Geology topics

Research about Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

Source-linked reports with geographic coverage including Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2017

Simulation of groundwater flow and pumping scenarios for 1900–2050 near Mount Pleasant, South Carolina

Groundwater withdrawals from the Upper Cretaceous-age Middendorf aquifer in South Carolina have created a large, regional cone of depression in the potentiometric surface of the Middendorf aquifer in Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina. Groundwater-level declines of as much as 249 feet have been observed in wells over the past 125 years and are a result of groundwater use for public water supply, irrigation, and private industry. To address the concerns of users of the Middendorf aquifer, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Mount Pleasant Waterworks (MPW), recalibrated an existing groundwater-flow model to incorporate additional groundwater-use and water-level data since 2008. This recalibration process consisted of a technique of parameter estimation that uses regularized inversion and employs “pilot points” for spatial hydraulic property characterization. The groundwater-flow system of the Coastal Plain physiographic province of South Carolina and parts of Georgia and North Carolina was simulated using the U.S. Geological Survey finite-difference computer code MODFLOW-2000. After the model recalibration, the following six predictive water-management scenarios were created to simulate potential changes in groundwater flow and groundwater-level conditions in the Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, area: Scenario 1—maximize MPW reverse-osmosis plant capacity by increasing groundwater withdrawals from the Middendorf aquifer from 3.9 million gallons per day (Mgal/d), which was the amount withdrawn in 2015, to 8.58 Mgal/d; Scenario 2—same as Scenario 1, but with the addition of a 0.5 Mgal/d supply well in the Middendorf aquifer near Moncks Corner, South Carolina; Scenario 3—same as Scenario 1, but with the addition of a 1.5 Mgal/d supply well in the Middendorf aquifer near Moncks Corner, South Carolina; Scenario 4—maximize MPW well capacity by increasing withdrawals from the Middendorf aquifer from 3.9 Mgal/d (in 2015) to 10.16 Mgal/d; Scenario 5—minimize MPW surface-water purchase from the Charleston Water System by adding supply wells and increasing withdrawals from the Middendorf aquifer from 3.9 Mgal/d (in 2015) to 12.16 Mgal/d; and Scenario 6—same as Scenario 1, but with he addition of quarterly model stress periods to simulate seasonal variations in the groundwater withdrawals. Results from the simulations indicated further decline of groundwater levels creating cones of depressions near pumping wells in the Middendorf aquifer in the Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, area between 2015 and 2050 for all six scenarios. Simulation results from Scenario 1 showed an average decline of about 150 feet in the groundwater levels of the MPW production wells. Simulated hydrographs for two area observation wells illustrate the gradual decline in groundwater levels with overall changes in water-level altitudes of –92 and –33 feet, respectively. Simulated groundwater altitudes at a hypothetical observation well located in the MPW well field declined 121 feet between 2015 and 2050. Scenarios 2 and 3 have the same pumping rates as Scenario 1 for the MPW production wells; however, a single hypothetical pumping well was added in the Middendorf aquifer near the town of Moncks Corner, South Carolina. This hypothetical pumping well has a withdrawal rate of 0.5 Mgal/d for Scenario 2 and 1.5 Mgal/d for Scenario 3. A comparison to the 2050 Scenario 1 simulation indicates groundwater altitudes for Scenarios 2 and Scenario 3 are 3 feet and 8 feet lower, respectively, at the MPW production wells. Scenario 4 simulates the maximum pumping capacity of 10.16 Mgal/d for the MPW network of production wells. Simulated 2050 groundwater altitudes for this simulation declined to –359 feet. Simulated hydrographs for two observation wells show groundwater-level declines of 116 and 41 feet, respectively. Simulated differences in groundwater altitudes at a hypothetical observation well located in the MPW well field indicate a water-level decline of 164 feet between 2015 and 2050. Scenario 5 is a modification of Scenario 4 with the addition of two new MPW production wells. For this scenario, the MPW network of production wells were simulated the same as in Scenario 4, but withdrawals from the two new production wells were added in 2020. Simulated 2050 groundwater altitudes for this simulation declined to – 405 feet. Simulated hydrographs for two observation wells show groundwater-level declines of 143 and 51 feet, respectively. Simulated groundwater altitudes at a hypothetical observation well located in the MPW well field declined 199 feet between 2015 and 2050. Scenario 6 is a modification of Scenario 1, in which 140 additional quarterly stress periods were added to simulate MPW seasonal demands. Simulated groundwater altitudes for Scenario 6 declined to –353 feet during 2050. For Scenario 6, simulated hydrographs for two observation wells and the hypothetical observation well show similar groundwater-level declines as seen in Scenario 1, but with seasonal fluctuations of as much as 56 feet in the hypothetical observation well. Water budgets for the model area immediately surrounding Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, were calculated for 2015 and for 2050. The water budget for 2015 is equal for all of the scenarios because it represents the year prior to the hypothetical pumping beginning in 2016. The largest flow component in the 2015 water budget for the Mount Pleasant area is discharge to wells at a rate of 4.17 Mgal/d. Additionally, 0.23 Mgal/d flows laterally out of the Middendorf aquifer in this area of the model due to the regional horizontal hydraulic gradient. Flow into this zone consists predominantly of lateral flow within the Middendorf aquifer at 4.08 Mgal/d. Additionally, 0.02 Mgal/d is released into this zone from aquifer storage. Vertically, 0.06 Mgal/d flows down from the Middendorf confining unit located above the Middendorf aquifer, and 0.25 Mgal/d flows up from the Cape Fear confining unit below. The largest flow component in the 2050 water budget for all six scenarios is discharge to wells in the Mount Pleasant area at rates between 8.89 and 12.47 Mgal/d. Flow into this zone consists mostly of lateral flow between 8.47 and 11.77 Mgal/d within the Middendorf aquifer. Between 0.003 and 0.46 Mgal/d is released into this zone from aquifer storage. Between 0.004 and 0.15 Mgal/d flows laterally out of this zone into adjacent areas of the Middendorf aquifer due to the regional horizontal hydraulic gradient. Finally, between 0.15 and 0.22 Mgal/d flows vertically into this zone from confining units above and below the Middendorf aquifer.

