Water-Level Measurements for the Coastal Plain Aquifers of South Carolina Prior to Development

Aucott, Walter R.; Speiran, Gary K.

doi:10.3133/ofr84803

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Detailed hydrogeologic descriptions of the Coastal Plain aquifer system in South Carolina are provided by Aucott and Speiran (1985), Aucott and others (1987), and Campbell and Heeswijk (1996).…”

Section: Previous Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Quality of Brunswick County, North Carolina

Harden¹,

Fine²,

Spruill³

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Previous Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Quality of Brunswick County, North Carolina

Harden¹,

Fine²,

Spruill³

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2). This cone of depression, which represents groundwater-level declines from predevelopment levels of 106 feet (ft) above land surface (Aucott and Speiran, 1984) to levels as low as 144 ft below land surface (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009a), has led to water-management concerns for Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW), the town's public works agency. As a result of these water-level declines, pumping levels in MPW production wells have been as low as several hundred feet below land surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulation of Reclaimed-Water Injection and Pumping Scenarios and Particle-Tracking Analysis near Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

Petkewich¹,

Campbell²

2009

Scientific Investigations Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of injecting reclaimed water into the Middendorf aquifer beneath Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, was simulated using a groundwater-flow model of the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province of South Carolina and parts of Georgia and North Carolina. Reclaimed water, also known as recycled water, is wastewater or stormwater that has been treated to an appropriate level so that the water can be reused. The scenarios were simulated to evaluate potential changes in groundwater flow and groundwater-level conditions caused by injecting reclaimed water into the Middendorf aquifer. Simulations included a Base Case and two injection scenarios. Maximum pumping rates were simulated as 6.65, 8.50, and 10.5 million gallons per day for the Base Case, Scenario 1, and Scenario 2, respectively. The Base Case simulation represents a non-injection estimate of the year 2050 groundwater levels for comparison purposes for the two injection scenarios. For Scenarios 1 and 2, the simulated injection of reclaimed water at 3 million gallons per day begins in 2012 and continues through 2050. The flow paths and time of travel for the injected reclaimed water were simulated using particletracking analysis. The simulations indicated a general decline of groundwater altitudes in the Middendorf aquifer in the Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, area between 2004 and 2050 for the Base Case and two injection scenarios. For the Base Case, groundwater altitudes generally declined about 90 feet from the 2004 groundwater levels. For Scenarios 1 and 2, although groundwater altitudes initially increased in the Mount Pleasant area because of the simulated injection, these higher groundwater levels declined as Mount Pleasant Waterworks pumping increased over time. When compared to the Base Case simulation, 2050 groundwater altitudes for Scenario 1 are between 15 feet lower to 23 feet higher for production wells, between 41 and 77 feet higher for the injection wells, and between 9 and 23 feet higher for observation wells in the Mount Pleasant area. When compared to the Base Case simulation, 2050 groundwater altitudes for Scenario 2 are between 2 and 106 feet lower for production wells and observation wells and between 11 and 27 feet higher for the injection wells in the Mount Pleasant area. Water budgets for the model area immediately surrounding the Mount Pleasant area were calculated for 2011 and for 2050. The largest flow component for the 2050 water budget in the Mount Pleasant area is discharge through wells at rates between 7.1 and 10.9 million gallons of water per day. This groundwater is replaced predominantly by between 6.0 and 7.8 million gallons per day of lateral groundwater flow within the Middendorf aquifer for the Base Case and two scenarios and through reclaimed-water injection of 3 million gallons per day for Scenarios 1 and 2. In addition, between 175,000 and 319,000 gallons of groundwater are removed from this area per day because of the regional hydraulic gradient. Additional sources of water to this area are groundwater storage relea...

show abstract

“…Above the BM/SL Aquifer is the upper unconfined aquifer, which extends down to 20 m below the land surface; these units are laterally continuous for several miles in Charleston. The confined BM/SL Aquifer is saturated with brackish water and predevelopment flow was directed toward the coastline (Aucott and Speiran 1985).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implications of Rate‐Limited Mass Transfer for Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Culkin¹,

Singha

Day‐Lewis

2008

Groundwater

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pressure to decrease reliance on surface water storage has led to increased interest in aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems. Recovery efficiency, which is the ratio of the volume of recovered water that meets a predefined standard to total volume of injected fluid, is a common criterion of ASR viability. Recovery efficiency can be degraded by a number of physical and geochemical processes, including rate-limited mass transfer (RLMT), which describes the exchange of solutes between mobile and immobile pore fluids. RLMT may control transport behavior that cannot be explained by advection and dispersion. We present data from a pilot-scale ASR study in Charleston, South Carolina, and develop a three-dimensional finite-difference model to evaluate the impact of RLMT processes on ASR efficiency. The modeling shows that RLMT can explain a rebound in salinity during fresh water storage in a brackish aquifer. Multicycle model results show low efficiencies over one to three ASR cycles due to RLMT degrading water quality during storage; efficiencies can evolve and improve markedly, however, over multiple cycles, even exceeding efficiencies generated by advection-dispersion only models. For an idealized ASR model where RLMT is active, our simulations show a discrete range of diffusive length scales over which the viability of ASR schemes in brackish aquifers would be hindered.

show abstract

Water-Level Measurements for the Coastal Plain Aquifers of South Carolina Prior to Development

Cited by 13 publications

References 1 publication

Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Quality of Brunswick County, North Carolina

Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Quality of Brunswick County, North Carolina

Simulation of Reclaimed-Water Injection and Pumping Scenarios and Particle-Tracking Analysis near Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

Implications of Rate‐Limited Mass Transfer for Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About