High Capacity Wells and Groundwater

Frac SandWhat you need to know to get your permits

Dave JohnsonGroundwater Section

Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater

What do you need?• Decide how much water you need

–Maximum capacity and daily average–Potable uses –NN System

• Design code compliant wells–NR812.12

• Submit application–Additional information

• Follow conditions of the approval

Code issues• NR 812.9

– Approval for high capacity wells– Test well >6 inches need to notify– Pump test > 72 hours need approval

• WPDES Discharge Permit

• NR 812.13 (16)– Wells within 1200 feet

<1200

Mine 80 feet deep

30 or 40 feet below quarry

15 feet to top of rock

80 feet of rock to bottom of mine

Total depth of casing 15 + 80 + 40 = 135 feet

Operational Considerations

• Inventory of Private Wells• Water Quality Data• Monitoring Water Table/Pumping Levels• Water Balance

– Pumping - (precipitation - evaporation) = Groundwater Extraction

Know and Monitor Conditions

High Capacity Wells

• Wells, individually or collectively, that can pump > 100,000 gpd (70 gpm) from a single property

• Used for irrigation, livestock, manufacturing, aquaculture, mining, beverage bottling, homes, and public water supply

Groundwater Law in WI• Reasonable Use

– 1974 - State vs. Michels Pipeline Const., Inc.– A landowner is allowed to withdraw groundwater in any

amount, provided it:• Is for a “beneficial use”• Does not cause unreasonable harm to another

landowner• Does not cause direct and substantial effect on a

stream or lake

• ss. 281.34, 281.346 – high capacity well approval and water use permitting in Great Lakes Basin

Applicable Regulatory Authorities

• Ch. NR 820– Siting and Environmental impacts of High Capacity Wells

• Ch. NR 812– Well Construction, Pump Installation

• Ch. NR 856– Water Withdrawal Registration and Reporting

• Ch. NR 860– Water Use Permitting (Great Lakes Basin)

Background

• High Capacity Well Review prior to 2004 – Meet well construction criteria of Ch. NR 812– Not adversely impact or reduce the supply of

water to any public water utility

• 2004 Groundwater Quantity Law– Added environmental review criteria to approval

process

Groundwater Quantity Law(Act 310, NR 820)

• Environmental review if:– Water loss greater than 95%– In a groundwater protection

area• Areas within 1,200 feet of

– Class 1, 2 or 3 Trout Streams or– designated Outstanding or

Exceptional Resource Waters

– Result in significant impacts to a spring with normal flow greater than 1 cfs flow

Lake Beulah Management District v. DNR, WI 54 (2011) Wis. Supreme Court

The Court concluded that “the DNR has the authority and a general duty to consider whether a proposed high capacity well may harm waters of the state”

Further, the Court held that “to comply with this general duty, the DNR must consider the environmental impact of a proposed high capacity well when presented with sufficient concrete, scientific evidence of potential harm to waters of the state.”

Statutory Definition“Waters of the State”

"Waters of the state" includes those portions of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior within the boundaries of this state, and all lakes, bays, rivers, streams, springs, ponds, wells, impounding reservoirs, marshes, watercourses, drainage systems and other surface water or groundwater, natural or artificial, public or private, within this state or its jurisdiction.

Implications of Lake Beulah Decision

• Consideration of impacts on “waters of the state” – Expanded review of surface waters

• Outside of GPA ( >1,200’ from trout stream, ORW, ERW)• Non-GPA waters – all streams, lakes, ponds• Wetlands• Springs < 1cfs (0.25 cfs)

– Private well screening • Outside interested parties may compel review by

submitting concrete, scientific evidence of potential harm

• Avoid significant adverse environmental impact• Does not address areas of cumulative impacts

Significant Adverse Impact (NR 820)

• “Significant adverse environmental impact” means alteration of groundwater levels, groundwater discharge, surface water levels, surface water discharge, groundwater temperature, surface water temperature, groundwater chemistry, surface water chemistry, or other factors to the extent such alterations cause significant degradation of environmental quality including biological and ecological aspects of the affected water resource.

