Arkansas Water Planning Advisory/Technical Committee. Subject: Summary Memorandum of Work Session held June 7, 2012

Transcription

1 Memorandum To: From: Arkansas Water Planning Advisory/Technical Committee CDM Smith Planning Team Date: June 25, 2012 Subject: Summary Memorandum of Work Session held June 7, 2012 Please note that the summary provided here is a general overview and is not intended to be a comprehensive summary of the meeting. The summary will be augmented by additional Technical Memoranda. The second of three work sessions for the scoping of the update to the Arkansas Water Plan (AWP) was held on June 7, A list of participants and attendees is attached to this memorandum. The purpose of the meeting was threefold: Continue the scoping process for the Comprehensive Update of the Arkansas Water Plan, Review the outcomes and conclusions of the kick-off meeting, and Discussion of technical approaches to quantify demand and supply and how these will be used to the complete the analysis of water supply needs, gaps and strategies to meet both. The agenda for the four-hour work session aligned with the meeting purpose following these main areas of presentation and discussion as follows: Overview of Kick-off meeting. Water demand approaches - offstream Surface water supply and associated water quality Groundwater supply Environmental and recreational demands - instream Alternatives and scenario formulation The agenda is attached. This memorandum is a summary of the major topics of discussions and decision moving forward and is not intended to reflect meeting minutes.

2 June 7, 2012 Work Session Summary June 25, 2012 Page 2 Recap of Kick-off Meeting and Steps to Completion Commission Chair, Sloan Hampton, kicked off the meeting at 8:3o a.m. on June 7, It was again stressed that this is an update to the Arkansas Water Plan. The purpose of the Advisory/Technical Committee was described as advisory and consensus based. It was also noted that the first phase of the update is be performed in three work sessions as the "scoping" for the update to the AWP and supported by the USACE Planning Assistance to States (PAS) program. This effort will seamlessly lead into the update to be completed by November It was suggested that after the scoping process that technical work groups be considered to address key technical areas of the AWP. These work groups could serve to identify and approve the appropriate methodologies. The preliminary Vision and Goals for the update to the AWP resulting from the Water 35 exercise of the first work session were shared with the Committee. These were summarized from the hundreds of needs and goals statements collected during the exercise. It was noted that these will continue to change as the process moves forward with public input and can serve as a foundation for the AWP. The draft Vision and Goals are attached. The definition of "gap" was shared with the group. The gap being the difference between demand and supply for which the quantity of source water is not available, the institutions and statutes are prohibitive and/or the infrastructure does not exist. Water Demand Approach In the context of the comprehensive update to the AWP, the first topic of discussion was interstate compacts, transfers and sales and the ongoing pursuit of navigation on the Red River. The Committee concurred that interstate issues should be a focus of the update to the AWP. The approach to demand analysis is dependent upon the level of decision making, data availability and quality and the dollars available. Typically, the demand forecast addresses multiple sectors of water use including residential (public and self supplied), commercial, industrial, institutional (public and self supplied), agriculture, mining and thermoelectric. The source of supply is important to quantify by region/basin to meet these sectoral demands. A basic "unit use" approach is typically acceptable for statewide water planning. An example would be gallons per capita per day (gpcpd) as identified from utility/provider data multiplied by future population (driver) by county for the time horizon The importance of seasonality of demand as it relates to Excess Water was noted by the group. There is plenty of supply in the winter/spring months but in some cases there is inadequate infrastructure to capture and store for high demand months during the summer season. The importance of identifying and quantifying larger industrial users such as pulp/paper mills that are unique to particular counties and basins was noted.

