Minnesota River Basin Hydrologic Simulation

Program FORTRAN Model:

Research Derived Calibration Constraints

and Results of Scenarios 1-4

Three Questions

Where? Le Sueur

Blue Earth

What? Bluffs

Fields

Ravines

How?

Overview

Minnesota River Basin Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN Model Background

Sources of Turbidity

Preliminary Research Results

Model Calibration

Results of Scenario 4

Modeled Sediment Attribution by Tributary Watersheds Based on

Load Monitoring Data (1993-2006) Minnesota River at Jordan

Blue Earth 26%

Chippewa 2%

Cottonwood 15%

Hawk Creek 3%Le Sueur 26%

Direct to Mainstem 16%

Lac qui Parle 0.3%

Yellow Medicine 4%

Watonwan 4%

Redwood 4%

Pie-chart by TetraTech

9/1/2009 5

Hydrologic Simulation Program FORTRAN

FORMAT TRANSFER Powerful, Flexible, Cumbersome

The watershed model in… US EPA’s Better Assessment Science Integrating point

and Non-Point Sources (BASINS) US Army Corps of Engineers’ Watershed Modeling System

(WMS)

Continuously (hourly) simulates the movement of water, sediment, and constituents… From Land to receiving reaches/reserviors From one river reach downstream to the next

9/1/2009 6

HSPF Operational Structure

Pointsource.wdm

(Flow and loads)

Observed.wdm

(Monitored flows

and loads (FLUX))

Met.wdm

(temperature,

ET, solar radiation,

precip etc)

Watershed.uci

Output.wdm

(Predicted flows

and loads)

HSPF.exe

Non-point inputs

Point source inputs

Hydrology

Sediment

Sorbed

Constituents

Dissolved

Constituents

HSPF Model

Hierarchy

HSPF: Physical Representation

Pervious Land

ImperviousLand

Point Source

DownstreamRiver Reach

River Reach

UpstreamRiver Reach

LR

RRRRLR

HSPF Sediment ErosionAnd Transport Processes

Pervious Land Segments Sheet and Rill (detached)

Scour (undetached)

Impervious Land Segments Build Up and Washoff

River Reaches: Bank and Bed Erosion

Transport

Deposition

Sand

Silt

Clay

Fields

Fields

Ravines: Scouring

More Scouring:

Ravine Incision into Bluffs Field Gully

Photo courtesy of Scott Matteson MSU

Bluffs

LeSueur River Bluff (photo courtesy of Dr. Carrie Jennings, MN Geological Survey)

Stream Banks (and Beds)

Watonwan River, 5/19/06

Photo by Jim Klang, MPCA

Sediment Sources vs Transport Processes Modeled In HSPF

Fields

Ravines

Bluffs

Banks

Beds

Gravitational Collapse

Rotational Failure

Entrainment

and Erosion

In Channel

Sheet and Rill Erosion

Scour Erosion

(Gullying)

Out of Channel

August – October 2007

Existing Information Sources

U of M

SCWRS

USGS/MDNR

MPCA

Incorporating near-channel sediment load estimates into the model

Completed research:

Dr. David Mulla,

Dr. Satish Gupta

Linear regression: MPCA

Geochemical

fingerprinting: SCWRS/U of M MGS

Pilot project

Lake Pepin radionuclide

Existing

model

2/2003

Updated

model

7/2007

Experts

Completed research

Linear regression

Geochemical fingerprinting

Existin

g

model

Updated

model

Refined

model

(future)

More geochemical

fingerprinting: SCWRS/ U of M MGS

Lake Pepin radionuclide

7-Mile Creek: BNCHS

Redwood Lake: RCRCA

Experts

Incorporating near-channel sediment load estimates into the model

Completed research

Linear regression

Geochemical fingerprinting

Existin

g

model

Updated

model

Refined

model

(future)

More geochemical

fingerprinting: SCWRS/ U of M MGS

Ravines, bluffs &

streambanks inventory/

estimation: U of M

LeSueur River

Watershed sed budget: NCED/ U of M JHU U of Ill

Experts

Incorporating near-channel sediment load estimates into the model

25%

S. Fork Crow =

29%

21%

30% 34%

19%

17%

16%

Relative Contribution of Fields to Riverine Sediment

35%32%Lake Pepin =

27%

14%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Red

wo

od

R.

Ch

ipp

ew

a R

.

