BCWPA C-11-REPACK_CNT2_GDR_FINAL USACE_20230929_DRAFT (6 of 6).pdf

Hand Auger 03

Hand Auger 04

DRAFT

Hand Auger 03Hand Auge

Hand Auger 06

Hand Auger 07

Hand Auger 06Hand Aug

Hand Auger 08

Hand Auger 09

Hand Auger 0Hand Auge 8

Hand Auger 11

Hand Auger 12

Hand Auger 11Hand Aug

Hand Auger 13

Hand Auger 14

Hand Auger 13Hand Aug

Hand Auger 15

Hand Auger 16

Hand Auger 15Hand Auge

Hand Auger 17

Hand Auger 18

Hand Auger 17Hand Aug

Hand Auger 19

Hand Auger 20

Hand Auger 19Hand Aug

Hand Auger 21

Hand Auger 22

Hand Auger 21Hand Aug

Hand Auger 23

Hand Auger 24DRAFT Hand Auger Hand Aug 23

Hand Auger 25

Hand Auger 26

Hand Auger 25Hand Aug

Hand Auger 27

Hand Auger 28

Hand Auger 27Hand Aug

Hand Auger 29

Hand Auger 30

Hand Auger 29Hand Auge

Hand Auger 31

Hand Auger 32

Hand Auger 3Hand Aug 1

Hand Auger 33

Hand Auger 35

Hand Auger 3Hand Auge 3

Hand Auger 36

Hand Auger 37

Hand Auger 36Hand Auge

Hand Auger 38

Hand Auger 39

Hand Auger 38Hand Auger

Hand Auger 40

Hand Auger 41

Hand Auger 40Hand Aug

Hand Auger 42

Hand Auger 43

Hand Auger 42Hand Auge

Hand Auger 44

Hand Auger 45

Hand Auger 44Hand Aug

Hand Auger 45

Hand Auger 48

Hand Auger 4Hand Aug 5

Hand Auger 49

Hand Auger 50DRAFT Hand Auger 49Hand Auger 4

Hand Auger 51

Hand Auger 52

Hand Auger 51Hand Auger

Hand Auger 53

Hand Auger 54

Hand Auger Hand Auge 53

Hand Auger 55

Hand Auger 56

Hand AugerHand Auger 55

Hand Auger 57

Hand Auger 58

Hand Auger Hand Aug 57

Hand Auger 59

Hand Auger 60DRAFT Hand Auger Hand Au 59

Hand Auger 61

Hand Auger 62

Hand Auger Hand A 61

Hand Auger 63

Hand Auger 64

Hand Auger Hand Au 63

Hand Auger 65

DRAFHand Auger Hand Aug 65

T

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project, Broward County Water Preserve Areas: C-11 Impoundment, Broward County, Florida

APPENDIX D

Aquifer Pump Test Report

DRAFTD D

Test Reportst Repo

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District

Broward County Water Preserve Area Proposed C-11 Impoundment

DDR Phase Pump Testing

City of Weston Broward County, Florida

October 2008 unty Water Preserve Are d C-11 Impoundment

DDR Phase Pump Testing

Wes Broward County, TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 EQUIPMENT

2.1 Well Details

2.1.1 Well Construction

2.1.2 Well Development

2.1.3 Well Arrays

2.2 Pump Details

2.3 Monitoring Equipment

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Pumping Test Methods

3.1.1 Pumping Site 1

3.1.2 Pumping Site 2

3.2 Analytical Methods

3.2.1 Thiem Equilibrium Equation

3.2.2 Cooper-Jacob Distance -Drawdown Analysis

3.2.3 Theis Recovery Analysis

3.2.4 Specific Capacity

3.3 Precipitation

3.4 Survey

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Pumping Site 1

4.1.1 Shallow Wells

4.1.2 Deep Wells

4.1.3 Precipitation

4.2 Pumping Site 2

4.2.1 Shallow Wells

4.2.2 Deep Wells

4.2.3 Precipitation

5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 Analytical Methods

5.1.1 Thiem Equilibrium Calculations

5.1.2 Cooper-Jacob Distance-Drawdown Analyses

5.1.3 Theis Recovery Analyses

5.2 Final Transmissivity Values

5.3 Specific Capacities

5.4 Concerns

5.4.1 Precipitation

5.4.2 Partially Penetrating Wells

5.4.3 Recharge boundaries

DRAFT

................................1 ....................................3

.......................................5 ............................................5

....................................................6 atation ..................................................ion ce e -Drawdown A-Drawdow nalysis nalysis..............................................s y ng ng Site 1 ...........................................Site 1

Shallohallow Wellsw .2 Deep ep WellsWe

4.1.3 Precippitatioitation ............................n

4.2 Pumping 4.2 Pumping Site 2 ..........................e 2

4.2.1 Shallo4.2.1 Shallow Wellsw Wells

4.2.2 Deep eep WellsWe

4.2.3 Precippitation ............itation

5.0 DISCU5.0 SSION

5.1 Analytical5.1 A MetMethoh

5.1.1 Thiem Equ5.1.1 Thiem Eq

5.1.2 Cooper5.1.2 Cooper

3 Theis3 Theis

TT

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

7.0 REFERENCES

TABLES

Table 1: PS1-1 Step Details………………………………………….…………..…..7 Table 2: PS1-2 Step Details………………………………………….…………..…..8 Table 3: PS2-2 Step Details………………………………………….…………..…..9 Table 4: PS2-6 Step Details………………………………………….….………..…10 Table 5: PS2-4 Step Details…………………………………………..………….….11 Table 6: Thiem Equilibrium Calculation Results……………………………….…..15 Table 7: Final Transmissivity Values for each method………………………… Table 8: Final Transmissivity Values with Hydraulic Conductivities………….….20 Table 9: Pumping Well Details……………………………………………………….21

FIGURES

Figure 1: C-11 Impoundment Area and Pumping Site Locations……………..…..2 Figure 2: PS1 Well Arrays……..…………………………………………………… Figure 3: PS2 Well Array……….……………………………………………………...4

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Collected Data and Weather Summaries Appendix B: Analytical Figures Appendix C: Site Photos Appendix D: Boring Logs and Well Construction Diagrams Appendix E: Pump InformationDRAFT……….…………..…..7 ……….………

………….…………..…..8………….………… …………….…………..…..9…………….…………..…

………………….….………..…10………………….….………..…1 ……………………..………….….11 ……………………..………….….11 ts……………………………….…..15ts……………………………….…..15 ch method…………………………...h method…………… h Hydraulic Conductivities………….raulic Conduct

FIGURESFIGURES

undment Area and Pumping Site Locndment Area and Pumping Site Loc l Arrays……..…………………………l Arrays……..………………

Well Array……….………………………Well Array……….……………

APPENDAPPEND

Appendix A: Appendix A: Collected Data and WeCollected Da Appendix B: Appendix B: Analytical FiguresAnalytical Figur Appendix C: Ap Site PhotosSite P Appendix D: A Boring Logs anring Logs an Appendix E: App Pump Informmp In

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Pumping tests were conducted at two sites just west of the city of Weston in central Broward County, Florida. Pumping Site 1 (PS1) was located immediately north of Manatee Isles Drive between SW 208th and SW 202nd Avenues.

