Adding Lake Levels to the
Citizen Lake Monitoring Network
Adding Lake Levels to the
Citizen Lake Monitoring Network
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why Water Level Matters
Adapting to Changes in Water Level
How to Monitor Lake Levels
BREAK
How to Monitor Lake Levels (cont)
Citizen Lake Monitoring Network Plan
Why Water Level Matters
Dale Robertson, Paul Juckem, and Tim Asplund
Typical Water Level
With very little precipitation, runoff and tributary input can disappear
Low water levels can turn parts of lakes into swamps
Or Worse
Bass Patterson Lake, Washburn County (E. Cook)
Twin Lake, Marquette County
R. Lathrop
Fallison Lake, Vilas County
High water can cause problems getting into the lake
High water can cause problems enjoying being around the lake
Crystal Lake groundwater flooding
High water can cause extreme problems
Many factors affect water levels
• Natural variability – Short-term drought
and flood cycles
• Landscape position and lake type
• Human actions (water withdrawals, land
management)
• Climate change (trends)
Many factors affect water levels
• Natural variability – Short-term drought
and flood cycles
• Landscape position and lake type
• Human actions (water withdrawals, land
management)
• Climate change (trends)
Lake Water Levels
Elevation, above an arbitrary datum (feet)
28
26
Northwest - Shell Lake
Northcentral - Anvil Lake
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Water levels vary naturally
USGS Circular 1186
Source: USGS Circular 1186
Many factors affect water levels
• Natural variability – Short-term drought
and flood cycles
• Landscape position and lake type
• Human actions (water withdrawals, land
management)
• Climate change (trends)
Landscape Position
More
Variable
Less
Variable
Magnuson et al. 2006
Response is Dependent on
Lake Type
Drainage
Drainage
Seepage
Seepage
More
Variable
Magnuson et al. 2006
Many factors affect water levels
• Natural variability - Short term drought and
flood cycles
• Landscape position and lake type
• Human actions (water withdrawals, land
management)
• Climate change (trends)
Human water & land uses affect
levels
• Groundwater withdrawal
• Pumping of lake water
• Land management
Human water & land uses affect
levels
Many factors affect water levels
• Natural variability - Short term drought and
flood cycles
• Landscape position and lake type
• Human actions (water withdrawals, land
management)
• Climate change (trends)
of the
“ Warming
climate system is
unequivocal, as is
now evident from
observations of
increases in global
average air and
ocean temperatures,
widespread melting
of snow and ice, and
rising global mean
sea level.
”
IPCC, 2007
Projected Change in Precipitation from 1980 to 2055
Change in Annual Average (inches)
Probability Distributions of 14
Climate Model Projections by Month
Models predict winter and
early spring will be wetter
(0-40% increase).
Models uncertain about
amount of summer rainfall
Source: Adapted from D. Vimont, UW-Madison
Changes in Groundwater Levels: Driven by
changes in climate, pumping, or land use
Wisconsin’s Migrating Climate
What does the
future hold for
Wisconsin?
Winter
2095
Summer
2030
Summer
2095
Source: www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes
Which one is in the future?
Not really sure could be either or both, so we
should prepare for either
Implications of water level fluctuations
• Navigation
• Water availability and eco-hydrologic
needs (competing demands)
• Financial and health concerns
• Water quality/clarity changes
High water causes problems with erosion and increases in nutrient inputs
How does changes in water level affect water quality and lake productivity?
Effects of Changes in Hydrology and
Water Level on Lake Productivity, with
Implications to What May Occur with
Climate Change
Dale Robertson, Bill Rose, and Paul Juckem
Study Sites – Two Deep Relatively Pristine Lakes
Silver Lake
Whitefish Lake
Lake-sampling site
Meteorological
Station
Lake-sampling site
Stream-gaging
station
Whitefish Lake
Estimated Water Level
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Average annual elevation
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Average Annual Elevation
0.0
0.0
1998
Estimated Water Level
3.5
WATER LEVEL, IN M ABOVE AN
ARBITRARY DATUM
WATER LEVEL, IN M ABOVE AN
ARBITRARY DATUM
Silver Lake
1986
2008
Total Phosphorus
0.025
0.020
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Total Phosphorus
Citizen Monitoring
CONCENTRATION, IN MG/L
U.S. Geological Survey <LOD
Citizen monitoring
CONCENTRATION, IN MG/L
1990
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Geological Survey > LOD
0.015
1988
Summer average
0.010
0.005
0.020
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Average summer concentration
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0.000
1998
L
6
5
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Chlorophyll a
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
35
30
Chlorophyll a
Whitefish Lake
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Average annual elevation
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Average Annual Elevation
0.0
0.0
1998
Estimated Water Level
3.5
WATER LEVEL, IN M ABOVE AN
ARBITRARY DATUM
WATER LEVEL, IN M ABOVE AN
ARBITRARY DATUM
1.8
1986
2008
1988
1990
1992
Total Phosphorus
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Citizen Monitoring
CONCENTRATION, IN MG/L
U.S. Geological Survey <LOD
Citizen monitoring
CONCENTRATION, IN MG/L
1996
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Geological Survey > LOD
0.015
1994
Total Phosphorus
0.025
0.020
Summer average
0.010
0.005
0.020
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Average summer concentration
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
0.000
1998
1999
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
2008
Chlorophyll a
35
30
5
CONCENTRATION, IN UG/L
CONCENTRATION, IN UG/L
2001
Chlorophyll a
6
4
3
2
1
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1986
2008
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Secchi depth
Secchi Depth
14
8
7
12
6
10
DEPTH, METERS
DEPTH, IN METERS
Measured
Changes in
Lake Water
Quality
Silver Lake
Estimated Water Level
8
6
5
4
3
4
2
2
1
0
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
Do these lakes respond to changes in nutrient loading
the way we think they should?
