Water management in a mountain front recharge aquifer

Burness, Stuart; Chermak, Janie; Brookshire, David S.

doi:10.1029/2003wr002160

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Water Evaluation and Planning is a water resources system analysis tool developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute (Yates et al ., ) that integrates a water management model driven by water demands, supplies and environmental requirements with a hydrological model based on conceptual rainfall–runoff relationships. The conceptual hydrological representation of a watershed is based on a two‐bucket system: The first bucket represents a soil layer that reproduces the short‐lag watershed response to precipitation, and the second layer is designed to mimic the baseflow or longer‐lag flows due to the presence of deep soils or aquifers within the catchment (Winter, ; Burness, ). The watershed is divided into fractional areas, where the equations governing water movement are solved.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

An evaluation of approaches for modelling hydrological processes in high‐elevation, glacierized Andean watersheds

Ragettli

Cortés

McPhee

et al. 2013

Hydrological Processes

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use two hydrological models of varying complexity to study the Juncal River Basin in the Central Andes of Chile with the aim to understand the degree of conceptualization and the spatial structure that are needed to model present and future streamflows. We use a conceptual semi‐distributed model based on elevation bands [Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP)], frequently used for water management, and a physically oriented, fully distributed model [Topographic Kinematic Wave Approximation and Integration ETH Zurich (TOPKAPI‐ETH)] developed for research purposes mainly. We evaluate the ability of the two models to reproduce the key hydrological processes in the basin with emphasis on snow accumulation and melt, streamflow and the relationships between internal processes. Both models are capable of reproducing observed runoff and the evolution of Moderate‐resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer snow cover adequately. In spite of WEAP's simple and conceptual approach for modelling snowmelt and its lack of glacier representation and snow gravitational redistribution as well as a proper routing algorithm, this model can reproduce historical data with a similar goodness of fit as the more complex TOPKAPI‐ETH. We show that the performance of both models can be improved by using measured precipitation gradients of higher temporal resolution. In contrast to the good performance of the conceptual model for the present climate, however, we demonstrate that the simplifications in WEAP lead to error compensation, which results in different predictions in simulated melt and runoff for a potentially warmer future climate. TOPKAPI‐ETH, using a more physical representation of processes, depends less on calibration and thus is less subject to a compensation of errors through different model components. Our results show that data obtained locally in ad hoc short‐term field campaigns are needed to complement data extrapolated from long‐term records for simulating changes in the water cycle of high‐elevation catchments but that these data can only be efficiently used by a model applying a spatially distributed physical representation of hydrological processes. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

An evaluation of approaches for modelling hydrological processes in high‐elevation, glacierized Andean watersheds

Ragettli

Cortés

McPhee

et al. 2013

Hydrological Processes

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first is the concept that precipitation in upstream watersheds, with complex topography, steep slopes, and abrupt hills and valleys, contributes to gaining streams with a relatively short time lag (Burness et al, 2004;Eckhardt and Ulbrich, 2003;Winter et al, 1998;and Winter, 2001). Conversely, downstream watersheds with flatter terrain tend to overlie alluvial aquifers linked to river systems to which they can contribute flow and from which they can receive seepage, depending on hydrologic conditions.…”

Section: The Integrated Hydrology/water Allocation Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 98%

Integrating a Climate Change Assessment Tool into Stakeholder-Driven Water Management Decision-Making Processes in California

Purkey

Huber-Lee

Yates

et al. 2006

Water Resour Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an emerging consensus in the scientific community that climate change has the potential to significantly alter prevailing hydrologic patterns in California over the course of the 21st Century. This is of profound importance for a system where large investments have been made in hydraulic infrastructure that has been designed and is operated to harmonize dramatic temporal and spatial water supply and water demand variability. Recent work by the authors led to the creation of an integrated hydrology/water management climate change impact assessment framework that can be used to identify tradeoffs between important ecosystem services provided by the California water system associated with future climate change and to evaluate possible adaptation strategies. In spite of the potential impact of climate change, and the availability of a tool for investigating its dimensions, actual water management decision-making processes in California have yet to fully integrate climate change analysis into their planning dialogues. This paper presents an overview of decision-making processes ranked based on the application of a 3S: Sensitivity, Significance, and Stakeholder support, standard, which demonstrates that while climate change is a crucial factor in virtually all water-related decision making in California, it has not typically been considered, at least in any analytical sense. The three highest ranked processes are described in more detail, in particular the role that the new analytical framework could play in arriving at more resilient water management decisions. The authors will engage with stakeholders in Springer 316 Water Resour Manage (2007) 21: [315][316][317][318][319][320][321][322][323][324][325][326][327][328][329] these three processes, in hope of moving climate change research from the academic to the policy making arena.

show abstract

“…While the importance and mechanisms of MFR are well documented, locations of MFR have not been described in a spatially explicit manner. Studies conducted by Burness et al [12] and Covino and McGlynn [7] quantified MFR as a component of the water balance, in particular hydrologic systems; however, its specific geographic distribution within the watershed was not identified. In addition, a number of prior geomorphological works examined characteristics of depositional landforms and their formational processes in arid, mountainous watersheds using geographic information system (GIS) tools [13]- [15].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping Mountain Front Recharge Areas in Arid Watersheds Based on a Digital Elevation Model and Land Cover Types

Bowen¹,

Hamada²,

O’Connor³

2014

JWARP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent assessment that quantified potential impacts of solar energy development on water resources in the southwestern United States necessitated the development of a methodology to identify locations of mountain front recharge (MFR) in order to guide land development decisions. A spatially explicit, slope-based algorithm was created to delineate MFR zones in 17 arid, mountainous watersheds using elevation and land cover data. Slopes were calculated from elevation data and grouped into 100 classes using iterative self-organizing classification. Candidate MFR zones were identified based on slope classes that were consistent with MFR. Land cover types that were inconsistent with groundwater recharge were excluded from the candidate areas to determine the final MFR zones. No MFR reference maps exist for comparison with the study's results, so the reliability of the resulting MFR zone maps was evaluated qualitatively using slope, surficial geology, soil, and land cover datasets. MFR zones ranged from 74 km 2 to 1547 km 2 and accounted for 40% of the total watershed area studied. Slopes and surficial geologic materials that were present in the MFR zones were consistent with conditions at the mountain front, while soils and land cover that were present would generally promote groundwater recharge. Visual inspection of the MFR zone maps also confirmed the presence of well-recognized alluvial fan features in several study watersheds. While qualitative evaluation suggested that the algorithm reliably delineated MFR zones in most watersheds overall, the algorithm was better suited for application in watersheds that had characteristic Basin and Range topography and relatively flat basin floors than areas without these characteristics. Because the algorithm performed well to reliably delineate the spatial distribution of MFR, it would allow researchers to quantify aspects of the hydrologic processes associated with MFR and help local land resource managers to consider protection of critical groundwater recharge regions in their development decisions.

show abstract

Water management in a mountain front recharge aquifer

Cited by 9 publications

References 9 publications

An evaluation of approaches for modelling hydrological processes in high‐elevation, glacierized Andean watersheds

An evaluation of approaches for modelling hydrological processes in high‐elevation, glacierized Andean watersheds

Integrating a Climate Change Assessment Tool into Stakeholder-Driven Water Management Decision-Making Processes in California

Mapping Mountain Front Recharge Areas in Arid Watersheds Based on a Digital Elevation Model and Land Cover Types

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About