Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

Richard G. Niswonger

Publications and source records attributed to Richard G. Niswonger.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

An agricultural water use package for MODFLOW and GSFLOW

The Agricultural Water Use (AG) Package was developed for simulating demand-driven and supply-constrained agricultural water use in MODFLOW and GSFLOW models. The AG Package uses pre-existing hydrologic simulation provided by MODFLOW and GSFLOW. Three options are available for simulating water use for agriculture: (1) user-specified demands, (2) demands determined by a user-specified irrigation trigger value that is compared to the ratio of the simulated actual to potential evapotranspiration (ET), and (3) demands determined by minimizing the difference between potential and actual ET. The latter two approaches use energy and soil-water balance to determine crop-water demands. Irrigation withdrawals are diverted into canals and routed to fields using the MODFLOW SFR Package, or irrigation water is provided/supplemented by groundwater. Combined with MODFLOW or GSFLOW, the AG Package can simulate dynamic water use by agriculture in developed basins while providing flexibility to represent a range of irrigation practices.

Environmental Modeling and Software↗

A simple method for simulating groundwater interactions with fens to forecast development effects

Protection of fens–wetlands dependent on groundwater discharge–requires characterization of groundwater sources and stresses. Because instrumentation and numerical modeling of fens is labor intensive, easy-to-apply methods that model fen distribution and their vulnerability to development are desirable. Here we demonstrate that fen areas can be simulated using existing steady-state MODFLOW models when the unsaturated zone flow (UZF) package is included. In cells where the water table is near land surface, the UZF package calculates a head difference and scaled conductance at these “seepage drain” cells to generate average rates of vertical seepage to the land. This formulation, which represents an alternative to blanketing the MODFLOW domain with drains, requires very little input from the user because unsaturated flow-routing is inactive and results are primarily driven by easily obtained topographic information. Like the drain approach, it has the advantage that the distribution of seepage areas is not predetermined by the modeler, but rather emerges from simulated heads. Beyond the drain approach, it takes account of intracell land surface variation to explicitly quantify multiple surficial flows corresponding to infiltration, rejected recharge, recharge and land-surface seepage. Application of the method to a basin in southeastern Wisconsin demonstrates how it can be used as a decision-support tool to first, reproduce fen distribution and, second, forecast drawdown and reduced seepage at fens in response to shallow pumping.

Wisconsin↗

The importance of interflow to groundwater recharge in a snowmelt-dominated headwater basin

Understanding the sensitivity of groundwater generation to climate in a mountain system is complicated by the tight coupling of snow dynamics to vegetation and topography. To address these feedbacks, we combine light detection and ranging (LiDAR)-derived snow observations with an integrated hydrologic model to quantify spatially and temporally distributed water fluxes across varying climate conditions in a Colorado River headwater basin. Results indicate that annual groundwater flow is an important and stable source of stream water. However, interflow decreases during drought as a function increased plant water use and the relative fraction of groundwater to streams increases. Seasonal snowmelt and vegetation water use regulate small recharge rates in the lower portions of the basin, but snowmelt transported via interflow from high mountain ridges toward convergent topographic zones defines preferential recharge in the upper subalpine. Recharge in this zone appears decoupled from annual climate variability and resilient to drought.

Colorado↗

Linkages between hydrology and seasonal variations of nutrients and periphyton in a large oligotrophic subalpine lake

Periphyton is important to lake ecosystems, contributing to primary production, nutrient cycling, and benthic metabolism. Increases in periphyton growth in lakes can be indicative of changes in water quality, shifts in ecosystem structure, and increases in nutrient fluxes. In oligotrophic lakes, conservationists are interested in characterizing the influence of hydrological drivers on excessive periphyton growth along nearshore areas. We collected nutrient samples bi-weekly from groundwater and surface water during a 9-month monitoring period to evaluate the timing and availability of nutrients to eulittoral periphyton in Lake Tahoe. Groundwater discharge rates were measured synoptically using seepage meters and estimated indirectly using continuous head gradient measurements and aquifer properties estimated by slug tests. The discharge measurements made from the seepage meter measurements provide information about the spatial variability perpendicular from shore along and the change in groundwater discharge due to wave action. Algal biomass sampled from substrates and observed using underwater photographs were used to correlate seasonal growth and nutrient concentrations in groundwater and lake water. Results indicate that groundwater and nutrient discharge are temporally variable due to seasonal changes in recharge within the watershed, wave action, and lake stage. Groundwater discharge was enhanced by the seasonally-low lake stage and episodic recharge caused by precipitation falling as rain in the watershed. Increases in dissolved phosphorus and nitrate in the lake during winter are attributed to groundwater discharge and correlates to increases in algal biomass in the nearshore area. Results indicate that nutrient-rich groundwater discharge appears to stimulate seasonal periphyton blooms along the eulittoral zone of Lake Tahoe.

