Panel: Protecting Groundwater One Drinking Water Source at ...mrwa.com/PDF/Moorehead Zoning...
Transcript of Panel: Protecting Groundwater One Drinking Water Source at ...mrwa.com/PDF/Moorehead Zoning...
Panel: Protecting Groundwater One Drinking Water Source at a Time
MRWA/St CloudKristofer Knutson (MPS)
MARCH 9, 2017
1
Protect Water Quality & Water Quantity
Protection of the Aquifer Cooperative planning and zoning with Clay County Consists of Resource Protection Overlay District
Moorhead Public Service (MPS) Water Supply
MPS Water Demand
Buffalo Aquifer Management Plan Drought Planning
2
Presentation Overview
MPS Water Supply Surface Water◦ Red River of the North
Groundwater◦ Buffalo Aquifer ◦ Moorhead Aquifer
3
Drinking Water Supply Management Areas
Red River79.4%
Buffalo Aquifer16.5%
Moorhead Aquifer
4.1%
Percent of water supplied to MHD by source (2006-2015)
Resource Protection Overlay District (Completed in 2009) Defines Permitted Uses in District District covers the geographic extent of the Buffalo Aquifer in
Clay County Resource Protection Overlay covers majority of Drinking Water
Supply Management Area (DWSMA)
Concerns Buffalo Aquifer groundwater level during drought conditions Sustainability of the Buffalo Aquifer MPS Water Treatment Plan operational strategy is subject to change
4
Protection through Zoning
5
OVERLAY OUTLINED IN RED
BLACK=DWSMA
OVERLAY OUTLINED IN RED
BLACK=DWSMA
MPS Water Appropriations
6
SourceAuthorized Use Current Pumping Capacity 2005-2015 Avg.
Use (MGY)MGY MGDe GPM MGD
South Buffalo Wells 730 2.0 1,800 2.59 130.62
North Buffalo Wells 2,363 6.5 1,560 2.25 129.33
Moorhead Wells 225 0.6 550 0.79 65.36
Red River 3,650 10.0 4,970 7.15 1,251.79
Buffalo River 2,363 6.5 0 0 0
Total 9,331 25.6 8,880 12.78 1,577.10
Water Supply Withdrawals
7
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Wat
er W
ithdr
awal
s, M
GY
Year
GroundwaterRiverTotal Withdrawal
Operation of the new water treatment plant
Monthly Intake (Groundwater vs. Surface Water)
8
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Jan-
88
Jan-
89
Jan-
90
Jan-
91
Jan-
92
Jan-
93
Jan-
94
Jan-
95
Jan-
96
Jan-
97
Jan-
98
Jan-
99
Jan-
00
Jan-
01
Jan-
02
Jan-
03
Jan-
04
Jan-
05
Jan-
06
Jan-
07
Jan-
08
Jan-
09
Jan-
10
Jan-
11
Jan-
12
Jan-
13
Jan-
14
Jan-
15
Wat
er W
ithdr
awls
by
Mon
ths (
mgd
)
SB #8 SB #9 SB #10 NB #1 NB #2 MDH #6 MDH #6b Red River
Groundwater Levels Buffalo
9
Water Demand (1996-2015)
10
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Peak
Day
Pea
king
Fac
tor
Wat
er D
eman
d (m
gd)
Average Day Water Demand Peak Day Water DemandPeak Day Peaking Factor
Monthly Usage (Winter vs. Summer)
11
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Wat
er D
eman
d (m
gd)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Summer Demand
Winter Demand
Per Capita Water Demand (1996-2015)
12
R² = 0.7609
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Per C
apita
Wat
er D
eman
d (g
pcd)
Monthly Usage (By User Category)2005-2015
13
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Wat
er D
eman
d (m
gd)
Residential CommercialIndustrial Wholesale (Regional)Non-Essential (Raw Water Irrigation)
Future Demand Projections
14
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2060 2090
Popu
latio
n
Wat
er D
eman
d (M
GD)
Projected Average Daily Demand (110 gpcd) Projected Maximum Daily Demand (190 gpcd)
Conservative Maximum Daily Demand (170 gpcd) Maximum MPS WTP Treatment Capacity
Current Groundwater Yield Population
Define available capacity of Buffalo Aquifer during drought conditions