Pumping Site 2 (PS2) was located ¼ mile south of SW 26th Street between SW 196th Avenue and SW 202nd Avenue. Both sites lie within the proposed C-11 Impoundment project boundaries (see Figure 1). Work was performed at the request of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Jacksonville District (CESAJ). Pumping tests were conducted from 17 June to 28 July 2008. All fieldwork was completed by personnel from USACE, Savannah District (CESAS) with assistance provided by individual team members from CESAJ and USACE, Huntington District (CELRH) during the testing at PS2. The following report describes the equipment, methods, results and conclusions for the testing performed.

2.0 EQUIPMENT

2.1 Well Details

2.1.1 Well Construction

Observation wells were constructed of 2-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC with 10-foot 0.010-inch slot size screens. Pumping wells consisted of 8-inch diameter Schedule 40 PVC casing connected to a 20-foot continuous slot stainless steel wire wrapped screen that had a 0.25-inch slot size.

Filter packs used around the screened intervals of the observation wells consisted of clean 20/40 sieve silica sand and extended from the bottom of the screened interval to 3 to 4 feet above the top of the screen. This was capped by a 3-foot bentonite seal and finished with grout up to ground surface. Filter packs for the pumping wells consisted of 0.25 to 0.5 inch gravel for MW-163, 164, and 166 and 0.5 to 0.75 inch gravel for MW-165. All gravel was certified to ANSI/NSF 61 standards and met AWWA Standard B-100-96. The filter pack extended from the bottom of the screened interval to 2 feet above the top of the screen, was capped by 2 to 3-foot of bentonite seal, and finished with grout to the surface.

Well construction forms are located in Appendix D.

2.1.2 Well Development

All wells were developed using a combination of air lifting and overpumping. Air lifting was conducted using a 1-inch PVC pipe down the well connected to an air compressor and wells were surged for 20-second cycles until the discharge became visibly clear. A sump pump was then run until at least 50 gallons were pumped from each well and the discharge was clear.

twetwe osed C-1osed C rformed at the rformed ville District ville Dist

28 July 2008. All 28 July 2008 avannah District (CESAS) annah District (CE s from CESAJ and USACE, s from CESAJ and USAC PS2. The following report PS2. The following report conclusions for the testing conclu constructed of of 2-inch diameter Sche2-inch diameter Sch t size screens. Pumpsize screens. Pumping wells consing wells cons casing connected to a 20-casing connected to a 20-foot continf reen that had a 0.25-inch slot size. reen that had a 0.25-inch sl s used around the screened inteused around the screened intervalsrva d of clean 20/40 sieve silica sclean 20/40 sieve silica sand anand an ed interval to 3 to 4 feet above the val to 3 to 4 feet above the tt foot bentonite seal and finished withoot bentonite seal a or the pumping wells consisted of 0.or the pumping wells cons 166 and 0.5 to 0.75 inch gravel for166 and 0.5 to 0.75 inch grave 61 standards and met AWWA S61 standards and met AWWA S the bottom of the screened inthe bottom of the screened in capped by 2 to 3-foot of becapped by 2 to 3-foot Well construction forms Well construction form

2 Well Develo2 Well Develo s were des were de concon

@A@A!. !.!. !.!. !.

160A 166

165162B

162A

161B

161A

160B

Feet

750 0 750 1,500 Feet

Pumping Site 1

Pumping Site 2

Legend Impoundment Boundary

Pumping Site Area

!. Shallow Observation Well

!. Deep Observation Well

@A Shallow Pumping Well

@A Deep Pumping Well @A @A!.!.!.!.!.!.

159A

158A

157A

156B

156A 155A

154B155B

154A

Figure 1: C-11 Impoundment Area and Pumping Site Locations

U S

GRIFFIN RD

S POST RD

Feet

DRAFT

DRAFT

DRAFT

AAAAFAFT

Pumping Site

SF

DRDRDRDRDRD50DR

When the 8-inch vacuum pump arrived at the sites and the pumping wells were setup for pumping tests, the discharge initially pumped from wells MW-163, MW- 164, and MW-166 was observed to contain fine sand and had a milky appearance.

At PS1, discharge from the deep well MW-163 began as very milky/cloudy and deposited a significant amount of fine sand and coarse sand sized shell fragments at the exit of the discharge line. Discharge did not clear up significantly until after approximately four hours of pumping at 200 gallons per minute (GPM). Also at PS1, discharge from the shallow pumping well MW-164 was observed to contain very fine sand and had a milky appearance during initial engine testing. The discharge from MW-164 cleared up to a greenish-clear color after 30 minutes of pumping at approximately 1,100 GPM.

At PS2, discharge from the deep pumping well MW-165 did not show any additional turbidity during initial engine calibration testing. However, discharge from shallow well MW-166 did produce a significant amount of fine sand upon initial testing (see site photos in Appendix C). The milky appearance and sand content of the discharge from MW-166 changed to in color to greenish-clear and the sand content significantly decreased after approximately 1 hour of pumping at 800 GPM.

2.1.3 Well Arrays

2.1.3.1 Pumping Site 1

PS1 consisted of nine 2-inch diameter observation wells and two 8-inch diameter pumping wells. The two pumping wells were centrally located between a northern axis of three deep observation wells and a western axis of six alternating shallow and deep observation wells. The well layout plan for PS1 is shown in Figure 2 (below). All shallow wells were completed to a depth of approximately 35 feet below land surface (BLS) and deep wells were completed to a depth of 70 feet BLS. The pumping wells were screened over the bottom 20 feet from approximately 55 to 75 feet BLS for the deep well and 15 to 35 feet BLS for the shallow well. Observation wells were screened over the bottom 10 feet from approximately 25 to 35 feet BLS for the shallow wells and 60 to 70 feet BLS for the deep wells.

