2D — original pdf

Backup

ASR Pilot and Program Management Project Phase 1a Update Water Forward Task Force Meeting January 11, 2011 Overview of Phase 1a Project Approach Approximate dates; not to scale; subject to change Task 3 - Community Engagement and Education, including equity and affordability tasks Task 1 - Project Management Task 4. Preliminary ASR Storage Zone Identification & Characterization Task 6. Preliminary Project Alternatives Development & Evaluation Task 7. Project Alternatives Revision & Re- evaluation Task 8. Exploratory Drilling & Testing Planning Process 4/2022 7/2022 2/2023 9/2023 Task 2. AW and Consultant Team Chartering 3/2021 Task 5. Preliminary ASR Integration Point Identification & Characterization Current progress Aquifer Storage and Recovery video Overview of Phase 1a Project Approach Approximate dates; not to scale; subject to change Task 3 - Community Engagement and Education, including equity and affordability tasks Task 1 - Project Management Task 4. Task 2. AW and Consultant Team Chartering Preliminary ASR Storage Zone Identification & Characterization Task 5. Preliminary ASR Integration Point Identification & Characterization Task 6. Preliminary Project Alternatives Development & Evaluation Task 7. Project Alternatives Revision & Re- evaluation Task 8. Exploratory Drilling & Testing Planning Process 3/2021 4/2022 7/2022 2/2023 9/2023 Current progress Task 4: Preliminary ASR Storage Zone ID and Characterization  Initial high-level screening of aquifers in surrounding areas  Detailed spatial analysis on screened aquifers to identify most favorable potential ASR wellfield areas ASR Hydrogeological Parameter Scores, TWDB Statewide ASR/AR Assessment Task 4: Preliminary ASR Storage Zone ID and Characterization  Initial high-level screening of aquifers in surrounding areas  Detailed spatial analysis on screened aquifers to identify most favorable potential ASR wellfield areas ASR Hydrogeological Parameter Scores, TWDB Statewide ASR/AR Assessment County/Aquifer Combinations for Initial Screening: Major Aquifers County/ Aquifer Combinations for Initial Screening: Minor Aquifers Initial inputs 91 county- aquifer subunit combos 91 combos Initial Storage Zone Screening Process 17 combos Scoring comparison 3 combos Screening results County-aquifer combos for detailed spatial analysis, and data for SZs Hydrogeology score Aquifer physical properties; based on TWDB ASR suitability analysis Permitability score GCDs, current regulations, & endangered species coverage Proximity score Distance from county-aquifer to AW system Feasibility filter W A r o f s l l e w f o r e b m u N j t c e o r p e g a r e v o c r e f i u q a f o e z i S Hydrogeology Score  Based on analysis in TWDB statewide ASR suitability survey  Analyzes suitability of aquifer unit for ASR projects of all sizes and costs Source: http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/2000012405.pdf?d=12515.800000011921 Permitting Score Larger permitting score indicates an option is more favorable for permitting and ease of project siting to avoid protected species habitat or conserved lands  Based on three criteria: • Ease of receiving TCEQ storage authorization with current rules (45%) • Presence and extent of groundwater conservation district with permitting authority over ASR projects (30%) • Potential for threatened/endangered species habitat and conserved or protected land affecting project siting (25%) Proximity Indicator  Based on distance from county-aquifer centroid to the nearest major Austin Water pump station  Larger indicator value shows an option is closer to AW pump station  Distance of storage zone from AW service area has direct impact on capital and operating cost DRAFT – For discussion purposes only Initial screening inputs • 91 county-aquifer combinations • Hydrogeology and permitting score shown Filter set at 140 wells at a natural