Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “water-level fluctuations”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

3 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

MODFLOW6 models used to evaluate potential stresses and hydrologic conditions driving water-level fluctuations in well ER-5-3-2, Frenchman Flat, Southern Nevada

The hydrograph for well ER-5-3-2 in Frenchman Flat, southern Nevada, has previously unexplained water-level fluctuations. Four, three-dimensional, groundwater models (MODFLOW 6) were developed to evaluate potential stresses and hydrologic conditions affecting the well ER-5-3-2 hydrograph. Four model scenarios were developed that simulated: (1) wellbore leakage without recharge, (2) wellbore leakage with recharge, (3) shallow (low transmissivity) and deep (high transmissivity) carbonate rocks, and (4) lateral heterogeneity of carbonate rocks. Input and output files for the four model scenarios are in the model and output directories, respectively. Hydraulic conductivity, specific storage, and wellbore-leakage rates (when simulated) were estimated with parameter estimation (PEST) by minimizing a weighted composite, sum-of-squares objective function. The objective function was informed by measurement and Tikhonov regularization observations. Measurement observations included drawdowns from the constant-rate aquifer test and water-level altitudes measured in well ER-5-3-2 from 2001-2021. Tikhonov regularization informed hydraulic conductivity and specific storage parameters that were insensitive to measurement observations, where homogeneity was the preferred relation. Batch files, executables, and MODFLOW 6, PEST, and post-processing utilities are in the ancillary directory. Supplementary data also are included in the ancillary directory, including site information, high-frequency water-level and aquifer-test data, transmissivity estimates, water-chemistry data, and water-temperature analyses. This USGS data release contains data, analyses, and model files for the simulations and analysis results described in U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report (https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20225132).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Temporal Variability in Reservoir Surface Area Is an Important Source of Uncertainty in GHG Emission Estimates

Ebullitive methane (CH 4 ) emissions in lentic ecosystems tend to concentrate at river-lake interfaces and within shallow littoral zones. However, inconsistent definitions of the littoral zone and static representations of the lake or reservoir surface area contribute to major uncertainties in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates, particularly in reservoirs with large water-level fluctuations. This study examines temporal variation in littoral and total surface areas of US reservoirs and demonstrates how different methods and data sources lead to discrepencies in reservoir GHG emissions at large scales and over time. We also explore variability in remotely sensed water occurrence according to maximum surface area, reservoir purposes, and hydrologic regions. Notably, the largest relative variability in surface area is exhibited by small reservoirs with a maximum surface area <1 km 2 and non-hydroelectric reservoirs. Additionally, we use a case study of measured CH 4 emissions from the southeastern United States (Douglas Reservoir) to illustrate the effects of varying surface area on reservoir-wide GHG estimates. Upscaled CH 4 emissions in Douglas Reservoir differed by nearly two-fold depending on the source of total surface area data and whether estimates accounted for seasonal fluctuations in surface area. During seasonal drawdown in Douglas Reservoir, relative littoral area varies non-linearly; periods of lower pool elevation (and thus larger relative littoral area) likely contribute disproportionately high CH 4 emission rates compared to the commonly sampled summer season when water levels are at full-pool elevation. Improved GHG monitoring and upscaling techniques require accounting for temporal variability in reservoir surface extent and littoral area.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Understanding How Reservoir Operations Influence Methane Emissions: A Conceptual Model

Because methane is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG), understanding controls on methane emissions from reservoirs is an important goal. Yet, reservoirs are complex ecosystems, and mechanisms by which reservoir operations influence methane emissions are poorly understood. In part, this is because emissions occur in ‘hot spots’ and ‘hot moments’. In this study, we address three research questions, ‘What are the causal pathways through which reservoir operations and resulting water level fluctuations (WLF) influence methane emissions?’; ‘How do influences from WLF differ for seasonal drawdown and diurnal hydropeaking operations?’; and ‘How does understanding causal pathways inform practical options for mitigation?’. A graphical conceptual model is presented that links WLF in reservoirs to methane emissions via four causal pathways: (1) water-column mixing (2) drying–rewetting cycles, (3) sediment delivery and redistribution, and (4) littoral vegetation. We review what is known about linkages for WLF at seasonal and diurnal resolutions generate research questions, and hypothesize strategies for moderating methane emissions by interrupting each causal pathway. Those related to flow management involve basin-scale management of tributary flows, seasonal timing of hydropeaking (pathway #1), timing and rates of drawdown (pathway #2). In addition, we describe how sediment (pathway #3) and vegetation management (pathway #4) could interrupt linkages between WLF and emissions. We demonstrate the strength of conceptual modeling as a tool for generating plausible hypotheses and suggesting mitigation strategies. Future research is needed to develop simpler models at appropriate timescales that can be validated and used to manage flow releases from reservoirs.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