...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Geography and Geology >Fractures as Preferential Flowpaths for Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Injections and Withdrawals: Implications for Environmentally Sensitive Near-Shore Waters, Wetlands of the Greater Everglades Basin and the Regional Karst Floridan Aquifer System
【24h】

Fractures as Preferential Flowpaths for Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Injections and Withdrawals: Implications for Environmentally Sensitive Near-Shore Waters, Wetlands of the Greater Everglades Basin and the Regional Karst Floridan Aquifer System

机译:裂缝作为含水层存储和回收(ASR)注入和撤出的首选流路:对环境敏感的近岸水域,大沼泽地盆地的湿地和喀斯特佛罗里达州含水层系统的影响

获取原文
           

摘要

In theory, “aquifer storage and recovery” (ASR) is a form of artificial aquifer recharge consisting of threecomponents: (1) aquifer injections of fluids; (2) withdrawals of the injected fluids; and (3) a period of timebetween the injections and withdrawals that is considered to be aquifer “storage” of the injected fluids. Theinjected fluids may be: (1) treated sewage effluent (also known as reclaimed, reuse, or bright water); (2)stormwater runoff pumped out of canals, mine pits or other areas; (3) surface waters from natural lakes andstreams; or (4) ground water from different aquifer zones. An evaluation of existing data from more than 80injection/withdrawal cycle tests at 18 ASR sites in 9 counties throughout southern Florida, in the regional karstFloridan aquifer system of the United States (US) revealed that less than 25% actual “recovery” was achievedfrom ASR wells where water from various sources was injected into the regional karst aquifer system.Determination of actual “recovery” was based on the reported chloride content of injected and recovered waterand was more suggestive of fluid disposal than aquifer “recharge.” Actual “recovery” for those ASR tests,adjusted to the chloride concentrations of injected fluids, ranged from 0-17% for “storage” periods that rangedfrom 0-181 days. Although results of actual “recovery” provide little support for the concept of “stored” water, inreality those results also over-estimate the volume of injected water that is stored because it assumes that waterrecovered at the same chloride concentration is the same water that was injected. There is no evidence in theASR data to support that assumption. The low actual “recovery” rates occurred despite the fact that 28 of thecycle tests had a “storage” period < 1 day and the longest “storage” period tested did not exceed 181 days. Thosebrief “storage” periods also were insufficient to meet the stated agency objectives of retrieving the injected fluidsduring the dry season, more than six months after injection of what is termed “excess water” during the rainyseason. Despite those results, the agency’s Final Technical Data Report (TDR) and groundwater model releasedin 2014 concluded that: (1) “recovery” from those wells would range from 70-100% and (2) 232 ASR wells (94in the upper Floridan aquifer, 37 in the Avon Park Permeable Zone of the middle Florida aquifer and 101 in theBoulder Zone) could be completed in Florida’s Greater Everglades Basin (basin) as restoration. That Final TDRdid not consider differences in chloride content between water that was injected into and withdrawn from theASR cycle tests and that groundwater model for the basin did not include the anisotropy option or preferentialflow through karst conduits such as fractures. Preferential flow of water injected and withdrawn could result inboth low ASR “recovery” rates and environmental harm, such as submarine groundwater discharge (SGD)contaminated with pollutants, including nutrients that result in harmful algal blooms (HABs). That TDR andgroundwater model for southern Florida also did not evaluate the direct, indirect or cumulative adverse impactsof preferential flow from ASR injections and withdrawals (e.g., through fractures) on federally threatened andendangered species, environmentally sensitive areas or on sinkhole formation. Our evaluation of the basinvicinity also included analyses of fracture frequency, length and proximity to ASR wells, other injection andwithdrawal wells and modern sinkholes, based on georeferenced and transformed lineaments from threeindependent sources: the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE, 2004c), Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT, 1973), and Vernon (1951). Based on the three lineament data sets included in our study, includingwww.ccsenet.org/jgg Journal of Geography and Geology Vol. 7, No. 2; 2015118fractures that extend for considerable distances through environmentally sensitive areas in the basin such as theBig Cypress National Pre
机译:从理论上讲,“含水层的储存和恢复”(ASR)是一种人工含水层补给的形式,它由三个部分组成:(1)注入含水层; (2)抽取注入的液体; (3)注入和抽取之间的一段时间被认为是注入流体的含水层“存储”。注入的流体可能是:(1)处理过的污水(也称为回收,再利用或明亮的水); (二)从运河,矿井或其他地方抽出的雨水径流; (三)天然湖泊,溪流的地表水;或(4)来自不同含水层区域的地下水。对来自佛罗里达州南部岩溶地区佛罗里达州南部喀斯特地区9个县的18个ASR站点的80多次注入/退出循环测试的现有数据进行的评估显示,美国(美国)的弗罗里丹含水层系统的实际“回收率”不到25%将各种来源的水注入区域岩溶含水层系统的井。实际“回收率”的确定是基于所报告的注入和回收水的氯化物含量,比含水层“补给”更能说明流体处置。这些ASR测试的实际“回收率”(调整为注入流体的氯化物浓度)在0-181天的“存储”期间为0-17%。尽管实际的“回收”结果几乎没有为“储存”水的概念提供支持,但不真实的是,这些结果也高估了所注入的水量,因为它假定以相同的氯化物浓度回收的水与原先的水相同。注射。 ASR数据中没有证据支持该假设。尽管有28个周期测试的“存储”周期小于1天,并且测试的最长“存储”周期不超过181天,但实际的“恢复”率却很低。简短的“存储”期也不足以满足在雨季注入所谓的“过量水”后六个月以上的枯水期取回注入流体的既定机构目标。尽管取得了这些结果,该机构在2014年发布的最终技术数据报告(TDR)和地下水模型得出的结论是:(1)从这些井中“采收”的范围为70%至100%;(2)232处ASR井(94处在佛罗里达上游含水层中)佛罗里达中部含水层的埃文公园渗透区中的37个,博尔德区中的101个,可以在佛罗里达大沼泽地盆地(盆地)完工。最终TDR并未考虑注入和退出ASR循环测试的水之间的氯化物含量差异,流域的地下水模型不包括各向异性选项或通过岩溶导管(例如裂缝)的优先流动。优先注入和抽出的水可能导致低的ASR“回收”率和环境危害,例如受污染物污染的海底地下水排放(SGD),包括导致有害藻华(HAB)的养分。佛罗里达州南部的TDR和地下水模型也没有评估ASR注入和撤回(例如通过裂缝)的优先流动对联邦威胁和濒危物种,环境敏感地区或污水坑形成的直接,间接或累积不利影响。我们对盆地附近地区的评估还包括基于三个独立来源的地理参考和转换后的地层,分析了裂缝频率,长度和与ASR井的距离,与ASR井的距离,其他注入和撤出井以及现代的下陷井:美国陆军工程兵团(ACOE,2004c)运输部(FDOT,1973)和弗农(1951)。基于我们研究中包含的三个方面的数据集,包括www.ccsenet.org/jgg《地理与地质学报》第2卷。 7、2号; 2015118裂缝延伸到盆地中对环境敏感的区域,例如大柏树国家预

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号