USGS Home
SOFIA Home

Biscayne Aquifer geologic data

Metadata also available as - [Outline] - [Parseable text] - [XML]

Frequently-anticipated questions:


What does this data set describe?

Title: Biscayne Aquifer geologic data
Abstract:
This report from which the data is taken identifies and characterizes candidate ground-water flow zones in the upper part of the shallow, eogenetic karst limestone of the Biscayne aquifer using GPR, cyclostratigraphy, borehole geophysical logs, continuously drilled cores, and paleontology.

About 60 mi of GPR profiles were acquired and are used to calculate the depth to shallow geologic contacts and hydrogeologic units, image karst features, and produce a qualitative perspective of the porosity distribution within the upper part of the karstic Biscayne aquifer in the Lake Belt area of north-central Miami-Dade County. . Descriptions of lithology, rock fabric, cyclostratigraphy, and depositional environments of 50 test coreholes were linked to geophysical data to provide a more refined hydrogeologic framework for the upper part of the Biscayne aquifer. Interpretation of depositional environments was constrained by analysis of depositional textures and molluscan and benthic foraminiferal paleontology. Digital borehole images were used to help quantify large-scale vuggy porosity. Preliminary heat-pulse flowmeter data were coupled with the digital borehole image data to identify potential ground-water flow zones.

Supplemental_Information:
This project was carried out in cooperation with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
  1. How should this data set be cited?

    Cunningham, Kevin J. Carlson, Janine L., Wingard, 2005, Biscayne Aquifer geologic data.

    Online Links:

  2. What geographic area does the data set cover?

    West_Bounding_Coordinate: -80.6
    East_Bounding_Coordinate: -80.3
    North_Bounding_Coordinate: 26
    South_Bounding_Coordinate: 25.5
    Description_of_Geographic_Extent: Biscayne aquifer

  3. What does it look like?

    <http://sofia.usgs.gov/exchange/cunningham/bbwelllocation.html> (JPEG)
    Figure 1: map showing study area, Federal and State lands, and agricultural areas in southern Florida
    <http://sofia.usgs.gov/exchange/cunningham/bbwelllocation.html> (GIF)
    Figure 2: map showing location of test corehole location and number

  4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?

    Beginning_Date: 1998
    Ending_Date: 2005
    Currentness_Reference: ground condition

  5. What is the general form of this data set?

    Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: data tables

  6. How does the data set represent geographic features?

    1. How are geographic features stored in the data set?

      Indirect_Spatial_Reference: Biscayne aquifer

    2. What coordinate system is used to represent geographic features?

      Horizontal positions are specified in geographic coordinates, that is, latitude and longitude. Latitudes are given to the nearest 1. Longitudes are given to the nearest 1. Latitude and longitude values are specified in Degrees, minutes, and decimal seconds.

      The horizontal datum used is North American Datum of 1983.
      The ellipsoid used is Geodetic Reference System 80.
      The semi-major axis of the ellipsoid used is 6378137.
      The flattening of the ellipsoid used is 1/298.257.

      Vertical_Coordinate_System_Definition:
      Altitude_System_Definition:
      Altitude_Datum_Name: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
      Altitude_Resolution: 1.0
      Altitude_Distance_Units: feet
      Altitude_Encoding_Method:
      Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates

  7. How does the data set describe geographic features?

  8. What biological taxa does this data set concern?

    Taxonomy:
    Keywords/Taxon:
    Taxonomic_Keyword_Thesaurus: none
    Taxonomic_Keywords: animals
    Taxonomic_Keywords: invertebrates
    Taxonomic_Keywords: mollusks
    Taxonomic_System:
    Classification_System/Authority:
    Classification_System_Citation:
    Citation_Information:
    Originator:
    Turgeon, D. D.,

    Quinn, J. F., Jr., Bogan, A. E., Coan, E. V., Hochberg, F. G., Lyons, W. G., Mikkelsen, P. M., Neves, R. J., Roper, C. F. E., Rosenberg, G., Roth, B., Scheltema, A., Thompson, F. G., Vecchione, M., Williams, J. D.

