Groundwater & Lake Interactions: Science, Policy and Tools
advertisement
Groundwater & Lake Interactions: Science, Policy and Tools Bob Nauta Nauta, RSV Engineering Chuck Dunning & Herb Garn, USGS Tim Asplund, WDNR Wisconsin Lakes Convention Workshop: April 17, 2008 Introductions Wisconsin is water rich rich… 32 inches of rainfall per year 15,000+ lakes 44,000 miles of streams and rivers 1 2 quadrillion gallons 1.2 of ground water 2 Great Lakes and Mississippi River Why are we here? Low lake levels! Increased demand for water and uncertain implications of changing climate Concerns about proposed and existing high capacity wells near lakes, wetlands, and springs Cumulative impacts of wells on regional water table Ignorance about how groundwater “works” Regulatory Limitations Huron Lake, Waushara County Twin Lake, Marquette County Gilbert Lake, Waushara County Plainfield Lake, Waushara County R. Lathrop Fallison Lake, Vilas County F. Koshere Tomahawk Lake, Bayfield County Tomahawk Lake, Bayfield County Implications of low water levels Navigational issues Exposure of lake beds to disturbance Water quality/clarity changes Shift in aquatic plant community Reduced R d d fi fish h cover Potential for spread of invasives (e.g. EWM, EWM Phragmites Ph Phragmites) agmites) agmites) Increased likelihood of winterkill Recent Climate Trends Projected Climate Changes in the Great Lakes Region by 2100 Temperature – – – – *http://www http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes ucsusa org/greatlakes Winter 55-12 °F (3 (3--7 °C) Summer 55-20 °F ((3(3-11 °C)) Extreme heat more common Growing season several weeks longer Precipitation – Winter, spring increasing – Summer, Summer fall decreasing – Drier soils, more droughts More extreme events – storms,, floods – Could be 5050-100% more frequent than now Ice cover decline will continue S Source: B b All Bob Allan, NREL Moving States - Going to Arkansas? UCS/ESA 2003 Water Levels – Scenario #1 Warmer, wetter winters increases recharge More recharge increases baseflow and groundwater levels More storms increases summer runoff and flooding More CO2 in atmosphere h makes k plants more water efficient, decreasing ET Lakes may go up Source: John Magnuson, 2007 Water Levels – Scenario #2 Shorter duration of ice cover increases time for evaporation Warmer air temperatures increase evapo evapo-transpiration rates Lower precipitation in summer decreases soil moisture Extended d d dry d periods i d between storm events Lakes may y go g down SOURCE: UCS/ESA 2003 Changing water level regime Source: USGS Circular 1186 Anvil Lake (Vilas Co) Stage (1936 – 2006) Anvil Lake Lake, Vilas County County, WI 8 Stage e, in feet 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1/1/30 1/1/40 1/1/50 1/1/60 1/1/70 1/1/80 1/1/90 1/1/00 1/1/10 S Source: USGS Source: USGS Anvil Lake – Regime shift? Hydrograph for Anvil Lake, Vilas Co 8 Stage height (ft) S 7 6 1985 2007 1985-2007 1936-1981 5 4 3 2 1 0 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% % of time lower than stage height 0% Implications of low water levels Source: USGS Circular 1186 Human water use Source:UWSP Source:UWSP NW Waushara County Lakes Landlocked lakes,, no outlet Sandy soils Lakes near major regional groundwater divide Recent R td declines li after ft unusually high period in the 1990s Short--term drought in Short Central WI Major pumping center Overpumping of the deep sandstone aquifer: 650 ALTITUDE, IN FEET ABOVE S SEA LEVEL CA-6 600 OU-326 Slope of line is 3 feet per year 550 BN-154 50 feet BN-76 500 450 3-4 feet per year 400 350 300 1949 1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 Max drawdown > 300 feet 650 ELEVA ATION, IN FEET ABOVE SEA LEVEL 600 Max drawdown <60 feet Kenosha County 550 Slope of line is 7 feet /year Milwaukee County 500 450 400 350 300 1940 50 feet Racine County 7 feet per year 1949 1959 1969 Waukesha County 1979 1989 1999 10 feet Source: US Geological Survey and Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey and, adding Chicago… Increased pressure on shallow sand and gravel aquifer New Shallow Aquifer Municipal Well q Municipal p Well New Sandstone Aquifer Planned Shallow Aquifer Municipal Well Planned Sandstone Aquifer Municipal Well Areas of Recent Conflict over Groundwater Use Slide courtesy of John Jansen Recent conflicts in the Mukwonago Ri River watershed t h d Lake residents concerned about new municipal well sitings Communities C iti needing di new sources of water Downstream flows, water budgets, water quality concerns Conflicts C fli t also l spurred d by urban sprawl and development p patterns p Litigation/cooperation Role of Climate Change Exacerbation of Existing Problems Increased flooding and erosion Pressure to increase water extraction from the Great Lakes Mining g of deep p aquifers q increases pressure on shallow groundwater More reliance on irrigation g to g grow crops p Anthropogenic impacts may enhance or counter long term regional trends Source: Dave Hansen, MN Extension Service Which one is the future? M b b Maybe both! th! Wisconsin Water Law Riparian Ri i rights i ht Reasonable/ beneficial use Navigable g waters Public Trust Doctrine Statutory authority DNR’s DNR ’s s Statutory Authority “The The purpose of this subchapter is to grant necessary powers and to organize a comprehensive program…for the enhancement of the quality management and protection of all waters of the state, ground and surface public and private. surface, private.” Wis. Wis Stats Ch. 281.11 Surface Water Withdrawals For any agricultural or irrigation purpose 2 million gpd level for other uses 10 10--year permits Riparian rights & beneficial uses Cumulative impacts Public rights flows Groundwater Withdrawals Over 100,000 gpd subject bj t tto state t t approval Over 2 million gpd, th then mustt nott impair i i public water rights Over 5 million gpd in Great Lakes basin require approval from all states & provinces Great Lakes Compact negotiations currently underway So what are we worried about? “There’s a gap in Wisconsin’s water llaw…” No limits on groundwater withdrawals unless exceeding 2 million gallons per day No explicit authority to deny approval of high capacity well if impacts surface waters No N requirements i t ffor water t conservation No consideration of cumulative impacts The “New” Groundwater Law 2003 Wi Wisconsin i A Actt 310 Requires equ es notification ot cat o of o all a new e well e construction and water use reporting Expanded DNR authority to consider environmental i l impacts i iin iissuing i hi high h cap approvals in certain situations Established Groundwater Management Areas in 2 parts of state Created Groundwater Advisory Committee to advise department and make recommendations for future legislation Environmental reviews of high capacity wells – acute impacts Groundwater (GPAs) Protection Areas – within 1200 feet of critical surface water resources High water loss – withdrawals that result in water loss of >95% Potential impact to a spring – defined d fi d as >1 1 cfs f att least l t 80% off the th time GPAs: ORW = Outstanding Resource Water ERW = Exceptional Resource Water Trout Streams include Class I, II and III II, ORW Lakes 105 out of 15,082 , lakes ORW designation intended i t d d tto protect t t against point source discharges Mostly pristine lakes in forested areas Recent R t petition titi tto add dd waters to list Groundwater Management Areas – Ch i IImpacts Chronic Areas of significant drawdowns and overoverpumping 150 150--ft drawdown contour Water quality problems (arsenic, radium, d salinity) l ) Need for a coordinated di t d management strategy Groundwater Advisory Committee Began ega meeting eet g in April p 2005 005 Members appointed by Governor and Legislature Municipal, industrial, agricultural, & environmental interests represented Staffed by DNR Science and policy advisors Advise on rule development p and further legislation Groundwater Advisory Committee Wrapped up work in Dec. Dec 2007 Reports