California↗

Managed aquifer recharge in snow-fed river basins: What, why and how?

What does climate change mean for snow-fed river basins? Climate change poses unique challenges in snow-fed river basins across the western United States because the majority of water supply originates as snow (Dettinger, Udall, & Georgakakos, 2015). In the Sierra Nevada, recent observations include changes in snow accumulation and snowmelt, and shifts in peak streamflow timing (Barnhart et al., 2016; Hatchett et al., 2017; Kim & Jain, 2010; McCabe, Wolock, & Valentin, 2018; Mote, Li, Lettenmaier, Xiao, & Engel, 2018). Such changes upstream alter surface water deliveries downstream, as well as groundwater recharge utilized as both primary and supplemental water supply (Godsey et al., 2014; Harpold, 2016; Jasechko et al., 2014). basin where snowmelt runoff produces substantial water supply to meet diverse agricultural, environmental and urban water demand (Figure 1). The East and West Forks join at the confluence of the Carson River near the north end of the Carson Valley, a rich agricultural region (40,000 acres) that grows primarily alfalfa hay. The majority of irrigators rely on surface water delivered through a network of earthen ditches constructed in the mid-19th and early 20th centuries. Flow through these earthen networks and the practice of flood irrigation contribute significantly to groundwater recharge. Because no upstream surface water reservoirs exist, snowpack that accumulates through winter and melts slowly through spring has acted as a “natural” reservoir, providing ample supply through the summer irrigati agricultural, environmental and urban water demand (Figure 1). The East and West Forks join at the confluence of the Carson River near the north end of the season. Some irrigators have permitted access to supplemental groundwater that is useful during periods of drought for augmenting shortfalls in surface water delivery. Groundwater is the primary source of municipal and industrial water supply for surrounding communities (e.g., Carson City, Minden, Gardnerville, Dayton). Across the basin, water use is highly regulated through federal, tribal, state and local water-sharing agreements based on prior appropriation doctrine (Wilds, 2014). Carson River surface water allocations follow the Alpine Decree, initiated by the United States Department of Interior in 1925 and signed into law in 1980, following 55 years of litigation, to adjudicate surface water rights to individual parties (NDWP, 1999). The Alpine Decree acknowledges return flows to lower river segments, and thus each river segment is distributed autonomously. This means that the most junior water right on an upper segment can be fulfilled before considering the most senior water right on a lower segment. Ultimately, the ruling is at the discretion of the Federal Water Master to satisfy the needs of each water right Downstream of Carson Valley, surface water flows are stored in Lahontan Reservoir, the nation’s first desert reclamation project (est. 1906), where releases are managed to meet the Newland’s Project irrigation water demand and for environmental use on the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Flows from the Carson River are supplemented through diversions from the Truckee River via the Truckee Canal, resulting in a trans-basin water supply system. How is the Water for the Seasons research program informing snow-fed river basin communities? In the Truckee-Carson River System, researchers and local water managers are working together to assess climate change impacts to water supply and explore how model simulations can produce useful information to support local climate adaptation. Twelve key water managers represent agricultural, environmental, urban and regulatory water-use communities, and bring to the table diverse input and perspectives on how to adapt to climate change. Hydrologists use this input to craft scenarios and simulations that meet the information needs of local water managers. Biannual workshops provide an opportunity for information exchange, where researchers and key water managers generate new knowledge of river system function. That is, researchers share results of models that examine the physical potential, and managers validate the on-the-ground potential, further informing the research process. Coincident to this research program, the region faced a prolonged drought period (2012-2016) with historically low snowpack, followed by a historic wet year (2017) that brought winter and spring flooding as a result of atmospheric river storm events (Sterle et al., 2019). For the Carson River, an important observation made by managers was that peak streamflow that had traditionally coincided with peak irrigation demands, had shifted to earlier in the spring, with summer baseflow also decreasing (Sterle & Singletary, 2017). Managers shared with researchers concerns over potential future impacts that changing snowpack will have on surface water deliveries and reliance on groundwater, as the region’s population and economy continue to grow. During workshops that occurred over this period, local water managers and researchers discussed ways to evaluate water distribution and use that honors the existing legal framework and accounts for changing snowpack regimes (amount, rain versus snow, timing). In response to managers growing interest, researchers introduced the concept of managed aquifer recharge as one potential strategy to adapt and enhance regional water sustainability. What is managed aquifer recharge? Simply stated, managed aquifer recharge is the intentional recharge of structures to spread water over agricultural lands, allowing water to naturally infiltrate into the groundwater system (Bouwer, 1999; Niswonger et al., 2017). The latter may occur during the irrigation season by applying excess water, or during the nonirrigation season when evapotranspiration losses are low. Figure 2 illustrates managed aquifer recharge in a snow-fed river basin, where streamflow generated from snowmelt runoff is diverted to agricultural lands to recharge the aquifer. Such flood irrigation practices, including water delivery through earthen ditch networks, provide incidental but significant aquifer recharge through seepage and deep drainage beneath fields (Niswonger, Allander, & Jeton, 2014). The effects of managed aquifer recharge can vary depending