -4 Olga WTP ------NR cient less) (unit- coeffi- San Carlos Estates Storage 1.00x10 5.10x10 4.10x10 5.50x10 4.20x10 Winkler Avenue Lee County--Continued ------day) sivity 33 11,000 29,100 24,700 27,400 39,000 70,000 2,500 1,300 7,600 7,600 7,600 1,900 9,000 6,400 8,700 5,000 7,200 12,000 9,400 (square (square per feet Transmis- 8 8 8 8 8 5 of 27 27 60 60 60 60 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR test 15 min 70 min Length (hours) uifer; Theis Rec, Theis (1935) residual drawdown recovery; H-J recovery; drawdown residual (1935) Rec, Theis Theis uifer; water treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; -, not wastewater treatment plant; WWTP, water constant rate; P, Packer test; R, well Packer single constant rate rec constant rate; P, per 135 479 985 985 300 500 500 500 500 rate 6 to 156 to 70-200 70-355 70-350 70-350 78-480 80-340 75-350 110-400 112-545 170-350 150-220 minute) (gallons Pumping 710-1,480 1540-1400 1540-1400 ------well Moni- toring MW-1 MW-1 MW-3 MW-3 ASR-1 SZMW-1 SZMW-1R SZMW-1R S P P -- 483 18 minS 26,600S S -- -- S P P P P P S P P S R M MM ASR-1M 1540-1400 SZMW-1 27 1540-1400 27 25,400M 29,000 --M ------M M M M Test type 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (feet) Open tested interval 234-321 515-605 612-689 710-935 740-820 650-701 659-721 650-701 650-701 455-553 455-575 455-553 455-554 455-574 455-553 455-553 835-935 835-935 830-945 854-945 857-945 859-920 859-920 859-920 859-920 859-920 945-1,101 tion well MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 MW-1 MW-3 MW-3 MW-3 MW-3 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 TPW-1 TPW-1 TPW-1 SMW-1 Produc- identifier SZMW-1R Hydraulicaquifer test storage data from and recoverysystems wellsouthern in Florida--(Continued) NR ASR-1 455-647 S -- 160 15 min ------86.3 NR Test date 6-16-99 6-17-99 ASR-1 11-10-99 11-10-99 11-01-99 11-03-99 11-03-99 11-03-99 11-03-99 10-23-99 ASR-1 10-23-99 10-23-99 06-07-99 07-29-99 08-02-99 01-05-99 01-07-99 02-03-99 02-04-99 02-04-99 02-08-99 03-17-99 03-25-99 03-25-99 03-26-99 10-23-99 ASR-1 Table 3. type: M, multiwell land [Depths aresurface. Test in feet below aq confined Jacob (1946) and Cooper C-J, aquifer; confined (1935) WTP, annotations: Other (1952). Lohman and Jacob J-L, aquifer;
Summary and Conclusions 53 and and Problems comments Transmissivity estimate from Meyer esti- coefficient (1989b). Storage mated by model simulation of pump- ing test and recovery storage All aquifer three prior to acidized were heavily wells all tests. Late time drawdown data going pump of because problematic times. several down (1962) Leakance using Walton method not determined Leakance derived by extrapolation; longer pumping period required for more accurate value quifer; Walton, Walton (1962) leaky leaky (1962) Walton Walton, quifer; ysis: SC, specific capacity; Theis, Theis ysis: SC, specific NR ments measure- Background Measured for multiwell test. Correction was not done, due to negligibility. Measured for 3 weeks prior to multiwell test. A regional increasing trend in water level was deter- mined datataken Water-level for 5 days prior to con- stant rate test; corrections made using a long-term trend increasing ------NR 1,600 1,600 Specific 269-52.1 (gallons 46.1-38.2 capacity per foot) per minute per , Hantush and Jacob (1955) leaky a leaky and Jacob (1955) , Hantush applicable; NR, not reported] -- -- overy; S, step drawdown. Method S, step drawdown. of anal overy; J-L C-J C-J C-J Walton Walton Walton analysis Theis-Rec Theis-Rec (recovery) (recovery) Method of of Method -3 -5 ------C-J -- -- NR NR Walton -- N/AN/A C-J C-J -- -- N/A N/A (1/day) 1.6x10 3.9x10 Leakance 0.01-0.001 H-J 1,600 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -3 -4 Hialeah -5 Marathon ------NR N/A West Well Field Well West Monroe County Monroe cient less) (unit- coeffi- 8.4x10 Storage Okeechobee County 3.90x10 4.40x10 3.20x10 1.90x10 2.90x10 3.30x10 3.70x10 5.20x10 1.25x10 Miami-Dade County eis (1935) residual drawdown recovery; H-J recovery; residual eis drawdown (1935) -- -- day) sivity 706 11,000 15,400 15,400 2,290 1,760 4,090 620,000 765,000 (square (square per feet Transmis- Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough (Lake Okeechobee) Taylor 8 8 of 72 72 25 25 25 24 24 6.4 test 1.66 Length (hours) nstant rate; P, Packer test; R, single well constant rate recrate single well constant test; R, Packer rate; P, nstant 10 per 250 105 105 105 rate 3,500 3,500 6,500 6,500 minute) (gallons Pumping 1,400-4,000 1,500-3,800 storagerecovery and well systems in southernFlorida --(Continued) ------well OW-1 OW-1 OW-2 Moni- toring MW-1 ASR-1 ASR-2 ASR-3 ASR-1 acob (1946) confined aquifer; Theis Rec, Th Rec, Theis aquifer; confined acob (1946) her annotations: WTP, water treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; -, not wastewater treatment water plant; WWTP, her annotations: WTP, S SS -- 1,500-3,800 8 -- --S -- --P -- 95-350 126.6-51.1 NR ------3.9-2.7 M MM ASR-1MM 3,500 ASR-2M 3,500 ASR-3 72M 3,500 10,300 72MM N/A 18,200 OW-1 72MM 19,700 OW-2 N/A 105 105 25 C-J 2,510 25M NR 2,180 MM MW-1 6,500 24 586,000 Test type 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (feet) Open tested interval 387-432 387-432 387-432 387-432 387-432 387-432 850-1,302 850-1,302 850-1,302 953-1,060 850-1,302 835-1,210 850-1,302 850-1,302 845-1,250 1,175-1,227 1,268-1,710 1,268-1,710 1,268-1,710 tion well MW-1 MW-1 ASR-1 ASR-3 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 Produc- identifier Hydraulic test data from aquiferHydraulic Test date 08-02-98 ASR-1 12-09-97 ASR-1 12-09-97 ASR-1 12-09-97 ASR-1 05-03-90 ASR-1 05-06-90 ASR-1 02-10-75 01-26-97 04-08-97 12-09-97 12-09-97 05-03-90 05-03-90 05-03-90 04-20-98 08-02-98 08-02-98 02-25-97 ASR-2 05-03-90 ASR-1 04-20-98 MW-1 1,175-1,227 R P, -- 10 6.4 2,940 -- -- Recovery NR Table 3. 3. Table type: M, multiwellco Test landsurface. [Depths are in feet below aquifer; C-J, Cooper(1935) and J confined aquifer; J-L, Jacob and Lohman (1952). Ot (1952). and Lohman Jacob J-L, aquifer;
54 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida re multiwell test and and Problems comments Recovery was allowed following step test of ASR-1 befo deviation fromwas begun. Large Theis curve during late time, but leaky aquifer solution not used Second step test is with permanent Average well. in installed equipment of estimates for transmissivity was 70,000 gallons per day foot Second step test performed after acidization of well. For the second step test, pump malfunctioned after about 10 minutes of pumping during the last