2.1.3.2 Pumping Site 2

PS2 consisted of six 2-inch diameter observation wells and two 8-inch diameter pumping wells. The two pumping wells were located at the east end of six alternating shallow and deep observation wells. The well layout plan for PS2 is shown in Figure 3 (below). All shallow wells were completed to a depth of approximately 35 feet BLS and deep wells were completed to a depth of 70 feet BLS. The pumping wells were screened over the bottom 20 feet from approximately 50 to 70 feet for the deep well and 15 to 35 feet BLS for the shallow well. Observation wells were screened over the bottom 10 feet from

DRAFT

cloudcloud shell shell ear up ear up t 200 gallons per t 200 ga umping well MW-164 umping well M appearance during initial appearance during up to a greenish-clear color up to a greenish-clear c

0 GPM. 0 GPM

ell MW-165 did not show any ell MW-165 did not bration testration t ing. However, discharge. How a significant amount of fine sand upoficant amount o ndix C). The mhe milky appearance andilky a

166 changed to in colo166 changed to in color to greenish-creased creased after approximately 1 hour after approximately

Site 1 Site 1 nine 2-inch diameter nine 2-inch dia observation wobse

s. The two pumping wells were cents. The two pumping wells were is of three deep observatiis of three deep observa on wells aells a ng shallow and deep hallow and deep observation weobservation we n in Figure 2 (below). All shalloe 2 (below). All shallow wew we proximately 35 feet belowroximately 35 feet be land surfac o a depth of 70 feet BLS. The pumpo a depth of 70 feet BLS.

feet from approximately feet from approximately 55 to 75 fe55 to BLS for the shallow well. ObseBLS for the shallow well. Obse feet from approximately 25 tofeet from approximately 25 to BLS for the deep wells. BLS for the deep well

1.3.2 Pumping Site1.3.2 Pumping Sit

consisted of sconsisted of s g wells. g wells.

g shg sh approximately 25 to 35 feet for the shallow wells and 60 to 70 feet for the deep wells.

Figure 2: PS1 Well Arrays

Figure 3: PS2 Well Array

DRAFTFT

RAFigure 3: PS2 Well ArrFigure 3: PS2 W

RA

DR

2.2 Pump Details

The pumping tests at both sites were conducted with the same equipment, although the actual pumps were different versions of the same make and model.

The pumps used were Pioneer PP88S12 76 HP diesel 8-inch diameter vacuum-assisted trash pumps. More information about the pump specifications can be found in Appendix E. The intake hose was 6-inches in diameter and 40-feet long that was made up of two connected 20-foot sections of suction hose. The discharge hose was 8-inches in diameter and 250-feet long that was made up of five 50-foot long connected sections of lay-flat hose.

At PS1, the discharge hose was situated north of the site, along a ridge of an old roadway, and discharge was directed towards the low swampy area to the east and northeast of the well array. At PS2, the discharge hose was situated to the southwest of the site and towards the edge of an overgrown area where the pumped water was allowed to run slightly downhill, away from the well array and into a contributory canal that eventually fed into a larger canal that borders the eastern edge of the site. A check valve and flow meter were installed inline at the pump discharge, just prior to connection with the discharge hose. For PS1, an 8-inch butterfly valve was placed inline after the flow meter and before connection with the lay-flat discharge hose.

For all of the pumping tests conducted at the two sites, one of the two 20-foot sections of the intake hose was placed almost entirely in the pumping well with typically 1 foot of hose sticking out above the top of casing at the surface, where the coupling to the next section of hose (that would not fit inside the well casing) was located. This resulted in the intake of the suction hose being situated approximately 18 to 19 feet BLS down inside of the well. The structure of the suction hose was slightly rigid and resulted in an arc of the hose created by the right angle from where it exited the well and then bent over to rest on the ground surface until reaching the pump. The peak of this arc was typically in the range of 2 to 3 feet above ground surface for each test conducted (see site photos in Appendix C).

2.3 Monitoring Equipment

Eleven pressure transducers were deployed at PS1 and eight were used at PS2.

The transducers were PXD-261 models manufactured by In-Situ, Inc. of Fort Collins, CO. The vented transducers interfaced with a Hermit 3000 data logger and were rated at 30 psi. Transducers were connected to the Hermit data logger using 100-foot and 300-foot vented cables. At PS1, the pressure transducers were set at the bottom of each observation well and remained in place due to gravity. At PS2, pressure transducers were dangled a few feet from the bottom of the wells using cable ties around the outside of the well casing to secure them at the set depth within the well. Manual water-level readings were measured with a Durham Geo Water Level Indicator. Discharge was measured using an 8-inch

DRAFT

ns cns c nd 40-feend 40-hose. The hose.

hat was made up ofhat was site, along a ridge of an old site, along a ridge of an low swampy area to the east low swampy area to the east charge hose was situated to the charge hose was situated to the f an overgrown area where the f an overgrown are downhill, away from the well array anownhill, away from t fed into a larger canal that borders to a larger canaf ve and flow meter were installed inlinmeter we onneconn tion with the discharge hose. Fe disch ced inced inline after the flow meter and bline after the flow mete scharge hose. arge hose.

sts conducted at ed a the two sites, one oe two sites, one hose was placed hose was placed almost entirely in talmost entirely in t ose sticking out above ose sticking out above the top of casthe he next section of hose he next section (that would n(tha

This resulted in the inThis resulted in th take of the sucof the ely 18 to 19 feet BLS down insideely 18 to 19 feet BLS down inside of o hose was slightly rigid and resue was slightly rigid and resulted inlted in ngle from where it m where it exited the well anexited the well an face until reaching the pump. The pace until reaching the of 2 to 3 feet above ground surface foof 2 to 3 feet above ground Appendix C). Appendix C).

2.3 Monitoring Equipment 2.3 Monitoring Equi

Eleven pressure transduEleven pressure trans he transducers werehe transducers wer ns, CO. The vns, CO. The v re rated re rated

-foo-foo

Water Specialties impeller flow meter manufactured by McCrometer Inc. of Hemet, CA.