3 June 7, 2012 Work Session Summary June 25, 2012 Page 3 In addition, it was emphasized that conservation efficiencies must be accounted for in the demand projections both passive (i.e., result of plumbing codes) and active (i.e., conservation programs). Surface Water Supply and Water Quality Supply constraints and the scale of supply analyses were discussed with the Committee. Constraints include physical supply constraints, water quality and infrastructure constraints as well as legal/statutory and compact constraints. The specific needs of the basins will drive the scale of the analyses. For example simple water budgets could be completed on a larger basin scale for basins with limited water demands. For basins with higher demands and more complexities related to supply, sub-basin and provider level analyses may be warranted to address issues of instream flows, infrastructure constraints and new storage needs. It was noted that many of the systems already have altered flow regime which must be taken into account when addressing instream and environmental flows. It is expected that the update to the AWP will take into account the now 25 years of additional data since the 1990 Plan. It was noted that statutory allocations for Excess Water by basin are used in the decisions made regarding non-riparian uses including hydro fracking. An example of scale was provided by the Committee considering the management needs of the Cache River sub-basin where blockages and flooding are common. An overview of surface water quality was provided by the CDM Smith team. It was noted the nexus of water quantity and quality as quality can be constraint on future supply. Again there are now 25 years of additional data to evaluate and evaluate the trends in both surface and groundwater quality. This trend analysis will be part of the update to the AWP. Groundwater Supply The CDM Smith team provided a definition of "availability" versus "supply." Generally, availability reflects the physical and legal amount of groundwater whereas supply reflects the amount of availability with infrastructure to convey it for use. Likewise, a definition of Sustainable Yield was provided to the team from ANRC staff and is as follows: "Development and use of groundwater resources in a manner that can be maintained for an indefinite time without causing unacceptable environmental, economic, or social consequences." (Alley & Leake, USGS, 2004) It was noted that the primary focus will be on Critical Groundwater Areas. Additional modeling beyond that completed by USGS to date may be necessary for some planning units. Predicted changes in groundwater availability will be developed based on a series of "changed conditions" including demographic shifts in demand and climate change. If sustainable use of groundwater

4 June 7, 2012 Work Session Summary June 25, 2012 Page 4 is the goal, then appropriate metrics must be developed such as to understand and define what is "unacceptable" in the above definition of Sustainable Yield. Environment and Recreation The CDM Smith Team provided examples of applications of addressing environmental flows in other state water plans including Colorado and Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Plan process had the CDM Team identify what other western states were doing to address instream flows whereas Colorado put these tools to use in developing environmental and recreational mapping and piloting of quantification techniques. Examples of site-specific quantification and regional quantification techniques were provided. Site-specific modeling using Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) is for more localized reaches and the Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) developed by The Nature Conservancy is applicable at a regional scale. It was noted that Environment and Recreation should be distinctly separate topics addressed in the update to the AWP. It was noted that the application of PHABSIM in Arkansas is more difficult than in western states given the diversity of species in Arkansas streams. As an example, Strawberry River was noted as having i6o fish species. It was noted that there are acceptable tools to address hydrologic alterations but these have not been studied in Arkansas and decisions have been based on "best scientific judgment." A number of states where such studies have occurred included Texas, Missouri and other states in the Southeast. Information from similar states could be considered for extrapolating as appropriate for application in Arkansas. Water Resources Strategies and Alternatives The CDM Smith Team provided an overview of how strategies and alternatives would be considered by providing examples of other statewide water planning efforts and their associated drivers. The resource shortfalls (gap) analysis approach is driven by the outcome of resource assessments. Examples from the following states were: Naturalized flows - Colorado Existing shortfalls - Georgia Forecasted need - Oklahoma Areas of sufficient supply - Colorado Lack of or aging infrastructure - West Virginia Likewise, considerations of water quantity and water quality were highlighted in their application of considering scenarios and alternatives. The result will be a "portfolio" or suite of strategies to address the "needs" and "gaps." Groundwater Aquifers of Arkansas - ANRC and USGS ANRC with support for USGS provided a synopsis of the culmination of over 20 years of groundwater research and analysis in Arkansas providing a foundation of data to support the

5 June 7, 2012 Work Session Summary June 25, 2012 Page 5 update to the AWP. Together, the ANRC and USGS discussed both groundwater quantity and quality. It was noted that "specific yield" is looked at in the Alluvial Aquifer and the "storage coefficient" in the Spartan Aquifer. Again, the definition of sustainable yield from USGS was presented for consideration and could serve as a constraint/definition of "groundwater availability." An example of water quality was discussed related to salinity in the Arkansas River area. Research has shown that the salinity is naturally occurring given the geologic formations rather than water quality issues related to groundwater pumping in this particular case.

