Groundwater Thresholds and Modeling Impact
Jason Moeckel | Manager – Inventory, Monitoring, and Analysis Section
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
Groundwater Thresholds and Modeling Impact
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
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
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)
Illustration of the Sustainable Ecosystem Boundary and Thresholds for Depletion Limits
modified from Richter et al. (2011)
Baseline Ecological Condition (Undepleted/unregulated flow)
10% Alteration of Baseline Condition (Undetectable Ecosystem Impact)*
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)
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)
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
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
Little Rock Creek – Stream Gaging Transect
10
% A
BF
Habitat Response Curves for habitat guild representative species using Fast Riffles (FR), Slow Riffles (SR), and Raceway (RW) habitats.
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
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
Little Rock Creek – Stream Gaging Transect
10
% A
BF
20
% A
BF
Habitat Response Curves for habitat guild representative species using Fast Riffles (FR), Slow Riffles (SR), and Raceway (RW) habitats.
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
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
Little Rock Creek – Stream Gaging Transect
10
% A
BF
20
% A
BF
10
% A
ve Q
20
% A
ve Q
Habitat Response Curves for habitat guild representative species using Fast Riffles (FR), Slow Riffles (SR), and Raceway (RW) habitats.
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
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
Little Rock Creek – Stream Gaging Transect
10
% A
BF
20
% A
BF
10
% A
ve Q
20
% A
ve Q
Habitat Response Curves for habitat guild representative species using Fast Riffles (FR), Slow Riffles (SR), and Raceway (RW) habitats.
Key threshold levels are indicated by dashed lines. The ABF is the August Median Base Flow.
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
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
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
Groundwater Thresholds and Modeling Impact
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
Top Related