Precipitation was not monitored quantitatively on-site, but was recorded qualitatively in the notes along with time as light, medium, or heavy. Rainfall data were downloaded from a nearby South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Structure No. 9 (S-9) which was approximately 1.6 miles from PS1 and 2.4 miles from PS2. These data span the duration of tests at both sites and were recorded at least as often as every two minutes. These data are located in Appendix A. Qualitative weather summaries were recorded for each day during testing. These data are also located in Appendix A.

Photographs were taken of the site layouts and equipment used during testing.

These photos are located in Appendix C.

3.0 METHODS

3.1 Pumping Test Methods

A total of nine pumping tests were conducted at the two pumping sites and are listed below. The first three characters of the test names represent the pumping test site and the number after the hyphen is the specific test number at that site.

Further details on each test are discussed further in the following sections.

Pumping Site 1 PS1-1: Shallow Pumping Well MW-164 Step-Drawdown Test PS1-2: Deep Pumping Well MW-163 Step-Drawdown Test PS1-3: Deep Pumping Well MW-163 Constant-Rate Test PS1-4: Shallow Pumping Well MW-164 Constant-Rate Test

Pumping Site 2 PS2-2: Shallow Pumping Well MW-166 Step-Drawdown Test No. 1 PS2-4: Deep Pumping Well MW-165 Step-Drawdown Test PS2-5: Deep Pumping Well MW-165 Constant-Rate Test PS2-6: Shallow Pumping Well MW-166 Step-Drawdown Test No. 2 PS2-7: Shallow Pumping Well MW-166 Constant-Rate Test

3.1.1 Pumping Site 1

3.1.1.1 Shallow Pumping Well, MW-164

3.1.1.1.1 PS1-1 Step-Drawdown Test

Test PS1-1 was conducted on 25 July at the shallow pumping well, MW-164.

Transducers were deployed in all observation and pumping wells and logged data within the first minute on a logarithmic cycle and then at every minute

DRAFT

DistrDistr s from PSs from at both sites aat both e data are located ine data ar d for each day during d for each da uipment used during testing. uipment used during testing.

were ce conducted at the two pumping onducted at the two pumpin e characters cters of the test names reprehe test names repre after the hyphen is yphe the specific test the specific tes h test are discusstest are discussed further in the foed further in the fo allow Pumping Well allow Pumping We MW-164 Step-D64 St Deep Pumping Well MWDeep Pumping Well MW-163 Step-D-163 Step-

3: Deep Pumping Well MW-163 Coneep Pumping Well MW-163 Con S1-4: Shallow Pumping Well low Pumpin MW-16W 16

Pumping Site 2Pumping Site 2

DR PS2-2: Shallow Pumping Well PS2-2: Shallow Pumping W PS2-4: Deep Pumping Welp Pumping Wel PS2-5: Deep Pumping W PS2-5: Deep Pum PS2-6: Shallow Pump PS2-6: Shallow Pu PS2-7: Shallow Pu PS2-7: Shallow P

Pumping SPumping S thereafter. Seven steps were attempted using engine throttle as the primary flow regulator. The butterfly valve at the discharge was adjusted to 50% open to provide effective backpressure in order to get more consistent flows from possible engine RPM variability. During the last step, the valve was opened 100% to attempt to achieve a higher-range flow than what was observed as the throttle was incrementally increased throughout the test. Table 1 (below) shows the time and flows observed with each step.

Table 1: PS1-1 Step Details 7/25/08

Time

Step Length (min)

Engine

RPM

Valve Position

(% Open)

Observed Flow

(GPM) Comments 1403 45 1000 50 740 Started pump 1448 45 1200 50 850 1533 45 1400 50 1000 1618 45 1600 50 1330 1703 45 1800 50 1450 1748 45 2000 50 1300 Not used in analysis due to diminished flows 1810 45 2000 100 1250 Not used in analysis due to diminished flows 1833 0 0 Stopped pump

The pressure transducer installed in MW-164 during test PS1-1 was set at the bottom of the well and measurements collected during pumping were exaggerated from the suction hose above. The water level data measured by the pressure transducer were not used in calculations presented in this report and manually collected data measured from the top of casing were used instead.

3.1.1.1.2 PS1-4 Constant-Rate Test

Test PS1-4 was conducted on 27 July at the shallow pumping well, MW-164.

Transducers were deployed in all observation and pumping wells and logged data within the first minute on a logarithmic cycle and then at every minute thereafter. Near the end of the test, transducers were reprogrammed to record data at 10-second intervals in order to capture useable recovery measurements.

Engine throttle was set at 1,700 RPM and the butterfly valve was adjusted to 70% open to allow a maximum flow rate while adding slight backpressure to the system in order to avoid excessive fluctuation in flow rates due to engine RPM variations.

The constant-rate test at MW-164 was started at 1430 hours on 27 July and ran continuously until 1430 hours on 28 July. Flow rates were observed to be around 1,500 GPM in the first 13 hours of the test and then varied between 1,500 and 1,450 GPM in the last 11 hours of the test. The average flow rate for the entirety of the test was calculated to be 1,470 GPM.

DRAFT

ow)ow)

FTFTts TFTFTed pump

FTTFTFTFTFT FFFTFT FAFAFAFT

AFT

AFAFAFAFT

AFTNot used in ana

AFAFAFAFAFt used in a

AFAAFAFAFAFed pum

AAAFAFAFstalled in MWn MW-164 during test PS1-164 during test PS1-1 easurements collected during pumpts collected during pum suctsuction hose above. The water leveion hose above. The water leve er were not used in calculations preser were not used in calcula ed data measured from ted data measured from the top of cahe

S1-4 CS1-4 Constant-Rate Test -Rate 1-4 was conducted on 27 July at was conducted on 27 July at the the ducers were deployed in all obserere deployed in all observava a within the first minute on a logara within the first minu ith hereafter. Near the end of the test, hereafter. Near the end of data at 10-second intervals in ordedata at 10-second intervals in Engine throttle was set at 1,700Engine throttle was set at 1,700 70% open to allow a maximu70% open to allow a maximu system in order to avoid exsystem in order to avo variations. variat constant-rate constant-rate ously unously un

M inM in

3.1.1.2 Deep Pumping Well, MW-163

3.1.1.2.1 PS1-2 Step-Drawdown Test

Test PS1-2 was conducted on 26 July at the deep pumping well, MW-163.

