The hydrogeologic framework for the Lake Michigan Basin model was developed by grouping the bedrock geology of the study area into hydrogeologic units on the basis of the functioning of each unit as an aquifer or confining layer within the basin. Available data were evaluated based on the areal extent of coverage within the study area, and procedures were established to characterize areas with sparse data coverage. Top and bottom altitudes for each hydrogeologic unit were interpolated in a geographic information system for input to the model and compared with existing maps of subsurface formations. Fourteen bedrock hydrogeologic units, making up 17 bedrock model layers, were defined, and they range in age from the Jurassic Period red beds of central Michigan to the Cambrian Period Mount Simon Sandstone. Each hydrogeologic unit is referred to as its model layer number as represented in the report U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Report 2009-5060 (SIR2009-5060). They are listed below for reference as to the model layer number, and the hydrogeoloigc unit name. Dataset values represent the bottom of the layer. LSD Land surface L1_3 Quaternary unit (Bottom of Quaternary unit is Layer 3 in the model) L4 Jurassic unit L5 Upper Pennsylvanian unit L6 Lower Pennsylvanian unit L7 Michigan Formation unit L8 Marshall Formation unit L9 Devonian-Mississippian unit L10_12 Silurian-Devonian unit (Bottom of Silurian-Devonian unit is Layer 12 in the model) L13 Maquoketa Formation unit L14 Sinnipee Formation unit L15 St. Peter Formation unit L16 Prairie du Chien-Franconia unit L17 Ironton-Galesville unit L18 Eau Claire unit L19_20 Mt Simon Formation unit (Bottom of Mt Simon Formation unit is Layer 20 in the model) The Lake Michigan Basin groundwater model is discretized into a grid of 391 by 261 cells. The model has 20 layers: 3 that simulate the glacial and unconsolidated sediments and 17 that simulate the bedrock units. The model provides additional detail in the area of greatest interest, in this case, the Lake Michigan Basin, by use of smaller grid spacing in the innermost model domain compared with the grid spacing at the model boundaries. The smallest interior grid cells are 5,000 by 5,000 ft. At the model boundaries, the size of grid cells reaches approximately 68,930 ft (13 mi) from north to south by 116,490 ft (22 mi) from east to west. The grid cells each have values for the altitude to the bottom of each layer. The layer numbers are from top to bottom of the aquifer system. Three hydrogeologic units are represented by the multiple layers

