Feb 2, 2017 - Aquifer Storage and Recovery and Deep. Injection Wells ... project test data. 8 .... (3) Deep Injection We
Sunrise on the Kissimmee River north of Lake Okeechobee
Options for Reducing Damaging Discharges to the Estuaries Aquifer Storage and Recovery and Deep Injection Wells
Bob Verrastro, Lead Hydrogeologist, Water Supply Bureau Matt Morrison, Federal Policy Chief, Everglades Policy and Coordination
February 2, 2017
Presentation Outline Update on Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Deep Injection Well Technology Combined Subsurface Storage Options Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project Update 2
ASR Concept
Kissimmee ASR System
3
ASR in Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (1999) 333 wells at 5 million gallons per day (mgd) 200 wells with Lake Okeechobee 44 wells in Caloosahatchee Basin 89 wells in Lower East Coast To augment surface reservoirs
4
ASR Benefits Ability to store large (multi-year) volumes of water Requires limited land acquisition, small footprint
Kissimmee ASR pilot system – Stored 3,000 ac.ft. of water using a 2-acre footprint
Eliminates losses due to evaporation Stored water is recovered when needed Optimizes the function of reservoirs and Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) 5
Implementation Strategy
CERP ASR PROGRAM
6
ASR Pilot Projects Kissimmee
Kissimmee ASR Pilot Project
Caloosahatchee Basin
Hillsboro WCA 1
Exploratory well
Hillsboro ASR
7
CERP ASR Regional Study To address regional issues beyond the pilots associated with full-scale ASR (333 wells)
Numerous geological, technical, ecological and chemical studies
Groundwater model and environmental risk assessment
Simulations tied to pilot project test data 8
ASR Regional Study Groundwater Model Constraints included: Limited to state-owned locations Rock fracturing Upconing Lateral salt water intrusion Effects to existing users Maintaining artesian conditions
About 130 (not 333) ASR wells possible: 80 at Lake Okeechobee Model did not consider alternative locations
9
ASR Regional Study Groundwater Model - Boulder Zone Analysis Simulated 200 wells recharging the Boulder Zone 1 billion gallons per day capacity To provide benefits reduced by having fewer ASR wells
Recharge pressures remained low in overlying zones No recovery - just injection 10
2007 Deep Well Injection (DIW) Feasibility Study
Conducted as a component of SFWMD Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery initiative
11
Hydrogeology of South Florida
12
Boulder Zone Injection Wells Simple design No land acquisition/cultural resources Higher capacities (30 cfs) relative to ASR (8 cfs) Permitting is straightforward Can be built in advance of large reservoirs Can assist in estuary and dike protection Injected water is not recovered 13 13
Injection Well Evaluations and Analyses Preliminary Groundwater modeling Exploratory/test wells
Mechanical (casings and cement) Casing pressure tests Cement bond logs Tracer tests
Confinement Rock cores Packer tests Geophysical logs
Injection Zone Injection test Monitoring wells
Conventional rock cores from a Florida injection well 14
Where are Boulder Zone Injection wells used? 180 Class I wells in operation in Florida Mostly used for wastewater disposal Identified in 2015 UF Water Institute Study 15
LOER DIW Study: Reducing “Instantaneous” discharges at the estuaries
60 wells could reduce 90 percent of damaging discharge events
90 wells could reduce 40 percent of damaging discharge events
16
Injection Wells for Lake Okechobee Level Control
30 to 60 injection wells can lower the level of the Lake by 0.5 to 1 foot in one year.
17
Existing Wells
ASR Projects
Deep Injection Systems
18
Frequently Asked Deep Injection Well Questions Deep Injection Well Will it cause fracturing or earthquakes? What kind of water are you injecting? Where does the water go? Will it impact drinking water aquifers? ASR How much water will we get back from the wells? What kind of water are you putting into the wells? What chemical reactions take place in the aquifer?
