combined technical workgroup meeting - dnr...2019/05/29 · missouri planning scenarios scenario...

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




• Highest Ag processing

• Warmer temperatures

• Greater rainfall

• Moderate increase in water treatment levels





4. Weak Economy/Low Water Stress

• Low M&I demands










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




Missouri-Nishnabotna 1

1

3

3

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

1 1

Scenario 1

Scenario 2





No Stress

10

Chariton-GrandUpper

Mississippi-Salt

Lower Missouri

Gasconade-Osage

Upper WhiteNeosho-Verdigris Lower



1

3

3

2


1

4

2

Scenario 1 – Business-as-Usual & Scenario 3 –Substantial Agricultural Expansion (Average Conditions)

1

1 12

Scenario 1

Scenario 3





No Stress

11

Chariton-GrandUpper

Mississippi-Salt

Lower Missouri

Gasconade-Osage

Upper WhiteNeosho-Verdigris Lower



1

3

3

2


1

2

1

Scenario 1 – Business-as-Usual & Scenario 4 – Weak Economy/Low Water Stress (Average Conditions)

Scenario 1

Scenario 4





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


# 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





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





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





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





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





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





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





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





No Stress

Interpreting the Results for GroundwaterIdentifying Potential Supply Stress

22

Condition AnalysisCurrent

GW Levels

Withdrawals* as a Percent of Recharge


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




Missouri-Nishnabotna Scenario

No 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



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





• Historical temperatures

• Historical precipitation





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



• Prolonged supply disruption on River intakes


• Streamlined permitting process for new reservoirs

3. Substantial Agricultural Expansion




• Highest Ag processing



• Moderate increase in water treatment levels





4. Weak Economy/Low Water Stress

• Low M&I demands










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


Conveyance

Wastewater reuse






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





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






Constraints

Adaptive Management – Agricultural Risk Triggers

49

Additional storage

Conveyance


System efficiency (in the Bootheel with furrow irrigation

and transition to high value crops)






Cover crops and other progressive agricultural practices


Risk Trigger

Outcome





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


• Drainage water recycling

• Meeting demand for expanded food processing operations

Potential Options






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


• System efficiency in the Bootheel

• Additional storage

• Conveyance

• Cover crops and other progressive agricultural practices


• Drainage water recycling

• System efficiency (in the Bootheel with furrow irrigation and transition to high value crops)

Potential Options






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


56


Conveyance

Wastewater reuse











Constraints

Risk Trigger

Outcome


57






Constraints

Agricultural Breakout

58


59

Additional storage

Conveyance


System efficiency (in the Bootheel with furrow irrigation and

transition to high value crops)






Cropping System Management


Risk Trigger

Outcome





Constraints


60






Constraints

Thank You

61

combined technical workgroup meeting - dnr...2019/05/29 · missouri planning scenarios scenario...

Documents