combined technical workgroup meeting - dnr...2019/05/29 · missouri planning scenarios scenario...
TRANSCRIPT
Combined Technical Workgroup Meeting
May 29, 2019, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Missouri Water Resources Plan
9:00 Introductions
9:05 Scenario Planning Results
9:30 Groundwater Model Results
9:45 Missouri River Basin Climate Study
10:00 BREAK
10:15 Adaptive Management
- Breakout Groups
12:00 Adjourn
2
Agenda
Scenarios forMissouri Plan
3
Missouri Planning Scenarios
ScenarioM&I
DemandsAg
Demands ClimateWater
Treatment LevelSupply
ConstraintsReservoir
Regulations
1. Business-As-Usual
• Baseline M&I demands
• Baseline Rural demands
• Med Ag irrigation
• Med Ag processing
• Historical temperatures
• Historical precipitation
• Existing water treatment levels
• No water supply constraints
• No re-allocation of USACE reservoirs for supply
• Existing permitting process for new reservoirs
2. Strong Economy/High Water Stress
• High M&I demands
• Higher Rural demands
• High Ag irrigation
• Med-High Ag processing
• Hotter temperatures
• Lower rainfall
• High increase in water treatment levels
• Interstate diversions out of Missouri River Basin
• Limitations on GW (select areas)
• Prolonged supply disruption on River intakes
• Limited re-allocation of USACE reservoirs for supply
• Streamlined permitting process for new reservoirs
3. Substantial Agricultural Expansion
• Baseline M&I demands
• Baseline Rural demands
• Med Ag irrigation
• Highest Ag processing
• Warmer temperatures
• Greater rainfall
• Moderate increase in water treatment levels
• Interstate diversions out of Missouri River Basin
• Limitations on GW (select areas)
• Limited re-allocation of USACE reservoirs for supply
• Existing permitting process for new reservoirs
4. Weak Economy/Low Water Stress
• Low M&I demands
• Baseline Rural demands
• Med Ag irrigation
• Med Ag processing
• Warmer temperatures
• Greater rainfall
• Existing water treatment levels
• No water supply constraints
• No re-allocation of USACE reservoirs for supply
• Existing permitting process for new reservoirs
4
Update of Scenario Planning Results –
Localized Gaps
5
Limitations of the Analysis
6
Comparisons of supply and demand at the subregional(HUC4) and even watershed (HUC8) scale can miss localized stress and gaps
Results do not consider in-place infrastructure to move water from one location to another
Alluvial demands treated as groundwater (but may impose stress to surface water)
Planned or proposed projects are not considered
Interpreting the Results for Surface WaterIdentifying Potential Supply Stress Average Conditions
7
Condition Analysis ResultPotential Water
Supply StressKey
Average
MonthlyDemand < 50% of Supply for entire year
No Stress
MonthlyDemand > 50% of Supply for 1 month or more
Low Stress
MonthlyDemand > Supply for 1 month or more
Higher Stress
Scenario 1 – Business-As-Usual (Average Conditions)
8
Chariton-GrandUpper
Mississippi-Salt
Lower Missouri
Gasconade-Osage
Upper White
Upper Mississippi-Kaskaskia-Meramec
Neosho-Verdigris Lower
Mississippi-St. Francis
Missouri-Nishnabotna
1
3
1
3
21
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
Scenario 1 – Business-as-Usual & Scenario 2 – Strong Economy/High Water Stress (Average Conditions)
9
Chariton-GrandUpper
Mississippi-Salt
Lower Missouri
Gasconade-Osage
Upper White
Upper Mississippi-Kaskaskia-Meramec
Neosho-Verdigris Lower
Mississippi-St. Francis
Missouri-Nishnabotna 1
1
3
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1 1
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
10
Chariton-GrandUpper
Mississippi-Salt
Lower Missouri
Gasconade-Osage
Upper WhiteNeosho-Verdigris Lower
Mississippi-St. Francis
Missouri-Nishnabotna 1
1
3
3
2
Upper Mississippi-Kaskaskia-Meramec