• Case-by-case• Qualitative• Professional judgment with accepted analytical methods

Environmental Review in Practice

• Continue using Groundwater Quantity Protection Rules (NR 820) – Wells in GPAs – Trout Streams , ORWs, ERW’s– Springs >1 cfs– Water loss > 2 million gallons/day– Screening criteria determine potential for adverse impact

and need for Environmental Assessment• Use same assessment tools:

– outside of GPA’s, – for other streams, lakes and wetlands– for springs with flow >0.25 cfs (within 2 miles)

Environmental Review in Practice

• Impacts to Public utility wells– Avoid drawdown of 10 ft or greater

• Private wells– Screen for private wells within 1000 ft– Additional review if projected drawdown at

private well is >5 ft

Typical Assessment Tools

• Internal web viewer – Surface Water Features • Jenkins-Walton Stream Flow Depletion Spreadsheet Model• Theis and Cooper-Jacob Drawdown Models• Wisconsin Stream Flow and Habitat Model• Fishery Staff survey notes and discharge measurements• Well Construction Reports – WGNHS Well Logs• Available Geology/Hydrogeology Information• Michigan table for allowable stream flow reduction• Wisconsin Wetland Inventory, Natural Heritage Inventory• Site visits w/ other DNR staff

17

Michigan stream flow reduction guidance (MI DEQ)

Does not address areas of cumulative impacts

Springs Information

• DNR field staff knowledge• USGS topographic maps• County projects• Wis. Wildlife Federation Springs Inventory

(WGNHS Open File Report 2007-03)• Compilation of historic (1920s – 1970s) records and

recent research on nearly 11,000 springs• Inventory and GIS database• Limited field verification

WWF Springs Inventory

Additional Tools

• WGNHS– WiscLITH– hydrogeologic data

viewer

• Pumping tests• GFLOW models• ModFlow Models• Water Table Maps

Approval Conditions• Must prevent significant adverse environmental

impact– Specify minimum distance to protected resource– Maximum allowable daily water withdrawal– Reduction in pumping at certain times of year– Pumping schedule restrictions – e.g. every other day,

monthly limits – Reduce pumping from other wells on property– Well construction details – deepen, casing into separate

aquifer– Monitoring of groundwater and surface water resources– Pumpage Reporting – continuous with telemetric access– Reopen approval based on future information

Cumulative Impacts

• “Lake Beulah” decision applies to direct impacts of the proposed well and other wells on the same property

• Does not address impacts of the proposed well cumulatively with other water withdrawals in the area

ACT 310Groundwater Management Areas

• Two separate areas, one centered on Waukesha and another on Brown County

• Areas of significant drawdowns and over-pumping of deep aquifer drawdown >150 feet

• Need for a coordinated management strategy

Implications of GMA Designation

• Very limited for now• Requires additional legislation and rule-making• Recommendations detailed in Groundwater Advisory

Committee Report from 2006– Local control in concert with land use and water system

planning– Groundwater Management Plans with best management

practices, standards and goals– Adaptive management approach– Local activities supported with state funds

Groundwater Issues

• Quantity• De-watering

– Lowering of watertable

• Changes in flow field

– Fluctuating levels

• High Capacity Wells– NR 820 issues

• Quality• Oxidation

– Arsenic and metals

• Blasting– Sand and rust flakes

• Spills– Little assimilative

capacity

• Flocculants

2011 Frac Sand Water Use

Summary based on known industrial sand wells with a capacity > 100 kgpd, that actively pumped during year

Number of Wells

Average Max Approved Daily Capacity (kGPD)

Average Pump Capacity (GPM)

Average Daily Pump Capacity (GPD)

Average Monthly PumpCapacity (Gal)