Up

per

Carv

er

Cr.

S.

Fo

rk C

row

R.

Wa

ton

wa

n R

.

Co

tto

nw

oo

d R

.

Carv

er

Cr

Bev

en

s C

r

Hig

h I

sla

nd

Blu

e E

art

h R

.

Le

Su

eu

r R

.

Field Yield Non field Yield

Yie

ld (

kg

/ha-y

r)

Yields---

Less Incised

Steeply Incised

Watersheds

Field Vary

by 60 kg/ha

Non-field Vary by

500 kg/ha

Field Erosion similar

among watersheds

Non-field very different

Sediment Allocation Targets

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Blue Earth Chippewa Cottonwood Hawk LeSueur Redwood Watonwan Yellow

Field

Field Target

Ravine

Ravine Target

Bank & Bluff

Bank/Bluff Target

Modeled Sediment Attribution(1993-2006)

Gullying: 44%(Ravines, Fields, Bluffs)

Sheet and Rill ErosionFrom Cropland: 21%

Bluff Collapse/Failure and Bank and Bank Net Scour: 27%

Sheet and Rill ErosionCovercrops & Grasses: 1%

Cities &Towns (MS4) :1%

Towns & Cities(non-MS4): 6%

Sheet and Rill ErosionForest: 0.4%

Pie-chart by TetraTech

Scenario 4: Key Elements

Perennial Vegetation

Increase in the Chippewa Watershed

Redistribution to lower reaches (except in Yellow Medicine and Hawk Creek)

Controlled Drainage: <1% slope

Water Storage

On-field storage of runoff

About half of the first 2 inches

Comparison of Simulated Annual Loads: Yellow Medicine River Outlet

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Th

ou

sa

nd

s o

f T

on

s o

f C

lay

+S

ilt+

Sa

nd

Baseline Scenario 4

53%

59%

22%39%

60%

25% 36% 30%29% 40%

33%48% 37%

Reduction for 1993-2005: 50%

Base= 0.67mt; S4= 0.33mt

Baseline Load 2000-2005= 118,000 tons

Comparison of Simulated Annual Sediment Loads: Le Sueur River Outlet

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Millio

ns

of

To

ns

of

Cla

y+

Silt+

Sa

nd

Baseline Scenario 4

43%

43%27% 30%

12% 27%

33%

67%50%

46%22%

53%57%

Reduction for 1993-2005: 47%

Base= 4.22mt; S4= 2.22mt

Comparison of Simulated Annual Sediment Loads: Minnesota River at Jordan

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Millio

ns

of

To

ns

of

Cla

y +

Silt

+ S

an

d

Baseline Scenario 4

59%

56%65%

38%

42%

43%

54%39%36%

43%44%

35%45%

Reduction for 1993-2005: 49%

Base= 15.7mt; S4= 8.0mt

Concentration Based Standard

Must account for variability in flow

Total Suspended Solids is used as a surrogate for 25 NTUs

Western watersheds: 50 mg/l

Redwood and Cottonwood: 70 mg/l

Southern Watersheds: 90 mg/l

Mainstem Minnesota River: 100 mg/l

Major Reaches of the Minnesota River

Simulated Flows From Tributaries (2001)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

CF

S

COTTONWOOD

HAWK CREEK

YELLOW MEDICINE

LE SUEUR

BLUE EARTH

CHIPPEWA

REDWOOD

WATONWAN

Minnesota River at Jordan

Sediment Concentration Comparision: 2001

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Jan-01 Feb-01Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01

Date

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Flo

w (

CF

S)

Baseline Sediment Concentration Scenario 4 Sediment Concentration Baseline Flow

Se

dim

en

t C

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/l

)

Minnesota River at Jordan

Sediment Concentration Comparision: 2003

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 Jul-03 Aug-03 Sep-03 Oct-03 Nov-03 Dec-03Date

Sed

ime

nt

Co

nc

en

tra

tio

n (

mg

/l)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Baseline Sediment Concentration Scenario 4 Sediment Concentration Baseline Flow

Summary

Scenario 4 results in a ~50% reduction in sediment loads for most watersheds Reductions vary year to year Generally higher in wetter years

Sediment loading is dominated by episodic events, usually in the spring (summer, fall)

BMPs usually provide bigger reductions during events

The watershed outlets and mainstem Minnesota would meet the turbidity standard most of the time, under Scenario 4 conditions.