L
Phosphorus =
Conc
Z (1.62 (L/Z)0.458 + 1/t )
Where: L = P loading
Z = Mean Depth
t = Residence Time
Canfield & Bachman Natural Lake Model (1981)
Detailed Hydrologic Budgets
Stage and DStorage
Precipitation
Evaporation
D
E
P
T
H
Simulated with DLM
0
Tributary Input
100100
200 200 300
300 400 400500
500600
600
Days Since the Beginning of the Simulation
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Detailed Phosphorus Budgets
Tributary Input
Nearshore Runoff
Atmospheric Deposition
Groundwater Input
Changes in Hydrology and Phosphorus Loading
Whitefish Lake
Water Budget
Silver Lake
Phosphorus Budget
Water Budget
Phosphorus Budget
Septic
16%
Erosion
0%
Dry
Years
5.6 x
Groundwater
55%
103
m3
Precipitation
45%
Groundwater
29%
Precipitation
54%
99 kg
Surface
water
0%
Surface water
1%
Dry
Years
Surface
water
11%
Ground water
0%
Erosion
0%
Surface
water
50%
Precipitation
89%
1.0 x 103 m3
Ground water
0%
Septic
14%
Ground water
0%
Precipitation
50%
41 kg
Erosion
17%
Ground water
0%
Precipitation
12%
Erosion
0%
Wet
Years
Groundwater
42%
Precipitation
58%
4.2 x 103 m3
Surface
water
0%
Groundwater
24%
Surface
water
1%
Precipitation
61%
108 kg
Wet
Years
Surface
water
41%
2.5 x 103 m3
Precipitation
59%
253 kg
Surface
water
71%
Application of the Eutrophication Model
L
Phosphorus =
Conc
Z (1.62 (L/Z)0.458 + 1/t )
Where: L = P loading
Z = Mean Depth
t = Residence Time
Canfield & Bachman Natural Lake Model (1981)
Whitefish Lake – Seepage Lake
0.020
150%
0.016
100%
0.012
50%
0.008
0%
Measured
General Response
Reference
Shallower by 1.5 m
Series of dry years
Series of wet years
0.004
0.000
-100
PERCENT CHANGE
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, IN MG/L
Phosphorus Response of Whitefish Lake
-50%
-100%
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350 Scenarios
400
450
PERCENT CHANGE IN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING
Phosphorus Response from Canfield & Bachman (1981) Natural Lake Model
Silver Lake – Terminal Lake
Phosphorus Response of Silver Lake
0.035
150%
100%
0.025
50%
0.020
0.015
0%
PERCENT CHANGE
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS, IN MG/L
0.030
Measured (2005-06)
0.010
General Response
-50%
Reference
0.005
Series of dry years
Series of wet years
0.000
-100
-100%
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Scenarios
400
450
PERCENT CHANGE IN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING
Phosphorus Response from Canfield & Bachman (1981) Natural Lake Model
Whitefish Lake – Seepage Lake
Silver Lake – Terminal Lake
Chlorophyll a Response of Whitefish Lake
Chlorophyll a Response of Silver Lake
6.0
20
300%
200%
18
150%
3.0
100%
50%
2.0
0%
1.0
160%
16
14
120%
12
80%
10
40%
8
6
0%
4
-50%
-40%
2
-100%
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
-100
350 Scenarios
400
450
PERCENT CHANGE IN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING
Secchi Depth Response of Whitefish Lake
24
-80%
-50
0
50
100
10
Series of dry years
100%
Series of w et years
12
50%
8
0%
4
-50%
0
-100%
50
100
150
200
250
200%
General Response
300
350Scenarios
400
450
PERCENT CHANGE IN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING
SECCHI DEPTH, IN METERS
Shallow er by 1.5 m
0
Scenarios
350Scenarios
400
450
Measured (2005-06)
150%
PERCENT CHANGE
SECCHI DEPTH, IN METERS
General Response
-50
300
Unadjusted Model
Reference
-100
250
Secchi Depth Response of Silver Lake
200%
Original Model
16
200
PERCENT CHANGE IN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING
Measured
20
150
8
150%
Reference
Series of dry years
Series of w et years
100%
6
50%
4
0%
PERCENT CHANGE
0.0
-100
PERCENT CHANGE
200%
4.0
CHLOROPHYLL A, IN UG/L
250%
PERCENT CHANGE
CHLOROPHYLL, IN UG/L
5.0
2
-50%
0
-100
-100%
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350Scenarios
400 Scenarios
450
2002
2003
PERCENT CHANGE IN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING
Chlorophyll a and Secchi Depth Response from Carlson (1977) Trophic State Response
Silver Lake Water Level - Historical Water Quality
28
0.025
Best Estimated Stage
Measured TP
0.020
27
0.015
26
0.010
25
0.005
24
1900
0.000
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
MEASURED TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
CONCENTRATION, IN MG/L
ESTIMATED STAGE, IN METERS ABOVE AN
ABRITRARY DATUM
CONCENTRATION, IN MG/L
Silver Lake
How has Whitefish Lake changed through time?
