Mountain-Block Hydrology and Mountain-Front Recharge

Water Sci. and Appl. Groundwater Recharge in a Desert Environment: The Southwestern United States Vol.
Mountain-BlockHydrologyand Mountain-FrontRecharge
John L. Wilson and Huade Guan
New Mexico Instituteof Mining and Technology,

Socorro,New Mexico
In semiaridclimates,a significantcomponentof rechargeto basin aquifers

occursalongthe mountainfront. Traditionallycalled"mountain-frontrecharge"
(MFR), this processhasbeentreatedby modelersof basinsas a boundarycondi-
tion. In general,mountain-front rechargeestimatesare basedon the generalpre-
cipitationcharacteristics
of the mountain(as estimated,e.g.,by the chloridemass
balanceand water balancemethods),or by calibrationof a basingroundwater
model.Thesemethodsavoidaltogetherthe complexitiesof the hydrologicsystem
abovethe mountainfront, or at best consideronly traditionalrunoff process.
Consequently hydrologyabovethe mountainfront is an arearipe for significant
scientificadvancement.A completeview would considerthe entire mountain
block systemand examinehydrologicprocessesfrom the slopeof the highest
peakto the depthof the deepestcirculatinggroundwater. Importantaspectsabove
the mountainfront includethe partitioningof rainfall and snowmeltinto vegeta-
tion-controlledevapotranspiration, surfacerunoff, and deep infiltrationthrough
bedrock,especiallyits fracturesandfaults.Focusedflow alongmountainstream
channels andthediffusemovementof groundwater throughtheunderlyingmoun-
tain blockwouldbothbe considered. Thispaperfirst definessomekey terms,then
reviewsmethodsof studyingMFR in arid andsemiaridregions,discusses hydro-
logicalprocesses in the mountainblock, and finally addresses someof the basic
questions raisedby thenew mountain-block hydrologyapproach,aswell asfuture
directionsfor mountain-blockhydrologyresearch.
1. INTRODUCTION aquifers,throughdirectinfiltrationof precipitation,is limit-

ed or absent due to small precipitation volumes, deep
The term "mountain-frontrecharge"(MFR) is generally vadosezones,andthe water scavengingvegetationfoundin
used in arid and semiarid climates to describe the contribu- dry climates[Foster and Smith-Carrington,1980; Phillips,
tion of mountainsregionsto therechargeof aquifersin adja- 1994; Izbicki ,et al., 2000; Flint, 2002a; Walvoord et al.,
cent basins.Basin aquifer rechargeis typically focused 2002]. Mountains,due to orographiceffects,receivemore
along stream channelsand the mountain front; in many precipitationthanthe basinfloor,with a significantfraction
casesMFR is the dominantsourceof replenishment[Hely et in the form of snow. In addition, mountainshave lower tem-
al., 1971; Maurer et al., 1999]. Diffuse rechargeof basin peratures,and sometimesa largersurfacealbedodue to the
snowcover,thusreducingthe potentialfor evapotranspira-
tion (ET). Mountainsalso have thin soilsthat can storeless
GroundwaterRechargein a DesertEnvironment:
The Southwestern United States
water,reducingthe amountpotentiallylostby transpiration.
Water ScienceandApplication9
Fast flow alongbedrockfracturesthat underliethe thin soil
Copyright2004 by theAmericanGeophysicalUnion. cover may also limit water lossto ET (Plate 1). A studyof
10.1029/009WSA08
113
Water Sci. and Appl. Groundwater Recharge in a Desert Environment: The Southwestern United States Vol. 9
114 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE
Plate I Vegetation,thin soil cover,and limestonebedrockon a hillslopeof the easternSandiaMountains,New Mexico

The rock is dippingto the north(left). The vegetationis mainly Pin0n and Juniper.
Plate 2. Two differentremotesensingperspectives on MFR. (a) The valley-centeredperspectiveis representedby this

horizontalview of the AlbuquerqueBasin boundedby the SandiaMountains(-•25 km visible in this view). The view is
eastacrossthe city of Albuquerque,with a 5-timesverticalexaggeration(TM image7, 4, 2 bandsdrapingover a DEM).
(b) The mountain-centered perspectiveis representedby this -•130 km wide vertical view of the southernSangrede
CristoMountains,New Mexico and part of Rio Grandevalley,with a 5-timesverticalexaggeration(TM 7, 4, 2 bands
drapingover a DEM). The eastslopesof the JemezMountainsare on the left.
WILSON AND GUAN 115
20 selected catchments worldwide shows that the area- the surroundingandunderlyingmountainblocks.It consid-
weightedmountaincontributionto annualriver basin dis- ers rechargefrom rainfall, snowmelt,surfacerunoff, and
chargeis about4 timesthat of the basinfloor [ Viviroliet al., throughfracturesand faults,as well aswater returnedto the
2003]. In arid and semiaridregions,the mountaincontribu- atmospherethroughvegetation-controlled evapotranspira-
tion can be greater. tion. When water is dischargedfrom the mountainblock to
MFR hasbeenstudiedfrom one of two perspectives: (1) the adjacentbasin,throughfocusedand diffusesurfaceand
the traditional basin-centeredview (Plate 2a), or (2) a subsurfacecomponents,it becomesMFR.
mountain-centered view (Plate 2b). With a basin-centered MFR is an important, if not predominant,source of
perspective,the mountain front is viewed as a boundary rechargeto basinsin arid and semiaridregions,howeverit
conditionfor the basinaquifers,thusavoidingthe complex- is simultaneouslythe leastwell quantified.Estimatesof the
ities of the hydrologicsystemabove the mountain front. basin-marginrechargeto the Middle Rio GrandeBasinvary
Basin-centeredmethodsinclude Darcy's law calculations by one order of magnitude [Sanford et al., 2000].
along the mountainfront [Maurer and Berger, 1997] and Uncertainty is amplified by climate variability, climate
calibration of groundwatermodels of the basin aquifer change, and increasing anthropogenicdisturbancesthat
[Tiedemanet al., 1998a;Sanfordet al., 2000]. With a moun- alter mountain environments[Luckman and Kavanagh,
tain-centeredperspective,precipitationamountsover the 2002], mountain hydrology, and thus mountain-front
mountainsare crudely related to MFR rates, and do not recharge.Somedirecthumanimpacts(e.g., septicsystems,
considerthe subsurface hydrologicmechanicsin the moun- transportation, resort development, mine dewatering/
tains. Examples of mountain-centeredmethods include: contamination)also affect water quality in mountains.A
(1) comparingthe geochemicalor isotopiccharacteristics of more completeapproachto studyingMFR in a mountain-
mountainprecipitationwith the groundwaterat the moun- centeredperspectivewould provide observationsof the
tain front (e.g., the chloride mass balance method) temporaland spatialvariationsof its differentcomponents,
[Dettinger, 1989; Maurer and Berger, 1997; Anderholm, and improve predictionof how the mountainhydrologic
2000]; (2) using locally developed empirical relations system(includingMFR) respondsto climate and to local
betweenMFR and precipitation[Maxey and Eakin, 1949; disturbances such as changing vegetation patterns.
Anderson et al., 1992; Maurer et al., 1999; Anderholm, Mountain-centered observations andpredictionsare essential
2000]; and (3) subtractingestimatedET from precipitation for effectivegroundwaterresourcemanagementin adjacent
[Feth, 1966; Huntley, 1979]. The studiesof MFR in either basins.
perspectiveso far neglectdetailedhydrologicprocesses in This paper first defines some key terms, then reviews
mountains. methodsof studyingMFR in arid and semiaridregions,
Hydrologicprocesses in mountainshave been studiedin describeshydrologicprocessesin the mountainblock, and
detail at the hillslope scale, with a focus on streamflow finally addressessome of the basic questionsraisedby a
responses to precipitationin humid regions(e.g., McGlynn proposednew mountain-blockhydrologyapproach,as well
et al., 2002; Peters et al., 1995; Tani, 1997). Few of these as futuredirectionsfor mountain-blockhydrologyresearch.
studieswere conductedin arid andsemiaridregions[Wilcox
et al., 1997;Puigdefabregas et al., 1998]. Hillslope studies 2. MOUNTAIN BLOCK, MOUNTAIN FRONT,
typicallyonly examinehydrologicprocesses in the thin soil AND RECHARGE
layer abovethe bedrocksurface(Plate 1). Studiesof semi-
arid mountainhydrologicprocesses below the bedrocksur- A mountainblock includesall the mass composingthe
face have mostly been limited to Yucca Mountain, the mountains,includingvegetation,soil,bedrock(exposedand
proposedvadosezone nuclearwasterepositoryin Nevada, unexposed),and water.A mountainblock can be formed
with an emphasison solutemigrationissues. througha numberof geologicalprocesses, suchas normal
Hydrologicscienceabovethe mountainfront, incorporat- faultingin extensionalsettings,thrustfaultingin compres-
ing a full view of the entiremountainblock systemandnot sionalsettings,andvolcaniceruption.Theseprocesses yield
just the thin soil coverand its vegetation,is an arearipe for the mountainblock'smost importantcharacteristic:signifi-
significantscientificadvancement. This morecompleteper- cant topographicrelief. Mountain-blockhydrologyexam-
spectiveexamineshydrologicprocesses from the slopesof ines all hydrologic processesin the mountain block,
thehighestpeakto the depthsof deepestcirculatingground- includingthe temporaland spatialdistributionof precipita-
water. It includes the focused flow of mountain stream tion, vegetation interception,snow and snowmelt, ET,
channels,andthe diffusemovementof groundwaterthrough runoff, interflow(throughflow)in the soil layer,water flow
ambiguousanddifficultto compare.Is the mountainfronta