on the location and intensity of practice. For example, implementing managed aquifer recharge water into the groundwater system (Dillon, 2009). This differs from the incidental recharge that may occur as part of normal irrigation practices. Managed recharge may occur by injection into the aquifer through existingwells, or by using existing conveyance adjacent to/along the river’s floodplain has the potential to enhance late-season instream flows due to increased return flows, resulting in greater downstream deliveries as well as improving ecological conditions (Niswonger et al., 2017). Implementing managed aquifer recharge away from the river’s floodplain has the potential to enhance groundwater supply which is increasingly relied upon during surface water shortage (Green et al., 2011), by storing water in available aquifer space in the deep aquifer. At the basin scale, managed aquifer recharge may lead to regional groundwater sustainability. Is the Carson River Basin a candidate for managed aquifer recharge? The physical limitations to implementing managed aquifer recharge in the Carson River Basin hinges on three key factors. The first factor relates to the physical connectivity between rivers and streams, and the irrigation delivery network of canals and ditches that divert water to agricultural lands (Niswonger et al., 2017). In the Carson River Basin the mechanisms for getting water to fields is already in place. Thus, intentionally routing high flows that occur in wet years through this system during the nonirrigation season would mimic what occurs naturally during the irrigation season. The second factor relates to the occurrence of atmospheric river storm events that deliver large amounts of precipitation to the region, much greater than average (Dettinger et al., 2015). With increased frequency and intensity projected under a warmer climate, such events have the potential to produce excess water over short periods of time that could be stored through mechanisms such as managed aquifer recharge (Niswonger et al., 2017). The third factor relates to the change in snowpack accumulation and shifts in snowmelt timing observed elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada (e.g., Godsey et al., 2014; Mote et al., 2018). Having a mechanism in place to maximize use of earlier snowmelt and shifts in streamflow timing could be advantageous and enhance regional groundwater sustainability. As part of the Water for the Seasons study, a hypothetical scenario was developed to determine the feasibility of managed aquifer recharge in the Carson River Basin, assuming no legal constraints. During “wet” or above-average water years, irrigators in the Upper Carson Valley would divert high flows and spread water over agricultural lands during the nonirrigation season. Assuming flows are abundant and “early,” diversions would begin prior to the growing season, when water would otherwise flow downstream to the Lahontan Reservoir. During “dry” years or drought periods, when surface water availability is less, irrigators in the Upper Carson Valley could augment surface water shortages with groundwater, allowing available surface water flows to flow downstream. Researchers hypothesize the amount of water has the potential to boost baseflow to support environmental instream flows, for example. What concerns have local water managers expressed? The hypothetical managed aquifer recharge scenario was presented to water managers in a workshop setting. Presentations included an overview of the hydrologic and operations modeling tools used to evaluate managed aquifer recharge by simulating the timing and distribution of water in the upper watershed. Specifically, in the Upper Carson Valley, a hydrologic model (GSFLOW) simulates streamflow driven by snowmelt, and surface and groundwater interactions, while a river basin operations model (MODSIM) allocates water according to the prior appropriation doctrine in the basin (see Figure 1) (Morway, Niswonger, & Triana, 2016; Niswonger et al., 2017). Integrating these two modeling tools advances the evaluation of climate impacts on water availability in agricultural communities and the resulting impacts of alternative management strategies (Morway et al., 2016). When asked about the viability of managed aquifer recharge, the perspectives of 11 managers varied (Figure 3). Regardless of rating, all managers questioned, “How would thisreally work?” Several managers questioned whether models could simulate the connectivity between surface and groundwater to accurately quantify changes to instream flow. Others raised concerns that managed aquifer recharge violates the Alpine Decree and Nevada Water Law. Still others requested researchers consider alternatives that could work within the confines of current (2019) water law. Managers posed specific questions that should be considered when evaluating the potential for managed aquifer recharge. For example: What triggers implementation of managed aquifer recharge?How “high” or “low” must annual flows be to initiate managed aquifer recharge? When in the water year is this determined? Where exactly in the Carson Valley is managed aquiferre charge possible? For example, what areas away from the floodplain could ensure long-term storage? Can model simulations quantify potential benefits and consequences system-wide?Would this information support decision-making, such as permitting of additional supplemental groundwater rights? How are researchers going to address managers’ research questions? Managers’ perspectives help to validate the on-the-ground potential of particular strategies and further refine alternative management scenarios. For example, understanding that managers are concerned with oversaturated fields helps researchers to define conditions in the model, such as what defines a wet versus “too” wet type of year and where to focus irrigation for managed aquifer recharge. Incorporating these nuances provides more accurate quantification of the potential benefits and consequences for users across the basin. Modeling is underway to simulate managed aquifer recharge scenarios and explore basin-wide implications. Researchers and local water managers will convene to collaboratively review results and further assess whether this or other strategies could work under the confines of existing water law. Subsequent fact sheets will present these findings.