1
4
2
Scenario 1 – Business-as-Usual & Scenario 3 –Substantial Agricultural Expansion (Average Conditions)
1
1 12
Scenario 1
Scenario 3
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
11
Chariton-GrandUpper
Mississippi-Salt
Lower Missouri
Gasconade-Osage
Upper WhiteNeosho-Verdigris Lower
Mississippi-St. Francis
Missouri-Nishnabotna 1
1
3
3
2
Upper Mississippi-Kaskaskia-Meramec
1
2
1
Scenario 1 – Business-as-Usual & Scenario 4 – Weak Economy/Low Water Stress (Average Conditions)
Scenario 1
Scenario 4
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
1 11
3
Subregion Surface Water Result Summary
Potential Water Supply Stress
# of Subregions Scenario 1 –Business-As-Usual
# of Subregions Scenario 2 –Strong Economy/ High Water Stress
# of Subregions Scenario 3 –Substantial Agricultural Expansion
# of Subregions Scenario 4 –Weak Economy/ Low Water Stress
Demand < 50% of Supply for entire year
3 2 3 3
Demand > 50% of Supply for 1 month or more
5 2 3 5
Demand > Supply for 1 month or more
1 5 3 1
12
• Non-Major River Demands – Average Conditions
Subregion Surface Water Result Summary
13
• Non-Major River Demands – Drought Conditions
Potential Water Supply Stress
# of Subregions Scenario 1 –Business-As-Usual
# of Subregions Scenario 2 –Strong Economy/ High Water Stress
# of Subregions Scenario 3 –Substantial Agricultural Expansion
# of Subregions Scenario 4 –Weak Economy/ Low Water Stress
Demand < 50% of Supply for entire year
1 1 1 1
Demand > 50% of Supply for 1 month or more
0 1 0 0
Demand > Supply for 1 month or more
8 7 8 8
14
Scenario 1 – Business-As-Usual (Average Conditions)
Upper Grand Lower
Grand
UpperChariton
LowerChariton
LittleChariton
Little Osage 1
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
15
Scenario 1 – Business-as-Usual & Scenario 2 – Strong Economy/High Water Stress (Average Conditions)
Upper Grand Lower
Grand
UpperChariton
LowerChariton
LittleChariton
Little Osage 1
11
1
3
1
1
1
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
16
Scenario 1 – Business-As-Usual & Scenario 3 –Substantial Agricultural Expansion (Average Conditions)
Upper Grand Lower
Grand
UpperChariton
LowerChariton
LittleChariton
Little Osage 1
1
Scenario 1
Scenario 3
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
17
Scenario 1 – Business-As-Usual & Scenario 4 – Weak Economy/Low Water Stress (Average Conditions)
Upper Grand Lower
Grand
UpperChariton
LowerChariton
LittleChariton
Little Osage 1
1
1
Scenario 1
Scenario 4
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
18
Scenario 1 – Business-As-Usual (Drought of Record Conditions)
Upper Grand Lower
Grand
UpperChariton
LowerChariton
LittleChariton
Little Osage 3
10
8
6
8
3
10
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
19
Scenario 1 – Business-as-Usual & Scenario 2 – Strong Economy/High Water Stress (Drought of Record Conditions)
Upper Grand Lower
Grand
UpperChariton
LowerChariton
LittleChariton
Little Osage 3
5
10
8
6
8
3
10
11
10
8
12
8
11
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
20
Scenario 1 – Business-as-Usual & Scenario 3 – Substantial Agricultural Expansion (Drought of Record Conditions)
Upper Grand Lower
Grand
UpperChariton
LowerChariton
LittleChariton
Little Osage 3
9
10
8
6
8
3
10
10
5
6
7
8
1
Scenario 1
Scenario 3
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
21
Scenario 1 – Business-as-Usual & Scenario 4 – Weak Economy/Low Water Stress (Drought of Record Conditions)
Upper Grand Lower
Grand
UpperChariton
LowerChariton
LittleChariton
Little Osage 3
3
10
8
6
8
3
10
107
3
10
8
8
Scenario 1
Scenario 4
Higher Potential Stress
Surface Water Stress
Number of months exceeding threshold included in the symbol
Low Potential Stress
No Stress
Interpreting the Results for GroundwaterIdentifying Potential Supply Stress