19
Sunrise over Lake Okeechobee near the City of Okeechobee
Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project 20
Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project Study Schedule 18-36 MONTHS
SMART FEASIBILITY STUDY PROCESS
NEPA Comment Period 6/28/16 – 8/12/16
Conduct NEPA Scoping
Circulate Draft EIS & File with EPA
Develop and Screen Initial Alternatives
Concurrent Public, Technical, Policy & Legal Review
SCOPING
1 Alternatives Milestone Vertical Team Concurrence on Array of Alternatives October 18, 2016
Respond to Comments
FEASIBILITY-LEVEL ANALYSIS
Signed ROD
CHIEF’S REPORT
4
2
TSP Milestone Vertical Team Concurrence on Tentatively Selected Plan
Prepare Draft Record of Decision
Circulate FEIS & File with EPA State & Agency Review
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION & ANALYSIS WE ARE HERE
Publish Notice of Intent
3
Final Report Milestone DCG Releases Report State & Agency Review
5 Chief’s Report
Agency Decision Milestone Agency Endorsement of Recommended Plan
21
Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project Study Area ~950,000 acres Historically dominated by wetlands Current land use include:
Agriculture Natural/Open Land and Water Urban/Infrastructure
22
Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project Study Scope Increase water storage capacity in the watershed resulting in improved Lake Okeechobee water levels Improve the quantity and timing of discharges to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries which adversely affect salinity and estuarine biota Restore/create habitat to increase the spatial extent and functionality of wetlands Proposed: Improve water supply for existing legal users 23
Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project Components Under Consideration
Above Ground Reservoirs Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Deep Well Injection Wetland and Floodplain Restoration
24
Themes for Subsurface Options Estuary Discharge Minimization
Moore Haven Port Mayaca Tributary Enhancement
Taylor Creek Nubbin Slough Lake Level Control
C-40 Canal Reach C-41 Canal Reach Kissimmee ASR System S-191 Reach Taylor Creek/L-63N Canal 25
Themes for Subsurface Options Wetland/Floodplain Restoration
Paradise Run Kissimmee River Paradise Run Lake O West Wetland IP-10 Reservoir Storage Augmentation
Istokpoga Canal Reservoir Reservoir K-42 Reservoir K-05 North and Horizontal
Reservoir I - 01 26
Reduction in Lake Okeechobee “Flow Volumes” to the Estuaries Reservoir
Current
DIW
Res & ASR & DIW
Res & ASR
Period of Record 1965 - 2000 3,218K ac-ft 250 Res 3,106K ac-ft 2,520K ac-ft
1,512K ac-ft
250K ac-ft 150K ac-ft
350K ac-ft
90 DIW 504K ac-ft 30 DIW
150 DIW
1,090K ac-ft 586K ac-ft 250 Res 60 ASR
698K ac-ft 250 Res 80 ASR
250 RES 60 ASR
2,098K ac-ft 250 Res 90 DIW
250 Res 150 DIW
1,202K ac-ft 250 Res
2,210K ac-ft
80 ASR
250 Res
150 DIW
80 ASR 90 DIW
80 SAR 30 DIW
30 DIW
Note: Not all Lake Okeechobee discharges to the Estuaries are damaging. At times, low flows can be beneficial.
27
Reduction in Lake Okeechobee “Years with Damaging Impacts” to the Estuaries Current
Reservoir
Res & ASR
DIW
Res & ASR & DIW
Period of Record 1965 - 2000
3,218K ac-ft
3,106K ac-ft
1,090K ac-ft 250K ac-ft 150K ac-ft
698K ac-ft
350K ac-ft
504K ac-ft
1,512K ac-ft 90 DIW
30 DIW
2,520K ac-ft 150 DIW
586K ac-ft 250 Res
250 Res 80 ASR
250 RES
2,098K ac-ft 250 Res 90 DIW
2,210K ac-ft
250 Res 150 DIW
1,202K ac-ft 250 Res
60 ASR
80 SAR
30 DIW
30 DIW
250 Res
250 Res
80 ASR
80 ASR
150 DIW
90 DIW
60 ASR
28
Northern Estuaries Project Benefits and Costs Above Ground Storage Acre-Feet of Water
Cost(1)(2)(5)
% Estuary Regulatory Flow Reduction
% Estuary “Years with Impact Reduction”
150,000
$1,140,000,000
36%
45%
250,000
$1,800,000,000
37%
52%
350,000
$2,540,000,000
37%
52%
Above Ground Storage and Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Reservoir Storage
Total ASR Wells
Total Storage (Acre-feet of Water)
Total Cost(1)(2)(4) (5)
%Estuary Regulatory Flow Reduction
% Estuary “Years with Impact” Reduction
250,000
60
586,000
$2,130,000,000
41%
53%
250,000
80
698,000
$2,240,000,000
44%
54%
(1) Planning Level Cost Estimate (2) Above Ground Storage Cost Contingency of 30% Included (3) Deep Injection Well Cost Contingency of 20% Included (4) Aquifer Storage and Recovery Cost Contingency of 20% Included (5) Includes land costs for the reservoir
29
Northern Estuaries Project Benefits and Costs (Cont.) Deep Injection Wells (DIW) Number of Wells
Acre-Feet of Water
Cost(1)(3)
% Estuary Regulatory Flow Reduction
% Estuary “Years with Impact Reduction”
30
504,000
$300,144,896
41%
33%
90
1,512,000
$882,926,576
56%
36%
150
2,520,000
$1,465,708,256
71%
39%
Above Ground Storage, 80 ASR Wells and Deep Injection Wells Reservoir Storage (Acre-feet of Water)
Total DIW
Total Storage (Acre-feet of Water)
Total Cost(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
%Estuary Regulatory Flow Reduction
% Estuary “Years with Impact” Reduction
250,000
30
1,202,000
$2,540,144,896
52%
56%
90
2,210,000
$3,122,926,576
67%
59%
150
3,218,000
$3,705,708,256
82%
62%
(1) Planning Level Cost Estimate (2) Above Ground Storage Cost Contingency of 30% Included (3) Deep Injection Well Cost Contingency of 20% Included (4) Aquifer Storage and Recovery Cost Contingency of 20% Included (5) Includes land costs for the reservoir
30
Discussion 31