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (FDLB), Minnesota, analyzed the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions within the Stoney Brook watershed. The Stoney Brook watershed covers an area of 100.8 square miles in Carlton and St. Louis counties with most of the watershed within the Fond du Lac Reservation. Wild rice, which is harvested by the FDLB, naturally grows in the lakes on the Fond du Lac Reservation and is susceptible to damage from increased water-levels after substantial rainfall events. Channel modifications and frequency rainfall events were simulated to assess lake level conditions that could mitigate potential damages to the wild rice yields. The channel modifications were also used to evaluate options for improving conveyance and floodplain storage in the watershed. The study area consists of 77.9 square miles of the watershed with the downstream boundary located 2.4 miles downstream from the USGS streamgage Stoney Brook at Pine Drive near Brookston, Minn. (USGS station 04021520; U.S. Geological Survey, 2023). A hydrologic model was used to simulate precipitation runoff and outflow hydrographs from delineated subwatersheds in the Stoney Brook watershed. A two-dimensional hydraulic model was used to simulate streamflows, volume accumulation, lake water-levels, and inundation duration and depths. The hydrologic model was developed using Hydrologic Engineering Center–Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC–HMS) computer program (version 4.3; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2022) for the simulation of single rainfall events. A total of 14 subwatersheds were used in the HEC–HMS model to represent the 77.9 square mile study area within the Stoney Brook watershed. The HEC–HMS model was calibrated using streamflow time series from the USGS streamgage Stoney Brook at Pine Drive near Brookston, Minn. (USGS station 04021520; U.S. Geological Survey, 2023) to two high-flow events: April 21–30, 2008, and June 19–July 1, 2012. The calibrated HEC–HMS model used 24-hour duration design rainfall events consisting of precipitation frequencies of 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year recurrence intervals (100-, 50-, 20-, and 10-percent annual exceedance probabilities) for the simulation of channel modification alternatives in the hydraulic model. The hydraulic model was developed using Hydrologic Engineering Center–River Analysis System (HEC–RAS) computer program (version 6.4.1; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2023). The HEC–RAS model was calibrated using streamflow time series from the USGS streamgage Stoney Brook at Pine Drive near Brookston, Minn. (USGS station 04021520; U.S. Geological Survey, 2023) to two high-flow events: April 21–30, 2008, and June 19–July 1, 2012. Channel modification alternatives were developed in the HEC–RAS model as terrain modifications and were intended to improve flow conveyances and storage and wetland coverage within the floodplain. These terrain modifications include breaches in the bank spoils, reconnecting the original channel to Stoney Brook, and clearing the original channel of soil deposition and debris. The HEC–HMS with HEC–RAS scenarios were simulated using flows from 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year recurrence interval (100-, 50-, 20-, and 10-percent annual exceedance probabilities) precipitation events distributed over a 24-hour duration. The HEC–RAS model was used to determine differences in hydraulic characteristics such as: peak water-surface elevations in the lakes, peak flows, volume accumulation, and inundation durations and depths. This data release contains a zip file that includes the HEC–HMS and HEC–RAS model run files, model performance and calibration metrics, and model outputs used in this study. References Cited: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2018, Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System HEC–HMS 4.3. User’s Manual: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers software release, accessed October 10, 2022, at

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (FDLB), Minnesota, analyzed the hydrologic and hydraulic conditions within the Stoney Brook watershed. The Stoney Brook watershed covers an area of 100.8 square miles in Carlton and St. Louis counties with most of the watershed within the Fond du Lac Reservation. Wild rice, which is harvested by the FDLB, naturally grows in the lakes on the Fond du Lac Reservation and is susceptible to damage from increased water-levels after substantial rainfall events. Channel modifications and frequency rainfall events were simulated to assess lake level conditions that could mitigate potential damages to the wild rice yields. The channel modifications were also used to evaluate options for improving conveyance and floodplain storage in the watershed. The study area consists of 77.9 square miles of the watershed with the downstream boundary located 2.4 miles downstream from the USGS streamgage Stoney Brook at Pine Drive near Brookston, Minn. (USGS station 04021520; U.S. Geological Survey, 2023). A hydrologic model was used to simulate precipitation runoff and outflow hydrographs from delineated subwatersheds in the Stoney Brook watershed. A two-dimensional hydraulic model was used to simulate streamflows, volume accumulation, lake water-levels, and inundation duration and depths. The hydrologic model was developed using Hydrologic Engineering Center–Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC–HMS) computer program (version 4.3; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2022) for the simulation of single rainfall events. A total of 14 subwatersheds were used in the HEC–HMS model to represent the 77.9 square mile study area within the Stoney Brook watershed. The HEC–HMS model was calibrated using streamflow time series from the USGS streamgage Stoney Brook at Pine Drive near Brookston, Minn. (USGS station 04021520; U.S. Geological Survey, 2023) to two high-flow events: April 21–30, 2008, and June 19–July 1, 2012. The calibrated HEC–HMS model used 24-hour duration design rainfall events consisting of precipitation frequencies of 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year recurrence intervals (100-, 50-, 20-, and 10-percent annual exceedance probabilities) for the simulation of channel modification alternatives in the hydraulic model. The hydraulic model was developed using Hydrologic Engineering Center–River Analysis System (HEC–RAS) computer program (version 6.4.1; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2023). The HEC–RAS model was calibrated using streamflow time series from the USGS streamgage Stoney Brook at Pine Drive near Brookston, Minn. (USGS station 04021520; U.S. Geological Survey, 2023) to two high-flow events: April 21–30, 2008, and June 19–July 1, 2012. Channel modification alternatives were developed in the HEC–RAS model as terrain modifications and were intended to improve flow conveyances and storage and wetland coverage within the floodplain. These terrain modifications include breaches in the bank spoils, reconnecting the original channel to Stoney Brook, and clearing the original channel of soil deposition and debris. The HEC–HMS with HEC–RAS scenarios were simulated using flows from 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year recurrence interval (100-, 50-, 20-, and 10-percent annual exceedance probabilities) precipitation events distributed over a 24-hour duration. The HEC–RAS model was used to determine differences in hydraulic characteristics such as: peak water-surface elevations in the lakes, peak flows, volume accumulation, and inundation durations and depths. This data release contains a zip file that includes the HEC–HMS and HEC–RAS model run files, model performance and calibration metrics, and model outputs used in this study. References Cited: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2018, Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System HEC–HMS 4.3. User’s Manual: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers software release, accessed October 10, 2022, at