22
Condition AnalysisCurrent
GW Levels
Withdrawals* as a Percent of Recharge
Potential Water Supply Stress
Key
Average Annual
No Trend Decrease
No Stress
No Trend Relatively Flat
No Trend
Declining
Increase
Flat or DecreaseLow Stress
Declining Increase
DecliningSubstantial
IncreaseIncreasing
* Relative to 2016 withdrawals
Groundwater Relative Results – Scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 4Average Conditions
23
Chariton-GrandUpper
Mississippi-Salt
Lower Missouri
Gasconade-Osage
Upper White
Upper Mississippi-Kaskaskia-Meramec
Neosho-Verdigris Lower
Mississippi-St. Francis
Missouri-Nishnabotna Scenario
No Stress
Low Potential Stress
Higher Potential Stress
1 2 31 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 41 2 3 4
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 41 2 3 4
4
Subregion Groundwater Result Summary
KeyCurrent GW
Levels
Withdrawals* as a Percent of Recharge
Number of Basins
Scen. 1 -Business-As-Usual
Scen. 2 -Strong
Economy/ High Water
Stress
Scen. 3 –Substantial Agricultural Expansion
Scen. 4 -Weak
Economy/ Low Water
Stress
No Trend Decrease 3 1 9 6
No Trend
Declining
Increase
Flat or Decrease4 7 0 3
Declining Increase 2 0 0 0
DecliningSubstantial
Increase0 1 0 0
24
• Average Conditions
* Relative to 2016 withdrawals
25
Groundwater Results for Scenarios 1, 2, 3 and 4Average Conditions
Upper Grand Lower
Grand
UpperChariton
LowerChariton
LittleChariton
Little Osage 1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 41 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
Scenario
No Stress
Low Potential Stress
Higher Potential Stress
1 2 3 4
Scenario 1 – Business-As-Usual
Scenario 2 – Strong Economy/ High Water Stress
Scenario 3 – Substantial Agricultural Expansion
Scenario 4 – Weak Economy/ Low Water Stress
Groundwater Modeling Results
26
Ozark Plateaus Groundwater Model (USGS, 2018)
Regional model with 1 square mile grid cells
Nine layers: Springfield Plateau aquifer
Ozark aquifer
St. Francois aquifer
Simulates 1900-2016 withdrawals for: Domestic
Public supply
Agriculture
Livestock
Non-agriculture use types (Self-supplied non-residential and thermoelectric)
27
Overall Groundwater Model Application
28
USGS Groundwater
Model
MWRP Estimated 2016-2060Demands
Run Groundwater Model to 2060
Groundwater Model with MWRP
2016 –2060 Demands
Apply Projected Demands to Model
Analyze Change in Head
Groundwater Model Simulated 2016 and 2060
Heads
MWRP Input
Original USGS Groundwater Model
USGS Groundwater Model with MWRP Demands
Results
Run additional transient stress periods from 2016 to 2060 reflecting projected demands in 4 and 10-yr increments
Withdrawals outside of Missouri were assumed constant for 2016-2060
2016-2060 recharge is average 2000-2013 values (4.0 in/yr)
Model domain, aquifer definitions, and boundary conditions were unchanged from USGS model
Groundwater Model Assumptions
29
Change in Withdrawal from 2016 to 2060
Total model-wide groundwater withdrawals:
2016: 414 mgd
2060: 501 mgd
30
Change in Lower Ozark Head from 2016 to 2060
Largest Drawdowns:
1. McDonald County (southwestern corner of Missouri)
2. Christian County (south of Springfield)
3. Taney County (south of Christian County)
31
1
2
3
Change in Lower Ozark Head from 2016 to 2060
32
Largest Drawdowns:
1. McDonald County (southwestern corner of Missouri)
2. Christian County (south of Springfield)
3. Taney County (south of Christian County)
1
2
3
Change in Groundwater Withdrawals from 2016 to 2060
33
Dade County: Irrigation: + 1,500 gpm (2.2
mgd)
Christian County: Public Supply: +5,100 gpm
(7.4 mgd)
Taney County: Public Supply: +2,230 gpm
(3.2 mgd)
Self-supplied Non-Residential: +1,500 gpm(2.2 mgd)
McDonald County: Self-supplied Non-
Residential: +1,700 gpm(2.5 mgd)