Nevada↗

GSFLOW-GRASS v1.0.0: GIS-enabled hydrologic modeling of coupled groundwater–surface-water systems

The importance of water moving between the atmosphere and aquifers has led to efforts to develop and maintain coupled models of surface water and groundwater. However, developing inputs to these models is usually time-consuming and requires extensive knowledge of software engineering, often prohibiting their use by many researchers and water managers, thus reducing these models' potential to promote science-driven decision-making in an era of global change and increasing water resource stress. In response to this need, we have developed GSFLOW–GRASS, a bundled set of open-source tools that develops inputs for, executes, and graphically displays the results of GSFLOW, the U.S. Geological Survey's coupled groundwater and surface-water flow model. In order to create a robust tool that can be widely implemented over diverse hydro(geo)logic settings, we built a series of GRASS GIS extensions that automatically discretizes a topological surface-water flow network that is linked with an underlying gridded groundwater domain. As inputs, GSFLOW–GRASS requires at a minimum a digital elevation model, a precipitation and temperature record, and estimates of channel parameters and hydraulic conductivity. We demonstrate the broad applicability of the toolbox by successfully testing it in environments with varying degrees of drainage integration, landscape relief, and grid resolution, as well as the presence of irregular coastal boundaries. These examples also show how GSFLOW–GRASS can be implemented to examine the role of groundwater–surface-water interactions in a diverse range of water resource and land management applications.

Geoscientific Model Development↗

Input data processing tools for the integrated hydrologic model GSFLOW

Integrated hydrologic modeling (IHM) encompasses a vast number of processes and specifications, variable in time and space, and development of models can be arduous. Model input construction techniques have not been formalized or made easily reproducible. Creating the input files for integrated hydrologic models requires complex GIS processing of raster and vector datasets from various sources. Developing stream network topology that is consistent with the model grid-scale digital elevation model (DEM) is important for robust simulation of surface water and groundwater exchanges. Distribution of meteorological data over the model domain is difficult in complex terrain at the model-grid scale, but is necessary for realistic simulations. As model development requires extensive GIS and computer programming expertise, the use of IHMs has mostly been limited to research groups with available financial, human, and technical resources. Here we present a series of open-source Python scripts that are combined with ESRI ArcGIS to provide a formalized technique for the parameterization and development of inputs for the readily available IHM called GSFLOW. This Python toolkit automates many of the necessary and laborious processes of parameterization, including stream network development, land coverages, and meteorological distribution over the model domain. The final products of the toolkit are PRMS ready Parameter Files, along with several input parameters for a MODFLOW model, including input for the Streamflow Routing Package. A demonstration of the toolkit is provided to illustrate its capabilities.

Environmental Modelling and Software↗

Managed aquifer recharge through off-season irrigation in agricultural regions

Options for increasing reservoir storage in developed regions are limited and prohibitively expensive. Projected increases in demand call for new long-term water storage to help sustain agriculture, municipalities, industry, and ecological services. Managed aquifer recharge (MAR) is becoming an integral component of water resources around the world. However, MAR faces challenges, including infrastructure costs, difficulty in enhancing recharge, water quality issues, and lack of available water supplies. Here we examine, through simulation modeling of a hypothetical agricultural subbasin in the western U.S., the potential of agricultural managed aquifer recharge (Ag-MAR) via canal seepage and off-season field irrigation. Weather phenomenon in many regions around the world exhibit decadal and other multiyear cycles of extreme precipitation. An ongoing challenge is to develop approaches to store greater amounts of water during these events. Simulations presented herein incorporate Ag-MAR programs and demonstrate that there is potential to enhance regional recharge by 7–13%, increase crop consumptive use by 9–12%, and increase natural vegetation consumption by 20–30%, where larger relative increases occur for lower aquifer hydraulic conductivity and higher specific yield values. Annual increases in groundwater levels were 7 m, and sustained levels following several years of drought were greater than 2 m. Results demonstrate that Ag-MAR has great potential to enhance long-term sustainability of water resources in agricultural basins.