Transducers were deployed in all observation and pumping wells and logged data within the first minute on a logarithmic cycle and then at every minute thereafter.

During pre-test pumping of MW-163, it was determined that the well was not capable of producing the range of flows expected throughout the two sites and observed on other pumped wells during this study. It was decided that the step-drawdown test on MW-163 would be run at idle-speed, or 1,000 RPM, while adjusting the butterfly valve to determine the optimal flow rate for the relatively low-conductivity material within which the well was screened. This was done because higher flow rates would quickly dewater the well down to the mouth of the intake hose (approximately 19 feet) and begin surging the water level in the pumping well from dewatering cycles. Four steps were attempted using the butterfly valve as the primary flow regulator. Table 2 (below) shows the time and flows observed at each step.

Table 2: PS1-2 Step Details 7/26/08

Time

Step Length (min)

Engine

RPM

Valve Position

(% Open)

Observed Flow

(GPM) Comments 837 45 1000 20 200 Started pump 922 45 1000 30 220 Not used in analysis due to dewatering/surging

1007 45 1000 40 170 Not used in analysis due to dewatering/surging 1052 8 0 0 Stopped pump 1100 45 1000 10 110 Restarted pump 1145 0 0 Stopped pump

3.1.1.2.2 PS1-3 Constant-Rate Test

Test PS1-3 was conducted on 26 July at the deep pumping well, MW-163.

Transducers were deployed in all observation and pumping wells and logged data within the first minute on a logarithmic cycle and then at every minute thereafter. Engine throttle was set at idle speed (1,000 RPM) and the butterfly valve was adjusted to 20% open to regulate the flow rate and maintain a target flow rate of approximately 200 GPM. This was the flow rate determined from the step-drawdown test that would produce maximum drawdown without dewatering the pumping well and producing cycles of surging of water levels.

The constant-rate test at MW-163 was started at 1300 hours on 26 July and ran continuously until 1300 hours on 27 July. Flow rates observed in the first few hours of the start of the test were around 200 GPM; however, after a few hours flow rates varied between 170 and 200 GPM for the remainder of the test. The average flow rate for the entirety of the test was calculated to be 184 GPM.

DRAFT

minuminu he well was not he well w out the two sites and out the two sit as decided that the step-s decided that the d, or 1,000 RPM, while d, or 1,000 RPM, while al flow rate for the relatively al flow rate for the relatively as screened. This was done as screened. This was done ater the well down to the mouth of ater the well down to the mouth of d begin surging the water level in thebegin surging the w our steps were attempted using the eps were attemr ulator. Table 2 le 2 (below) shows the ti(belo ble 2: PS1-2 Step Details 2: PS1-2 Step D

RRAARARARAFAFObserved

RAF

RA(GPM) AFAAFAF

RRAAF

RR

RARA2

RARA200 AARAARRAARR

RARA30

RARA220 AARRAARRR

RARA40

RARA70 AARRRAARRRRRARA RARA0AARRRAARR45 RRRARA10 RARA0ARRRAA

DRDRDRDRDRA

DRARARA0

DRDRDRDRDRRAR3.1.1.2.2 PS1-3 C3.1.1.2.2 PS1-3 onstant-Rate Tesstant- Test PS1-3 was conducted on 26 Test PS1-3 was conducted on Transducers were deployed in Transducers were deployed in data within the first minute ondata within the first m thereafter. Engine throttlethereafter. Engine thr valve was adjusted to 2valve was adjusted to w rate of approximw rate of approxim drawdown tesdrawdown tes mping wemping we

The pressure transducer installed in MW-163 during test PS1-3 was set too shallow in the well and accurate measurements were not collected during pumping after the drawdown exceeded the transducer depth. Manually collected data were used for calculations utilizing pumping well drawdowns.

3.1.2 Pumping Site 2

3.1.2.1 Shallow Pumping Well, MW-166

3.1.2.1.1 PS2-2 Step-Drawdown Test No. 1

Test PS2-2 was conducted on 18 June at the shallow pumping well MW-166.

Transducers were deployed in all observation and pumping wells and logged data within the first minute on a logarithmic cycle and then at every minute thereafter. Six steps were attempted using engine throttle as the primary flow regulator. Table 3 shows the time and flows observed with each step.

Table 3: PS2-2 Step Details 6/18/08

Time

Step Length (min)

Engine

RPM

Observed Flow

(GPM)

Comments

1022 45 860 780 Started pump 1107 45 1000 870 1152 45 1200 1085 1237 45 1350 1245 1322 47 1450 1420 1409 45 1610 1670 1454 0 0 Stopped pump

3.1.2.1.2 PS2-6 Step Drawdown Test No. 2

Test PS2-6 was conducted on 20 June at the shallow pumping well, MW-166.

Transducers were deployed in all observation and pumping wells and logged data within the first minute on a logarithmic cycle and then at every minute thereafter. Four steps were run using engine throttle as the primary flow regulator and were selected to cover the range of higher flow rates that were affected by heavy rain during test PS2-2 on 18 June. Table 4 (below) shows the time and flows observed with each step.

Table 4: PS2-6 Step Details 6/20/08

Time

Step Length (min)

Engine

RPM

Observed Flow

1546 45 1200 1100 Started pump 1631 45 1350 1200 1716 45 1450 1400 1801 45 1610 1700 1846 0 0 Stopped pump

DRAFTumping well MW-166. mping well MW-16 mping wells and logged mping wells and logged nd then at every minute nd then at every minute ne throttle as the primary flow ne throttle as the primary flow observed with each step. observed with each

-2 Step Details p Details gine

RPM RPM

Observed Flow

Comments Comm

AFFAAFF860 780 Started pump860 780 Started pumpAFAAAFF1000 870 000 870 AAAF45 1200 1085 200 1085

RARAAF

45 1350 1245 50 1245

RARAA47 1450 1420 47 1450 1420

RRARAA09 45 1610 1670 09 45 1610 16

RRARAA1454 0 0 S1454 0

RRRARARARARAA2 PS2-6 Step 2-6 Ste Drawdown Test No. 2rawdown Test No. 2 PS2-6 was conducted on 20 June at s conducted on 20 June at nsducers were deployed in all obsernsducers were deploy data within the first minute on a logardata within the first minute o thereafter. Four steps were run usthereafter. Four steps were ru regulator and were selected to regulator and were selected to affected by heavy rain duringaffected by heavy rain during time and flows observed wtime and flows observDD6/2DDD

3.1.2.1.3 PS2-7 Constant-Rate Test

Test PS2-7 was conducted on 20 June at the shallow pumping well, MW-166.

Transducers were deployed in all observation and pumping wells and logged data within the first minute on a logarithmic cycle and then at every minute thereafter. Near the end of the test, transducers were reprogrammed to record data at 10-second intervals in order to capture useable recovery measurements.

Engine throttle was set at 1,550 RPM in order to achieve a target flow rate of

1,500 GPM.

The constant-rate test at MW-166 was started at 1933 hours on 20 June and ran continuously until 1713 hours on 21 June. Flow rates were measured at 1,500 GPM consistently throughout the entirety of the test. The test was terminated prior to a full 24-hour cycle due to approaching storms and concern about recording valid recovery data once pumping stopped.

3.1.2.2 Deep Pumping Well, MW-165

3.1.2.2.1 PS2-4 Step-Drawdown Test

Test PS2-4 was conducted on 19 June at the deep pumping well, MW-165.

Transducers were deployed in all observation and pumping wells and logged data within the first minute on a logarithmic cycle and then at every minute thereafter. Six steps were attempted using engine throttle as the primary flow regulator. Table 5 (below) shows the time and flows observed with each step.

Upon stopping the pump, a large slug of water was observed ejecting from the pumping well. This suggests that there was not a complete seal at the check valve near the beginning of the discharge pipe at the pump and this was allowing water in the intake hose to fall back into the pumping well, rendering recovery data inaccurate.

Table 5: PS2-4 Step Details 6/19/08

Time

Step Length (min)

Engine

RPM

Observed Flow

800 45 820 770 Started pump 845 45 1000 900 930 45 1200 1080

1015 45 1350 1200 1100 45 1450 1430 1145 45 1610 1650 1230 0 0 Stopped pump

3.1.2.2.2 PS2-5 Constant-Rate Test

Test PS2-5 was conducted on 20 June at the shallow pumping well, MW-165.

Transducers were deployed in all observation and pumping wells and logged data within the first minute on a logarithmic cycle and then at every minute

DRAFT

asurasur flow rate flow ra rs on 20 June and ran rs on 20 Jun were measured at 1,500 re measured at 1

The test was terminated The test was terminate rms and concern about rms and concern about pped. pped.

st une u at the deep pumping pumpin well, MW-ll obser observation and pumping wells anvation and pumping w a logargarithmic cycle and then at everithmic cycle and then at ev attempted used using engine throttle as th engine throttle as th

w) shows the tie time and flows observeme and flows observ mp, a large slug of mp, a large slug of water was observwater was observ s suggests that there s suggests that there was not a compwas eginning of eginning of the discharge pipe at thethe discharge pi take hose to fall back intake hose to fall b to the pumpthe p rate. rate.

Table 5: PS2-4 Table 5: PS2-4

DRDR19/08

DRDRT

DRDRDRLe

DR(minRRRRDRDRDRRRDRDR80DRDR45 RRDRDRDRRDRDR845 DRDR5DRDRDD930 DDDDDD015 DDDDDD1100 DDDDD114DDD12DD thereafter. Engine throttle was set at 1,550 RPM in order to achieve a target flow rate of 1,500 GPM.

The constant-rate test at MW-165 was started at 1412 hours on 19 June and ran continuously until 1415 hours on 20 June. Flow rates were observed to maintain 1,500 GPM consistently throughout the entirety of the test. Upon stopping the pump, a large slug of water was observed discharging from the top of casing on the pumping well. This suggests that there was not a complete seal at the check valve near the beginning of the discharge pipe at the pump and this was allowing water in the intake hose to fall back into the pumping well, rendering recovery data inaccurate.

3.2 Analytical Methods

Drawdown data collected on each transducer were post-processed and analyzed using two analytical approaches. Drawdown in each well that occurred just after pumping began proved difficult to analyze using a Theis (1935) or Cooper-Jacob (1946) time-drawdown, straight-line method because of the exceptionally quick aquifer response to the initial drawdown in the pumping well, the variability in the pump as the initial slug of water traveled up the intake hose, and the slight lag from the engine reaching equilibrium with the backpressure. The two preferred methods for analysis were the Thiem equilibrium equation (1906) and the Cooper-Jacob distance-drawdown curve analysis.

3.2.1 Thiem Equilibrium Equation

The Thiem equilibrium equation (1906) is one of the most commonly used methods for aquifer testing analysis. It supposes the following:

)/log(30.2 )(2 rr ssKDQ mm

Where:

Q is the well discharge in ft3/day

KD is the transmissivity of the aquifer in ft2/day sm1-sm2 is the difference in drawdown between observation wells 1 and 2 r2/r1 is the ratio of radial distance from the pumping well between observation wells 2 and 1

Using this relationship, transmissivities were calculated between the three observation wells in an array for each minute of recorded data during the constant-rate tests and calculated at select times during relevant steps for the step-drawdown tests. This data can be seen in Table 6.

For the constant rate tests, the Thiem equilibrium values calculated between two similar-depth wells (in an array of three) were compiled and an average value was computed for each of these three possibilities. For the step-drawdown test, DRAFT ppinppin p of casinp of ca seal at the chseal a nd this was allowingnd this w rendering recovery rendering rec r were post-processed and analyzedr were post-processed and analyzed wn in each welln in ea that occurred just aft that o ze using a Theis (1935) or Cooper-Jng a Theis (193 method because of the exceptionally ause of th down in dow the pumping well, the variabping we travelraveled up the intake hose, and theed up the intake hose, librium with the backpressure. The um with the backpressure. Th the Thiem equilibrium equation (190m equilibrium equation (190 drawdown curve analysis. curve analysis.

librium Equation librium Equ brium equation (1906) isbrium equation (1906) is one of the on quifer testing analysisquifer testing anal . It supposes uppoRl30.2 l30

(2 (2 (((QQ

Where: Where:

Q is the well discharge in fe well discharge i

KD is the transmissivity KD is the transmissivity s m1-sm2 is the differenhe d r2/r1 is the ratio of atio observation welobservation we this relationthis relation tion wetion we tt calculations were performed at select times during relevant steps between two similar depth wells in an array, resulting in three different possible well combinations within an array. These were performed on higher-range flow rate steps in order to obtain the most accurate data with the maximum possible drawdowns in order to minimize errors from excessive data noise. Thiem Equilibrium calculation results are shown in Table 6 (below).

