Groundwater Thresholds and Modeling Impact• Don’t issue Gather More Data Above Threshold •...

Groundwater Thresholds and Modeling Impact

Jason Moeckel | Manager – Inventory, Monitoring, and Analysis Section

Division of Ecological and Water Resources


2 Division of Ecological and Water Resources | www.dnr.state.mn.us

Statewide Annual Reported Groundwater Use

3

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Bill

ion

s o

f G

allo

ns

Density of Water Use

4

Water Use Index

5

• When establishing limits DNR must consider the sustainability of the resource, including:

• Current and projected water levels

• Water quality

• Protect ecosystems

• Future generations to meet their needs

DNR Responsibility… (Statute 103G.287)

Analysis (“Math”) • Drawdown estimates • Depletion estimates • GW Models • Stream flow

Insufficient Hydrologic Data • Issue

Conditional • Don’t issue

Gather More Data

Above Threshold • Establish

Protected Flow, Protection Elev., or Safe Yield

Water Use Conflict • 6115.0740 • Review and

revise, allocate proportionally and according to priority

• Reasonableness • Efficiency • Alternatives

Gather More Data

Below Threshold • Establish

Protected Flow, Protection Elev., or Safe Yield

• Issue Permits

1

2

3

Issuing Permits in Areas of High Use or “Concern”

Sustaining Ecosystems: Establishing Thresholds and Defining Impact

Ian Chisholm | Supervisor – River Ecology Unit


Our Responsibility & Rationale: 1. Sustainability accounts for ecosystems and future

generations,

2. Identifying a threshold for ecological health/sustainability is a key task,

3. Management prescriptions are developed to maintain the threshold and thereby, ecosystem health and sustainability.

Our Responsibility & Rationale:

2. Identifying a threshold for ecological health/ sustainability is a key task

Healthy

Sustainable

Threshold

Unhealthy

Not sustainable

Biological

Integrity

Nothing

alive

Severe

disturbance

Gradient of biological condition

Gradient of human disturbance

No or

Minimal

disturbance

Pristine

(adapted from Karr and Chu 1999).

Par

alle

l gra

die

nts

Illustration of the Sustainable Ecosystem Boundary and Thresholds for Depletion Limits

modified from Richter et al. (2011)

Baseline Ecological Condition (Undepleted/unregulated flow)

Riv

er F

low

or

Wat

er L

evel

Day of Year

* see Acreman and Ferguson (2010) ** see Carlisle et al. (2010), Acreman et al. (2008)




10% Alteration of Baseline Condition (Undetectable Ecosystem Impact)*

Riv

er F

low

or

Wat

er L

evel

Day of Year





Riv

er F

low

or

Wat

er L

evel

Day of Year


20% Alteration of Baseline Condition (Ecosystem Alteration Detected and System Change Probable)**

10% Alteration of Baseline Condition (Undetectable Ecosystem Impact)*

Our Responsibility & Rationale:

3. Management prescriptions are developed to maintain the threshold and thereby, ecosystem health

Management prescriptions:

essentially, what hydrology will maintain

the desired state of ecosystem health?

Percentage of Flow

• Conceptually simple • Provides protection for

natural flow variability • Relatively simple to

implement

fro

m R

ich

ter

et a

l. (2

01

1)

Percent of what flow? August • August is a biologically critical month in Minnesota;

• low flow month • part of growing season (June-Sept) • biological ‘bottleneck’

• determinant of species richness

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

01

02

03

04

0

Statewide Stream Richness

N=797

Predicted Richness

Ob

se

rve

d R

ich

ne

ss

Predictorslengthutmxutmy

domsubwidth

mean august Q

Model R2=0.61

Sample Locations for Richness (PCA)

utmxutm

y

Richness (number) of fish species is

predicted by habitat

conditions and discharge.

• Low flows predict species richness;

• Smaller streams are more sensitive to flow changes

Why use fish habitat data to determine ecological impact? • We have information on them, across the state • Fish are used as surrogates for sustaining the ecosystem

• Sustain fish, sustain opportunities for future users

Bunn and Arthington (2002)

Glide Riffle

Glide

Run (raceway)

Pool

Pool Pool

Run (Raceway)

Riffle

Pool Riffle

Riffle

Run

What are the important elements of a stream ecosystem?