Change in Lower Ozark Aquifer Head from 2016 to 2060
34
Dade County Predicted drawdowns of >25 ft Likely due to large increases in
irrigation from 12.6 to 14.8 mgd
Christian County Predicted drawdowns of >200 ft Likely due to the large increases
in public supply from 6.0 to 13.4 mgd
Taney County Predicted drawdowns of >75 ft Likely due to large increases in
public supply (5.0 to 8.2 mgd) and self-supplied non-residential (2.5 to 4.6 mgd) demands
McDonald County Predicted drawdowns of >200 ft Likely due to increases in self-
supplied non-residential demands from 2.6 to 5.1 mgd
Change in Lower Ozark Aquifer Head from 2016 to 2060
35
Dade County Predicted drawdowns of >25 ft Likely due to large increases in
irrigation from 12.6 to 14.8 mgd
Christian County Predicted drawdowns of >200 ft Likely due to the large increases
in public supply from 6.0 to 13.4 mgd
Taney County Predicted drawdowns of >75 ft Likely due to large increases in
public supply (5.0 to 8.2 mgd) and self-supplied non-residential (2.5 to 4.6 mgd) demands
McDonald County Predicted drawdowns of >200 ft Likely due to increases in self-
supplied non-residential demands from 2.6 to 5.1 mgd
Groundwater Model Results Summary
• Used an established USGS Numerical Groundwater Model of the southern portion of Missouri to determine potential impacts to groundwater levels
• Observed increased groundwater withdrawals for both municipal and self-supplied non-residential water providers
• Identified areas of concern where groundwater use may be limited or more expensive if current trends of groundwater withdrawals are continued
• Numerical groundwater model is a valuable tool to look at the long-term impacts to water levels and groundwater availability in the future
36
Scenario Planning and Adaptive Management
37
Steps in Scenario Planning
38
1) Identify major uncertainties that can impact the future
2) Select most important uncertainties as “drivers” of scenarios
3) Combine uncertainty drivers into scenarios that represent a different possible futures
4) Measure impacts of scenarios and assess options to address impacts
5) Use an adaptive management framework for continuous re-assessment and implementation of options
39
Use Adaptive Management for Continuous Re-Assessment and Implementation of Options
S T E P 5
Adaptive Management
40
Adaptive Management
41
Stay the Course
Stay theCourse
Implement Some New Strategies
ImplementMore New Strategies
Now 2060
Identified Projects:
• East Locust Creek Reservoir Project
• Cameron Pipeline Project
• Southwest Missouri Water Resources
• Missouri American Reservoir Project
• Little Otter Creek Reservoir Project
“Strong Economy”
“Ag Expansion”
“Business as Usual”
“Weak Economy”
Le
vel o
f Wa
ter S
tress
Missouri Planning Scenarios
ScenarioM&I
DemandsAg
Demands ClimateWater
Treatment LevelSupply
ConstraintsReservoir
Regulations
1. Business-As-Usual
• Baseline M&I demands
• Baseline Rural demands
• Med Ag irrigation
• Med Ag processing
• Historical temperatures
• Historical precipitation
• Existing water treatment levels
• No water supply constraints
• No re-allocation of USACE reservoirs for supply
• Existing permitting process for new reservoirs
2. Strong Economy/High Water Stress
• High M&I demands
• Higher Rural demands
• High Ag irrigation
• Med-High Ag processing
• Hotter temperatures
• Lower rainfall
• High increase in water treatment levels
• Interstate diversions out of Missouri River Basin
• Limitations on GW (select areas)
• Prolonged supply disruption on River intakes
• Limited re-allocation of USACE reservoirs for supply
• Streamlined permitting process for new reservoirs
3. Substantial Agricultural Expansion
• Baseline M&I demands
• Baseline Rural demands
• Med Ag irrigation
• Highest Ag processing
