This model archive provides the necessary documentation of the numerical models developed for the Central Sands Lake study in central Wisconsin and will be included as a technical appendix (Appendix C) in the report to the Wisconsin State Legislature by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in response to 2017 Wisconsin Act 10. This legislation directed DNR to determine whether existing and potential groundwater withdrawals are causing or are likely to cause significant reduction of mean seasonal water levels at Pleasant Lake, Long Lake, and Plainfield Lake (s. 281.34(7m)(2)(b), Wis. Stats.) in Waushara County, Wisconsin. To evaluate the potential hydrologic connection between groundwater withdrawals and the nearby study lakes, hydrologic models were created that focused on the lakes of interest and yet were large enough to cover a broad enough region to extend to the major hydrologic boundaries of the natural flow system. The areas near the lakes require finer-scale grid discretization (or spacing) to better represent the lakes and streams in the model, but also need to cover a large enough area to include the groundwater withdrawal locations that have the potential to cause reduction in water levels in the lakes. To accomplish these goals, three groundwater models were created: a regional model extending to major hydrologic boundaries; and two inset models, inheriting boundaries from the regional model but focused near the lakes. Each of the inset models, in turn, included a detailed area close to the lakes surrounded by an area at the same spatial scale as the regional model. To support WDNR in evaluating the connection between groundwater withdrawals and lake levels, a representative time period was required over which to compare land use with and without irrigated agriculture and for WDNR to evaluate potential lake stage and flux changes related to irrigated agriculture. WDNR chose the climate period of 1981-2018 to be representative of a typical period and provided two land use scenarios—one with no irrigated agriculture and one with assumed crop rotations similar to current conditions—to simulate with groundwater models to, then, compare lake responses with. As a result, simulations over this climate record are not intended to recreate the history of 1981-2018 because land use changed over that time. These runs are, instead, intended to provide a basis on which to compare land use with and without irrigation-related groundwater withdrawals based on the current arrangement of land use and a varied climatic record. Groundwater withdrawals focused on irrigated-agriculture-related water use because greater than 95% of groundwater withdrawal in the two inset models around the study lakes is for irrigated agriculture water use. The period of 2012-2018 was used for parameter estimation (synonymously referred to as “history matching”) for the groundwater models. This time period was chosen because it includes the most complete water use records to simulate groundwater withdrawals. History matching was performed using groundwater elevations, lake stages, and streamflow observations over the 2012-2018 time period and processed observations derived from those raw data. Climatic data were incorporated into the model using a soil-water balance approach. A soil water balance model (Westenbroek and others, 2021) was constructed at the scale of the regional groundwater model to both calculate recharge based on land use and climate, and in the long-term climate-period runs, to estimate water use required by irrigated agriculture to apply as well boundary conditions in the groundwater model in the absence of reported water use values over that period. The model archive presents all the inputs needed to run the models, the model software, information on history matching to estimate parameters of the model, model scenario files, and model outputs that the user should be able to recreate using the model files in this archive.

This model archive contains the model files for the MERAS 3 and Mississippi Delta groundwater flow models documented in the U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2023-5100. The MERAS 3 model provides a simplified representation of groundwater flow in the Mississippi Embayment Regional Aquifer Study (MERAS) area for the period of 1900 through 2018, with the primary goal of providing boundary fluxes for inset models focused on local areas of interest. The Mississippi Delta model simulates groundwater flow in the Delta region of northwestern Mississippi from 1900 through 2018, using boundary fluxes from the MERAS 3 model. A scenario version of the Mississippi Delta model extends the simulation to 2056, using net infiltration, surface water runoff, and irrigation pumping derived from downscaled general circulation model output, via a soil water balance simulation. Workflows for initial model construction, parameter estimation, and the setup of future climate scenarios are included in separate ZIP archives, along with portable python distributions for running the workflow scripts on OSX or Windows platforms. See the Readme.md file(s) for instructions.

This model archive contains the model files for the MERAS 3 and Mississippi Delta groundwater flow models documented in the U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2023-5100. The MERAS 3 model provides a simplified representation of groundwater flow in the Mississippi Embayment Regional Aquifer Study (MERAS) area for the period of 1900 through 2018, with the primary goal of providing boundary fluxes for inset models focused on local areas of interest. The Mississippi Delta model simulates groundwater flow in the Delta region of northwestern Mississippi from 1900 through 2018, using boundary fluxes from the MERAS 3 model. A scenario version of the Mississippi Delta model extends the simulation to 2056, using net infiltration, surface water runoff, and irrigation pumping derived from downscaled general circulation model output, via a soil water balance simulation. Workflows for initial model construction, parameter estimation, and the setup of future climate scenarios are included in separate ZIP archives, along with portable python distributions for running the workflow scripts on OSX or Windows platforms. See the Readme.md file(s) for instructions.

