Wi Lake Level Proposal Clmn


Published on

Citizen Lake Monitoring Network Involvement in Lake Level Monitoring

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Wi Lake Level Proposal Clmn

  1. 1. A Long- term Lake- Level Monitoring Network for Wisconsin Lake water-level fluctuations are important to lake and water managers, lakeshore property owners, developers, and lake users. Lake levels change from year to year, and extreme high or low levels can present problems by restricting access to water and hampering navigation, flooding lakeshore property and damaging shorelines and structures, and changing near-shore vegetation. To respond appropriately, we need to understand why and how lake levels are changing. Change can occur at various scales of time and space. Weather cycles or climate change occur over large areas and longer periods of time, which can be summarized at a state or regional level but vary according to geology, topography, type of water body, and human use (Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, 2003). Lakes in Wisconsin may be classified into three general hydrologic/topographic categories: groundwater flow-through lakes, surface-water drainage lakes, and surface-water flow- through lakes (House, 1985; Novitzki and Devaul, 1978)). Groundwater flow-through lakes (also called Seepage Lakes; WDNR, 2001) have no perennial inlets or outlets, and sources of water are primarily groundwater and direct precipitation. Surface-water drainage lakes (also called groundwater discharge or ‘Spring Lakes; WDNR, 2001) have a perennial outlet and small or no inflow streams, and sources of water are also primarily groundwater and direct precipitation. Because they have an outlet, lake level fluctuations are not as large as those of seepage lakes. Surface-water flow-through lakes (also termed ‘Drainage Lakes; WDNR, 2001) have perennial inflow and outflow streams, where the source of water is primarily from surface inflow but groundwater inflow and precipitation may also contribute some to inflow. Problem There is no consistent long-term lake-level monitoring network in Wisconsin to evaluate climatic effects. Seepage lakes exhibit large fluctuations in stage because water-level extremes are caused by the cumulative effect of climatic factors over years or tens of years. These factors make seepage lakes ideal for lake water level monitoring. On the other hand, water levels in spring lakes and drainage lakes are highly influence by the elevation of the particular outlet stream. The need for a coordinated lake-level monitoring network was recognized by the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences (2003, p. 55). Objectives • Establish a long-term lake-level monitoring network to evaluate trends in various regions of the state. Emphasis will be on relatively natural seepage lakes, which are most responsive and can give indications of regional changes in climate and hydrology. • Establish baseline conditions for environmental studies and comparison with short-term results. • Provide information to increase the understanding of different lake hydrologic systems and how they affect lake water levels. • Provide a framework and protocols for facilitating lake water level monitoring by citizen volunteers through the Citizen Lake Monitoring Network (CLMN) program.
  2. 2. Approach Establish a long-term monitoring network of selected index seepage lakes located in major regions of the Wisconsin that reflect climate variations and provide indications of climatic change. Data from other lakes that may be experiencing unusually high or low water levels may be compared with data from these index lakes to discern if high or low water levels are caused by natural or by human activity in the vicinity of the lake. A core of approximately 10 lakes will be chosen from a list of seepage lakes relatively unaffected by human manipulation (table 1). Many of these lakes are proposed because they were monitored in the past and have relatively long periods of record. Additional secondary criteria, such as a previous hydrologic study, water quality data, and active volunteer involvement, among other criteria, may be considered during the USGS and WDNR joint selection process in early 2010. Several drainage lakes (Winnebago, Mendota, Monona, Koshkonong, table 2) are currently being monitored and have long records of continuous data that can supplement this core of long-term index lakes. Other lakes may be added to or supplement this long-term monitoring network after its establishment such as: lakes that are targeted for monitoring in areas of intensive groundwater development (e.g. Middle Genesee), in other problem or special interest areas (e.g. Shell Lake, Devil’s Lake), or shorter-term monitoring needed by lake districts and associations for management purposes. Moreover, it is hoped that this long-term lake-level monitoring network will provide a framework and protocols for guiding the CLMN program in monitoring water levels in additional lakes throughout the state. All lake monitoring sites that are part of this long-term monitoring network will be referenced to a surveyed datum twice each year by USGS staff. Water levels for these lakes will be read during open water by a local observer at about a weekly interval. USGS personnel will measure stages 2-4 times annually on an opportunistic basis when they are working near the vicinity of the lake. All lake level observations will be uploaded to the USGS website for public access. In addition, a method will be developed to link this information between the USGS and DNR websites. As a future option, a subset of the lakes could be monitored with continuous recorders and the real-time data presented on the USGS web site to provide access to current conditions. The long-term network will also provide the following benefits to any citizen lake water level monitoring program: • Establish a set of consistently monitored and quality controlled lake water levels, for which the data will be archived and served to the public on the USGS website where other relevant water data are available to the public for comparison. • Serve as an index to evaluate data gaps and possible datum conflicts, and identify abnormal or unanticipated water level fluctuations in adjacent lakes with limited monitoring. • Provide a dataset for evaluating causes of changes and trends in a region and provide context for evaluating and understanding local perturbations or trends in water levels. • Establish protocols that can be mirrored by the CLMN program for use with additional lakes throughout the state.
