Quantification of water resources sustainability in Minnesota

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Quantification of water resources sustainability in Minnesota"

Ashlie Hamilton
5 years ago
Views:

1 Quantification of water resources sustainability in Minnesota John L. Nieber Dept. of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota Collaborators: Bruce Wilson, Professor, Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering Roman Kanivetsky, Adjunct Professor, Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering David Mulla, Professor, Soil, Water and Climate Boris Shmagin, Water Resources Center, South Dakota State University

2 Water Resource Sustainability Sustainability of freshwater resources should mean that consumption of the resource will not lead to the decline or the liquidation of that resource. (Paraphrased from article by Kanivetsky and Shmagin, 2005, EOS) Decline or liquidation might refer not only to volume, but could also relate to the quality of the water, the hydroperiod of flows, etc.

3 X X

annual evapotranspiration from discharge area, R- the average annual ground water recharge, D- the average annual ground water discharge; X--X'-

4 Watershed water balance (after Freeze and Cherry, 1979) Elements of watershed water balance: P- precipitation, E- evapotranspiration, Q- runoff, Qs- the surface water component of average annual runoff, E R - the average annual evapotranspiration from recharge area, E D - the average annual evapotranspiration from discharge area, R- the average annual ground water recharge, D- the average annual ground water discharge; X--X'- cross-section shown in (b) - quantitative flow net and recharge-discharge profile in a two-dimensional section across the heterogeneous groundwater basin.

5 Drainage basins; Effect of topography on regional ground-water flow patterns (after Freeze and Witherspoon, 1967)

6 Drainage basins; Effect of geology on regional ground-water flow patterns (after Freeze and Witherspoon, 1967)

7 Porous media (after De Wiest, 1967)

The System Model of Geospheres Vertical slice of the Geographical Sphere with two independent elements: System of Anthropological Geography (S AG ) and

8 The System Model of Geospheres Vertical slice of the Geographical Sphere with two independent elements: System of Anthropological Geography (S AG ) and System of Physical Geography (S FG ). Arrows indicate vertical and horizontal components of matter, energy and information circulating (after Krcho, 1978)

System Model (a) for Watershed and Landscape, as Map of

ij for a territory may be considered as a part of the

a g ji c System of Physical Geography Sphere (S FG ) with

hydrosphere, a 3 - lithosphere, a 4 - pedosphere, a 5 -

9 System Model (a) for Watershed and Landscape, as Map of Conditions (b) and as Multilayer Map (c) b Any watershed g ij for a territory may be considered as a part of the stream runoff system Sa 2. a g ji c System of Physical Geography Sphere (S FG ) with five independent elements: a 1 - atmosphere, a 2 - hydrosphere, a 3 - lithosphere, a 4 - pedosphere, a 5 - biosphere. The Sa 2 -stream runoff system as a part of a 2 - hydrosphere may be represented as: Sa 2 = { g ij, R ij }

biosphere atmosphere Regime of stream runoff as multidimensional structure hydrosphere R ij pedosphere lithosphere {R ij } is a matrix of relations between parts of a landscape.

10 biosphere atmosphere Regime of stream runoff as multidimensional structure hydrosphere R ij pedosphere lithosphere {R ij } is a matrix of relations between parts of a landscape. Entering the codes and numbers for an initial matrix {X n*p } we open the way to recover (or discover) the connections that exist in the landscape The number of characteristics for elements of a landscape and watershed is unlimited but for a given landscape, a set of watersheds with data allows us to obtain a statistical description of the connections. Example of characteristic combinations: Humid climate Hardwood (oak, maple, etc) forest Silt loam soil Glacial drift Limestone Shale Sandstone..

11 c a How the System Model works b e The research task is to discover the connections (R ij ) between the hydrosphere layer and the other four geosphere layers. Coding the conditions for watershed (a, b & c) and obtaining runoff characteristics (d & e) lets us create the initial matrix (X n*j ) and then to apply the statistical analysis. conditions runoff S m-1 (i,j), q m-1 X (n*j) = S m(2,1), q m S m(3,1), q m S m(2,2 ), q m S m (3,2), q m S m+1(i,j), q m+1 d

12 A B Factor F1 I a I a b ab F1+F2 Factor F2 I b b Factor F3 I c I a c ac bc abc ab F1+F2+F3 Characteristics for watershed obtained from different landscape components may be presented as condition-combination sampling. A - Subdivision of a hypothetical region using combination of three conditions, a, b, and c, measured on a presence-absence scale. Areas where conditions are absent are denoted by l. Condition b and c are successively superimposed on a. B Example result: Location of sampling points within conditioncombination regions in the Fortaleza Basin, Taubate county, Brazil (after Haggett, 1964).