Simplified Food Web

For more information contact:

Stream Habitat Program

MN DNR

500 Lafayette Rd

St. Paul, MN 55155

651.259.5113

Email: [email protected]

0 2 4 6 8 1 0

MEAN COLUMN VELOCI TY (FT/ SEC)

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

SU

ITA

BIL

ITY

0 2 4 6 8 1 0

DEPTH (FEET)

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

SU

ITA

BIL

ITY

NONEUNDERCUT

VEGW OOD

BOUL DERFL OTSAM

CANOPYEDGE

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

DETRI TUSSI LT

SANDGRAVEL

COBBLERUBBLE

SBOULDERLBOULDER

BEDROCK

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

BANDED DARTER YOY

0 2 4 6 8 1 0

MEAN COLUMN VELOCI TY (FT/ SEC)

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

SU

ITA

BIL

ITY

0 2 4 6 8 1 0

DEPTH (FEET)

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

SU

ITA

BIL

ITY

NONEUNDERCUT

VEGW OOD

BOUL DERFL OTSAM

CANOPYEDGE

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

DETRI TUSSI LT

SANDGRAVEL

COBBLERUBBLE

SBOULDERLBOULDER

BEDROCK

0 .0

0 .2

0 .4

0 .6

0 .8

1 .0

SMALLMOUTH BASS ADULT

MNDNR STREAM HABITAT PROGRAM

HABITAT PREFERENCE CURVES

sampling years - 1987-2016

50 rivers/156 survey sites/ 10,104 samples

>232,000 fish observations

129 species / 345 species-life stages

> 500 mussel observations

150 fish species-life stage habitat

preference curves

9 mussel species habitat preference curves

from Aadland (1993)

159 habitat-based response curves for August; representing 63 species life stages and covering 9 streams, across Minnesota.

Comparison of habitat- based response curves using SHP method (colored lines) and Michigan’s abundance-based response curves (thick solid black lines). The MI curves are digitized from graphs presented in Hamilton and Seelbach (2011). Red dots mark the GWCAC ARI threshold and the blue crosses mark the MI Legislature ARI threshold (for warm water streams).

MI ‘Thriving Species’

MI ‘Characteristic Species’

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Proportion of Index Flow Removed

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

abit

at R

em

ain

ing guild

FR

RW

SR

species bnda

bnta

bntj

crca

csra

hhca

jnda

lgpa

lnda

Habitat Response Curves for habitat guild representative species using Fast Riffles (FR), Slow Riffles (SR), and Raceway (RW) habitats.

Little Rock Creek – Stream Gaging Transect

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

abit

at R

em

ain

ing guild

FR

RW

SR

species bnda

bnta

bntj

crca

csra

hhca

jnda

lgpa

lnda


10

% A

BF


Key threshold levels are indicated by dashed lines. The ABF is the August Median Base Flow.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

abit

at R

em

ain

ing guild

FR

RW

SR

species bnda

bnta

bntj

crca

csra

hhca

jnda

lgpa

lnda


10

% A

BF

20

% A

BF



0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

abit

at R

em

ain

ing guild

FR

RW

SR

species bnda

bnta

bntj

crca

csra

hhca

jnda

lgpa

lnda


10

% A

BF

20

% A

BF

10

% A

ve Q

20

% A

ve Q



0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9


Pro

po

rtio

n o

f H

abit

at R

em

ain

ing guild

FR

RW

SR

species bnda

bnta

bntj

crca

csra

hhca

jnda

lgpa

lnda


10

% A

BF

20

% A

BF

10

% A

ve Q

20

% A

ve Q



Solid black line represents the current modeled depletion level.

Summary Statistic

August Daily Flow (cfs)

August Baseflow (cfs)

Average 26.2 16.5

Median 7.8 7.3

Standard Deviation

47.4 21.0

Range 4.1 – 309.9 4.1 – 108.8

Summary of August Flow Statistics (2005-2014; includes modeled depletion)

• August average flow is higher and more variable than the median baseflow

• Median and median baseflow are essentially the same • August median baseflow is a flow that regularly occurs

in the stream; the August average flow does not

What flow serves as an ‘index flow’ for management?