  3. 3. Relevance An important part of the USGS mission is to provide scientific information to manage the water resources of the Nation. To effectively assess the Nation's surface-water and groundwater resources, the USGS operates streamgaging stations, monitors lakes and reservoirs, and water levels in wells, using standardized methods. Data from these stations are maintained in a national data base. Surface-water data are needed to develop information about flow and stage that can be used by a variety of individuals and agencies for the planning and management of diverse water-resources projects and programs including flood warning; flood assessment; lake and reservoir operations; evaluating the effects of changing land use; and detecting long-term changes in climate. The data are critical to local, state, and regional water managers for broad-based planning and managing of water-resources projects. The monitoring stations operated in this State are an integral part of the nationwide surface- water and groundwater data program. This project addresses the following USGS science themes and strategic directions: Understanding Ecosystems and Predicting Ecosystem Change; Climate Variability and Change. Funding Funding levels listed below are based on a network of 10 index seepage lakes. Additional lakes could be added or removed from the network using a similar per-lake funding rate. Total cost of the basic network (assumes 10 lakes): Installation (recon trip, supplies, surveying, install staff gage)-- $18,600 (first year only) Operation (surveying, install/adjust staffs, data processing) -- $16,300 annually (+ inflation) Cost breakdown: WDNR Year 1: $9,300; Year 2: $8,150; Thereafter: $8,150 + inflation USGS Year 1: $9,300; Year 2: $8,150; Thereafter: $8,150 + inflation References Cited House, L. B., 1985, Stage Fluctuations of Wisconsin Lakes: U. S. Geological Survey and Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, Information Circular 49, 84 p. Novitzki, R. P. and Devaul, R. W., 1978, Wisconsin Lake Levels—Their Ups and Downs: U. S. Geological Survey and Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, unnumbered report, 11 p. Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, 2003, Waters of Wisconsin: The Future of Our Aquatic Ecosystems and Resources: Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, Madison, Wis., 179 p. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2001, Wisconsin Lakes: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Pub-FH-800, 180 p.
  4. 4. Table 1. Seepage and Spring lakes in Wisconsin with considerable historical stage data to be considered for inclusion in the lake water-level monitoring network. Lake Name County Lake Type Periods of stage records Anvil Lake Vilas Seepage 1936 - 92, 1998 – present Bear Lake Portage Seepage 1965, 1970, 1974, 1978, 1979 Beaver Lake (called Waukesha Spring/ 1926 – 73 Spring Lake in WI lake Seepage book and has intermittent outlet) Boot Lake Oconto Seepage 1935 - 65, 1976 – 80 Cedar Lake (has well Manitowoc Seepage 1936 – 1983 water input) De Neveu Fond du Lac Seepage 1936 – 64 Devils Lake Sauk Seepage 1922 – present (current diversions) Emily Lake Portage Seepage 1977-79 Fish Lake Dane Seepage 1966 - 81, 1985 – 2005 (prior diversions) Fish Lake Waushara nr Seepage 1971 -72, 1978 – 79 Hancock Irogami Lake Waushara Seepage / 1966 - 77, 1979 nr Wautoma Spring Little Green Lake Green Lake Seepage 1936 - 64, 1979, 1991 - 2003 (intermittent outlet?) Long Lake Bayfield Seepage 1964 – 81 Long Lake Waushara Seepage 1977 – 79 Morgan Lake Florence Seepage 1971 - 79, 1986 – 98 North Lake Walworth Seepage 1937 – 81 Pickeral Lake Portage Seepage 1977 – 79 Pine Lake Chippewa Seepage 1936 - 65, 1974 - 79 Pine Lake (has Waukesha Seepage / 1931 – 79 intermittent inlet & Drainage outlet) (from Beaver Lake) Silver Lake Columbia Seepage / 1936 - 65, 1975 - 79 (intermittent outlet?) Spring Shell Lake (3 billion Washburn Seepage 1936 - 81, 1983 – present by city gallon diversion in 2003-2005) Wheeler Lake Oconto Seepage 1936 - 81, 1985 – 91
  5. 5. Table 2 Drainage lakes in Wisconsin with considerable historical stage data to be considered as secondary lakes in the lake water-level network. Lake Name County Lake Type Periods of stage records Amnicon Lake Douglas Drainage 1936 - 64, 1970 – 78 Big Lake Vilas Drainage 1937 - 45 Bone Lake Polk Drainage 1935 – 67, 1974 - 80, 1984 - 90 Browns Lake Racine Drained 1936 - 64 Connors Lake Sawyer Drainage 1936 - 65, 1976 - 79 Eagle Lake Racine Drainage 1936 - 64, 1975 - 79 Koshkonong Jefferson Drainage 1987 - present McKenzie Lake Burnett Drainage 1936 – 78, 1984 - 91, 1997 - 98 Mendota Lake Dane Drainage 1916 - present Monona Lake Dane Drainage 1915 - present Rib Lake Taylor Drainage 1936 - 79 Lake Ripley Jefferson Drainage 1936 - 61, 1975 – 79 Turtle Lake Walworth Drained 1936 - 65, 1975 - 79 Winnebago Fond du Lac Drainage 1882 - present Yellow Lake Burnett Drainage 1941- 64