Water Resources Research↗

Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 Groundwater Flow Model

This report documents the Groundwater Flow (GWF) Model for a new version of MODFLOW called MODFLOW 6. The GWF Model for MODFLOW 6 is based on a generalized control-volume finite-difference approach in which a cell can be hydraulically connected to any number of surrounding cells. Users can define the model grid using one of three discretization packages, including (1) a structured discretization package for defining regular MODFLOW grids consisting of layers, rows, and columns, (2) a discretization by ver­tices package for defining layered unstructured grids consisting of layers and cells, and (3) a general unstruc­tured discretization package for defining flexible grids comprised of cells and their connection properties. For layered grids, a new capability is available for removing thin cells and vertically connecting cells overlying and underlying the thin cells. For complex problems involving water-table conditions, an optional Newton-Raphson formulation, based on the formulations in MODFLOW-NWT and MODFLOW-USG, can be acti­vated. Use of the Newton-Raphson formulation will often improve model convergence and allow solutions to be obtained for difficult problems that cannot be solved using the traditional wetting and drying approach. The GWF Model is divided into “packages,” as was done in previous MODFLOW versions. A package is the part of the model that deals with a single aspect of simulation. Packages included with the GWF Model include those related to internal calculations of groundwater flow (discretization, initial conditions, hydraulic conduc­tance, and storage), stress packages (constant heads, wells, recharge, rivers, general head boundaries, drains, and evapotranspiration), and advanced stress packages (streamflow routing, lakes, multi-aquifer wells, and unsaturated zone flow). An additional package is also available for moving water available in one package into the individual features of the advanced stress packages. The GWF Model also has packages for obtaining and controlling output from the model. This report includes detailed explanations of physical and mathematical concepts on which the GWF Model and its packages are based. Like its predecessors, MODFLOW 6 is based on a highly modular structure; however, this structure has been extended into an object-oriented framework. The framework includes a robust and generalized numeri­cal solution object, which can be used to solve many different types of models. The numerical solution object has several different matrix preconditioning options as well as several methods for solving the linear system of equations. In this new framework, the GWF Model itself is an object as are each of the GWF Model packages. A benefit of the object-oriented structure is that multiple objects of the same type can be used in a single sim­ulation. Thus, a single forward run with MODFLOW 6 may contain multiple GWF Models. GWF Models can be hydraulically connected using GWF-GWF Exchange objects. Connecting GWF models in different ways permits the user to utilize a local grid refinement strategy consisting of parent and child models or to couple adjacent GWF Models. An advantage of the approach implemented in MODFLOW 6 is that multiple models and their exchanges can be incorporated into a single numerical solution object. With this design, models can be tightly coupled at the matrix level.

Techniques and Methods↗

Nutrient processes at the stream-lake interface for a channelized versus unmodified stream mouth

Inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorous impact freshwater lakes by stimulating primary production and affecting water quality and ecosystem health. Communities around the world are motivated to sustain and restore freshwater resources and are interested in processes controlling nutrient inputs. We studied the environment where streams flow into lakes, referred to as the stream-lake interface (SLI), for a channelized and unmodified stream outlet. Channelization is done to protect infrastructure or recreational beach areas. We collected hydraulic and nutrient data for surface water and shallow groundwater in two SLIs to develop conceptual models that describe characteristics that are representative of these hydrologic features. Water, heat, and solute transport models were used to evaluate hydrologic conceptualizations and estimate mean residence times of water in the sediment. A nutrient mass balance model is developed to estimate net rates of adsorption and desorption, mineralization, and nitrification along subsurface flow paths. Results indicate that SLIs are dynamic sources of nutrients to lakes and that the common practice of channelizing the stream at the SLI decreases nutrient concentrations in pore water discharging along the lakeshore. This is in contrast to the unmodified SLI that forms a barrier beach that disconnects the stream from the lake and results in higher nutrient concentrations in pore water discharging to the lake. These results are significant because nutrient delivery through pore water seepage at the lakebed from the natural SLI contributes to nearshore algal communities and produces elevated concentrations of inorganic nutrients in the benthic zone where attached algae grow.