    Publication_Date: 1998
    Title:
    Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States to Canada: mollusks
    Geospatial_Data_Presentation_Form: book
    Series_Information:
    Series_Name: Special Publication
    Issue_Identification: 26
    Publication_Information:
    Publication_Place: Bethesda, MD
    Publisher: American Fisheries Society
    Taxonomic_Procedures:
    Mollusks from 46 samples collected from 12 test coreholes were prepared and identified at the USGS Paleontology Laboratory in Reston, Va. Most of the mollusks present in the strata were preserved as molds and casts. Core samples were initially examined under a binocular microscope to observe diagnostic characteristics of the molluscan remains and to make identifications based on their comparison with published species. Clay squeezes or latex casts were made of the molluscan molds where appropriate to aid in identification. After initial identifications were made, samples were split open to expose fresh surfaces and the process repeated.
    Taxonomic_Completeness:
    Identification of benthic foraminifera was made at the genus level, where possible, for 67 thin sections selected by lithology from five test coreholes. Six biofacies were recognized.
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Kingdom
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Animalia
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Phylum
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Mollusca
    Applicable_Common_Name: molluscs
    Applicable_Common_Name: mollusks
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Class
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Gastropoda
    Applicable_Common_Name: gastropods
    Applicable_Common_Name: escargots
    Applicable_Common_Name: snails
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Neotaenioglossa
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Modulidae
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Modulus
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Cerithiidae
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Cerithium
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Turritellidae
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Turritella
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Class
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Bivalvia
    Applicable_Common_Name: bivalves
    Applicable_Common_Name: clams
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Subclass
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Heterodonta
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Order
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Veneroida
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Superfamily
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Cardiacea
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Cardiidae
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Trachycardium
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Superfamily
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Veneroidea
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Veneridae
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Lirophora
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Dosinia
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Chione
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Chione cancellata
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Superfamily
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Lucinoidea
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Family
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Lucinidae
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Anodontia
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Codakia
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Lucina
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Lucina pensylvanica
    Applicable_Common_Name: Pennsylvania lucine
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Genus
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Lucinisca
    Taxonomic_Classification:
    Taxon_Rank_Name: Species
    Taxon_Rank_Value: Lucinisca nassula
    Applicable_Common_Name: woven lucine


Who produced the data set?

  1. Who are the originators of the data set? (may include formal authors, digital compilers, and editors)

  2. Who also contributed to the data set?

    Several USGS employees assisted with this study. Dick Hodges and Alton Anderson provided initial support in geophysical logging. Anthony Brown, Debby Arnold, Claude Jean-Poix, David Schmerge, and Marc Stewart assisted with field activities. The USGS Branch of Geophysical Applications and Support provided essential geophysical instrumentation and technical advice during field activities of borehole image processing system (BIPS) and GPR data collection, especially Marc Buursink, Carol Johnson, John Lane, and John Williams. Claude Jean-Poix and Carlos Zarikian assisted with data analysis and illustrations. Joann Dixon created three-dimensional visualization products. John Lane, Robert Renken, Jane Eggleston, Mike Deacon, and Rhonda Howard at the USGS and Florentin Maurrasse at Florida International University provided reviews.

  3. To whom should users address questions about the data?

    Kevin Cunningham
    U.S. Geological Survey
    3110 SW 9th Ave.
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315
    USA

    954 377-5913 (voice)
    954 377-5901 (FAX)
    kcunning@usgs.gov


Why was the data set created?

The objectives of this cooperative project were to identify and characterize candidate ground-water flow zones in the upper part of the shallow, eogenetic karst limestone of the Biscayne aquifer using ground-penetrating radar, cyclostratigraphy, borehole geophysical logs, continuously drilled cores and paleontology.

In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), initiated a study to provide a regional-scale hydrogeologic framework of a shallow semiconfining unit within the Biscayne aquifer of southeastern Florida. Initially, the primary objective was to characterize and delineate a low-permeability zone in the upper part of the Biscayne aquifer that spans the base of the Miami Limestone and uppermost part of the Fort Thompson Formation. Delineation of this zone was to aid development of a conceptual hydrogeologic model to be used as input into the SFWMD Lake Belt ground-water model. The approximate area encompassed by the conceptual hydrogeologic model is shown as the study area at <http://sofia.usgs.gov/exchange/cunningham/bbwelllocation.html>. Subsequent analysis of the preliminary data suggested hydraulic compartmentalization occurred within the Biscayne aquifer, and that there was a need to characterize and delineate ground-water flow zones and relatively low-permeability zones within the upper part of the Biscayne aquifer. Consequently, preliminary results suggested that the historical understanding of the porosity and preferential pathways for Biscayne aquifer ground-water flow required considerable revision.


How was the data set created?

  1. What methods were used to collect the data?

    Method 0 of 1
    Type: Lab

    Sixty-seven (67) thin sections obtained from Miami Limestone and Fort Thompson Formation core samples from five test coreholes were microscopically examined to identify significant benthic foraminifera and associated mollusks, ostracods, and echinoids. Each core sample was assigned to one of five biofacies and the associated paleoenvironment based on: (1) biofacies suggested by Poag (1981) and Rose and Lidz (1977); (2) fossil and sedimentologic associations; (3) sample locations within the vertical organization of rock-fabric facies; and (4) the observation that the large imperforate foraminifera of biofacies 5 occur in wading depths in seagrass meadows, and also in water as much as about 130 ft deep

  2. From what previous works were the data drawn?

  3. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?

    Date: Unknown (process 1 of 1)
    Two types of GPR field surveys were conducted for this study: (1) continuous measurement common offset reflection surveys, and (2) common mid-point (CMP) velocity surveys (Annan and Davis, 1976; Davis and Annan, 1989). The common-offset reflection surveys were performed to produce two-dimensional profiles of the GPR reflections, and the CMP surveys to calculate radar velocities propagating through the solid and fluid material comprising the Biscayne aquifer. All GPR data were collected using a subsurface interface radar (SIR) System-10A+ with a dual 100-MHz antenna fixed-offset array. A time-varying gain was used during collection of each GPR profile. The common-offset reflection surveys were collected while towing the antennas 55 ft behind a truck with a connecting rope and cable at a rate of about 0.5 mi/hr. The separation between the center point of antennas was 35 in. Processing of profiles included a horizontal filter pass and, for some profiles, a constant-velocity migration of the continuous survey data using radar data analyzer (RADAN) for WinNT software. Visual representation of the GPR data was accomplished using RADAN for WinNT software and RADAN-tobitmap conversion utility.

    Nearly all of the 50 test coreholes were drilled following GPR data acquisition. Test coreholes were located along the GPR profile tracts where they would be most useful for verification of GPR attributes. Collection of continuous 3.4- or 4-in. diameter cores was preferred to the normal rotary method, which produces small cutting samples collected over relatively wide depth intervals. The test coreholes were drilled by either Amdrill Inc., employing a wireline coring method, or by U.S. Drilling Inc., using a conventional coring method. Borehole geophysical logs were collected by the USGS in 45 of the 50 test coreholes drilled during this study and included induction resistivity, natural gamma ray, spontaneous potential, single-point resistivity, caliper, and digital borehole image logs. Borehole geophysical logs were not collected at the G-3694 and G-3697 test coreholes due to problems with locating the well or destruction of the well after drilling. The borehole geophysical-logging tools were run in boreholes filled with clear freshwater. Each borehole was cased with 3.5- or 5-in. solid polyvinyl chlorinated (PVC) surface casing set to a depth between 4 and 19 ft below land surface. Data were acquired in digital format and archived in the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database. The digital borehole image logs were acquired using an RaaX BIPS digital optical logging tool. A Mount Sopris Model HFP-2293 heat-pulse flowmeter was used to assess borehole fluid movement in the G-3710 test corehole. A technique described by Paillet (2000) to estimate vertical groundwater borehole flow was utilized with the flowmeter measurements collected in the G-3710 test corehole.