To do this we create a matrix of values for the landscape components and the selected water balance components.

13 The initial matrix for a watershed Our objective is to discover the link between the main components of the landscape to the components of the water balance. To do this we create a matrix of values for the landscape components and the selected water balance components. This matrix is then subjected to statistical analysis to find the link. X (n*j) = S m-1 (i,j), q m-1 S m(2,1), q m S m(3,1), q m S m(2,2 ), q m S m (3,2), q m S m+1(i,j), q m+1

14 The specific hydrologic characteristics used in analysis are: * average annual stream runoff rate (modulus) [l/s/sq km or mm/year] * average rate (modulus) of minimal monthly stream runoff [l/s/sq km or mm/year] * coefficient (ratio) of minimal ground-water contribution to stream runoff

15 Example application to regionalize surface water discharge in Minnesota streams Examined data for 35 streams located throughout the state

16 Average proportions of monthly discharge for 35 Minnesota streams for period

17 Ecological Classification System (ECS) in Minnesota Ecological Provinces Ecological Sections

1st Factor Loading (FL) > 0.5 Factor 1 Scores 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00-1.00-2.00-3.

00 Years 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 Years Factor 5 Scores 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00-1.00-2.00-3.00 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969 1974 1979 1984 Years Factor 2 Scores 3.

18 1st Factor Loading (FL) > 0.5 Factor 1 Scores Trendline Linear Polinominal (5-th order) Factor 4 Scores Years Years Factor 5 Scores Years Factor 2 Scores nd FL > 0.5 4th FL > 0.5 3rd FL > 0.5 5th FL > Patterns of stream discharges and location of gauging stations with Factor Loading and graphs of five Factors Scores Factor 3 Scores Years Years

19 Annual stream runoff for Ecological Provinces & Sections Values are of Stream Runoff in [l/s/sq km]

20 Example application of ground water recharge on statewide basis in Minnesota streams Examined data for 35 streams located throughout the state. The minimum flow in February was used as a surrogate for ground water recharge. Similar statistical analysis.

21 B2 B3 A2 A1 B1 Geologic maps and hierarchical hydrogeological subdivision

1: Metro Provinces 2: South-central Provinces 3:

22 Summary version of the previous maps Ground-Water Provinces in Minnesota (after MN DNR website) Provinces 1: Metro Provinces 2: South-central Provinces 3: Southeastern Provinces 4: Central Provinces 5: Western Provinces 6: Arrowhead

B2 B1 B A B3 A2 A1 A - Paleozoic Artesian Basin A1 - One ground-water flow field layer: Paleozoic artesian aquifers A2 - Two ground-water flow field layers: Quaternary sediments and Paleozoic

23 B2 B1 B A B3 A2 A1 A - Paleozoic Artesian Basin A1 - One ground-water flow field layer: Paleozoic artesian aquifers A2 - Two ground-water flow field layers: Quaternary sediments and Paleozoic artesian aquifers B - Precambrian Basement B1 - One ground-water flow field layer: Precambrian Basement B2 - Two ground-water flow field layers: Quaternary sediments and Precambrian Basement B3 - Three ground-water flow field layers: Quaternary sediments, Cretaceous deposits and Precambrian Basement Hierarchical hydrogeological subdivision in Minnesota

24 B B Minimal monthly stream runoff in Minnesota 0.87 B A2 A A= 2.09 B= 0.83 Values are February Stream Runoff in [l/s/sq km] These figures are then the estimated ground water recharge

a Minnesota and East Central Minnesota (ECM) b a-

b- the territory of ECM with the red rectangle is

low stream runoff (after Lindskov, 1977), c-

25 a Minnesota and East Central Minnesota (ECM) b a- geologic map for state with county boundaries and b- the territory of ECM with the red rectangle is the map with the gauging stations and records of low stream runoff (after Lindskov, 1977), c- Quaternary and d- bedrock maps (after Kanivetsky, 1978, 1979) c d

26 Location of random gaging stations in ECM (after Lindskov, 1977)

Procedure to acquire an initial matrix, X(n*j) a 2 b 1 2 2 3 2 c X(n*j) = Sm-1 (i,j), qm-1 Sm(2,1), qm Sm(3,1), qm Sm(2,2), qm Sm (3,2), qm Sm+1(i,j), qm+1 In the matrix: S(m) watershed with specific