August daily flows and baseflows in Little Rock Creek, 2005 to 2014; showing similarity of median values and relationship of average flows to distributions. Boxes represent the middle 50% of values for each distribution.

Mean

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Exceedence

Au

gust

Q c

fs

daily_flow daily_flow_plus_depletion

7.8 cfs

According to modeled

depletion values, we are

changing the hydrograph. For

example, the median flow (50%

exceedance) now occurs at the

35 % exceedance value, and

what used to be the 90%

exceedance flow is now the

median.

5.3 cfs

5.2 cfs

2.2 cfs

Little Rock Creek Daily Flows

and Daily Flows with Modeled Depletion

Preliminary Data:

Subject to Change

Location Ecological Goal Cumulative allowable

depletion

Considerations Decision process

Florida

(SWFWMD)

Avoid significant

ecological harm

(maximum 15% habitat

loss)

8-19% of daily flows Seasonally variable

extraction limit; ‘hands-

off’ flow (no withdrawals

below)

Scientific peer review

of site-specific

studies

Michigan Maintain baseline or

existing condition

6-15% of August median

flow

Single extraction limit for

all flow levels

Stakeholders with

scientific support

Maine Protect class AA:

‘outstanding natural

resources’

10% of daily flow Single extraction limit for

all flow levels above a

‘hands-off’ flow level

Expert derived

Massachusetts Sustainable

management of water

resources that balance

human and ecological

needs

Basin safe yield: 55% of

annualized Q90

For sub-basins, maximum

level of August median

streamflow alteration

ranges from 3-10% for

Categories 1 and 2 for

each season.

Seasonal extraction limit

based on category

Expert, scientific

support

Rhode Island Maintain habitat

conditions essential to a

healthy aquatic

ecosystem

6 Bioperiods and 5 classes

Summer Period Class 1-3

streams can deplete 10,

20, and 30% of the 7Q10,

respectively

Allocation limited by

cumulative streamflow

depletion

Identify allowable

depletion limit even

during dry conditions

Scientific support,

stakeholders, public

process

European Union Maintain good

ecological condition

7.5-20% of daily flow

20-35% of daily flow

Lower flow; warmer

months; ‘hands-off’ flow

Higher flow;cooler

months

Expert derived

Examples of the percent of flow approach actively being used for water management (from Richter et al. 2011, with additions). These examples restrict both ground and surface water allocation.

Flow-Model Application: Little Rock Creek

Glen Champion | Hydrogeologist


Study Area

5/5/2017 38

Study Area – Focus Area Water Use

5/5/2017 39

Study Area – Geology

5/5/2017 40

Study Area – Geology

5/5/2017 41

Study Area – Hydrologic Data

5/5/2017 42

Study Area – Hydrologic Data

5/5/2017 43

Study Area – Hydrologic Processes

5/5/2017 44

Model – Approach and Codes

5/5/2017 45

GSSHA MODFLOW-USG

Modified from Harbaugh (2005), Prudic et al. (2004), an d Panday et al. (2013), USGS

Model – Development

5/5/2017 46

Model – Results

5/5/2017 47

Model – Results

5/5/2017 48

Model - Results

• Calculated August monthly depletion (2006, 2008-14)

• Both Mean and Median > 35% of August median base flow

• Only slightly lower percentage of August median total flow

5/5/2017 Optional Tagline Goes Here | mn.gov/websiteurl 49

Model – Future Applications

5/5/2017 50 Barlow and Leake (2013), USGS


Jason Moeckel

Ian Chisholm

Glen Champion

5/5/2017 Division of Ecological and Water Resources | www.dnr.state.mn.us 51

5/5/2017 52 Division of Ecological and Water Resources | www.dnr.state.mn.us

Geology

5/5/2017 53

Model Results

5/5/2017 54 Recharge with and without irrigation for a representative model cell

Groundwater Thresholds and Modeling Impact• Don’t issue Gather More Data Above Threshold •...

Documents

Transcript of Groundwater Thresholds and Modeling Impact• Don’t issue Gather More Data Above Threshold •...