step at 2,550 gallons per minute with 4,300 gallons Acidized EXW-1 of 36 HClpercent on 6-2-00 Also conducted four pump tests of ASR-1 during drilling with total depth ranging from 627 to 1,000 feet and casing600at feet. Transmissivity was calculated from these tests based on recovery data from ASR-1 ysis: SC, specific capacity; Theis, Theis specific SC, ysis: NR NR NR NR NR ments measure- Background ------0.37 2.40 22.6 18-28 29-27 75-58 62-42 116-99 194-86 220-110 110-101 116-105 10.8-7.8 390-306 Specific (gallons 31.1-26.6 capacity perfoot) per minute , Hantush and Jacob (1955) leaky aquifer; Walton, Walton (1962) leaky leaky (1962) Walton Walton, aquifer; leaky (1955) Jacob and Hantush , applicable; NR, not reported] ------overy; S, step drawdown. Method of anal S, step drawdown. overy; C-J C-J C-J H-J H-J Theis analysis (recovery) Method of of Method (drawdown) -2 -2 ------(1/day) 4.3x10 4.7x10 Leakance -4 -4 -4 -4 ------NR cient less) (unit- coeffi- Storage Palm Beach County Beach Palm 2.67x10 1.00x10 8.00x10 1.64x10 St. Lucie CountySt. Boynton WTP East Beach Boynton West Palm BeachWest WTP ------Western Hillsboro Canal,Western Site 1 Not day) sivity 6,800- 13,000 138,000 108,000 5,910 (square (square per feet calculated Transmis- Delray Beach Reservoir North Storage of 24 24 24 24 72 NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR test Length (hours) uifer; Theis Rec, Theis (1935) residual drawdown recovery; H-J recovery; drawdown residual (1935) Rec, Theis Theis uifer; water treatment plant; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant; -, not wastewater treatment plant; WWTP, water constant rate; P, Packer test; R, well Packer single constant rate rec constant rate; P, 49 90 95 per 700 700 388 rate 55-110 64-142 300-584 300-584 550-740 550-740 550-732 508-704 minute) (gallons Pumping 320-2,100 798-1,723 575-1,100 1,000-3,000 ------well Moni- toring ASR-1 FAMW FAMW r about the same) as the storage zone. S S P P S S --S 760-2,550S S 13.2S S --S --P S -- -- 17.2-15.7 M M M M ASR-1 388 72 6,430 P, S P, S Test type 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (feet) Open tested interval 849-899 600-775 804-900 804-909 600-775 974-1,020 975-1,091 975-1,090 975-1,290 975-1,384 975-1,191 975-1,190 985-1,200 985-1,200 985-1,200 1,304-1,384 1,160-1,225 1,020-1,200 1,020-1,200 1,015-1,225 tion well MW-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 ASR-1 FAMW FAMW FAMW FAMW FAMW FAMW FAMW EXW-1 EXW-1 Produc- identifier Hydraulicaquifer test storage data from and recoverysystems wellsouthern in Florida--(Continued) Open interval tested is the sameOpen interval (o 1 Test date 06-11-96 ASR-1 900-952 P -- 83 NR ------0.90 11-19-96 06-18-96 ASR-1 1,020-1,100 P -- 98 NR ------2.00 02-24-98 ASR-1 04-09-92 10-15-92 06-05-96 06-14-96 09-20-96 08-22-96 09-14-96 08-29-96 09-01-96 09-04-96 09-06-96 01-30-97 02-01-97 02-01-97 04-05-00 05-25-00 08-24-82 04-10-00 EXW-1 1,015-1,150 P08-24-82 -- MW-1 105 NR ------10.9 Table 3. type: M, multiwell land [Depths aresurface. Test in feet below aq confined Jacob (1946) and Cooper C-J, aquifer; confined (1935) WTP, annotations: Other (1952). Lohman and Jacob J-L, aquifer;
Summary and Conclusions 55 56 Inventory and Review of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in Southern Florida