A three-dimensional groundwater flow model, MODFLOW-OWHM, was developed to provide a better understanding of the hydrogeology of the Lucerne Valley Groundwater Basin, California. The model was used to investigate the historical groundwater storage loss and subsidence associated with anthropogenic groundwater demands. The model was calibrated to 1942 through 2016 conditions. This USGS data release contains all of the input and output files for the simulation described in the associated model documentation report https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20225048

A three-dimensional groundwater flow model, MODFLOW-OWHM, was developed to provide a better understanding of the hydrogeology of the Lucerne Valley Groundwater Basin, California. The model was used to investigate the historical groundwater storage loss and subsidence associated with anthropogenic groundwater demands. The model was calibrated to 1942 through 2016 conditions. This USGS data release contains all of the input and output files for the simulation described in the associated model documentation report https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20225048

An existing three-dimensional model (MODFLOW-2000) by Petkewich and Campbell (2007) (https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5126/) was updated to simulate six predictive water-management scenarios that were created to simulate potential changes in groundwater flow and groundwater-level conditions in the Mount Pleasant, South Carolina area. The model was recalibrated to conditions from 1900 to 2015. Simulations included six scenarios: (1) maximize Mount Pleasant Waterworks reverse-osmosis plant capacity by increasing groundwater withdrawals from 3.9 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) in 2015 to 8.6 Mgal/d from the Middendorf aquifer; (2) same as Scenario 1, but with the addition of a 0.5 Mgal/d supply well in the Middendorf aquifer near Moncks Corner, SC; (3) same as Scenario 1, but with the addition of a 1.5 Mgal/d supply well in the Middendorf aquifer near Moncks Corner, SC; (4) maximize Mount Pleasant Waterworks well capacity by increasing withdrawals from the Middendorf aquifer from 3.9 Mgal/d in 2015 to 10.2 Mgal/d (5) minimizing Mount Pleasant Waterworks surface-water purchase from the Charleston Water System by adding supply wells and increasing withdrawals from the Middendorf aquifer from 3.9 Mgal/d in 2015 to 12.2 Mgal/d; and (6) same as Scenario 1, but with the addition of quarterly model stress periods to simulate seasonal variations in the groundwater withdrawals. This USGS data release contains all of the input and output files for the simulations described in the associated model documentation report (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175128).

An existing three-dimensional model (MODFLOW-2000) by Petkewich and Campbell (2007) (https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5126/) was updated to simulate six predictive water-management scenarios that were created to simulate potential changes in groundwater flow and groundwater-level conditions in the Mount Pleasant, South Carolina area. The model was recalibrated to conditions from 1900 to 2015. Simulations included six scenarios: (1) maximize Mount Pleasant Waterworks reverse-osmosis plant capacity by increasing groundwater withdrawals from 3.9 million gallons per day (Mgal/d) in 2015 to 8.6 Mgal/d from the Middendorf aquifer; (2) same as Scenario 1, but with the addition of a 0.5 Mgal/d supply well in the Middendorf aquifer near Moncks Corner, SC; (3) same as Scenario 1, but with the addition of a 1.5 Mgal/d supply well in the Middendorf aquifer near Moncks Corner, SC; (4) maximize Mount Pleasant Waterworks well capacity by increasing withdrawals from the Middendorf aquifer from 3.9 Mgal/d in 2015 to 10.2 Mgal/d (5) minimizing Mount Pleasant Waterworks surface-water purchase from the Charleston Water System by adding supply wells and increasing withdrawals from the Middendorf aquifer from 3.9 Mgal/d in 2015 to 12.2 Mgal/d; and (6) same as Scenario 1, but with the addition of quarterly model stress periods to simulate seasonal variations in the groundwater withdrawals. This USGS data release contains all of the input and output files for the simulations described in the associated model documentation report (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20175128).

A numerical groundwater flow model of the Hualapai Valley Basin, using MODFLOW-NWT, was developed to assist water-resource managers in understanding the potential effects of projected groundwater withdrawals on groundwater levels in the basin. Hualapai Valley Basin is a broad, internally drained, intermountain desert basin in Mohave County, northwestern Arizona. Basin-fill aquifers are the primary groundwater source for many desert communities, and the residents, commerce, and agriculture in and near to the Hualapai Valley Basin must rely on such groundwater to meet water needs. As in many parts of the western United States, population growth in this part of Arizona is substantial. From 2000 to 2018 the population of the City of Kingman, Arizona, grew from 20,069 to 30,314, an increase of 51 percent, whereas the population of Mohave County grew from 155,062 to 209,550, an increase of 35 percent. Water managers in Mohave County have raised concern about the potential for future groundwater development and additional stresses on the groundwater system in the Hualapai Valley Basin. In particular, the City of Kingman, Ariz., water supply is primarily groundwater withdrawn from the Kingman subbasin of the Hualapai Valley Basin, northeast of the city. The potential effects of future water development on the City of Kingman well field have become a top concern to regional water-resource managers. To address these concerns the Hualapai Valley Hydrologic Model (HVHM) simulates the hydrologic system for the years 1935 through 2219, including future withdrawal scenarios that simulate large-scale agricultural expansion with and without enhanced groundwater recharge from potential new infiltration basin projects. HVHM is a highly parameterized model (75,586 adjustable parameters) capable of simulating grid-scale variability in aquifer properties (for example, conductivity, specific yield, and specific storage) and system stresses (for instance, natural recharge and groundwater withdrawals). System stresses were partially adopted from a previously-published groundwater model (Tillman and others, 2013). Parameter estimation and uncertainty quantification were performed using an iterative ensemble smoother software (PESTPP-IES) to produce an ensemble of models fit to historical data. Two future scenarios were simulated with a subset of the posterior parameter ensemble comprising the 40 best-fit realizations. In scenario 1, future pumping was simulated to increase linearly from 2019 through 2029 and then held constant through 2219. Scenario 2 includes the same specified future pumping, but also simulates enhanced recharge at proposed infiltration basins throughout the Kingman subbasin beginning in 2019. This USGS data release contains all of the input and output files for the simulations described in the associated model documentation report (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20215077).

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.