Evaluation of Strategies for Balancing Water Use and Streamflow Reductions in the Upper Charles River Basin, Eastern Massachusetts

Methods used to estimate daily streamflow and water availability in the Massachusetts Sustainable-Yield Estimator version 2.0

“…A response coefficient of 0.5 in the first month indicates that streamflow depletion in the first month of pumping is only 50 percent of the pumping volume for that month and that the rest of the pumping volume would cause depletions in subsequent months. Groundwater withdrawals cause reductions in evapotranspiration as well as reductions in streamflow, so the total depletions from groundwater withdrawals commonly are one or more percentage points smaller than the withdrawals (Barlow and Dickerman, 2001;DeSimone and others, 2002;Eggleston, 2004;Granato and Barlow, 2005;Bent and others, 2011;Barlow and Leake, 2012). Therefore, the final response-coefficient values for each groundwater site were adjusted so that they summed to 99.5 percent.…”

“…Response-coefficient values were compiled from results of calibrated three-dimensional modular finite-difference groundwater-flow (MODFLOW) models for 108 groundwater sites documented in 7 U.S. Geological Survey modeling studies in Rhode Island and central and eastern Massachusetts (Barlow and Dickerman, 2001; DeSimone and others, 2002; Eggleston, 2004;Granato and Barlow, 2005;Bent and others, 2011;Granato, 2014). The 12-month response-coefficient patterns were selected for each groundwater withdrawal or return flow site on the basis of the distance and diffusivity of each site.…”

The Connecticut Streamflow and Sustainable Water Use Estimator—A decision-support tool to estimate water availability at ungaged stream locations in Connecticut

“…A response coefficient of 0.5 in the first month indicates that streamflow depletion in the first month of pumping is only 50 percent of the pumping volume for that month and that the rest of the pumping volume would cause depletions in subsequent months. Groundwater withdrawals cause reductions in evapotranspiration as well as reductions in streamflow, so the total depletions from groundwater withdrawals commonly are one or more percentage points smaller than the withdrawals (Barlow and Dickerman, 2001;DeSimone and others, 2002;Eggleston, 2004;Granato and Barlow, 2005;Bent and others, 2011;Barlow and Leake, 2012). Therefore, the final response-coefficient values for each groundwater site were adjusted so that they sum to 99.5 percent.…”

“…Response-coefficient values were compiled from results of calibrated three-dimensional MODFLOW models for 108 groundwater sites documented in 7 USGS modeling studies in Rhode Island and central and eastern Massachusetts (Barlow and Dickerman, 2001;DeSimone and others, 2002;Eggleston, 2004;Granato and Barlow, 2005; Bent and others, 2011; Eggleston and others, 2012; Granato, 2014). The 12-month response-coefficient patterns were selected for each groundwater withdrawal or return flow site on the basis of the distance and diffusivity of each site.…”

Evaluation of alternative groundwater-withdrawal scenarios on water levels in Kingsbury Pond, upper Charles River Basin, eastern Massachusetts

“…Public-supply wells tap narrow valley-fill aquifers of glacial origin that are in direct hydraulic connection with streams and ponds. Concerns about the effects of groundwater withdrawals on streamflows and pond levels have resulted in several basinwide investigations of the hydrology of the Upper Charles River Basin and of the effects of groundwater withdrawals on the surface-water resources of the basin (DeSimone and others, 2002;Eggleston, 2004;Carlson and others, 2008).…”