Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · ofr20051072

GWM-a ground-water management process for the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model (MODFLOW-2000)

Abstract

GWM is a Ground?Water Management Process for the U.S. Geological Survey modular three?dimensional ground?water model, MODFLOW?2000. GWM uses a response?matrix approach to solve several types of linear, nonlinear, and mixed?binary linear ground?water management formulations. Each management formulation consists of a set of decision variables, an objective function, and a set of constraints. Three types of decision variables are supported by GWM: flow?rate decision variables, which are withdrawal or injection rates at well sites; external decision variables, which are sources or sinks of water that are external to the flow model and do not directly affect the state variables of the simulated ground?water system (heads, streamflows, and so forth); and binary variables, which have values of 0 or 1 and are used to define the status of flow?rate or external decision variables. Flow?rate decision variables can represent wells that extend over one or more model cells and be active during one or more model stress periods; external variables also can be active during one or more stress periods. A single objective function is supported by GWM, which can be specified to either minimize or maximize the weighted sum of the three types of decision variables. Four types of constraints can be specified in a GWM formulation: upper and lower bounds on the flow?rate and external decision variables; linear summations of the three types of decision variables; hydraulic?head based constraints, including drawdowns, head differences, and head gradients; and streamflow and streamflow?depletion constraints. The Response Matrix Solution (RMS) Package of GWM uses the Ground?Water Flow Process of MODFLOW to calculate the change in head at each constraint location that results from a perturbation of a flow?rate variable; these changes are used to calculate the response coefficients. For linear management formulations, the resulting matrix of response coefficients is then combined with other components of the linear management formulation to form a complete linear formulation; the formulation is then solved by use of the simplex algorithm, which is incorporated into the RMS Package. Nonlinear formulations arise for simulated conditions that include water?table (unconfined) aquifers or head?dependent boundary conditions (such as streams, drains, or evapotranspiration from the water table). Nonlinear formulations are solved by sequential linear programming; that is, repeated linearization of the nonlinear features of the management problem. In this approach, response coefficients are recalculated for each iteration of the solution process. Mixed?binary linear (or mildly nonlinear) formulations are solved by use of the branch and bound algorithm, which is also incorporated into the RMS Package. Three sample problems are provided to demonstrate the use of GWM for typical ground?water flow management problems. These sample problems provide examples of how GWM input files are constructed to specify the decision variables, objective function, constraints, and solution process for a GWM run. The GWM Process runs with the MODFLOW?2000 Global and Ground?Water Flow Processes, but in its current form GWM cannot be used with the Observation, Sensitivity, Parameter?Estimation, or Ground?Water Transport Processes. The GWM Process is written with a modular structure so that new objective functions, constraint types, and solution algorithms can be added.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David P. Ahlfeld, Paul M. Barlow, Anne E. Mulligan. 2005. GWM-a ground-water management process for the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model (MODFLOW-2000). https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20051072

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona