TWDB ASR/AR Suitability Survey - Andrea Croskrey
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•52 views
Andrea Croskrey
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (14)
Similar to TWDB ASR/AR Suitability Survey - Andrea Croskrey
Similar to TWDB ASR/AR Suitability Survey - Andrea Croskrey (20)
More from Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts
More from Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
TWDB ASR/AR Suitability Survey - Andrea Croskrey
- 1. Statewide Survey of Aquifer Suitability for ASR or AR Projects Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts Regular Business Meeting January 26, 2021
- 2. Many thanks! Contractor lead authors: • Kristi Shaw, HDR Engineering • Zach Stein, HDR Engineering • Neil Deeds, INTERA • Peter George, Collier Consulting • Mike Milczarek, GeoSystems Analysis, Inc. • Qian Yang, Bureau of Economic Geology TWDB staff: • Water Science and Conservation – Innovative Water Technologies – Groundwater Technical Assistance – Water Availability – Coastal Science – River Science • Water Use, Projections, & Planning
- 3. aquifer well Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) aquifer infiltration pond Aquifer Recharge (AR)
- 4. Screening for three criteria: Hydrogeological • ASR-related aquifer characteristics • AR-related aquifer characteristics “Excess” water • Surface water* • Reclaimed water • Groundwater Supply needs *planned surplus appropriated and unappropriated run-of-river and impounded streamflows • Municipal • Manufacturing • Steam-electric power generation
- 5. Benefits and uses Benefits • Free and public • Statewide perspective • New look at the information • Data accessibility • Data versatility • Dovetails with the water planning process Uses • Start conversations • Explore the data • Identify areas that could warrant a feasibility analysis • Seek potential for conjunctive use and regionalization • Arrive at your own conclusions
- 6. Challenges and limitations Challenges • Statewide scale • Data availability • Resampling for compatibility (horizontal and vertical) • Aggressive timeline • Quantifying suitability without infrastructure and economics Limitations • Suitability is relative for the state • No scores if all 3 criteria weren’t identified • Doesn’t replace the need for site- specific studies • No seasonal or local conditions • Results are not agency- recommended locations for projects
- 8. Thank you for your time 8 Andrea Croskrey, P.G. TWDB ASR Discipline Lead andrea.croskrey@twdb.texas.gov (512) 463-2865 Statewide Survey of Aquifer Suitability for ASR or AR Projects http://www.twdb.texas.gov/innovativewater/asr/projects/Statewide/index.asp Webinar February 17 at 12 p.m. CST
Editor's Notes
- Introduction Mandated report for House Bill 721, passed by the 86th Texas Legislature in 2019 “. . .to determine the occurrence, quantity, quality, and availability of aquifers in which aquifer storage and recovery projects or aquifer recharge projects are feasible.” The report “Statewide Survey of Aquifer Suitability for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Projects or Aquifer Recharge Projects” was delivered December 15th. It is an abridged version of the contracted report provided by HDR Engineering (#2000012405).
- This is my first public presentation of the survey, so I ask your patience as I do the live demo and try to answer questions. Thanks to the contractor The statewide survey was performed by a contractor. I would like to thank HDR and their subcontractors for their diligent work to complete this immense project on such an aggressive timeline. Over 2 dozen of their staff and colleagues worked on this over the 10 months in 2020. Thanks to TWDB staff Additionally, TWDB staff worked closely with HDR as they developed the methodology, gathered source data, created the StoryMap, and wrote the report. It was truly a cross-departmental effort that required utilizing multiple strengths of the agency. Those of you that know me, my experience is in geology and brackish groundwater mapping so I really needed the help learning about things like the WAM and water planning data.
- So let’s start with some pillars of the survey before we jump into the live demo of the data. Define ASR & AR I think many of you are very familiar with this type of infrastructure but to provide the definitions for this survey, I will say that: Aquifer storage & recovery, or ASR, is using a well to inject water into an aquifer for the purpose of subsequent recovery and beneficial use. and Aquifer Recharge, or AR, is the intentional recharge of an aquifer but not necessarily recovery of that water and might be done to reduce declines in the water table or spring flows, improve water quality, or mitigate subsidence. Both were evaluated by the survey.
- Three criteria Per legislative requirements, HDR conducted the survey based on three screening criteria: Hydrogeological characteristics, Excess water, and Water supply needs. Often during the seven months HDR had to complete the work, I commented that they had to complete three screening studies just get to the point where we were able to do the final relative statewide suitability rating. The first screening was to map the hydrogeological parameters for all 31 major and minor aquifers; twice. Once with the parameters pertinent to ASR projects and then again with the parameters pertinent to AR projects. Hydrogeological parameters included characteristics such as storage potential, transmissivity, infiltration characteristics, storativity, recoverability, and water quality. The second screening was to map water available for injection or recharge, or what the survey calls “Excess Water”. For this survey, “excess water” was considered water sources that are not claimed (or obligated) to provide for current or future water supply demands in the draft 2021 regional water plans and are potentially available for ASR or AR projects. Water supplies from three categories: Surface water (which included run-of-river, reservoir, rain, storm, and flood water) Reclaimed water, and Groundwater. The third screening was to map the location of water supply needs based on the draft 2021 Regional Water Plans. This included water supply needs from three water user groups: Municipal, Manufacturing, and Steam-electric power generation. “Irrigation”, “mining”, and “municipal county-other” water user groups were not included in this statewide survey due to the unavailability of spatial data at a resolution greater than county level.
- Benefits and uses The survey identifies areas of Texas with major or minor aquifers, excess water, and water supply needs. Benefits of the survey are: Free Big Picture Fresh look at the water planning data Accessible Versatile Plugs into the water planning process In terms of uses we have envisioned so far, Conversation starter Empower folks to explore the data Identify areas that could warrant a feasibility analysis that were never considered before or deserve a second look Seek potential for collaboration amongst WUGs for conjunctive use and regionalization Stakeholders can arrive at their on conclusions given what their needs or interests are
- Challenges and limitations Challenges of the “Statewide Survey of Aquifer Suitability for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Projects or Aquifer Recharge Projects” included: Statewide scale requires large data sets Data availability, there was an immense amount of work to do in an aggressive timeframe, so information needed to be readily available. The survey relies heavily on water planning data which has it’s own set of strengths and weaknesses Resampling data to compatible scales, source data was usually created for purposes other than what we were using it for, so some manipulation was necessary Aggressive timeline, the contractor had 7 months to provide draft results and 9 months to provide final deliverables Quantifying suitability independent of other important aspects to ASR and AR projects such as infrastructure and economics was often difficult for people to wrap the heads around. In terms of limitations, the results of the survey indicate the relative suitability of areas in the state for ASR or AR projects, based on the three statutory criteria. You can compare scores between aquifers in Texas but not outside of the state No scores were given to grid cells that lacked any one of the three criteria. Just because a resource or need wasn’t identified, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Conversely, just because a resource or need was identified, doesn’t guarantee that it is appropriate or available for ASR or AR. For example, the availability of excess water is contingent on environmental flows, existing water rights, permitted impoundment volumes and associated reservoir operations, and seasonal water conditions. The purpose of these screenings is not to replace the need for site-specific studies. It can be used as an indicator of the probability of finding suitable sites. It was impossible to account for the seasonal variability and local conditions that often make ASR or AR projects attractive at this scale and in this timeframe The results of this survey should not be considered agency-recommended locations for projects. Conversely, a high suitability score from this survey is not required for a successful project and the lack of a rating does not discount an area from hosting a project. Receiving any final suitability rating indicates that an area had all 3 screening criteria identified.
- Public data display With all that laid out, let’s talk about the spatial data resulting from the survey. Though not in the legislative mandate, the TWDB identified the spatial nature of the project and included the creation of a public data display as part of the contract. This display puts 101 interactive maps at the fingertips of our stakeholders. I will now use the web map application, accessed via the “Explore the data” tab, to walk through some of these layers to highlight the results of the survey, as time allows.