MOUNTAIN strict line or a narrow zone? If it is a line, how is it deter-
mined?If it is a zone,what criteriaare usedto identifythis
A MOUNTAIN
FRONT zone?
Consider the mountain front defined as a line. Several
natural lines could be used, includingvegetationbound-
aries, soil boundaries(e.g., the edge of bare rock), slope
boundaries,mountainboundingfaults, or even the snow
line. Basedon Ruxton and Berry's [1961] descriptionof
landformsandweatheringprofilesin aridregions,we define
threealternativedefinitionsof the mountainfrontboundary:
the point where there is a changein vegetation(Figure 1,
pointA), the pointwherethe mountainabutsthe piedmont,
oftencorresponding to a changein soiltype andpresenceof
Figure 1. Schematiccross-sectionshowingnaturally occurring
the mountainboundingfaults(pointB), andtheplinthangle
map lines for potentialmountainfront definitions.A = point of
vegetationchange,B = point of piedmontangle (often a major wherethe piedmontmeetsthe edgeof the basinfloor (point
mountainboundingfault, or masterfault, is locatedin this vicini- C). Each of theseboundariesis a candidatefor definingthe
ty), and C = point of plinth angle.In extensionalsettings,like the mountain front becauseeach might representa distinct
Rio GrandeRift andBasinandRange,thereare a seriesof normal hydrologictransition(Table 1).
faultsalongthe mountainfront andbeneaththe alluvial fan lead- Supposeinsteadthe mountainfront is definedas a transi-
ing down into the basin [Russelland Snelson,1990]. tion zone between the mountain and the basin floor.
Theoretically,any zone that utilizesthe boundariesdefined
throughbedrockmatrix andfractures,andsurfacewaterand in Figure 1 canbe a potentialmountainfront zone.For the
subsurface water interactions. purposeof studyingmountain-frontrechargein arid and
The term mountain-frontrechargeis frequentlyused to semiaridareaswe believethatthe piedmontzone(the area
describethe contributionfrom mountainsto groundwater betweenpointsB and C) is the bestdefinitionof the moun-
rechargeof the adjacentbasinsalong the mountainfront. tain front. The streamflowat point B representssurface
The mountainfront is positionedsomewherebetweenthe runoff from the mountain block; the stream loss between
mountain block and the basin floor. However, a clear and pointsB andC reflectsthe waterreturnedto the atmosphere
consistentdefinition of the mountain front is lacking. by ET and by rechargeinto the mountainfront zone (and
Estimates of mountain-front recharge are consequently eventuallyto the basinaquifer).Mountainboundingfaults
Table 1 Comparison of three potential boundaries for mountain front determination

Typesof boundaries Significantchangeacross Advantage Disadvantage
the boundary
A: Vegetation Vegetationtype, Goodfor ecologicalstudy. Varieswith climate,slope
Evapotranspiration. aspect,etc.Not goodfor
studyingmountainfront
recharge.
B: Piedmontangle Slope,soil, Goodpointto quantify Rechargefrom surface

infiltration and ranoff surface runoff from the runoffbeyondthispointis
characteristics. mountain,generally not included in mountain
accompaniedwith soil front recharge.
changeandburied
mountainboundingfault
zone.
C: Plinthangle Slope,soil, Surface runoff measured May be coveredby

