Geology Reports⌕ Search

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

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 2, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 2 (April–June), 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.

Open-File Report↗

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 1, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 1 (January–March) of 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov . One specific activity that the ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team closely monitored was a Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor encoder alerts anomaly. On March 18, 2026, the Thermal Infrared Sensor instrument’s mechanism control electronics board reset, driving several parameters to default power-on values. Subsequent telemetry and analysis determined that no persistent hardware misconfiguration was present and no radiometric or geometric degradation was observed.

Open-File Report↗

Floods of June 20–July 6, 2024, in the Big Sioux River, Rock River, Little Sioux River, Ocheyedan River, and Floyd River Basins, northwestern Iowa

Major flooding occurred on June 20–July 6, 2024, in northwestern Iowa affecting the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd River Basins. Heavy rain fell in northwestern Iowa, southwestern Minnesota, and southeastern South Dakota on June 20–22, 2024. Parts of northwestern Iowa recorded 2–6 inches of rainfall and localized amounts exceeding 12 inches. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 175,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Big Sioux River at Akron, Iowa (06485500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at four locations along the Big Sioux River between U.S. Interstate 29 at Sioux City, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 north of Hawarden, Iowa, a distance of 75.7 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 157,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Rock River near Rock Valley, Iowa (06483500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability of less than 0.2 percent. High-water marks were measured at eight locations along the Rock River between County Road B30 east of Hudson, South Dakota, upstream to Iowa Highway 9 at Rock Rapids, Iowa, a distance of 39.3 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 63,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Little Sioux River at Correctionville, Iowa (06606600), was recorded on June 24, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at 11 locations along the Little Sioux River between Iowa Highway 31 west of Correctionville, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 north of Spencer, Iowa, a distance of 134.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 24,500 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Ocheyedan River near Spencer, Iowa (06605000), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at three locations along the Ocheyedan River between County Road M38 west of Spencer, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 west of Everly, Iowa, a distance of 12.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 41,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Floyd River at Alton, Iowa (06600100), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 1–1.99 percent. High-water marks were measured at six locations along the Floyd River between Iowa Highway 3 at Le Mars, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 at Alton, Iowa, a distance of 27.5 river miles. The high-water marks were used to develop flood profiles for the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd Rivers.

Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota↗