Effects of alternative instream-flow criteria and water-supply demands on ground-water development options in the Big River Area, Rhode Island

Abstract

Daily streamflow-duration curves showing the percentage of time that the estimated streamflow would be equaled or exceeded in four different groundwater withdrawal scenarios for the A, Lake Mishnock Outflow (station 01115965); B, Mishnock River at State Route 3 (station 01115970); C, Carr River below Capwell Mill Pond (station 01115770); and D, Big River at Hill Farm Road

Simulation of groundwater flow and effects of groundwater irrigation on stream base flow in the Elkhorn and Loup River basins, Nebraska, 1895-2055: Phase Two

“…Other than the hypothetical pumping well, all simulation inputs, including all wells, were the same as those of the baseline simulation. Granato and Barlow, 2005 Because the simulation response to the pumping rate of a well is nearly linear in most parts of the study area, the predicted depletion generally is not sensitive to the pumping rate selected for the hypothetical well; however, the sensitivity of predicted depletion to pumping rate was tested for this simulation. Alternative pumping (water removed from the aquifer) rates of 10, 1.0, and 0.1 ft 3 /s and injection (water pumped into the aquifer) rates of 0.1, 1.0, and 10 ft 3 /s were tested for the hypothetical well.…”

Hydrologic Drought Decision Support System (HyDroDSS)

“…For example, Granato and Barlow (2005) and Granato and Walter (2011) used retrospective streamflow-depletion analyses to demonstrate the potential effects of applying different conjunctive water-withdrawal management plans to the historical record of streamflows at different sites of interest.…”

“…This approach, however, has evolved into a sustainable yield approach that includes streamflow-maintenance objectives to approximate natural flows for the entire flow-duration curve (Poff and others, 1997;Sophocleous, 2000;Alley and Leake, 2004;Maimone, 2004;Archfield and others, 2010). For groundwater supplies, however, Granato and Barlow (2005) and Granato and Walter (2011) demonstrated that the nature of streamflow depletions caused by groundwater withdrawals, the annual cycle of water-use patterns, and the annual variations in streamflows in this region make it feasible for properly managed allowable-depletion objectives to be used to meet sustainable yield objectives for groundwater supplies in alluvial-valley aquifers that are in direct hydraulic connection with rivers, brooks, and streams in the northeastern United States.…”

“…Streamflow depletion is of particular concern during periods of drought when streamflow is already low because of decreased rates of precipitation, groundwater recharge, and groundwater discharge. These natural processes also can be exacerbated by water-supply-demand patterns, which are characterized by increased withdrawals during periods of higher demand typically during the months of May through September with peak withdrawals usually during July (Granato and Barlow, 2005;Granato and Walter, 2011). Furthermore, management of groundwater wells must occur in advance of drought because groundwater withdrawals have a delayed impact on streamflow depletion (Barlow and Dickerman, 2001;Granato and Barlow, 2005;Granato and Walter, 2011).…”

“…Waldron and Archfield, 2006;Archfield and others, 2010). Over time the definition of safe yield was expanded beyond minimum service objectives to encompass the objective to balance water-supply needs with ecological protection goals, commonly by meeting a specified minimum-streamflow target (Barlow and Dickerman, 2001;Granato and Barlow, 2005;Archfield and others, 2010;Granato and Walter, 2011). This approach, however, has evolved into a sustainable yield approach that includes streamflow-maintenance objectives to approximate natural flows for the entire flow-duration curve (Poff and others, 1997;Sophocleous, 2000;Alley and Leake, 2004;Maimone, 2004;Archfield and others, 2010).…”