delivered to legislature on schedule Recommendations did not include f t future legislation, l i l ti b butt offered ff d severall alternative regulatory frameworks Goals of Workshop Better understanding g of lake and groundwater interactions How to sort out climate from human impacts on lake levels? Predicting potential impacts of proposed wells as well as determining if impacts are already l d occurring i Tools and Resources from a lake scale to a watershed scale What can one lake do (AKA when do you need to bring in the experts)? Workshop Overview Science of groundwater/surface water interactions Tools for Understanding Groundwater and Lake Interactions Case C studies t di ffrom Wisconsin Wi i Future Opportunities, Policy Directions, and General Discussion Science of groundwater and lakes ( f (surface water)) interactions i i Tools for Understanding G Groundwater d and dL Lake k IInteractions i Citizen work (with limited assistance) (Nauta) Expanded watershed studies (Nauta) Multi Multi--watershed studies (Nauta or Dunning) D i ) Grants (Asplund) Technical Assistance (Dunning) Case Studies for Understanding G Groundwater d and dL Lake k IInteractions i Middle Genessee Genessee, Walworth Co (Dunning or Garn) Silver Lake, Lake Waukesha Co (Dunning or Garn) Crystal C t l Lake, L k Sh Sheboygan b C Co (Nauta) (N t ) Central sand plains (Asplund) Case Studies for Understanding G Groundwater d and dL Lake k IInteractions i Middle dd e Ge Genessee, essee, Walworth Co Silver Lake, Waukesha Co Crystal Lake, Sheboygan Co Central sand plains Source:UWSP Source:UWSP Source:UWSP Effects of irrigation 1970 –1/4 of the area irrigated - normal summer stream loss: 25-30% - normall summer water t decline: d li ½ foot - drought stream loss: 70-90% - drought water decline: 2-3 feet Effects of irrigation If 50% of area irrigated -drought drought stream loss: 100% - drought water decline: 4 - 5 feet 2007: 50-75% of area irrigated Waushara County Lakes Long, Huron Fish, Pine Source: UWSP 1950s 1994 99 Spring 2006 July Ju y 2006 006 NW Waushara County Lakes 1105 Feet ab bove sea le evel 1100 1095 1090 Long Huron 1085 Pine Fish 1080 1075 1070 1065 1954 1961 1968 1975 1982 1988 1995 2002 2009 Year NW Waushara County Lakes Landlocked lakes,, no outlet Sandy soils Lakes near major regional groundwater divide Recent R td declines li after ft unusually high period in the 1990s Short--term drought in Short Central WI Major pumping center Relative e Lake Leve el (5 Feet Inttervals) Waushara Co Lakes Marl Huron Pleasant Beans Pine Pi Witters Long Fish Bughs 1954 1960 1965 1971 1976 1982 1987 1993 1998 2004 2009 Year Waushara Co. Co Lakes At sub-continental divide, near pumping 1105 Feet abov ve sea levell 1100 1095 2 R = 0.0096 1090 1085 2 R = 0.3949 0 3949 1080 2 R = 0.5418 1075 1070 2 R = 0.7118 1065 Jun- Dec- May- Nov- May- Oct- Apr- Oct- Apr1968 1973 1979 1984 1990 1995 2001 2006 2012 Year Long Huron Pine Fish Waushara Co. Co Lakes Away from divide, distant from pumping 890 Feet above sea levvel 885 880 2 R = 0.0092 875 870 865 2 R = 0.0908 860 855 850 2 R = 0.0006 845 Jun- Dec- May- Nov- May- Oct- Apr- Oct- Apr1968 1973 1979 1984 1990 1995 2001 2006 2012 Year Gilbert Bughs Witters Water table well near Hancock, WI source: US Geological Survey http://groundwaterwatch.usgs.gov Down 3 ft Kraft, 2008 Nelsonville Amherst Jct. Down 1 ft Wild Rose Down 1 ft Down 3 ft Wautoma Water levels unaffected by pumping i Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 PT0276 WS0105 2000 2010 Depth to wa D ater (ft) from m 1959 reference -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 60 6.0 PT0015 Kraft, 2008 Water levels affected by pumping i Year 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Depth to wa D ater (ft) from m 1959 refe erence -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 60 6.0 PT376_1464 WS0008 Kraft, 2008 Down 3 ft Kraft, 2008 Nelsonville Amherst Jct. Down 1 ft Wild Rose Down 1 ft Down 3 ft Wautoma Future Opportunities, Policy Di