Water Resources Research↗

Evaluating mountain meadow groundwater response to Pinyon-Juniper and temperature in a great basin watershed

This research highlights development and application of an integrated hydrologic model (GSFLOW) to a semiarid, snow-dominated watershed in the Great Basin to evaluate Pinyon-Juniper (PJ) and temperature controls on mountain meadow shallow groundwater. The work used Google Earth Engine Landsat satellite and gridded climate archives for model evaluation. Model simulations across three decades indicated that the watershed operates on a threshold response to precipitation (P) >400 mm/y to produce a positive yield (P-ET; 9%) resulting in stream discharge and a rebound in meadow groundwater levels during these wetter years. Observed and simulated meadow groundwater response to large P correlates with above average predicted soil moisture and with a normalized difference vegetation index threshold value >0.3. A return to assumed pre-expansion PJ conditions or an increase in temperature to mid-21st century shifts yielded by only ±1% during the multi-decade simulation period; but changes of approximately ±4% occurred during wet years. Changes in annual yield were largely dampened by the spatial and temporal redistribution of evapotranspiration across the watershed: Yet the influence of this redistribution and vegetation structural controls on snowmelt altered recharge to control water table depth in the meadow. Even a small-scale removal of PJ (0.5 km 2 ) proximal to the meadow will promote a stable, shallow groundwater system resilient to droughts, while modest increases in temperature will produce a meadow susceptible to declining water levels and a community structure likely to move toward dry and degraded conditions.

Nevada↗

Groundwater exchanges near a channelized versus unmodified stream mouth discharging to a subalpine lake

The terminus of a stream flowing into a larger river, pond, lake, or reservoir is referred to as the stream-mouth reach or simply the stream mouth . The terminus is often characterized by rapidly changing thermal and hydraulic conditions that result in abrupt shifts in surface water/groundwater (sw/gw) exchange patterns, creating the potential for unique biogeochemical processes and ecosystems. Worldwide shoreline development is changing stream-lake interfaces through channelization of stream mouths, i.e., channel straightening and bank stabilization to prevent natural meandering at the shoreline. In the central Sierra Nevada (USA), Lake Tahoe's shoreline has an abundance of both “unmodified” (i.e., not engineered though potentially impacted by broader watershed engineering) and channelized stream mouths. Two representative stream mouths along the lake's north shore, one channelized and one unmodified, were selected to compare and contrast water and heat exchanges. Hydraulic and thermal properties were monitored during separate campaigns in September 2012 and 2013 and sw/gw exchanges were estimated within the stream mouth-shoreline continuum. Heat-flow and water-flow patterns indicated clear differences in the channelized versus the unmodified stream mouth. For the channelized stream mouth, relatively modulated, cool-temperature, low-velocity longitudinal streambed flows discharged offshore beneath warmer buoyant lakeshore water. In contrast, a seasonal barrier bar formed across the unmodified stream mouth, creating higher-velocity subsurface flow paths and higher diurnal temperature variations relative to shoreline water. As a consequence, channelization altered sw/gw exchanges potentially altering biogeochemical processing and ecological systems in and near the stream mouth.

California, Nevada↗

Toward improved simulation of river operations through integration with a hydrologic model

Advanced modeling tools are needed for informed water resources planning and management. Two classes of modeling tools are often used to this end–(1) distributed-parameter hydrologic models for quantifying supply and (2) river-operation models for sorting out demands under rule-based systems such as the prior-appropriation doctrine. Within each of these two broad classes of models, there are many software tools that excel at simulating the processes specific to each discipline, but have historically over-simplified, or at worse completely neglected, aspects of the other. As a result, water managers reliant on river-operation models for administering water resources need improved tools for representing spatially and temporally varying groundwater resources in conjunctive-use systems. A new tool is described that improves the representation of groundwater/surface-water (GW-SW) interaction within a river-operations modeling context and, in so doing, advances evaluation of system-wide hydrologic consequences of new or altered management regimes.

Environmental Modelling and Software↗

An overview of current applications, challenges, and future trends in distributed process-based models in hydrology

Process-based hydrological models have a long history dating back to the 1960s. Criticized by some as over-parameterized, overly complex, and difficult to use, a more nuanced view is that these tools are necessary in many situations and, in a certain class of problems, they are the most appropriate type of hydrological model. This is especially the case in situations where knowledge of flow paths or distributed state variables and/or preservation of physical constraints is important. Examples of this include: spatiotemporal variability of soil moisture, groundwater flow and runoff generation, sediment and contaminant transport, or when feedbacks among various Earth’s system processes or understanding the impacts of climate non-stationarity are of primary concern. These are situations where process-based models excel and other models are unverifiable. This article presents this pragmatic view in the context of existing literature to justify the approach where applicable and necessary. We review how improvements in data availability, computational resources and algorithms have made detailed hydrological simulations a reality. Avenues for the future of process-based hydrological models are presented suggesting their use as virtual laboratories, for design purposes, and with a powerful treatment of uncertainty.

