Title: Technical Report No. 3 Investigation of Ground Water Resources and Salt Water Intrusion in the Coastal Areas of Northwest Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00001864/00001
 Material Information
Title: Technical Report No. 3 Investigation of Ground Water Resources and Salt Water Intrusion in the Coastal Areas of Northwest Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: Technical Report No. 3 Investigation of Ground Water Resources and Salt Water Intrusion in the Coastal Areas of Northwest Florida By: James M. Frazee, Jr. and Donnie R. McClaugherty Water Resources Department St. Johns Water Management District Palatka, FL November 1979
General Note: Box 9, Folder 7 ( SF-Safe Yield - 1956-1995 ), Item 17
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00001864
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text


U-


Technical Report No. 3
INVESTIGATION OF GROUND WATER RESOURCES
AND SALT WATER INTRUSION IN THE COASTAL
AREAS OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA


By
James M. Frazee, Jr.
Donnie R. McClaugherty


Water Resources Department
St. Johns River Water Management District
Palatka, Florida
November 1979

Prepared in cooperation with the
Coastal Plains Regional Commission
and
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Project Number 2031501


REPORT STATUS
Published a
Board Action ACrm AROVED
O O


IN
*m

*m


i





"



SIMPSON METHOD

(Safe Yield Approximations)



E-1.1 Basis for Use

1. Pumping trough in a coastal aquifer

2. An extension of Darcy's Law

3. Lateral flow to the coast

4. Interface at or near shoreline for basin south of 1 and 2

E-1.2 Calculation of Safe Yield


KA Q/h/L (1)


KA. takes into account permeability coefficient and cross-sectional

area. Other terms are defined as follows:

Q Available recharge (ft3/s)

h Difference in elevation of potentiometric
surface from recharge area to center line
of trough, in feet

L -.Distance from recharge area to center line
of trough, in feet

KA term is inserted in the following safe yield equation:


Sy KA (2)
L

where


Sy = Safe yield

h = Difference in potentiometric
surface from recharge area to
sea level, in feet

L = Distance from recharge area to
the coast (hypothesized interface
point), in feet










E-1.3 Best References

Simpson, T. R., 1946, Saline Basin Investigation: Calif. Div. of
Water Res. Bull. 52, 230 p.

1946, see also Bull. 52A; Bull. 52A, Supplements 1-7;
Bull. 52B; Bull. 53.

Todd, D. K., 1960, Ground Water Hydrology: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, 336 p., pp. 208-211.


E2









CRITERIA FOR SAFE YIELD APPROXIMATIONS FOR BASINS 1 AND 2



E-2.1 Basin 1 (Fernandina Cone Area)

Minimal Safe Yield Criteria

1. Available recharge estimated to be 81 Mgal/d.

2. Subtract maintenance flow to retard or stabilize interface
movement..

3. Interface at shoreline or at edge of cone estimated to be
five miles offshore. Interface considered to be 250 mg/L
chloride.isochlor.

4. Induced flow not considered due to the location of interface.

5. Leakage through confining beds insignificant


Probable Safe Yield Criteria

1. Available recharge estimated to be 81 Mgal/d.

2. Interface with sea water at or approaching continental slope
74 miles offshore hypothesized to be Floridan aquifer dis-
charge point. Interface considered to be 250 mg/L chloride
isochlor located east of cone influence at or near five miles.

3. Induced flow from east side of cone estimated to be 10-24 Mgal/d.

4. Induced recharge from Georgia north of cone and seaward, unknown
but may be significant. The Georgia industrial puapage (46 Mgal/d)
may be supplied from this flow and not from Basin 1 recharge.

5. Ground water flow passing cone adequate to maintain or signifi-
cantly retard inward movement of interface.

6. Leakage through confining beds insignificant.

7. Confining layer of dolomitic limestone at 1,250 feet impermeable.


Maximum Demand Level Criteria

1. Future deterioration of source aquifer with interface shift
into cone.

2. Available recharge 81 Mgal/d.

3. Interface 74 miles offshore.



E3









4. Induced flow 10-24 Mgal/d within five-mile cone limit.

5. Ground water in storage removed as cone expands beyond five-
mile limitation addressed in 4.

6. Induced flow due to change in Basin configuration (Georgia
available recharge) north of cone.

S7. Leakage downward insignificant and upcoming insignificant
due to hypothesized impermeable boundary at 1,250 feet.


E-2.2 Basin 2 (Jacksonville Cone Area

l Minimal Safe Yield Criteria

1. Available recharge 159 Mgal/d.

I 2. Interface (250 Mg/L Cl-) at shoreline or within five miles
of shoreline.

3. Induced flow to cone not considered due to undetermined
confining conditions (faults, inconsistent zones of imper-
meable dolomite at 2,045 feet).

S.. 4. Downward leakage undetermined.

5. Recharge east of cone on Central Park Ridge not considered
due to its importance as a fresh water barrier seaward of
the cone.


Probable Safe Yield Criteria

1 i. Available recharge 159 Mgal/d.

'^ 2. Interface at or approaching point 74 miles offshore hypothe-
Ssized to be the discharge point of. the Floridan aquifer.
S250 Mg/L isochlor considered to be closer to shoreline.

S3. Induced flow to cone unknown at present, but considered a
major element in the total available for safe yield. Estimates
may be as high as 130 Mgal/d.

S4. Downward leakage considered a minor element. Upward flow due
to poorly constructed wells may be a negative element until
increased well yields reverse potentiometric-water table head
differential. An increase of up to 30 Mgal/d would remain
available in storage for use by Jacksonville area cones.

5. Recharge east of cone could increase available recharge as
Scone.expands, but the fresh water buffer would disappear.
The buffer may supply critical recharge to coastal barrier
island supplies.


E4





6. Interface sustaining flow element hypothesized to be approxi-.
mately 9 Mgal/d.

NOTE:' Corps of Engineers (1979) report indicated a 274.6 Mgal/d
safe yield figure for Duva'l County and a. total demand of
384.7 Mgal/d in the year 2030. The 110.1 Mgal/d excess
would come from alternate sources (surface water or
de-salting).


Maximum Demand Level Criteria

1. Future deterioration of source with interface shift inland.

2. Available recharge 159 Mgal/d.

3. Induced flow from storage significantly higher than element
3 of Probable Safe Yield Criteria.

4. Salt water/fresh water interface at or approaching 74 miles
offshore.

5. Leakage through.Cedar Keys limestone confining beds with
potential upcoming of higher salinity connate water. Occur-
rence of leakage along fault lines postulated to be the route
of intrusion.

6. Eventual conversion to alternate sources as considered in
Corps of Engineers (1979) report.


























E5

fl +


I


c




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs