Fractured Bedrock Aquifer Characterization Using 

Borehole Geophysical Data and FLUTe Multilevel 

Well Systems

USGS / EPA Region 2 Fractured Rock Workshop

EPA Region 2, New York City January 14, 2014

John N. Dougherty PG, 

Joseph Mayo, Jose Reyes, 

and Lisa Campbell PG, CDM 

Smith

Katherine Mishkin and 

Adalberto Bosque, PhD, 

USEPA
Presentation Overview

• Case Study

– Water FLUTe installation

– San German Site in Puerto Rico

• Selection

• Design

• Construction
Selection Considerations: Water FLUTe System

• Sustainability

– One borehole, multiple ports

• Equipment downhole

– Tubing and simple values

• Surface support equipment

– CDM Smith can perform

• Water level monitoring

– Measurements via tubing 

sufficient

• Groundwater sampling

– “Low Flow” type method

• Driller support 

– Familiar with FLUTe

• Layout area

– Similar to well construction

• Construction procedure

– Familiar

• Installation issues

– Complete seal of borehole wall

• Surface completion

– Stickup or flush

• Development

– Gas drive pumping sufficient

• Post installation problems

– Minimal based on experience

• Operations and maintenance

– CDM Smith can perform

• Decommissioning

– FLUTe can be removed

• Location

– Shipping and mobilization
Design: Data Collection and Analysis

• Conceptual Model Development

– Geologic map, topography, and surface water drainage

– Used to help select drilling locations

• Drill boreholes and install blank FLUTe liner to prevent vertical fluid 

movement

• Borehole Geophysical Logging and Analysis

– Suite 1: Caliper, natural gamma, ATV, OTV, fluid temperature and 

conductivity.

– Integrate and analyze data in WellCAD

– Suite 2: Heat pulse flow meter to identify transmissive zones

• Low flow groundwater sampling in the borehole at target depths for 

VOC data

• FLUTe Drop Test Transmissivity Profile

• Install blank FLUTe liner 

• Integrate and analyze data in WellCAD

• Add stereonet data regarding potential flow paths to conceptual 

model

• Complete multilevel well design and convey instructions to vendor
Conceptual Model Development

• Site is located in a fault bounded 

alluvial valley underlain by fractured 

serpentinite

• Volcanic rocks for uplands to the NE 

and SW

• Bedding strike NW/SE and dips to the 

NE.

• Expect groundwater discharge from 

the uplands to the valley

• Expect flow to the northwest, down 

the valley axis.
Groundwater Flow to the Northwest
Borehole Geophysical Logging of Bedrock Borings

• Remove blank FLUTe liner

• Suite 1: 

– Caliper, natural gamma, ATV, OTV, fluid temperature 

and conductivity

• Integrate and analyze data in WellCAD

– Select Heat Pulse Flow Meter Logging Targets

• Suite 2: 

– HPFM Logging

• Vertical profile groundwater sampling for VOCs

– Low flow/wireline/packer test

• FLUTe Transmissivity Profile (Drop Test)

• Reinstall blank FLUTe liner
S

uit

e

1

G

e

o

p

h

y

sic

al L

o

g

s
S

uit

e

2: H

P

F

M

L

o

g

s
S

ele

c

t

L

o

w

Flo

w

S

a

m

plin

g

L

o

c

a

tio

n

s
Wire-line Sample Results
Blank FLUTe Liner Used for Transmissivity Profile

12
Fully lined hole Liner peeled from hole

Nearly removed

Tether

Liner

Excess

head in

liner

Reel

Inverted

liner

Installation sequence

Removal sequence

Procedure:

• The speed of the 

reel is measured 

as the liner drops 

into the borehole.

• As the liner 

covers 

transmissive 

features in the 

borehole the reel 

slows down.

• These data are 

analyzed to 

produce a 

borehole 

transmissivity 

profile.

Blank FLUTe Transmissivity Profile
FLUTe Transmissivity Profile Results
Transmissivity Data
Multilevel Well Design
FLUTe Design and Rationale

Location

FLUTE Port 

Top Depth 

(feet TIC)

FLUTe Port 

Bottom Depth 

(ft TIC) Stickup

FLUTE 

Port Top 

Depth

(feet BGS)

FLUTe Port 

Bottom Depth

(ft BGS) Rationale

VOC 

Detections 

in Low Flow 

Samples 

(Y/N)

Spacer 

Length

MW-A1 96 101 2.28 93.72 98.72

This is the shallowest transmissive zone in the 

borehole which is close to a potential source. 