South Carolina↗

USGS2009

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

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 particle-tracking 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 releases at rates between 86,800 and 116,000 gallons per day and vertical flow from over- and underlying confining units at rates between 69,100 and 150,000 gallons per day. Reclaimed water injected into the Middendorf aquifer at three hypothetical injection wells moved to the Mount Pleasant Waterworks production wells in 18 to 256 years as indicated by particle-tracking simulations. Time of travel varied from 18 to 179 years for simulated conditions of 20 percent uniform aquifer porosity and between 25 to 256 years for 30 percent uniform aquifer porosity.

South Carolina↗

USGS2007

Hydrogeology and simulation of ground-water flow near Mount Pleasant, South Carolina: Predevelopment, 2004, and predicted scenarios for 2030

Heavy water use from the Cretaceous Middendorf aquifer in South Carolina has created a large, regional cone of depression in the potentiometric surface of the Middendorf aquifer in Charleston and Berkeley Counties, South Carolina. Water-level declines of up to 249 feet have been observed in wells over the past 125 years and are a result of ground-water use for public-water supply, irrigation, and private industry. To address the concerns of users of the Middendorf aquifer, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Mount Pleasant Waterworks, updated an existing ground-water flow model to incorporate additional data that have been compiled since 1989. The updated ground-water flow model incorporates water-level data collected from 349 wells in 2004, baseflow data measured at 17 streams, hydraulic property data from 265 wells, and water-use data compiled for more than 2,700 wells for the period between the early 1900s to 2004. The ground-water flow system of the Coastal Plain physiographic province of South Carolina and parts of Georgia and North Carolina was simulated using the U.S. Geological Survey finite-difference code MODFLOW-2000. The model was vertically discretized into nine layers to include the five aquifers of the surficial, the combined Floridan aquifer system and Tertiary sand aquifer, Black Creek, Middendorf, and Cape Fear, separated by four intervening confining units. Specified-head boundary conditions were used at the lateral boundaries of the model and for the lower Coastal Plain part of the surficial aquifer; no-flow boundary conditions were used at the updip and downdip extent of the model layers and at the base of the Cape Fear aquifer. Ground-water conditions for predevelopment and 2004 were simulated using steady-state and transient approximations, respectively. Simulated water levels generally matched the observed conditions, plus or minus a 20-foot calibration target, with 56.4 and 64.8 percent of the simulated values approximating the measured values for predevelopment and 2004 hydrologic conditions, respectively. The root-mean-square error of the water-level residuals for the various model layers varied between 20.2 and 34.4 feet for predevelopment and 18.2 and 36.7 feet for 2004. The general goodness of fit also was apparent in the calculation of the ratio of standard deviation of residuals to range of observations for each modeled aquifer layer. The calculated ratios for the predevelopment and 2004 hydrologic conditions were less than 0.10 for all model layers except for the Cape Fear aquifer in both predevelopment and 2004 simulations. The Mount Pleasant model was most sensitive to changes in simulated specific storage of most model layers, vertical anisotropy of the confining units above and below the Middendorf aquifer, hydraulic conductivity of the confining units, and the specified-head boundary conditions for the surficial aquifer. The model also is sensitive to horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the Floridan aquifer system and Tertiary sand aquifer and the Black Creek and Middendorf aquifers. Simulated water budgets indicate that the primary sources of water to the model are recharge and the specified-head boundaries in layers 1 and 3. More than 88 percent of the water that discharges from the model discharges from layers 1-3 through specified-head boundaries and rivers. Approximately 11 percent of the water budget was discharged through wells for the 2004 budget. In 2004, 8.11 million gallons of water per day was discharged from wells in the Mount Pleasant area. Water to these wells is provided predominantly by lateral flow within the Middendorf aquifer. Additional water is provided from aquifer storage and leakage from confining units located above and below the Middendorf aquifer. Downward flow through the Middendorf confining unit is a reversal of the predevelopment flow direction. Five predictive water-management scenarios were simulated to determine the effects on the

South Carolina↗