- This is the web map application which gives users interactive access with over 100 GIS layers. The layer list on the right allow users to turn layers on and off and view the symbology for each layer. In this screenshot, the simplified ASR Final Suitability Rating layer is on. Let’s say a user wanted to see what the survey results at San Angelo, Texas. We would type “San Angelo” in the search field and the app would zoom us into the area circled in red.
- So here we are, red circle for reference, and we see that grid cell 383 contains the city of San Angelo. The survey rated the relative ASR suitability as moderate with a score of 0.65. It scored the hydrogeology as medium at 0.61 The Excess water as medium at 0.60 and The water supply needs as high at 0.75 If the user wanted to dig into the data deeper, they could turn on the full data version of the layer, circled in red in the Layer list.
- On this slide we have a screenshot of the web map application. The highlighted grid cell contains the city of San Angelo (black dot). The red square encompasses the surrounding 24 grid cells that were searched for excess water and water supply needs to score this grid cell. To discover which excess water and needs were used we can click on the highlighted grid cell.
- The data pop up reveals that for the San Angelo grid cell The highest scoring available aquifer for ASR was the Lipan Aquifer And that the Excess Water and needs came from the same grid cell (#3839) Now if the user wanted to explore the source data from any of the three screening criteria, they could dive deeper. For this example, we will dive down into the excess water data for grid cell #3839. NOTE: Excess groundwater availability is based on modeled available groundwater after accounting for current and future use identified in the 2021 Regional Water Plans. Often major and minor aquifers overlay each other so each cell can have multiple entries, which are scored individually before rolling up for highest scoring aquifer. Some areas show multiple high scoring aquifers which allows flexibility for conjunctive use.
- If you look at the layer list, you will see that we have the excess water screening score grid turned on, and the individual scores for the three categories that fed into the excess water score: surface, reclaimed, and groundwater. The user would see that no excess reclaimed or groundwater were identified by the survey for this grid cell and that all the score came from surface water. Let’s see what surface water sources were identified… NOTES: No excess reclaimed water since the city has an indirect reuse project in the 2021 Regional Water Plan. Concho River Water Project (from 2021 RWP) The City of San Angelo recently completed a long-range water supply study which identified the Concho River Water Project as the next major water supply for the City. The project is an indirect reuse project that will provide approximately 8,400 acre-feet of water as municipal supply. The project will release highly treated wastewater into the Concho River where it will be diverted approximately 8 miles downstream and treated for municipal use. The project includes permitting, and water and wastewater treatment plant upgrades. The capital costs associated with these upgrades are estimated at nearly $117 million. No excess water, probably because the only aquifer available is the Lipan and it is heavily used.
- Now looking at the surface water gird cells, the user would see that of the three surface water categories, (reservoirs, surplus appropriated, and unappropriated), the score for this grid cell came from the reservoirs grid cells. So lets take a look at the data that fed into the surplus appropriated surface water from reservoirs grid cell.
- By turning on the Reservoir storage grid and points, the user would see that the survey identified 9,615 AF of reservoir storage in this grid cell at Lake Nasworthy. So while not the highest-scoring ASR suitability grid cell in Texas, the survey identified the 3 basic criteria: an aquifer, water supply, and need. The next step would be to do a site-specific feasibility study, which would look at local details such as aquifer mechanics, seasonal fluctuations, water rights, infrastructure, and economics. NOTES: Aquifer: Lipan Excess Water: Possibly Lake Nasworthy South Concho River, completed in 1930 for municipal, industrial, and irrigation water for San Angelo, permitted to store 12,500 AF and divert 25,000 AF per year, it is operated as a system with Twin Buttes (while dams are owned and operated by different authorities, are used collectively as a system) Need: Peak projected demand of 26,438 AF in 2070 (draft 2021 Region F plan combining the city, UCRA, Goodfellow Air Force Base, and about half the Manufacturing in Tom Green County)
- Questions Thank you for your time to show case this extensive statewide survey. I am available for any questions.