There is a growing interest in incorporating higher-resolution groundwater modeling within the framework of large-scale land surface models (LSMs), including new processes such as three-dimensional flow, variable soil saturation, and surface water/groundwater interactions. Conversely, complex groundwater models (e.g., the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater-Flow Model, MODFLOW) often use simpler representations of land surface dynamics (e.g., surface vegetation, evapotranspiration, recharge) and may benefit from higher process fidelity and temporal resolutions in these inputs. This Data Release includes the model inputs used for the MODFLOW 6 models developed for the simulation of groundwater-flow dynamics in the U.S. Northern High Plains using recharge from four different Land Surface Models. Each model included the same MODFLOW 6 groundwater-flow model of the Northern High Plains aquifer which simulated transient recharge, irrigation pumping, groundwater evapotranspiration, changes in groundwater storage, routing of base flow through stream networks for irrigation and non-irrigation time periods from 1979 through 2015. The only difference in each groundwater-flow model is the source of recharge which came from the following Land Surface Models: (1 USGS Soil-Water-Balance (SWB), (2), coupled Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) and Noah-MP, (3) U.S. National 122 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Water Model (NWM) configuration 123 of the WRF-Hydro, and (4) the Community Land Model.

There is a growing interest in incorporating higher-resolution groundwater modeling within the framework of large-scale land surface models (LSMs), including new processes such as three-dimensional flow, variable soil saturation, and surface water/groundwater interactions. Conversely, complex groundwater models (e.g., the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater-Flow Model, MODFLOW) often use simpler representations of land surface dynamics (e.g., surface vegetation, evapotranspiration, recharge) and may benefit from higher process fidelity and temporal resolutions in these inputs. This Data Release includes the model inputs used for the MODFLOW 6 models developed for the simulation of groundwater-flow dynamics in the U.S. Northern High Plains using recharge from four different Land Surface Models. Each model included the same MODFLOW 6 groundwater-flow model of the Northern High Plains aquifer which simulated transient recharge, irrigation pumping, groundwater evapotranspiration, changes in groundwater storage, routing of base flow through stream networks for irrigation and non-irrigation time periods from 1979 through 2015. The only difference in each groundwater-flow model is the source of recharge which came from the following Land Surface Models: (1 USGS Soil-Water-Balance (SWB), (2), coupled Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) and Noah-MP, (3) U.S. National 122 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Water Model (NWM) configuration 123 of the WRF-Hydro, and (4) the Community Land Model.

