Potential groundwater recharge for the State of Minnesota using the Soil-Water-Balance model, 1996-2010

Erik A. Smith; Stephen M. Westenbroek

doi:10.3133/sir20155038

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · sir20155038

Potential groundwater recharge for the State of Minnesota using the Soil-Water-Balance model, 1996-2010

Erik A. Smith·Stephen M. Westenbroek

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Groundwater recharge is one of the most difficult components of a water budget to ascertain, yet is an important boundary condition necessary for the quantification of water resources. In Minnesota, improved estimates of recharge are necessary because approximately 75 percent of drinking water and 90 percent of agricultural irrigation water in Minnesota are supplied from groundwater. The water that is withdrawn must be supplied by some combination of (1) increased recharge, (2) decreased discharge to streams, lakes, and other surface-water bodies, and (3) removal of water that was stored in the system. Recent pressure on groundwater resources has highlighted the need to provide more accurate recharge estimates for various tools that can assess the sustainability of long-term water use. As part of this effort, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, used the Soil-Water-Balance model to calculate gridded estimates of potential groundwater recharge across Minnesota for 1996‒2010 at a 1-kilometer (0.621-mile) resolution. The potential groundwater recharge estimates calculated for Minnesota from the Soil-Water Balance model included gridded values (1-kilometer resolution) of annual mean estimates (that is, the means for individual years from 1996 through 2010) and mean annual estimates (that is, the mean for the 15-year period 1996−2010). The Soil-Water-Balance model uses a modified Thornthwaite-Mather soil-water-balance approach, with components of the soil-water balance calculated on a daily basis. A key advantage of this approach includes the use of commonly available geographic information system data layers that incorporate land cover, soil properties, and daily meteorological data to produce temporally and spatially variable gridded estimates of potential recharge. The Soil-Water-Balance model was calibrated by using a combination of parameter estimation techniques, making manual adjustments of model parameters, and using parameter values from previously published Soil-Water-Balance models. Each calibration simulation compared the potential recharge estimate from the model against base-flow estimates derived from three separate hydrograph separation techniques. A total of 35 Minnesota watersheds were selected for the model calibration. Meteorological data necessary for the model included daily precipitation, minimum daily temperature, and maximum daily temperature. All of the meteorological data were provided by the Daymet dataset, which included daily continuous surfaces of key climatological data. Land-cover data were provided by the 2001 and 2006 National Land Cover Database: the 2001 classification was used from 1994 through 2003, and the 2006 classification was used from 2004 through 2010. Soil data used in the model included hydrologic soils group and the available soil-water capacity. These soil data were obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database and the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database. The statewide mean annual potential recharge rate from 1996–2010 was 4.9 inches per year. Potential recharge estimates increased from west to east across Minnesota. The mean annual potential recharge estimates across Minnesota at a 1-km resolution for the overall simulation period (1996–2010) ranged from less than 0.1 to 17.8 inches per year. Some of the lowest potential recharge rates for the simulation period were in the Red River of the North Basin of northwestern Minnesota, and generally were between 1.0 and 1.5 inches per year. The highest potential recharge rates were in northeastern Minnesota and the Anoka Sand Plain in central Minnesota. Eighty-eight percent of the potential recharge rates (by grid cell) were between 2 and 8 inches per year from 1996–2010. Only about 3 percent of all the potential recharge estimates (by grid cell) were less than 2 inches per year, and 9 percent of estimates were greater than 8 inches per year. On an annual basis, however, potential recharge rates were as high as 27.2 inches per year. The highest annual mean recharge estimate across the State was for 2010, and the lowest mean recharge estimate was for 2003. Although precipitation variability partially explained the annual differences in potential recharge estimates, precipitation alone did not account for these differences, and other factors such as antecedent moisture conditions likely were important. Also, because precipitation gradients across the State can vary from year to year, the dominant land-cover class and hydrologic soil group combinations for a particular region had a large effect on the resulting potential recharge value. During 1996–2010, April had the greatest monthly mean potential recharge compared to all other months, accounting for a mean of 30 percent of annual potential recharge in this single month.

Explore related subjects

Scientific Investigations Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 43.49676775343911° to 49.38594874941847° latitude; -97.2344970703125° to -89.56054687499999° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Erik A. Smith, Stephen M. Westenbroek. 2015. Potential groundwater recharge for the State of Minnesota using the Soil-Water-Balance model, 1996-2010. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20155038

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Monitoring recreation on federally managed lands and waters—Aspects of visitor use

Federally managed public lands and waters receive around 1 billion recreational visits each year. Data on these visitors can aid in guiding policy decisions, managing resources effectively, and communicating the economic contributions of lands and waters. This report explores the methods used by agencies to collect data on aspects of recreational visitor use to Federal lands and waters (apart from visitation numbers, which are the focus of a companion publication). Aspects of recreational visitor use include visitor demographics, recreational activity participation, visitor satisfaction, visitor attitudes and experiences, trip characteristics, and economic contributions. We review practices used to understand aspects of visitor use across seven Federal agencies, revealing similarities such as the use of visitor intercept surveys and coverage of similar topic areas, and differences in how survey programs are operationalized and how specific questions on visitor surveys are worded. We also evaluate emerging technologies, such as geolocated social media and mobile device location data, for their potential to aid in understanding aspects of visitor use. This report concludes with potential opportunities to enhance data collection and coordination, ensuring cost-effective data collection and informed decision making.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2026

Evaluation of best management practices at an edge-of-field site in the Eagle Creek watershed, Ohio, 2012–20

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey worked in partnership with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to identify farm fields in priority watersheds—watersheds critically important to Great Lake health. Intensive best management practices were implemented in five States to test the efficacy of best management practices, also referred to as agricultural conservation practices, to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff on agricultural fields. These fields were chosen as representatives of the priority watersheds because their farming practices and geographical conditions were common among farms in those watersheds. A farm site located near Findlay, Ohio, in the Eagle Creek watershed used two conservation practices, cover crop (Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 340) and variable rate technology (VRT; Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 590), which represent common practices in the Maumee priority watershed. This study monitored surface runoff and subsurface tile runoff at the Eagle Creek watershed site. The effects of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on sediment and nutrient runoff were assessed from October 2012 to September 2020. Cover crops were applied in fall of 2016, 2017, and 2018, coinciding with VRT applications. The following parameters were analyzed as part of the study: runoff discharge; peak discharge; and concentrations and loads of total phosphorus, particulate phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and suspended sediment. High peak runoff events disproportionally affected nutrient concentrations and loads in runoff. A threshold of the 85th percentile of the peak discharge was chosen to assess the effect of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on nutrient mitigation at each gage. Runoff events below the 85th percentile were considered small, and runoff events over the 85th percentile were considered large. Concentrations from collected water-quality samples were used for the analysis; estimated concentrations were excluded from the statistical evaluation. All surface runoff parameters during small runoff events, except surface runoff volume, were significantly lower in the period with cover crops and VRT implementation. Contrarily, subsurface runoff parameters during small events were not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. Surface and subsurface parameters during large events were also not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. These results indicate cover crops and VRT may improve water quality during small runoff events, but additional best management practices that mitigate large runoff events may lead to greater water-quality improvement given the contribution of large events to overall losses.

Ohio↗

USGS2026

Continuous monitoring and temporal variability of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter in karst groundwater of the Edwards aquifer, south-central Texas, 2019–24

Widespread urbanization on the Edwards aquifer recharge zone in south-central Texas has prompted the development of new approaches and tools for evaluating the current and future status of water quality in the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System and the City of Austin, applied continuous monitoring of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter (fDOM) to characterize the sources and transport of dissolved organic matter and associated constituents in the Edwards aquifer. Continuous fDOM time-series data were adjusted using empirically derived temperature, turbidity, and inner-filter-effect correction factors prior to analysis and interpretation. Fully corrected fDOM time-series data from the study sites were evaluated for short- and long-term temporal variability in fDOM in the context of the hydrologic and climatic conditions that occurred during the 5-year study period to understand vulnerability of the aquifer to potential contaminants in recharge. Study results indicate that fDOM is an effective proxy for dissolved organic carbon that, in turn, is indicative of the influx of recent surface water and associated contaminants, and thus, aquifer vulnerability to those contaminants. Although other continuously monitored water-quality parameters provide insights into changes in water quality in response to varying hydrologic conditions, the quantitative relation between fDOM and dissolved organic carbon directly indicates the timing and magnitude of pulses of organic constituents derived from the land surface, whereas other water-quality parameters do not.

Texas↗