27 Procedure to acquire an initial matrix, X(n*j) a 2 b c X(n*j) = Sm-1 (i,j), qm-1 Sm(2,1), qm Sm(3,1), qm Sm(2,2), qm Sm (3,2), qm Sm+1(i,j), qm+1 In the matrix: S(m) watershed with specific landscape characteristic (m= 1, 2, 3 n+) and qm minimal monthly discharge (m= 1, 2, 3 n); n+ - means that we sometimes have to consider and code the same watershed with different landscape codes as Sm(2,1), S m(3,1), and S m(2,2) but with the same discharge- qm

28 Table of average modulus of minimal ground-water discharge/recharge for ECM Symbol and Hydrogeologic Region (Number of watersheds used) PB- Precambrian Basement (49) PAB- Paleozoic Artesian Basin (88) Recharge Mean (Ranges: Low & Upper Quartile) [l/s/sq. km] 0.59 ( ) 1.67 ( ) Symbol and Hydrogeologic Subregion (Number of watersheds used) B/Q- Two ground-water flow field layers: Quaternary sediments and Precambrian Basement (43) B/K/Q- Three groundwater flow field layers: Quaternary sediments, Cretaceous confining unit and Precambrian Basement (5) A- One ground-water flow field layer: Paleozoic artesian aquifers (exposed or shallow bedrock) (27) A/Q- Two ground-water flow field layers: Quaternary sediments and Paleozoic artesian aquifers (58) Recharge Mean (Ranges: Low & Upper Quartile) [l/s/sq. km] 0.63 ( ) 0.26 ( ) 3.11 ( ) 1.06 ( ) Symbol and Hydrogeologic District (Number of watersheds used) A2- Franconia- Ironton- Galesville aquiter (mixed shale, sandstone, some shaly carbonates) A3&4- Prairie du Chien Jordan aquifer (sandstone, limestone) (16) A5- St. Peter aquifer (sandstone) (4) A1/Q- Quaternary sediments and Mt. Simon-Hinckley- Fond du Lac aquifer (sandstone) (23) A2/Q- Quaternary sediments and Franconia- Ironton- Galesville aquiter (mixed shale, sandstone, some shaly carbonates) (3*) A3&4/Q- Quaternary sediments and Prairie du Chien Jordan aquifer (sandstone, limestone) (12) A5/Q- Quaternary sediments and St. Peter aquifer (sandstone) (20) Recharge Mean (Ranges: Low & Upper Quartile) [l/s/sq. km] 3.56 ( ) 1.71 ( ) 1.01 ( ) 0.58 (-)* 0.98 ( ) 1.23 ( ) Symbol and Hydrogeolic Subdistrict (Number of watersheds used) B/Q1- overlain by sand and gravel (18) B/Q2- overlain by clayey till(15) B/Q3- overlain by sandy till (11) B/K/Q2- overlain by clayey till (4) A2/Q- Overlain by sediments in valley of Mississippi River (7) A1/Q1- overlain by sand and gravel (10) A1/Q2- overlain by clayey till (7) A1/Q3- overlain by sandy till (8) A2/Q1- overlain by sand and gravel (1)* A2/Q2- overlain by clayey till (2)* */- not sufficient set for statistical analysis A3&4/Q1- overlain by sand and gravel (4) A3&4/Q2- overlain by clayey till (8) A5/Q1- overlain by sand and gravel (5) A5/Q2- overlain by clayey till (15) Recharge Mean (Ranges: Low & Upper Quartile) [l/s/sq. km] 0.90 ( ) 0.31 ( ) 0.59 ( ) 0.20 ( ) 2.90 ( ) 1.43 ( ) 0.70 ( ) 0.75 ( ) 1.24 (-)* 0.26 (-)* 1.56 ( ) 0.70 ( ) 1.74 ( ) 1.06 ( ) Decreasing scale

Minimal ground-water recharge in TCMA (after Ruhl, Kanivetsky, and Shmagin, 2002.

29 Minimal ground-water recharge in TCMA (after Ruhl, Kanivetsky, and Shmagin, WRIR USGS) Minimal recharge range, in/yr > <0.1

30 Typical content and scale for hydrological maps (after Black,1992) versus quantification as shown for Minnesota

31 Regional patterns of surface - ground water interactions based on streamflow hydrograph separation (after Winter at al., 1998) will be quantified by our methodology and presented as a map

32 An Alternative Approach; Watershed modeling For this approach a computer model of the hydrology of surface runoff and subsurface flow are used with field data to simulate the water balance. Balance components include precipitation, evapotranspiration, infiltration, surface runoff, stream flow, ground water recharge, ground water flow, and ground water discharge.