17 838 704 1014 30,848,082

January February March April May JuneAverage 3,771,486 3,372,392 4,381,943 6,009,736 7,208,060 6,742,375

Average Percent of Capacity 16% 15% 17% 22% 25% 24%

July August September October November December Annual Total 7,465,233 5,967,283 6,699,679 6,881,979 5,191,077 4,030,296 64,526,054

25% 22% 23% 24% 19% 17% 19%

Groundwater Quality

• Chemicals• Blasting

– Turbidity– NO3

• Flow related

Water Quality Data• Groundwater Retrieval Network• County Studies• USGS/WGNHS/UWSP

– Groundwater monitoring network– Groundwater studies

• Sampling programs

Flow Related

• Radial flow toward the mine–Change flow direction draws

contaminants in• Influence of pumping high

capacity wells• Changes in recharge patterns

Metals -AMD

• Sulfides– Tunnel City– Distinct bands in other

formations

• pH Changes– 7.3 to 5.3 in less than 1

Month

• Examples of potential

Tomah Area

• Original open to Tunnel City – pH – 4.6 - 3– Sulfate – 1478 ppm– Al – 22630 ppb– Ni – 1232 ppb– Fe – 39.2

Marcasite

LaCrosse

• Al 1600• Cd 2• Co 306• Cu 1610• Fe 53.6• Mn 142• Ni 409

La Crosse

• Al 23200 - 251Al 23200 - 251• As 38 - NDAs 38 - ND• Co 501 - NDCo 501 - ND• Fe 376 – 1.2Fe 376 – 1.2• Pb 47 - NDPb 47 - ND• Mn 987 - 55Mn 987 - 55• Ni 832 - 8Ni 832 - 8• pH 4.08 – 7.41pH 4.08 – 7.41

• Al 6770 - 6• As 25 - ND• Co 306 - ND• Fe 150 – 10• Pb 18 - ND• Mn 531 -

181• Ni 493 - 8• pH 4.8 – ?

LaCrosse

• Al 67300• As 92• Cr 220• Co 909• Fe 672• Mn 2980• Ni 1750• V 239• Zn 4460

PierceAsAs 2.3 (57)2.3 (57)

AlAl 1212

CdCd 12.612.6

ConductivityConductivity 11201120

FeFe 169169

PbPb 927927

MnMn 13401340

NiNi 17001700

ZnZn 2060020600

SO4SO4 560560

Core hole all shale to St Peter Core hole all shale to St Peter Water at 280 at top of PDCWater at 280 at top of PDCRelated to Rock Elm Related to Rock Elm

Disturbance?Disturbance?

Causes of Lowered pH

• AMD/ARD from Sulfide Minerals• Jarosite and weathering products• Ferric Chloride

• Plant one pH 5.88 and 5.78• Plant two 5.65 then 7.18

Jarosite

• KFe3+3(OH)6(SO4)2.

• formed by the oxidation of sulfide minerals

• Usually found as amber-yellow to brown crusts or coatings of minute crystals

Exploratory drilling• Must be properly filled and sealed

– NR 812.26 or NR 141.25

• Must be drilled with a method that allows complete filling with approved material

• Form 3300-005 submitted to department within 30 days (NR 141 – 60 days)

Resources• USGS Groundwater monitoring network• http://wi.water.usgs.gov/public/gw/HISTORICAL/historical.html • USGS water quality data• http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wi/nwis/qw • Wisconsin Geologic and Natural History Survey publications• http://www.uwex.edu/wgnhs/pubs.htm • Wisconsin Geologic and Natural History Survey WCRs

http://www.uwex.edu/wgnhs/well.htm • DNR water quality data• http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/dwg/data.htm• UWSP • http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/watershed/Pages/wellwaterviewer.aspx • DNR well construction data• http://prodmtex00.dnr.state.wi.us/pls/inter1/watr$.startup• DATCP WCRs• http://datcpgis.wi.gov/WellLogs/