a statewide suitability assessment of aquifer storage and

!!!!!!!!Method 2- Examines the Physical Properties of the Aquifer vs. Storage Rate:!!1. The ASR Metric (Woody, 2007) relates injection rates to available storage using existing wells (diagram located under supporting information. Fig. 4):! !! !!!!!!!!!!!

!!To conduct this assessment throughout Washington, each WRIA undergoes a separate evaluation. The following is the result of such an evaluation: !!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) is a cost-effective water management strategy used to secure additional water supply. ASR wells are designed to inject high-flowing surface water underground during wet periods (Fig. 1) and then recover it during peak demand (Fig. 2). The use of ASR varies, but the benefits include: reducing summer withdrawal impacts on aquifers connected to salmon bearing streams, reducing groundwater declines, and increasing emergency water supply. However, to determine the suitability of such a project requires an initial assessment of various ASR factors.!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

The purpose of this study is to conduct a preliminary assessment of the suitability of ASR within Washington’s 62 Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) by evaluating and synthesizing existing data. !!!!!The following methods will be used to evaluate each WRIA based on information obtained from well logs, water rights and various studies. !!Method 1: Evaluates Aquifer Characteristics and Various Restraints: ! ! ! !!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evaluating and synthesizing existing data provide a preliminary assessment of the suitability of ASR within a region. The results for Water Resource Inventory Area #32 indicate this watershed is highly suitable for ASR. In addition, these results are supported by the presence of two ASR wells (not used in this study), located in the City of Walla Walla. These results suggest conducting an ASR suitability assessment throughout Washington will not only provide general locations where ASR is theoretically possible but also provide specific locations where additional on-site evaluations should be considered before expensive field studies are conducted. !!!!!Brown, Chris J., Weiss, Rebecca, Verrastro, Robert Shulbert, Steve. 2005. !Development of an Aquifer, Storage and Recovery (ASR) site selection suitability index in support of the comprehensive Everglades restoration project. Journal of Hydrology 13 (20):1-13 !!Woody, Jennifer. 2007. A preliminary assessment of hydrogeologic suitability for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in Oregon. Master's thesis: Oregon State University !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A Statewide Suitability Assessment of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) in Washington

Maria Gibson College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University; [email protected]

Introduction Conclusion

Supporting Information !

Results for WRIA #32 -Walla Walla

Objective

Methods

Figure 1. Injection Period: Native groundwater is displaced by injected surface water.!

Figure 2. Recovery Period: Injected water is recovered during times of high demand. !

ASR Metric:!!1 = marginally suitable!> 1 suitable !< 1 unsuitable!

A.   Initial Pass/Not Pass Criteria:! !1. Distance from source water to well < 3 miles! !2. Land use is not lakes, wetlands, landfill, and protected habitat!B. Secondary Criteria (Score): Locations which pass part A are then weighted against the following secondary criteria (for additional details, see supportive information):!! 1. Ecological Suitability !5. Transmissivity! !2. Well Density !6. Distance to Source Water! !3. Source Water Quality !7. Hydraulic Gradient! !4. Groundwater Quality !8. Aquifer Thickness ! !C. Raw Scores: Raw scores are then summed and divided by the total points! possible, resulting in a percent score: !!!!!!!

The use of a Site Selection Suitability Index (SSSI) created by Brown et al. (2005) and modified by Woody (2007) uses the following numerical rating system:!!

Methods Continued

•  Poor: < 25%!•  Moderately Suitable: 25-75%!•  Highly Suitable: > 75%!

References

Figure 3. Suitability Secondary Criteria. Developed by Brown et al. (2005), modified by Woody (2007) and adopted for this study.!

Want to learn more about ASR? Visit groundwatergeek.com or follow on twitter: http://twitter.com/groundwatergeek!

Figure 4. ASR Metric modified from Woody (2007)!

!Q evaluated as

50% of a municipality’s

water treatment capacity, or 50%

of its surface water right for

120 days. !!!

!College Place, WA!!

ASR Metric : Suitable (4-23)!!ASR Site Selection Suitability Index: Highly Suitable (63%)!

!

!Walla Walla, WA:!!ASR Metric : Suitable (1.3-19)!!ASR Site Selection Suitability Index: Highly Suitable (81%)!

!

!Waitsburg, WA!!


!

!Prescott, WA!!

ASR Metric : Suitable (15-1558)!!ASR Site Selection Suitability Index: Moderately Suitable (57%)!

!

!Dayton, WA!!


!

a statewide suitability assessment of aquifer storage and

Documents