    Core samples were described using a 10-power hand lens and binocular microscope to determine vertical patterns of microfacies, sedimentary structures, and lithostratigraphic boundaries, to characterize porosity, and to estimate "relative" permeability. Limestones were classified by combining the schemes of Dunham (1962), Embry and Klovan (1971), and Lucia (1995). The rock color of dry core samples was recorded by comparison to a Munsell rock-color chart (Geological Society of America, 1991). Core-sample descriptions were classified as rock-fabric facies.

    Horizontal and vertical permeability of 71 whole-core samples, horizontal permeability of 36 core-plug samples, and porosity and grain density of all 107 samples were measured at Core Laboratories, Inc. Numerous (318) core-sample thin sections were examined using standard transmitted-light petrography to characterize and interpret rock properties and small-scale porosity.

    Borehole images are digital photographs of the borehole wall recorded by a sonic-velocity or electrical-resistivity probe, or optical device. A BIPS borehole imaging tool was used to log continuous digital photographic images in 45 test coreholes. These images provide 100-percent circumferential coverage of the borehole wall and can yield critical information regarding the presence or absence of vuggy porosity, its spatial distribution, and vuggy pore shape and size.

    Mollusks from 46 samples collected from 12 test coreholes were prepared and identified at the USGS Paleontology Laboratory in Reston, Va. Most of the mollusks present in the strata were preserved as molds and casts. Core samples were initially examined under a binocular microscope to observe diagnostic characteristics of the molluscan remains and to make identifications based on their comparison with published species. Clay squeezes or latex casts were made of the molluscan molds where appropriate to aid in identification. After initial identifications were made, samples were split open to expose fresh surfaces and the process repeated. Identification of benthic foraminifera was made at the genus level, where possible, for 67 thin sections selected by lithology from five test coreholes. Six biofacies were recognized.

    Paleoenvironments and stratigraphic age of the Fort Thompson Formation were evaluated in the 46 core samples collected for molluscan paleontology from 12 test coreholes. Molluscan species diversity in the samples was low, and most of the species identified have a broad tolerance to change in salinity and water depth, so the samples have been classified within only three paleoenvironments based on the mollusks: shallow shelf to outer estuarine, inner estuarine, and freshwater.

    Geophysical logging used Mount Sopris portable logging equipment and was completed by USGS Miami, Florida Integrated Science Center for Water and Restoration Studies personnel. Processing and display of results used WellCAD software from Advanced Logic Technology (ALT). WellCAD log display was then exported in PDF format and when possible individual log data sets were exported for archiving in LAS format.

    See Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4208 for more complete information on the data processing.

    Person who carried out this activity:

    Kevin Cunningham
    U.S. Geological Survey
    3110 SW 9th Ave.
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315
    USA

    954 377-5913 (voice)
    954 377-5901 (FAX)
    kcunning@usgs.gov

  4. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?

    Cunningham, Kevin J. Carlson, Janine L., Wingard, 2004, Characterization of Aquifer Heterogeneity Using Cyclostratigraphy and Geophysical Methods in the Upper Part of the Karstic Biscayne Aquifer, Southeastern Florida: USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4208, U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee, FL.

    Online Links:

    Cunningham, Kevin J. Wacker, Michael A. Robinson, 2004, Hydrogeology and Ground-Water Flow at Levee 31N, Miami-Dade County, Florida, July 2003 to May 2004: Scientific Investigations Map I-2846, U.S. Geolgoical Survey, Reston VA.

    Online Links:

    Annan, A. P. Davis, J. L., 1976, Impulse radar soundings in permafrost: Radio Science v. 11, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC.

