Watershed Characteristics Approach for Ground Water Recharge

Estimation

John L. Nieber, Roman Kanivetsky, Bruce Wilson, Heidi Peterson,

Francisco Lahoud, Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering

David Mulla, Soil, Water and Climate

Boris Shmagin, Water Resources Center, South Dakota State

University

Background

• Minnesota ground water is used for a variety of economic enterprises

• Ground water discharge also feeds many wetlands, streams and rivers in Minnesota

• How does the renewable capacity of ground water recharge vary across the state for both surficial and deep aquifers?

• How do current and projected demands for ground water consumption compare with these recharge rates?

Estimating Recharge from Discharge (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”

Elements of watershed water balance: P- precipitation, E- evapotranspiration, Q- runoff, Qs- the surface water component of average annual runoff, ER- the average annual evapotranspiration

from recharge area, ED- the average annual evapotranspiration from discharge area, R- the average annual ground water recharge, D- the

average annual ground water discharge

Watershed water balance (after Freeze and Cherry, 1979)

MN February Low Flow Represents Ground Water Discharge

X’X’XX

Science Question and Approach

• How does landscape and geologic heterogeneity control spatial and temporal variability of stream discharge and ground water recharge across spatial scales?

• Stream discharge (recharge) for at least 25-50 years is evaluated at 129 gauging stations in and around Minnesota for February (low flow) conditions as well as annual conditions

• Vadose zone, quaternary geology and bedrock geology characteristics and statistical methods are used to regionalize discharge (recharge) data at three scales (1:3,000,000; 1:500,000 and 1:150,000)

2.4 billion gallons of water needed in 2006

Precipitation 30-year normals (cm/yr), 1970-2000

Surface Water Discharge Data

Monthly runoff for LMF Laurentian Mixed Forest; EBF Eastern Broadleaf Forest; PP Prairie Parkland (Shmagin

and Kanivetsky, 2002)

20

10

2.5

0

in/yr

Annual stream runoff for Ecological Provinces & Sections

Values are of Stream Runoff in [ l/s/sq. km ]

6.3

3.92.1

66.7 54.7 104.7 68.5

2.34.34.9

2.4

1.6

6.03 4.95 9.47 6.19

Precambrian Basement

Quaternary sediments and

Precambrian BasementQuaternary sediments,

Cretaceous confining unit

and Precambrian Basement

Paleozoic artesian aquifers

Paleozoic artesian aquifers

and Quaternary sediments

Minnesota Bedrock Hydrogeology

A= 2.09

Minimal monthly stream

runoff in Minnesota

B= 0.83

B2 B1

B3 A2 A1

1.680.50

0.31

0.87

3.11

Values are February Stream Runoff in [l/s/sq km]

Estimated minimum ground water recharge

Paleozoic artesian aquifersPaleozoic artesian aquifers and quaternary sediments

Precambrian basement and quaternary sediments Precambrian basement

Precambrian basement, cretaceous deposits and quaternary sediments

b

cd

c

a Minnesota and East Central Minnesota

(ECM) 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)

2

2

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 …

c

Procedure to acquire an initial matrix, X(n*j)

X(n*j) =

a bIn 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

1 322

The matrix is subject to statistical analysis

Symbol andHydrogeologicRegion(Number ofwatershedsused)

RechargeMean

(Ranges:Low &Upper

Quartile)[l/s/sq. km]

Symbol andHydrogeologicSubregion(Number ofwatersheds used)

RechargeMean

(Ranges:Low &Upper

Quartile)[l/s/sq. km]

Symbol andHydrogeologic District(Number of watershedsused)

RechargeMean

(Ranges:Low &Upper

Quartile)[l/s/sq. km]

Symbol andHydrogeolic Subdistrict(Number of watershedsused)

RechargeMean

(Ranges:Low & Upper

Quartile)[l/s/sq. km]

B/Q1- overlain by sandand gravel (18)

0.90(0.45-1.22)

B/Q2- overlain by clayeytill(15)

0.31(0.11-0.51)

B/Q- Two ground-waterflow field layers:Quaternary sedimentsand PrecambrianBasement (43)

0.63(0.28-0.78)

B/Q3- overlain by sandytill (11)

0.59(0.33-0.82)

PB-PrecambrianBasement(49)

0.59(0.24-0.69)

B/K/Q- Three ground-water flow field layers:Quaternary sediments,Cretaceous confiningunit and PrecambrianBasement (5)

0.26(0.1-0.5)

B/K/Q2- overlain byclayey till (4)

0.20(0.06-0.34)

A2- Franconia- Ironton-Galesville aquiter (mixedshale, sandstone, someshaly carbonates)

A2/Q- Overlain bysediments in valley ofMississippi River (7)

2.90(0.78-4.72)

A3&4- Prairie du ChienJordan aquifer (sandstone,limestone) (16)

3.56(2.51-4.48)

A- One ground-waterflow field layer:Paleozoic artesianaquifers (exposed orshallow bedrock) (27)

3.11(2.06-4.23)

A5- St. Peter aquifer(sandstone) (4)

1.71(1.41-2.01)

A1/Q1- overlain by sandand gravel (10)

1.43(0.51-2.12)

A1/Q2- overlain by clayeytill (7)

0.70(0.51-0.96)

A1/Q- Quaternarysediments andMt. Simon-Hinckley-Fond du Lac aquifer(sandstone) (23)

1.01(0.51-1.10)

A1/Q3- overlain by sandytill (8)

0.75(0.54-0.96)

A2/Q1- overlain by sandand gravel (1)*

1.24(-)*

A2/Q- Quaternarysediments and Franconia-Ironton- Galesville aquiter(mixed shale, sandstone,some shaly carbonates)(3*)

0.58(-)*

A2/Q2- overlain by clayeytill (2)**/- not sufficient set for statistical analysis

0.26(-)*

A3&4/Q1- overlain bysand and gravel (4)

1.56(0.36-2.76)

A3&4/Q- Quaternarysediments and Prairie duChien Jordan aquifer(sandstone, limestone) (12)

0.98(0.34-1.18)

A3&4/Q2- overlain byclayey till (8)

0.70(0.29-1.07)

A5/Q1- overlain by sandand gravel (5)

1.74(1.44-2.16)

PAB-PaleozoicArtesian Basin(88)

1.67(0.52-2.37)

A/Q- Two ground-waterflow field layers:Quaternary sedimentsand Paleozoic artesianaquifers (58)

1.06(0.41-1.24)

A5/Q- Quaternarysediments and St. Peteraquifer (sandstone) (20)

1.23(0.54-1.81)

A5/Q2- overlain by clayeytill (15)

1.06(0.38-1.44)

Example of Average Ground Water Discharge

(Finer scale regionalization)

Finer scale

Next Steps

• Develop three scales of discharge (recharge) regionalization based on vadose zone and landscape characteristics– Hydrologic class– Soil permeability– Slope steepness– Land use– etc

Conclusions

• February low flow discharge conditions represent minimum aquifer recharge rates

• Estimates of minimum aquifer recharge rates are being developed at three scales of regionalization

• Results of this study will be compared with results from other ongoing studies