q

q

This groundwater-flow model archive/data release contains the model input and output files for 1) edited versions of four of the five NAWQA steady- state, inset MODFLOW-NWT models of regional model of Lake Michigan Basin (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185038) and 2) general models simulating the same four basins as the four inset models. Two HUC8 basins in the lower peninsula of Michigan (Kalamazoo (KALA) and Boardman-Charlevoix (BOARD) basins) and two HUC8 basins in Wisconsin (Upper Fox (UFOX) and Manitowoc-Sheboygan (MANI) basins) are represented in the inset and genera-simulation models. The inset models are designed to serve as a training area for metamodels to estimate groundwater age in glacial wells. The construction and details of the original four inset models are outlined in the U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018-5038 (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185038), and the construction and details of the general models are outlined in the Water Resources Research journal article (https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR021531). The original four inset models are archived in the data release at https://doi.org/10.5066/F76D5R5V. Groundwater withdrawals from wells in the original four inset models were removed in the inset models in this archive because the general models did not have wells and to be able to compare the results from the two types of models in the archive. The boundary conditions of these “pre-development” versions of the inset models were changed from constant-head boundaries (reflecting 2005 conditions) to no-flow boundaries. The general-simulation models apply an innovative modeling approach that allows for rapid,automated construction and calibration of models at a scale appropriate to the problem at hand (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20215142). Results from the four general models in this archive were compared to results from the edited versions of the four inset models to evaluate the degree to which the general models reproduce behavior simulated by the inset models that use conventional flow modeling techniques. The underlying directories contain all the input and output files for the MODFLOW-NWT simulations and MODPATH particle tracking analysis for the edited versions of four inset models, and the four general models simulating the same four basins as the inset models described in the USGS Scientific Investigations Report (https://doi.org/10.3133sir20215142). The MODFLOW-NWT (v 1.0.9) and MODPATH 6 (version 6.0.1) executables and source codes, various ancillary python scripts written for this project, and model geospatial data are also included in the archive. Descriptions of the data in each subdirectory are provided to facilitate understanding of this this model archive. File descriptions are provided for select input and output files to provide additional information that may be of use for understanding this this model archive.

This groundwater-flow model archive/data release contains the model input and output files for 1) edited versions of four of the five NAWQA steady- state, inset MODFLOW-NWT models of regional model of Lake Michigan Basin (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185038) and 2) general models simulating the same four basins as the four inset models. Two HUC8 basins in the lower peninsula of Michigan (Kalamazoo (KALA) and Boardman-Charlevoix (BOARD) basins) and two HUC8 basins in Wisconsin (Upper Fox (UFOX) and Manitowoc-Sheboygan (MANI) basins) are represented in the inset and genera-simulation models. The inset models are designed to serve as a training area for metamodels to estimate groundwater age in glacial wells. The construction and details of the original four inset models are outlined in the U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2018-5038 (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20185038), and the construction and details of the general models are outlined in the Water Resources Research journal article (https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR021531). The original four inset models are archived in the data release at https://doi.org/10.5066/F76D5R5V. Groundwater withdrawals from wells in the original four inset models were removed in the inset models in this archive because the general models did not have wells and to be able to compare the results from the two types of models in the archive. The boundary conditions of these “pre-development” versions of the inset models were changed from constant-head boundaries (reflecting 2005 conditions) to no-flow boundaries. The general-simulation models apply an innovative modeling approach that allows for rapid,automated construction and calibration of models at a scale appropriate to the problem at hand (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20215142). Results from the four general models in this archive were compared to results from the edited versions of the four inset models to evaluate the degree to which the general models reproduce behavior simulated by the inset models that use conventional flow modeling techniques. The underlying directories contain all the input and output files for the MODFLOW-NWT simulations and MODPATH particle tracking analysis for the edited versions of four inset models, and the four general models simulating the same four basins as the inset models described in the USGS Scientific Investigations Report (https://doi.org/10.3133sir20215142). The MODFLOW-NWT (v 1.0.9) and MODPATH 6 (version 6.0.1) executables and source codes, various ancillary python scripts written for this project, and model geospatial data are also included in the archive. Descriptions of the data in each subdirectory are provided to facilitate understanding of this this model archive. File descriptions are provided for select input and output files to provide additional information that may be of use for understanding this this model archive.