6 "VA7 r'ff TECHNIC/U., ADVISORY COMMITTEL MEETING LIST OF ATTENDEES June 7, :30 AM Arkansas River Room NAME, PLEASE PRINT BUSINESS/ADDRESS, PLEASE PRINT

7 rr" VT'A`T N 'TECHNICAL ADVISOHY COMP/Mir MEETING LIST OF ATTENDEES June 7, :30 AM Arkansas River Room NAME, PLEASE PRINT r c1-0/ (\ow BUSINESS/ADDRESS, PLEASE PRINT '41 l, L06, o 64-Pt re 0. 0 ;74 1,r1 75'1-4_4/.)/ (c,;67:4 i /V a L, /tr/p\ \k/4 reitaa,,4q 5 <-4 e.-, (-re?.1 IC,0.1,

8 Comprehensive Update of the Arkansas Water Plan Scope of Work Meeting#2 Agenda June 7, 2012 Meeting Purpose: Continue the Scope of Work development process for updating the AWP 4:4 Review the outcomes and conclusions for the Kick-off meeting and discuss any additional input on the Stakeholder Process and preliminary Data Sources + Discuss the technical approaches to quantifying demand and supply and provide an overview of how to use this information to complete analysis of water supply/state planning needs and strategies to address those needs 8:30-8:40 Welcome and Introductions 8:40-9:00 Recap Kick-off Meeting Outcomes 9:00-9:20 Water Demand 9:20-10:00 Surface and Groundwater Supplies 10:00-10:15 Break 10:15-10:45 Surface and Groundwater Supplies - Continued 10:45-11:00 Overview of Approach to Formulate Strategies to Address Shortfalls between Supply and Demand 11:00-11:25 Groundwater Aquifers of Arkansas - A Closer Look 11:25-11:30 Next Steps for Completing the Scope of Work for the Update of the Arkansas Water Plan

9 Draft Vision Comprehensive Update of the Arkansas Water Plan Draft Vision and Go is Water 35 Discussion Water is vital to the prosperity and health of Arkansas's people and their natural surroundings. As such, water must be managed in a sustainable manner to support the state and regional economies, protect public health and natural resources, and enhance the quality of life of all citizens by applying appropriate policies and best practices with limited regulation and preservation of private property rights. The Arkansas Water Plan (AWP) will achieve the following goals: Draft Goals i. Optimize the use of surface and groundwater for the differing economies of the unique regions of the State. a. Reliably meet agriculture water needs b. Reliably meet municipal & industrial water needs c. Address the water quantity, quality and ecological needs important to fish, wildlife, recreation and tourism. 2, Utilize the best available science, data, tools and technologies to support water resources decisions. a. Employ the latest supply management and water efficiency technologies among the different sectors of use including residential, commercial, industry and agriculture. b. Identify and address emerging water resource management needs such as mining of natural gas. 3. Optimize existing water, wastewater and flood control infrastructure; including indentifying opportunities to cooperatively address regional water and wastewater needs. a. Maximize the current infrastructure reliability including dams, levees, and treatment and conveyance facilities b. Plan for changing demographics and related infrastructure maintenance and operation implications c. Improve and update existing infrastructure and address aging infrastructure 4. Sustainably use surface and groundwater sources for the multiple intrastate uses while complying with interstate compacts. a. Define drought, shortage conditions and excess water b. Define environmental flows c. Include recreation and tourism as non-consumptive water uses June 7, 2012 Draft

10 Comprehensive Update of the r ansas Water Plan Draft Vision and Goals from Water 35 Discussion Continued 5. Identify opportunities to manage water, wastewater and stormwater to improve the quantity and quality, while providing for wise land management, wetland, and riparian protection for fish and wildlife sustainability. 6. Identify implementable water resources alternatives that are socially, fiscally, technically and environmentally feasible to protect, enhance and wisely use surface and groundwater. a. Identify and implement alternatives that are fair and equitable b. Allow for adaptability with changing technology, water uses and socio-economic conditions c. Provide education and open communication about the AWP and its implementation 7. Work cooperatively with other regions and states and among agencies and entities responsible for stewardship of the State's natural resources. June 7, 2012 Draft