33 Model representation of the watersheds in the south part of Denmark. Shown are the topography, streams and the gauging stations. (from Sonnenborg et al., 2003)

34 Vertical section through the watershed showing the geological features included in the model (from Sonnenborg et al., 2003)

35 Model representation of the geological features shown in the previous slide (from Sonnenborg et al., 2003)

36 Simulated mean monthly baseflow for three climatic regimes (from van Roosmalen et al., 2007)

37 However, a precaution about modeling Modeling natural systems is computationally feasible. However, understanding the behavior of such models is often difficult, and may be no more illuminating than the direct study and quantification of the natural system - Murray, A.B. (2002) Disadvantages of the watershed modeling approach; it is the uncertainty! What is the rate of recharge to ground water? What are the boundaries of the recharge area and discharge areas? How accurate is the geologic map? Are the connections to the surface accurately known?

38 Alternative Methods for Recharge Estimation Water balance: Prec-RO-ET=Recharge Water level measurements in wells in response to rainfall events using specific yield Inverse modeling with large scale flow models using well measurements

39 2007 I have no doubt that studying recharge will be high on the list of research topics for the future. I am also confident that the recharge is better understood through the discharge where there is an integrated and observable hydrologic signal, and that discharge is of much more pragmatic concern than recharge.

40 Where do we want to go from here? Take account for other geophere attributes including climate, soil type, vadose zone characteristics, biological characteristics, and landuse activities. Recharge and water budget mapping Trend analysis of water quantity and quality in intensive use areas Input and validation of local and regional flow models Promote a new paradigm for freshwater sustainability (green and blue water) Building information systems for integrated land and water resources management Quantitative Information System (QIS)

41 WATER SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPT IS BALANCING WATER FOR HUMANS AND NATURE

42 Need for New Paradigm view precipitation as the gross freshwater resource to sustain human and natural systems (subdivides between blue and green water) ground water resources must be quantified using multiscale recharge/discharge mapping

43 Quantitative information system for ground-water sustainability planning Develop GIS recharge/discharge maps at multiple scales Overlay GIS water use coding to area units on recharge/discharge maps Develop expert information and decision support system for sustainable planning

County Land Area Water Use: [sq mi] Surface Ground Total St. Louis 6321 0.06 0.001 0.

1 Ramsey 1.39 0.37 366.0 Water resources versus water use in Minnesota left: Water use [cfs/sq.

44 County Land Area Water Use: [sq mi] Surface Ground Total St. Louis Ramsey County Water: Use / Resources = % St. Louis Ramsey Water resources versus water use in Minnesota left: Water use [cfs/sq. mi] (Water Year, 1995 &1996, DNR data); right: Water resources [cfs/sq. mi] (after Shmagin and Kanivetsky, 2002)

45 Conclusion There is a need for improved regional-scale estimates of recharge and other components of the water cycle..however, it has been difficult to synthesize local analyses into regional and national pictures - USGS Report to Congress, Circular 1223 (2002) The watershed characteristics approach can address these challenges. The modeling approach is less capable to address these challenges because of uncertainties, but to examine effects of global climate change this approach might be the best to forecast future conditions There is a need for development of a Quantitative Information System to achieve freshwater sustainability

46 Final comments about water resource sustainability At this point in history, no nation has managed, either by design or accident, to evolve into a sustainable society, which can be described as one that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. We are all pursuing a self-destructive course of fueling our economies by consuming our capital--that is to say, by degrading and depleting our resource base--and counting it on the income side of the ledger. That, obviously, is not a sustainable situation over the long term. Gaylord Nelson, Founder of Earth Day April, 1998

47 Just when we thought we have the final say The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. All economic activity is dependent upon that environment with its underlying resource base. When the environment is finally forced to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 because its resource base has been polluted, degraded, dissipated, irretrievably compromised, then, the economy goes down into bankruptcy with it because the economy is just a subset within the ecological system. Gaylord Nelson, Founder of Earth Day April, 1998

11/22/2010. Groundwater in Unconsolidated Deposits. Alluvial (fluvial) deposits. - consist of gravel, sand, silt and clay

11/22/2010. Groundwater in Unconsolidated Deposits. Alluvial (fluvial) deposits. - consist of gravel, sand, silt and clay Groundwater in Unconsolidated Deposits Alluvial (fluvial) deposits - consist of gravel, sand, silt and clay - laid down by physical processes in rivers and flood plains - major sources for water supplies