Directions, i and dG Generall Di Discussion i Lake Level Monitoring Network Groundwater monitoring and modeling Statewide and Regional Policy Di Directions ti – Recent Groundwater Legislation Question and Answers Discussion PROGRESS: Acute Impacts 451 wells approved pp under new statute since 2005; 369 wells constructed 56 wells constructed within 2000 feet of GPA 26 approvals/14 wells located within GPAs No wells have required q full environmental analysis, but many rere-located to avoid GPA Approved wells in GPAs conditioned to ensure no significant impact to surface water resource New N administrative d i i t ti rules l iin effect ff t as off Sept. 2007 (NR820) PROGRESS:: GMAs PROGRESS Two Groundwater Management Areas designated by rule Purpose P off GMA nott defined Process for adding new GMA or removing designation subject to future legislation Groundwater Advisory Committee report p Groundwater Advisory Committee Began ega meeting eet g in April p 2005 005 Members appointed by Governor and Legislature Municipal, industrial, agricultural, & environmental interests represented Staffed by DNR Science and policy advisors Advise on rule development p and further legislation PROGRESS: Groundwater PROGRESS: M Management A Areas (Task (T k 1) Groundwater Management g Plans should be developed for each GMA Additional requirements for new and existing high cap wells in GMA’s GMA s after 10 years 2 new Groundwater Attention Areas (GAA) proposed, but no new GMAs P Process f reviewing for i i and d recommending di new potential GMA’s, as well as removal of designation Increased funding and support for mitigation and monitoring of groundwater and surface water Task #2: GPA’s GPA s – Dec. Dec 2007 Better definition of springs Factors to be considered in determining “significant significant adverse environmental impact” Changes Ch regarding di regulation l ti off wells within GPAs, near springs, or with ith >95% 95% water t loss l Adaptive management approaches Potential for use of general permits PROGRESS: Groundwater PROGRESS: P Protection i A Areas - consensus No o further u t e definition de t o of o “significant sg ca t adverse environmental impact” – criteria identified in rule adequate No change to regulation of wells with high water loss Updated springs inventory for rest of state Regular review of regulatory framework every 5 years Comprehensive statewide water management policy NO PROGRESS: PROGRESS: Groundwater P Protection i A Areas No consensus on changing definition of spring, or regulatory approach – Need to wait for springs g inventory No consensus on changes to Groundwater Protection Area concept or regulatory approach – Several alternatives suggested and voted upon No further action on general permits or adaptive management Groundwater Advisory Committee Wrapped up work in Dec. Dec 2007 Reports delivered to legislature on schedule Recommendations did not include f t future legislation, l i l ti b butt offered ff d severall alternative regulatory frameworks Track GAC activities on DNR website: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/water/dwg/ A first step… step Recognizes g that all wells have impact p on quantity Recognizes connection between surface and groundwater, groundwater quality and quantity Many critical waters remain vulnerable Retains p protection of p public water utility y wells Most areas of state and most well approvals will be “business business as usual usual” Acknowledged need for further solutions, including legislation Future Directions Better science and understanding – Lake and g groundwater level monitoring g – Quantify impacts of pumping on regional scale – Identify lakes vulnerable to pumping Pursue lakelake-specific management options – Physical/engineering approaches – Cooperative C i arrangements among water users – Mitigation/contingency plans in dry periods Regional/Statewide regulations and incentives – Better oversight of individual water extractions – Coordinated water management Questions?