break to balance operational complexity/cost and being conservatively inclusive Feasibility filter: number of wells and space available  AW project goal is 60,000 AFY of ASR supply by 2040 • Estimated well yield was determined for each option yield • Number of wells = desired supply ÷ well • Operational complexity (based on # of wells needed) determined one feasibility filter  County/aquifer combos less than 75 square miles were considered less feasible options and were filtered out DRAFT – For discussion purposes only Feasibility filtering results • 17 more feasible county-aquifer combinations Approximate Well Yield (MGD) # of wells to achieve 2040 yield (60k AFY) Proximity Indicator (to AW system) Permitting Score Hydro Score CW-Simsboro Bastrop County Lee Lee Bastrop Williamson Travis Bastrop Lee Hays Travis Hays Hays Travis Aquifer/Aquifer System CW-Simsboro CW-Carrizo CW-Carrizo NT-Hosston NT-Hosston NT-Hosston NT-Hosston Edwards BFZ Edwards BFZ Hickory Edwards BFZ Edwards BFZ Ellenburger - San Saba Blanco Ellenburger - San Saba Burnet TrinHC - Middle Trinity Hays Ellenburger - San Saba Blanco 1.08 0.54 0.58 0.51 0.41 0.46 0.88 0.97 31.4 0.72 4.92 0.40 0.45 125.1 39.4 0.43 0.39 50 100 93 105 130 116 61 55 2 75 11 134 119 0 1 123 138 0.13 0.48 0.07 0.43 0.62 0.72 0.58 0.40 0.66 0.39 1.00 0.66 0.23 0.79 0.99 0.72 0.35 76% 84% 76% 82% 50% 60% 78% 77% 25% 79% 51% 84% 82% 31% 52% 58% 77% 79% 77% 77% 76% 74% 74% 71% 71% 68% 67% 65% 65% 64% 61% 59% 58% 54% Feasibility filtering results  17 combinations considered more feasible based on filter  Shown here sorted by hydro score Screening Results  Counties moving forward to detailed spatial analysis: • Bastrop • Lee County • Travis County  Data for all screened combinations will be used in conjunction with future analysis County Aquifer-Aquifer Subunit # of wells for 2040 yield Permitting Score Hydro Score Screening Result Travis NT-Hosston 116 60% 74% CW-Carrizo Bastrop CW-Simsboro NT-Hosston NT-Hosston CW-Carrizo CW-Simsboro Lee Travis Hays Hays Travis Hays Williamson NT-Hosston Hays Edwards BFZ Blanco Ellenburger - San Saba Burnet Ellenburger - San Saba Edwards BFZ Hickory Edwards BFZ Edwards BFZ 100 105 61 55 93 50 130 2 75 11 134 119 0 1 TrinHC - Middle Trinity 123 77% Moving forward to Task 4.5 for further analysis. Specific subunits for Task 4.5 include the Carrizo-Wilcox Carrizo, CW-Simsboro, and NT-Hosston units in Bastrop County. 76% 71% Moving forward to Task 4.5 for further analysis. Subunits for Task 4.5 include the Northern Trinity Hosston unit, CW-Simsboro, and CW-Carrizo units in Lee County. Moving forward to Task 4.5 for further analysis. Subunits for Task 4.5 include the Northern Trinity Hosston unit in Travis County. Lower permitting score and higher number of wells needed. Lower hydro/permitting score than other options. Lower hydro score than other options. Lower hydro/permitting score than other options. Lower hydro score and higher number of wells needed. Lower hydro score and higher number of wells needed. Lower hydro/permitting score than other options. Lower hydro/permitting score than other options. Lower hydro/permitting score than other options. 84% 82% 78% 77% 76% 76% 50% 25% 79% 51% 84% 82% 31% 52% 58% 77% 71% 77% 79% 74% 68% 67% 65% 65% 64% 61% 59% 58% 54% Blanco Ellenburger - San Saba 138 Lower hydro score and higher number of wells needed. DRAFT – For discussion purposes only Initial storage zone screening results Legend: Major Aquifers: ASR phase 1a next steps  Detailed spatial mapping of areas identified through screening to identify most favorable ASR wellfield areas  Combine with results of integration point analysis to develop full project alternatives  Trade-off analysis of project alternatives based on community input (begin spring 2022) ASR project timeline Questions? ASR resources: https://www.speakupaustin.org/asr https://www.austintexas.gov/ASR