    Davis, J. L. Annan, A. P., 1989, Ground-penetrating radar for high-resolution mapping of soil and rock stratigraphy: Geophysical Prospecting v. 37, no. 5, European Association of Exploration Geophysicists, The Hague, The Netherlands.

    Mitchum, Jr, R. M. Vail, P. R. Sangree, J. , 1977, Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, part 6: Stratigraphic interpretation of seismic reflection patterns in depositional sequences: AAPG Memoir 26, American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), Tulsa, OK.

    Other_Citation_Details:
    in Seismic Stratigraphy - Applications to hydrocarbon exploration

    Payton, C. E., ed.

    Dunham, R. J., 1962, Classification of carbonate rocks according to depositional textures: AAPG Memoir 1, American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), Tulsa, OK.

    Other_Citation_Details:
    in Classification of Carbonate Rocks

    Ham, W. E., ed.

    Embry, A. F. Klovan, J. E., 1971, A late Devonian reef tract on Northeastern Banks Island, N. W. T.: Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology v. 19, n. 4, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists, Calgary, Canada.

    Lucia, F. J., 1995, Rock-fabric/petrophysical classification of carbonate pore space for reservoir characterization: AAPG Bulletin v. 79, n. 9, American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), Tulsa, OK.

    Geological Society of America, 1991, Rock color chart: Baltimore, MD, Munsell color: Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO.

    Paillet, F. L., 2000, A field technique for estimating aquifer parameters using flow log data: Ground Water v. 38, n. 4, National Ground Water Association, Westerville, OH.

    Poag, C. W., 1981, Ecologic atlas of benthic foraminifera of the Gulf of Mexico: Academic Press, New York, NY.

    Rose, P. R. Lidz, Barbara, 1977, Diagnostic foraminiferal assemblages of shallow-water modern environments: South Florida and the Bahamas: University of Miami, Florida, Miami, FL.


How reliable are the data; what problems remain in the data set?

  1. How well have the observations been checked?

  2. How accurate are the geographic locations?

    not available

  3. How accurate are the heights or depths?

  4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?

    Borehole geophysical logs were collected by the USGS in 45 of the 50 test coreholes drilled during this study. Borehole geophysical logs were not collected at the G-3694 and G-3697 test coreholes due to problems with locating the well or destruction of the well after drilling.

  5. How consistent are the relationships among the observations, including topology?

    Borehole geophysical logs were collected by the USGS in 45 ofthe 50 test coreholes drilled during this study and included induction resistivity, natural gamma ray, spontaneous potential, single-point resistivity, caliper, and digital borehole image logs.

    See WRI 03-4208 for a more complete description of the data.


How can someone get a copy of the data set?

Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?

Access_Constraints: none
Use_Constraints: none

  1. Who distributes the data set? (Distributor 1 of 1)

    Heather S.Henkel
    U.S. Geological Survey
    600 Fourth St. South
    St. Petersburg, FL 33701
    USA

    727 803-8747 ext 3028 (voice)
    727 803-2030 (FAX)
    hhenkel@usgs.gov

  2. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set?

    geologic data

  3. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?

    No warrantees are implied or explicit for the data

  4. How can I download or order the data?


Who wrote the metadata?

Dates:
Last modified: 21-Apr-2006
Metadata author:
Heather S.Henkel
U.S. Geological Survey
600 Fourth St. South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
USA

727 803-8747 ext 3028 (voice)
727 803-2030 (FAX)
hhenkel@usgs.gov

Metadata standard:
Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata Part 1: Biological Data Profile (FGDC-STD-001.1-1999)


This page is <http://sofia.usgs.gov/metadata/sflwww/ba_geologic_data.faq.html>

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Center for Coastal Geology
Comments and suggestions? Contact: Heather Henkel - Webmaster
Generated by mp version 2.8.18 on Sat Apr 22 12:17:36 2006