3.2.2 Cooper-Jacob Distance -Drawdown Analysis

The Cooper-Jacob method (1946) is a simplification of the Theis method. The distance-drawdown analysis relies on curve fitting on a semi-log graph, with a log-scale time plotted on the X-axis and linear scale drawdowns plotted on the Y-axis. The result is a slope of the line that best fits the drawdowns in observation wells, where the difference of the drawdowns on the line over one log cycle are used for determining the transmissivity of the aquifer based on the following equation:

LCs

QT

3.2

Where:

Q is the well discharge in ft3/day

T is the transmissivity in ft2/day sLC is the difference in drawdown between two observation wells over one log cycle

All three similar-depth wells along an axis were plotted and analyzed using the Cooper-Jacob distance-drawdown method to determine transmissivities for the constant-rate tests. Select times believed to represent stable periods during the test were chosen for the resultant drawdown measurements and transmissivity calculations. The curves are shown as Figures 1 through 5 in Appendix B.

The final transmissivities determined from the Thiem equilibrium dataset (Table

6) were determined by calculating the geometric mean of the data from the different tests or steps for each of the three well comparisons of an array to get a single value. These values were then averaged with the transmissivity value obtained from the Cooper-Jacob curve analysis. The average of these two values for each depth series and array axis (in the case for PS1) is the final transmissivity representative of that depth unit for the site.

3.2.3 Theis Recovery Analysis

Recovery data were difficult to measure for the highly responsive aquifers tested during this study. Only two tests collected measurements often enough to be able to produce useable recovery data: PS1-4 (PS1, shallow well constant-rate test) and PS2-7 (PS2, shallow well constant-rate test). An enhanced measurement interval (10 seconds) was scheduled to begin just prior to stopping the pump during each test and recorded the recovery of ground-water levels to

DRAFTeis method. The eis met mi-log graph, with a mi-log graph, wdowns plotted on the Y-wdowns plotted on drawdowns in observation drawdowns in observa he line over one log cycle are he line over one log cycle are quifer based on the following quifer based on the following

AFLCs Q s2

3.2 e in ft33/day /day vity in ft2/day ay ence in drawdown betdown between two obseween two obse r-depth wellsr-depth along an axis were plotalong an axis we ob distance-drawdown method toob distance-drawdown method to det ate tests. Select times beliete tests. Select times believed to rved to r e chosen for the resultant drsen for the resultant drawdowawdow lations. The curves are shown e curves a as FF

The final transmissivities determineThe final transmissivities de

6) were determined by calculating6) were determined by calculat different tests or steps for eachdifferent tests or steps for each single value. These values single value. These v obtained from the Coopeobtained from the Coo values for each depth svalues for each depth nsmissivity represnsmissivity repre eis Reeis Re dd near static levels measured prior to starting the test. These data were analyzed using a reduced form of the Theis equation (1935) described below:

T Qs

3.2'

Where:

s’ is difference in residual drawdown over one log cycle of t/t’

Q is the flow rate T is the transmissivity t is the elapsed time from the start of pumping t’ is the elapsed time since the end of pumping

To determine the transmissivity for the dataset, s’ was plotted on the linear Y-axis and t/t’ was plotted on the logarithmic X-axis. The slope of the line that best fits the recovery data was determined and the difference in s’ over one log cycle of t/t’ was input into the above equation to determine the transmissivity.

3.2.4 Specific Capacity

Specific capacity can be described by the following equation:

Cs = Q/Dhw

Where:

Q is the pumping rate Dhw is the drawdown in the well from the contribution of aquifer drawdown and well loss.

Well loss is created by the turbulent flow of water through the well screen and into the pump intake. Specific capacity was estimated by plotting the flow rate on the X-axis and drawdown on the Y-axis and measuring the slope of the line that best fits the points. Specific capacities were determined for each of the four pumping wells at the two sites using flow rate and drawdown data from the step-drawdown tests.

3.3 Precipitation

Precipitation observed at the site was logged qualitatively during the pumping tests where the times of the events were noted along with relative intensity (hard, medium, light rain, or drizzle).

Precipitation was continuously measured at SFWMD Structure No. 9 (S-9), located approximately 1.6 miles west-southwest of PS1 and 2.4 miles southwest of PS2. This dataset was downloaded and compiled for the testing periods.

Although the S-9 data may not correlate exactly with rainfall observed at the site, it provides a reasonable estimate for rainfall that occurred at the site during these

DRAFT

e of t/t’ e of t/t’ g g s’ was plotted on the linear Y-axis s’ was plotted on the linear Y-axis The slope of the line that best fits The slope of the line that best fits difference in s’ over one log cycle oifference in s’ over determine the transmissivity. ine the transm bed by the following equation: ed by the following equation:

CCss = Q/ = D/ hhww mping rate mping rate e drawdown in the well from te drawdown in the well from he con ell lossell loss.

s is created by the turbulent flreated by the turbulent flow of wow of w he pump intake. Specific capacity wntake. Specific capacity w

X-axis and drawdown on X-axis and drawdown the Y-axis best fits the points. Specific capacitbest fits the points. Specific pumping wells at the two sites usipumping wells at the two sites drawdown tests. drawdown tests

3.3 Precipitation 3.3 P

ecipitation observeecipitation observ where the timwhere the tim

, light ra, light ra storms. In addition, the recorded data at S-9 provides a sense of the stored water in the C-11 Impoundment area that the surrounding canals are responsible for removing. These canals and how they are regulated appear to be the primary control for the water level fluctuations observed at the pumping sites during the tests. Most of the storms in this area appear to travel from the west to the east;

so, in most cases, the S-9 rain gauge will record the rainfall before it reaches the pumping sites.

Recorded precipitation data and site observations are discussed in the results section (below) along with their correlating tests. Precipitation data from S-9 is located in Appendix A.

