Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2

Status Update

David P. Lusch, Ph.D.Department of Geography

andInstitute of Water ResearchMichigan State University

1 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 Current and Recent Activities

Statewide Groundwater Quality Assessment

Streamflow Measurements

PAWS Modeling

IGW Modeling

2 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 Statewide Groundwater Quality Assessment

Basic assessments are finished

Developing a risk ranking scheme is in progress

Final report is in progress

3 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 Statewide Groundwater Quality Assessment

Chloride Concentration (mg/L) Geocoded WaterChem

water quality data from MDEQ

4 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 Statewide Groundwater Quality Assessment

Secondary MCL =250 mg/L

MDEQ WaterChem data interpolated at 3000 x 3000 m cell size

ChlorideConcentration

(mg/L)

5 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 Statewide Groundwater Quality Assessment Focused on 17 counties in the Lower Peninsula

6 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 Statewide Groundwater Quality Assessment

MDEQ WaterChem data interpolated at 1000 x 1000 m cell size

7 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 Streamflow Measurements Conducted from July 22 – 31, 2015

139 potential sites were field inspected

18 stream segments had no flow (dry)

33 stream segments > 1.5 m wide had flow 22 were measured with Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

11 were measured with an electromagnetic current meter

8 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 Streamflow Measurements 139 potential sites field inspected – 51 measured

Model domainboundary

9 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 Streamflow Measurements RiverSurveyor M9 Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler

10 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 Streamflow Measurements Ott MF Pro electromagnetic current meter

11 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2

Key processes modeled in PAWS. T: transpiration, P: precipitation, EO: evaporation from overland flow/stream, Eg: evaporation from bare soil; ED: evaporation from depression storage; I: infiltration; R: Recharge.

PAWS (Process-based Adaptive Watershed Simulator) modeling Course resolution (1000 m cells) version compiled

and preliminary products produced

Fine resolution (300 m cells) version compiled and being calibrated

12 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 PAWS model output – 5 year average ET

5 yr AverageET (mm)

357 - 500500 - 550550 – 600600 – 700700 – 800800 – 900> 900

2013 Cropland Data Layer (USDA)Light & medium blue = water; Gray = Urban; Light green = Broadleaf forest; all other colors = cropland.

13 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 PAWS model output – 5 year average recharge

14 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 PAWS model output – 5 year average recharge

Recharge area

Recharge area

Ottawa Water Resources Study – Phase 1

15 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 IGW modeling 4-layer conceptual model developed and preliminary

calibration completed Layers 1 and 2 represent the glacial sediments

Clay

Sand Kraster

Bedrock top

Surface from DEM

Lake MI

(constantHead)

Kx

Kx / Kz

Kx Kx / Kz

= 100 ft/d= 1

= 0.1 ft/d

= 104Kx / Kz

= 25

Layer

1

2

Sand vs. clay zones delineated from TP analysis of Wellogic lithologies

User-definedtransition

West East

Precomputed glacial K raster from MDEQ project

16 / 18

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2 IGW modeling Layers 3 and 4 represent the bedrock units

17 / 18

60 ft KaveKaveKmarsh

Klow Klowvariablethickness

Layer

3

4 KlowKave

Kmarsh

variablethickness

variablethickness

60 ftMarshall

top

Coldwater top

ColdwaterSub-crop

Marshall60 ft thick

Marshall120 ft thick

MichiganSub-crop

Michigan 60 ft thick

West

Bedrock top

MarshallSub-crop

Klow = 0.01 ft/dKmarsh = 5 ft/dKave = 2.5 ft/d

(Kx /Kz = 11 in all cells) East

Interpolated from Wellogic data

Coldwater shale

Coldwater shale

Michigan Formation

Coldwater top

No-flow boundary

No-flow boundary

No-flow boundary

No-flow boundary

Marshallsandstone

Marshallsandstone

Ottawa County 10th Annual Water Quality Forum – Nov. 13, 2015

Ottawa County Water Resources Study – Phase-2

Status Update

David P. Lusch, Ph.D.Department of Geography

andInstitute of Water ResearchMichigan State University

18 / 18