• Warmer temperatures
• Greater rainfall
• Moderate increase in water treatment levels
• Interstate diversions out of Missouri River Basin
• Limitations on GW (select areas)
• Limited re-allocation of USACE reservoirs for supply
• Existing permitting process for new reservoirs
4. Weak Economy/Low Water Stress
• Low M&I demands
• Baseline Rural demands
• Med Ag irrigation
• Med Ag processing
• Warmer temperatures
• Greater rainfall
• Existing water treatment levels
• No water supply constraints
• No re-allocation of USACE reservoirs for supply
• Existing permitting process for new reservoirs
42
Adaptive Management Overview & Framework
43
Adaptive management is a framework that can be used to implement water supply options as the future unfolds, in a structured way to avoid the pitfalls of either under-performance or over-investment.
Terms:
Risk Triggers – uncertainties that can drive the need for new projects, which are tied back to scenario planning
Outcomes – consequences or results of the “risk triggers” occurring
Options – identification of water supply options that can be implemented to mitigate the “outcomes”
M&I Options to Meet Future Water Needs
Additional/expansion of surface storage
Conveyance
Wastewater reuse
Expanded conservation
Conjunctive use (groundwater/surface water)
System redundancy (intakes and conveyance)
Regionalization of water systems
Enhanced water treatment
44
Agricultural Options to Meet Future Water Needs
Additional storage
Conveyance
Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater
System efficiency (in the Bootheel with furrow irrigation and transition to high value crops)
Drainage water recycling
Meeting demand for expanded food processing operations
Expanded groundwater use for livestock
Expanded alluvial groundwater use for additional irrigation
Surface impoundments for livestock in northwest Missouri
Cover crops and other progressive agricultural practices
45
Adaptive Management – M&I Risk Triggers
46
Additional/expansion of surface storage
Conveyance
Wastewater reuse
Expanded conservation
Conjunctive use (groundwater/surface water)
System redundancy (intakes and conveyance)
Regionalization of water systems
Enhanced water treatment
Water Supply Options
Identified Projects Implemented
Reservoir Regulation/Reallocation
M&I WaterDemand Growth
Changing Climate Supply & Water Quality
Constraints
Risk Trigger
Outcome
Adaptive Management – M&I Risk Triggers *Similar to Strong Economy/High Water Stress
47
• Increased water conservation
• Non-Potable wastewater reuse
• Surface/ground-water conjunctive use
• Indirect Potable wastewater reuse
• New water treatment
• Regionalization of some water systems
• System redundancy: new river intake
• New or re-purposed surface reservoir
Potential Water Supply Options
• Alternative reservoir project
Identified Projects Implemented
Reservoir Regulation/Reallocation
M&I WaterDemand Growth
Changing Climate Supply & Water Quality
Constraints
Adaptive Management – M&I Risk Triggers*Similar to Weak Economy/Low Water Stress
48
• Stay the course but keep monitoring situation
• Increased water conservation
• Conjunctive use
• New water treatment
• Explore newoptions
Potential Water Supply Options
• Alternative reservoir project
Identified Projects Implemented
Reservoir Regulation/Reallocation
M&I WaterDemand Growth
Changing Climate Supply & Water Quality
Constraints
Adaptive Management – Agricultural Risk Triggers
49
Additional storage
Conveyance
Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater
System efficiency (in the Bootheel with furrow irrigation
and transition to high value crops)
Drainage water recycling
Meeting demand for expanded food processing operations
Expanded groundwater use for livestock