Journal of Hydrology↗

Assessing the role of climate and resource management on groundwater dependent ecosystem changes in arid environments with the Landsat archive

Groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) rely on near-surface groundwater. These systems are receiving more attention with rising air temperature, prolonged drought, and where groundwater pumping captures natural groundwater discharge for anthropogenic use. Phreatophyte shrublands, meadows, and riparian areas are GDEs that provide critical habitat for many sensitive species, especially in arid and semi-arid environments. While GDEs are vital for ecosystem services and function, their long-term (i.e. ~ 30 years) spatial and temporal variability is poorly understood with respect to local and regional scale climate, groundwater, and rangeland management. In this work, we compute time series of NDVI derived from sensors of the Landsat TM, ETM +, and OLI lineage for assessing GDEs in a variety of land and water management contexts. Changes in vegetation vigor based on climate, groundwater availability, and land management in arid landscapes are detectable with Landsat. However, the effective quantification of these ecosystem changes can be undermined if changes in spectral bandwidths between different Landsat sensors introduce biases in derived vegetation indices, and if climate, and land and water management histories are not well understood. The objective of this work is to 1) use the Landsat 8 under-fly dataset to quantify differences in spectral reflectance and NDVI between Landsat 7 ETM + and Landsat 8 OLI for a range of vegetation communities in arid and semiarid regions of the southwestern United States, and 2) demonstrate the value of 30-year historical vegetation index and climate datasets for assessing GDEs. Specific study areas were chosen to represent a range of GDEs and environmental conditions important for three scenarios: baseline monitoring of vegetation and climate, riparian restoration, and groundwater level changes. Google's Earth Engine cloud computing and environmental monitoring platform is used to rapidly access and analyze the Landsat archive along with downscaled North American Land Data Assimilation System gridded meteorological data, which are used for both atmospheric correction and correlation analysis. Results from the cross-sensor comparison indicate a benefit from the application of a consistent atmospheric correction method, and that NDVI derived from Landsat 7 and 8 are very similar within the study area. Results from continuous Landsat time series analysis clearly illustrate that there are strong correlations between changes in vegetation vigor, precipitation, evaporative demand, depth to groundwater, and riparian restoration. Trends in summer NDVI associated with riparian restoration and groundwater level changes were found to be statistically significant, and interannual summer NDVI was found to be moderately correlated to interannual water-year precipitation for baseline study sites. Results clearly highlight the complementary relationship between water-year PPT, NDVI, and evaporative demand, and are consistent with regional vegetation index and complementary relationship studies. This work is supporting land and water managers for evaluation of GDEs with respect to climate, groundwater, and resource management.

Remote Sensing of Environment↗

Documentation of a restart option for the U.S. Geological Survey coupled Groundwater and Surface-Water Flow (GSFLOW) model

A new option to write and read antecedent conditions (also referred to as initial conditions) has been developed for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Groundwater and Surface-Water Flow (GSFLOW) numerical, hydrologic simulation code. GSFLOW is an integration of the USGS Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and USGS Modular Groundwater-Flow Model (MODFLOW), and provides three simulation modes: MODFLOW-only, PRMS-only, and GSFLOW (or coupled). The new capability, referred to as the restart option, can be used for all three simulation modes, such that the results from a pair (or set) of spin-up and restart simulations are nearly identical to results produced from a continuous simulation for the same time period. The restart option writes all results to files at the end of a spin-up simulation that are required to initialize a subsequent restart simulation. Previous versions of GSFLOW have had some capability to save model results for use as antecedent condiitions in subsequent simulations; however, the existing capabilities were not comprehensive or easy to use. The new restart option supersedes the previous methods. The restart option was developed in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service as part of the Integrated Water Resources Science and Services Partnership. The primary focus for the development of the restart option was to support medium-range (7- to 14-day) forecasts of low streamflow conditions made by the National Weather Service for critical water-supply basins in which groundwater plays an important role. The spin-up simulation should be run for a sufficient length of time necessary to establish antecedent conditions throughout a model domain. Each GSFLOW application can require different lengths of time to account for the hydrologic stresses to propagate through a coupled groundwater and surface-water system. Typically, groundwater hydrologic processes require many years to come into equilibrium with dynamic climate and other forcing (or stress) data, such as precipitation and well pumping, whereas runoff-dominated surface-water processes respond relatively quickly. Use of a spin-up simulation can substantially reduce execution-time requirements for applications where the time period of interest is small compared to the time for hydrologic memory; thus, use of the restart option can be an efficient strategy for forecast and calibration simulations that require multiple simulations starting from the same day.