Evaluate current and future pumping scenarios
Use worst case scenario (1930’s drought) as baseline for evaluation
Leggette, Brashears and Graham conducted model evaluation
15
Buffalo Aquifer Management Plan
Regional Drought HistoryPalmer Drought Index (1895-2015)
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
PDSI
Extreme Moist Spell Very Moist Spell Unusual Moist Spell Moist SpellIncipient Moist Spell Near Normal Incipient Drought Mild DroughtModerate Drought Severe Drought Extreme Drought
16
Layer 2: Buffalo Aquifer
Layer 1: Lake Agassiz Sediments
Layer 2: Till
Layer 3: Till
Layer 2: Buffalo Aquifer
Well
Max Drawdown Level
Layer 2: Buffalo Aquifer
Layer 1: Lake Agassiz Sediments
Layer 2: Till
Layer 3: Till
Layer 2: Buffalo Aquifer
Well
Max Drawdown Level
~6 years
~9 Years
Drought MonitoringWeighting Factor represents the importance of a indicator
National Indices U.S. Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) – 15% Standard Precipitation Index (SPI) – 15%
Local Parameters Stream Flows – 50% Red River of the North at Fargo, ND (USGS 05054000) Bois De Sioux River Near White Rock, SD (USGS 05050000) Otter Tail River Below Orwell Dam Near Fergus Falls, MN (USGS 05046000)
Reservoir Levels – 50% Reservoir Orwell Lake Traverse
Groundwater Levels – 50% South Buffalo Aquifer North Buffalo Aquifer Moorhead Aquifer
21
Drought Monitoring and Tracking FormIndicator
Weighting Factor
Sub-Weighting Factor
Effective Weighting
FactorPDSI 15% 15.0%SPI 15%
6-Month 50% 7.5%12-Month 50% 7.5%
Stream Flow Exceedance 50%Red River of the North at Fargo, ND 50% 25.0%Bois De Sioux River Near White Rock, SD 7% 3.5%Otter Tail River Below Orwell Dam 43% 21.5%
Reservoir/Lake Levels 10%Orwell 75% 7.5%Traverse 25% 2.5%
Groundwater Levels 10%North Buffalo Aquifer 40% 4.0%South Buffalo Aquifer 35% 3.5%Moorhead Aquifer 25% 2.5%
Total Weighting 100.0% 100.0%
22
Drought ResponsesIndicator
Drought Response LevelStage 1 Normal Stage 2 Advisory Stage 3 Warning Stage 4 Emergency
Drought Indicators
PDSI -1.99 and above -2.99 to -2.0 -3.99 to -3.0 -4.0 and below
SPI (6 and 12 month) -0.99 and above -1.49 to -1.0 -1.99 to -1.5 -2.0 and below
Stream FlowUp to 85%
Exceedance85% to 90% Exceedance 85% to 90% Exceedance
Above 90% Exceedance
Reservoir and Lake Levels
Orwell Above 1064.0 ft 1060.0 to 1064.0 ft 1050.0 to 1060.0 ft Below 1,050.0 ft
Traverse Above 976.0 ft 974.0 to 976.0 ft 974.0 to 976.0 ft Below 974.0 ft
Groundwater levelsUp to 65%
Exceedance65% to 75% Exceedance 75% to 90% Exceedance
Above 90% Exceedance
South Buffalo Aquifer Above -35.3 ft -36.8 to -35.3 ft -39.0 to -36.8 ft Below -39.0 ft
North Buffalo Aquifer Above -27.7 ft -31.5 to -27.4 ft -34.7 to -31.5 ft Below -34.7 ft
Moorhead Aquifer Above -182.1 ft -184.2 to -182.1 ft -189.0 to -184.2 ft Below -189.0 ft23
Drought Monitoring Model
24
Data Input (1954-2014) National Indices Local Parameters
Drought Monitoring Model Findings Majority at Normal Condition or Drought Advisory Stage Drought Emergency Stage did not happen
Outcomes Simulate possible Drought Stages Evaluate the impact of one particular source on the overall drought
conditions
25
Planning is the Key!
Overlay districts can refine future land use, protect aquifer from future contamination
Aquifer Modelling can determine adequacy of supply during drought scenarios
26
Conclusions
MnDNR
MDH
AE2S
Legette, Brashears, and Graham
MPS Staff/Commission
27
Acknowledgements
Questions? ContactKristofer Knutson
MPS Water Division Manager
218-329-9528
@kristoferjk
28