Expanded alluvial groundwater use for additional irrigation
Surface impoundments for livestock in northwest Missouri
Cover crops and other progressive agricultural practices
Water Supply Options
Risk Trigger
Outcome
Identified Projects Implemented
Reservoir Regulation/Reallocation
M&I WaterDemand Growth
Changing Climate Supply & Water Quality
Constraints
Adaptive Management – Agricultural Risk Triggers*Similar to Substantial Ag Expansion
50
• Expanded groundwater use for livestock
• Surface impoundments for livestock in northwest Missouri
• System efficiency in the Bootheel
• Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater
• Surface impoundments for livestock in northwest Missouri
• Drainage water recycling
• Meeting demand for expanded food processing operations
Potential Options
• Alternative reservoir project
Identified Projects Implemented
Reservoir Regulation/Reallocation
M&I WaterDemand Growth
Changing Climate Supply & Water Quality
Constraints
Adaptive Management – Agricultural Risk Triggers*Similar to Strong Economy/High Water Stress
51
• Expanded groundwater use for livestock
• Expanded alluvial groundwater use for additional irrigation
• Surface impoundments for livestock in northwest Missouri
• System efficiency in the Bootheel
• Additional storage
• Conveyance
• Cover crops and other progressive agricultural practices
• Surface impoundments for livestock in northwest Missouri
• Drainage water recycling
• System efficiency (in the Bootheel with furrow irrigation and transition to high value crops)
Potential Options
• Alternative reservoir project
Identified Projects Implemented
Reservoir Regulation/Reallocation
M&I WaterDemand Growth
Changing Climate Supply & Water Quality
Constraints
Roles for Adaptive Management
52
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
• Set Policies
• Update State Water Plan as needed
• Monitor and revise risk triggers
Municipalities, Water Agencies, Local Districts,
Ag Users, and private entities
• Identify potential water supply projects
• Implement water supply projects as needed
USACE
• Reservoir Regulation/Management
• Water Studies
All
• Funding
Short Break
53
Breakout Groups
54
M&I Breakout
55
Adaptive Management – M&I Risk Triggers
56
Additional/expansion of surface storage
Conveyance
Wastewater reuse
Expanded conservation
Conjunctive use (groundwater/surface water)
System redundancy (intakes and conveyance)
Regionalization of water systems
Enhanced water treatment
Water Supply Options
Identified Projects Implemented
Reservoir Regulation/Reallocation
M&I WaterDemand Growth
Changing Climate Supply & Water Quality
Constraints
Risk Trigger
Outcome
Adaptive Management – M&I Risk Triggers
57
Water Supply Options
Identified Projects Implemented
Reservoir Regulation/Reallocation
M&I WaterDemand Growth
Changing Climate Supply & Water Quality
Constraints
Agricultural Breakout
58
Adaptive Management – Agricultural Risk Triggers
59
Additional storage
Conveyance
Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater
System efficiency (in the Bootheel with furrow irrigation and
transition to high value crops)
Drainage water recycling
Meeting demand for expanded food processing operations
Expanded groundwater use for livestock
Expanded alluvial groundwater use for additional irrigation
Surface impoundments for livestock in northwest Missouri
Cropping System Management
Water Supply Options
Risk Trigger
Outcome
Identified Projects Implemented
Reservoir Regulation/Reallocation
M&I WaterDemand Growth
Changing Climate Supply & Water Quality
Constraints
Adaptive Management – Agricultural Risk Triggers
60
Water Supply Options
Identified Projects Implemented
Reservoir Regulation/Reallocation
M&I WaterDemand Growth
Changing Climate Supply & Water Quality
Constraints
Thank You
61