Techniques and Methods↗

Mixing effects on nitrogen and oxygen concentrations and the relationship to mean residence time in a hyporheic zone of a riffle-pool sequence

Flow paths and residence times in the hyporheic zone are known to influence biogeochemical processes such as nitrification and denitrification. The exchange across the sediment-water interface may involve mixing of surface water and groundwater through complex hyporheic flow paths that contribute to highly variable biogeochemically active zones. Despite the recognition of these patterns in the literature, conceptualization and analysis of flow paths and nitrogen transformations beneath riffle-pool sequences often neglect to consider bed form driven exchange along the entire reach. In this study, the spatial and temporal distribution of dissolved oxygen (DO), nitrate (NO 3 - ) and ammonium (NH 4 + ) were monitored in the hyporheic zone beneath a riffle-pool sequence on a losing section of the Truckee River, NV. Spatially-varying hyporheic exchange and the occurrence of multi-scale hyporheic mixing cells are shown to influence concentrations of DO and NO 3 - and the mean residence time (MRT) of riffle and pool areas. Distinct patterns observed in piezometers are shown to be influenced by the first large flow event following a steady 8 month period of low flow conditions. Increases in surface water discharge resulted in reversed hydraulic gradients and production of nitrate through nitrification at small vertical spatial scales (0.10 to 0.25 m) beneath the sediment-water interface. In areas with high downward flow rates and low MRT, denitrification may be limited. The use of a longitudinal two-dimensional flow model helped identify important mechanisms such as multi-scale hyporheic mixing cells and spatially varying MRT, an important driver for nitrogen transformation in the riverbed. Our observations of DO and NO 3 - concentrations and model simulations highlight the role of multi-scale hyporheic mixing cells on MRT and nitrogen transformations in the hyporheic zone of riffle-pool sequences. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Water Resources Research↗

Water-budgets and recharge-area simulations for the Spring Creek and Nittany Creek Basins and parts of the Spruce Creek Basin, Centre and Huntingdon Counties, Pennsylvania, Water Years 2000–06

This report describes the results of a study by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with ClearWater Conservancy and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to develop a hydrologic model to simulate a water budget and identify areas of greater than average recharge for the Spring Creek Basin in central Pennsylvania. The model was developed to help policy makers, natural resource managers, and the public better understand and manage the water resources in the region. The Groundwater and Surface-water FLOW model (GSFLOW), which is an integration of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and the Modular Groundwater Flow Model (MODFLOW-NWT), was used to simulate surface water and groundwater in the Spring Creek Basin for water years 2000–06. Because the groundwater and surface-water divides for the Spring Creek Basin do not coincide, the study area includes the Nittany Creek Basin and headwaters of the Spruce Creek Basin. The hydrologic model was developed by the use of a stepwise process: (1) develop and calibrate a PRMS model and steady-state MODFLOW-NWT model; (2) re-calibrate the steady-state MODFLOW-NWT model using potential recharge estimates simulated from the PRMS model, and (3) integrate the PRMS and MODFLOW-NWT models into GSFLOW. The individually calibrated PRMS and MODFLOW-NWT models were used as a starting point for the calibration of the fully coupled GSFLOW model. The GSFLOW model calibration was done by comparing observations and corresponding simulated values of streamflow from 11 streamgages and groundwater levels from 16 wells. The cumulative water budget and individual water budgets for water years 2000–06 were simulated by using GSFLOW. The largest source and sink terms are represented by precipitation and evapotranspiration, respectively. For the period simulated, a net surplus in the water budget was computed where inflows exceeded outflows by about 1.7 billion cubic feet (0.47 inches per year over the basin area); storage increased by about the same amount to balance the budget. The rate and distribution of recharge throughout the Spring Creek, Nittany Creek, and Spruce Creek Basins is variable as a result of the high degree of hydrogeologic heterogeneity and karst features. The greatest amount of recharge was simulated in the carbonate-bedrock valley, near the toe slopes of Nittany and Tussey Mountains, in the Scotia Barrens, and along the area coinciding with the Gatesburg Formation. Runoff extremes were observed for water years 2001 (dry year) and 2004 (wet year). Simulated average recharge rates (water reaching the saturated zone as defined in GSFLOW) for 2001 and 2004 were 5.4 in/yr and 22.0 in/yr, respectively. Areas where simulations show large variations in annual recharge between wet and dry years are the same areas where simulated recharge was large. Those areas where rates of groundwater recharge are much higher than average, and are capable of accepting substantially greater quantities of recharge during wet years, might be considered critical for maintaining the flow of springs, stream base flow, or the source of water to supply wells. The slopes of the Bald Eagle, Tussey, and Nittany Mountains are relatively insensitive to variations in recharge, primarily because of reduced infiltration rates and steep slopes.

Pennsylvania↗