3.4 Survey

A Trimble 5700 GPS in combination with a Zephyr Geodetic Antenna that included a Ground Plane was used to survey a temporary benchmark at each site. Position data were acquired for at least 2 hours at these locations and were then post-processed using the National Geodetic Survey’s OPUS online processing system. This system compares data observed at nearby Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) with data collected with the operator GPS for the same time interval and corrects the apparent errors in the recorded dataset from the known values at the CORS. This method should provide horizontal accuracy of 1 centimeter and vertical accuracy of 3 centimeters. All coordinates are in feet and referenced to NAD 83 using Florida East State Plane coordinate system. All elevations are in feet and referenced to Mean Sea Level (MSL) using NAVD 88. Survey results are located in Appendix A.

4.0 RESULTS

Results from the Thiem Equilibrium equation calculations are listed in Table 6 (below). Results from the Cooper-Jacob Distance-Drawdown analysis are shown in Figures 1 through 5 of Appendix B. Results from the Theis Recovery analyses are shown in Figures 6 through 9 of Appendix B. Specific results are discussed in the following sections for each site and well array.

4.1 Pumping Site 1

4.1.1 Shallow Wells

Step-drawdown test PS1-1 (1,330 GPM and 1,450 GPM) and constant-rate test PS1-4 (1,500 GPM) were used for the Thiem calculations.

Thiem Equilibrium Transmissivities (ft2/day):

154A-155A: Ranged from 3.93E5 to 7.71E5, mean of 5.98E5, std. deviation of 33.8% 155A-156A: Ranged from 4.17E5 to 4.94E5, mean of 4.55E5, std. deviation of 8.6% 154A-156A: Ranged from 5.32E5 to 6.13E5, mean of 5.68E5, std. deviation of 7.2% rearea sed in the results sed in th atiation data from S-9 is on data fro ephyr ephyr Geodetic Antenna that Geodetic An ey a temporary benchmark at each y a temporary benc east 2 hours at thes2 hours at these locations and al Geodetic Survey’s OPUS online c Survey’s oompares data observed at nearby mpares data observed ce Stations (CORS) ce Stations with data collecwith dat me intervalnterval and corrects the apparen and corrects the appar known valuesalue at the CORS. This methe CORS. This me acy of 1 centntimeter and vertical accuimeter and vertical acc inates are in fnate eet and referenced toet and referenced tof ooroordinate system. All elevations aredinate system. All elev (MSL) using NAVD 88. Su(MSL) using NAVD 88. Survey resu

ESULTS

Results from the Thiem Equilibrium eResults from the Thiem Eq (below). Results from the Cooper-(below). Results from the Coo in Figures 1 through 5 of Appenin Figures 1 through 5 of Appen are shown in Figures 6 througare shown in Figures 6 throug in the following sections foin the following sectio

1 Pumping Site 1 1 Pumping Site 1 hallow Whallow W wdowwdow

Cooper-Jacob Distance-Drawdown Transmissivity (ft2/day):

Using 154A, 155A, and 156A from PS1-4: 5.80E5 (Figure 1 of Appendix B)

Theis Recovery Analysis (ft2/day):

Using 154A, 155A, and 156A from PS1-4: 5.40E5 (Figure 6 of Appendix B)

4.1.2 Deep Wells

Step-drawdown test PS1-2 (170 GPM & 200 GPM) and constant-rate test PS1-3 (200 GPM) were used for the Thiem calculations.

4.1.2.1 West Axis

Thiem Equilibrium Transmissivities (ft2/day):

154B-155B: Ranged from 1.00E4 to 1.47E4, mean of 1.24E4, std. deviation of 19.2% 155B-156B: Ranged from 2.37E3 to 4.31E3, mean of 2.99E3, std. deviation of 35.4% 154B-156B: Ranged from 4.88E3 to 7.41E3, mean of 5.65E3, std. deviation of 25.4%

Cooper-Jacob Distance-Drawdown Transmissivity (ft2/day):

Using 154B, 155B, and 156B from PS1-3: 5.51E3 (Figure 2 of Appendix B)

4.1.2.2 North Axis

Thiem Equilibrium Transmissivities (ft2/day):

157A-158A: Ranged from 1.07E3 to 2.08E3, mean of 1.38E3, std. deviation of 45.3% 158A-159A: Ranged from 1.84E3 to 3.20E3, mean of 2.29E3, std. deviation of 32.0% 157A-159A: Ranged from 1.27E3 to 2.47E3, mean of 1.62E3, std. deviation of 41.7% eep Wells Wells drawdown test PS1-2 (170 GPM & test PS1-2 (170 GPM & 22

00 GPM) were used for the Thiem ca00 GPM) were used for

4.1.2.1 West Axis 4.1.2.1 West Axis

Thiem Equilibrium TransmissivThiem Equilibrium Transmissiv 154B-155B: Ranged from 1 154B-155B: Ranged 155B-156B: Ranged fro 155B-156B: Ranged 154B-156B: Ranged 154B-156B: Range er-Jacob Diser-Jacob Dis g 154B, g 154B, Cooper-Jacob Distance-Drawdown Transmissivity (ft2/day):

Using just 158A and 159A from PS1-3: 2.24E3 (Figure 3 of Appendix B)

4.1.3 Precipitation

Precipitation events at PS1 were occasionally significant enough to affect the water levels recorded by the pumping tests; however, they are not believed to have influenced the results of the tests due to how quickly the water levels equilibrated after pumping was started (usually within 5 minutes). In addition, the infiltration of precipitation in almost all cases happened nearly instantaneously and appeared to affect all wells at the site with similar magnitude. Therefore, a complete baseline shift for all wells being monitored was observed and the relative differences in drawdown did not change significantly. Rainfall was observed during pumping tests PS1-3 and PS1-4.

During test PS1-3, light to medium rain was recorded to have started around 35 elapsed minutes and lasted until approximately 70 elapsed minutes. A total of

0.25 inch of rain or less was observed in a generic rain gauge (5-gallon bucket) that was setup at the site. Light rain was recorded at 165 elapsed minutes and lasted until 175 elapsed minutes. The rain gauge at S-9 recorded 0.8 inch during this time period.

During test PS1-4, light to heavy rain was observed on site starting at around 350 elapsed minutes and lasting until approximately 495 elapsed minutes. The heaviest rainfall during this period was noted to reach a maximum at approximately 365 and 385 elapsed minutes. Water levels in the rough rain gauge totaled approximately 1.5 to 1.75 inches for this test. The rain gauge at S- 9 recorded 0.41 inch during this time period.