Whitefish Lake – Seepage Lake
Water Level/Total Phosphorus Relation
8.0
1.8
7.5
1.6
1.4
7.0
1.2
6.5
1.0
6.0
0.8
0.6
5.5
0.4
0.2
0.0
Constructed Stage
INFERRED TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
UG/L
CONCENTRATION, IN MG/L
ESTIMATED LAKE STAGE, IN METERS ABOVE
AN ARBITRARY DATUM
2.0
5.0
Inferred TP Conc
4.5
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Estimated from measured water levels in Whitefish Lake (2004 to 2007), water levels in Bluegill Lake (1986 to 2003), nearby
measured precipitation (1900 to 1985).
But what about Shallow Lakes? –
Should they behave differently from
deep lakes?
1. Changes in depth can lead to changes in stratification and
changes in internal phos. release > changes in phos. conc.
Internal Phosphorus Loading in Deep Stratified Lakes
Water Temperature
0
1
Epilimnion
2
3
Depth
4
5
6
7
Hypolimnion
Dissolved Oxygen
Phosphorus
Thermocline
8
9
10
15
20
25
30
Internal Phosphorus Loading in Shallow Lakes
Water Temperature
0
1
Epilimnion
2
3
Depth
4
5
6
7
Hypolimnion
Dissolved Oxygen
Phosphorus
Thermocline
8
9
10
15
20
25
30
Internal Phosphorus Loading in Shallow Lakes
Water Temperature
0
Frequent Mixing Events
1
Epilimnion
2
3
Depth
4
5
6
7
8
Phosphorus
9
10
15
20
25
30
Water Level may directly effect stratification and phosphorus release
6/16/09
Temperature, C
14
Temperature, C
7/20/09
14
14
Present
1 M Shallower
Present
Present
2 M Deeper
12
2 M Deeper
12
8
8
8
8
6
6
6
Depth, m
10
Depth, m
10
Depth, m
10
Depth, m
10
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
14
16
18
20
22
24
12
17
22
2 M Deeper
12
1 M Shallower
1 M Shallower
9/28/09
Temperature, C
14
Present
2 M Deeper
12
8/18/09
Temperature, C
1 M Shallower
6
14
16
18
20
22
24
14
16
18
20
Deep Lakes – Internal phosphorus release but may not mix upward
Shallower Lakes – Less stratification and potentially more phosphorus release
Very shallow lakes – may not stratify and have little phosphorus release
22
24
Why would shallow lakes behave
differently from deep lakes?
1. Changes in depth can lead to changes in stratification and
changes in internal phos. release > changes in phos. conc.
2. Changes in depth may lead to more of relative change in
volume > larger changes in phos. concentrations.
3. Changes in depth may lead to larger changes in littoral areas
> larger changes in lake ecology > changes in productivity.
Changes in water level may affect macrophyte growth
F. Koshere
Tomahawk Lake, Bayfield County
Conclusions
Changes in meteorology > changes in the water level of lakes
- much larger changes in lakes without outlets
Changes in water level, phosphorus input > changes in
phosphorus and chlorophyll a concentrations, and clarity in deep
lakes
Climate Change may affect future water levels in lakes and their
water quality
- Changes are expected to be largest in lakes with large
fluctuations in hydrological input
How do changes in hydrology and water level affect shallow lakes?
- Study on Shell Lake and potentially Anvil Lake
Information Needed with respect to
Changes in Water Level:
1. A better understanding of how the water quality of
shallow lakes respond to changes in hydrology
and water level.
2. Approaches to adapt to changes in water level.
3. Documentation of changes in water levels in
lakes across the State.