The highest concentrations of TCE and cDCE 

were detected in the low flow sample from this 

interval. Y 5

MW-A2 105 111 2.28 102.72 108.72

This is the highest transmissivity zone measured 

in the FLUTe drop test and a possible water 

entry zone under pumped conditions during 

HPFM logging. TCE and cDCE were detected in 

the low flow sample. Y 6

MW-A3 116 121 2.28 113.72 118.72

This interval had the second highest 

transmissivity measured in the FLUTe drop test 

and is a definite water entry zone based on the 

HPFM log under pumped conditions. TCE and 

cDCE were detected in the low flow sample. Y 5

MW-A4 139.5 144.5 2.28 137.22 142.22

This is a minor transmissive zone as measured 

in the FLUTe drop test and does not appear to 

be a water entry zone based on HPFM logging. 

However, cDCE and TCE were detected in the 

low flow sample therefore a port is proposed 

here to monitor the vertical extent of 

contamination near the source area. Y 5

MW-A5 186 192 2.28 183.72 189.72

Based on the FLUTe drop test this appears to be 

a low transmissivity zone. TCE and cDCE were 

detected in the low flow sample collected 

adjacent to a cluster of fractures and a fluid 

conductivity change at this depth. A FLUTe port 

is proposed to monitor the vertical extent of 

contamination. Y 6
Integrate Data in WellCAD

Stereonets of Features Identified in Geophysical Logs
Cross Section: VOC Data, OTV, and FLUTe T Profile
Example Costs

• Drilling and FLUTe Installation Support

• Geophysical Logging

• Water FLUTe Materials Installation and Testing

Prices for Water FLUTe simple valved tubing sampling systems

 as oFeb. f 2012 PVDF tubing systems with Non arsenic liners

no. of ports

depth (ft.) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20

30 $461 $2,512 $4,073 $5,634 $7,194 $8,755 $10,316 $11,877 $13,437 $14,998 $16,559 $24,362 $32,165

50 $768 $3,260 $4,935 $6,609 $8,283 $9,958 $11,632 $13,306 $14,981 $16,655 $18,329 $26,701 $35,073

70 $1,075 $4,009 $5,797 $7,584 $9,372 $11,160 $12,948 $14,736 $16,524 $18,312 $20,100 $29,040 $37,980

80 $1,228 $4,383 $6,227 $8,072 $9,917 $11,762 $13,606 $15,451 $17,296 $19,141 $20,986 $30,210 $39,433

90 $1,382 $4,757 $6,658 $8,560 $10,461 $12,363 $14,265 $16,166 $18,068 $19,969 $21,871 $31,379 $40,887

100 $1,535 $5,131 $7,089 $9,048 $11,006 $12,964 $14,923 $16,881 $18,840 $20,798 $22,756 $32,549 $42,341

120 $1,842 $5,879 $7,951 $10,023 $12,095 $14,167 $16,239 $18,311 $20,383 $22,455 $24,527 $34,888 $45,248

160 $2,456 $7,375 $9,674 $11,974 $14,273 $16,572 $18,872 $21,171 $23,470 $25,770 $28,069 $39,566 $51,062

200 $3,070 $8,871 $11,398 $13,924 $16,451 $18,978 $21,504 $24,031 $26,557 $29,084 $31,611 $44,244 $56,877

300 $4,605 $12,612 $15,706 $18,801 $21,896 $24,991 $28,085 $31,180 $34,275 $37,370 $40,465 $55,939 $71,412

400 $6,140 $16,352 $20,015 $23,678 $27,341 $31,004 $34,667 $38,330 $41,993 $45,656 $49,319 $67,634 $85,948

500 $7,675 $20,092 $24,324 $28,555 $32,786 $37,017 $41,248 $45,479 $49,710 $53,942 $58,173 $79,329 $100,484

600 $9,210 $23,833 $28,632 $33,432 $38,231 $43,030 $47,830 $52,629 $57,428 $62,228 $67,027 $91,024 $115,020

800 $12,280 $31,314 $37,249 $43,185 $49,121 $55,057 $60,992 $66,928 $72,864 $78,799 $84,735 $114,414 $144,092
Takeaways

• Successful Multilevel Well Design is based on:

– Clear definition of project objectives

– Development of a hydrogeologic conceptual model

– Collection of necessary and sufficient data to complete the 

design of the selected system

– Clear communications with the vendor

• Data collected for multilevel well design:

– Characterizes the fractured bedrock aquifer

– Conceptual model development
Questions?