surface structures. pastthispoint is definitely anthropogenic structures;
excluded from mountain the point is difficult to
frontrecharge. identify.
WILSON AND GUAN 117
are typically locatedwithin this zone, thus includingtheir the water table throughthe unsaturatedzone or from direct
hydrologiceffect on mountain-frontrecharge.With this contactwith surfacewaterbodies[Flint et al., 2001a]. With
defined as the mountainfront zone, the landscapeis then this definition, the combined saturated zone of mountain
dividedinto four hydrologicallydistinctiveareas:mountain and basin is consideredone system,and rechargeis the
block, mountain front, basin floor, and dischargezones processof adding water from above throughthe vadose
(e.g., phreaticplayasandbasinriparianareas),illustratedin zone. From this perspective,"mountain-blockrecharge"
Figures2a and 2b. would perhapsbe termed "underflow"betweentwo por-
MFR is definedby Keith [1980] as groundwaterrecharge tions of the system.If insteadwe consideronly the basin
to a regional(basin)aquiferat the marginof the aquiferthat aquifer as the system of concern,the broader definition
parallelsa mountainarea. MFR is often divided into two acknowledges that "recharge"occurswhen water is added
components[Andersonet al., 1992; Chavezet al., 1994a; to the aquifer.Meinzer [ 1923] distinguished thesetwo con-
Manning, 2002]: (1) subsurfaceinflow from the adjacent tributionsto aquiferreplenishment as directrecharge(from
mountains;and (2) infiltrationfrom streamsnearthe moun- the unsaturated zone) and indirectrecharge(from othersat-
tain front. In this definition, MFR includes the addition of urated formations).A recent National Research Council
water to the basin aquifer both from the saturatedzone [2004] report appearsto acceptthe less strict definitionof
underthe mountainsandthroughthe unsaturated zoneat the recharge
mountainfront. We, and others,call the first component For compatibilitywith the traditionalview of mountain-
"mountain-blockrecharge"[Manning, 2002]. Some scien- front rechargein basinhydrologicstudies,we suggestthat
tistsdo not regardthis as a componentof rechargebecause MFR be definedas all water enteringthe basinaquiferwith
it fails their strict definitionof rechargeas water reaching its sourcein the mountainblock andmountainfront (zone).
This definition includesdirect water-tablerechargeat the
mountain-frontzone (directMFR), and the transferof sub-
a. / surface water from the mountain bedrock to the basin
. BASIN
aquifer(indirectMFR or mountain-blockrecharge).In addi-
tion to nearsurface(direct)and subsurface
paths(indirect),
one can also considerdiffuseand focusedpathsfor each,
leadingto four componentsof MFR (Figure 3).
1) Focusednear surfacecomponent(FS). This represents

MFR contributions at the mountain front from surface
stream
runoff
(FS•,,easytomeasure)
andshallow
sub-
fl' ..... Mountain
front
zone surfacewatertransmitted
bystreambed
sediments
(FS2,
difficulttomeasure).
WeemphasizeFS2herebecause
it
is sometimesneglectedwhen MFR is estimatedsolely
from the surfacerunoff.While the streamchannelmay
be dry,thereis oftensignificantsubsurface
dischargein
Mountain LocalFlow
Front the sedimentsunderlying the stream and above the
bedrock surface. This subsurface flow includes the
Zone hyporheiczonebeneaththe stream,but it canbe deep-
er and wider, especially at the mountain front.
Theoretically,
thesurface
runoffFS• is theamount
of
stream water runoff (Re) that crossesthe piedmont
angle (Point B in Figure 1) and entersthe mountain
frontzone.In reality,FS• is alwayslessthanRe,
becauseof ET losses,and becausesome surfacerunoff
managesto flow pastthe downstreamboundaryof the
Figure 2. Schematicdiagram showingfour hydrologicallydis-
tinctiveunitsof the landscapein map view (a) andin cross-section
mountainfront zone and into the basin(DRe). In arid
(b). The crosssectionalsoshowsvariousgroundwaterflow paths regionswherestreamsare mostlyephemeralanddisap-
in the mountainblock (modified from Toth [1963] and Keith, pearat themountain
front,FS• is equalto Re lessthe
[1980]). loss to ET.
--- --- --- Surface Fault Trace
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Figure 3. SchematicdiagramillustratingMFR components. FS = focusednear-surfacerecharge,DS = diffusenear-sur-

facerecharge,FR = focusedsubsurface recharge,DR = diffusesubsurfacerecharge.
2) Diffusenear surfacecomponent(DS). Diffuse nearsur- by focusedflow FR in mountainblockscomposedof

face flow occursalongsteepfront slopesvia ephemer- crystallinerock.
al surfacerunoff (in small unmappedchannels)and
subsurface interflow(throughthe thin soil layer) origi- 4) Diffusesubsurfacecomponent
(DR). Thereis alsoa dif-
natingin smallcatchmentsdirectlyabovethe mountain fusecomponentof groundwatertransmissionalongthe
front.This diffusecomponentalsoincludesthe vertical contact zone between the bedrock of the mountain
recharge from precipitation falling directly on the blockandthe sediments of thebasinaquifer.In a moun-
mountain-front zone. Both of these contributions are tain block with high matrix permeability,such as a
reducedby the local ET. Given the small area of the volcanictuff, or regularandubiquitousfracturing,such
mountainfront zone comparedto the remainderof the as a basalt,diffuseflow DR can be an importantcom-
mountainblock, thesecontributionsprovidea relative- ponentof mountain-frontrecharge.
ly small componentof MFR.
Based on these definitions, a simple water balance
3) Focusedsubsurfacecomponent(FR). This is subsur- equation,
facewatertransmittedalongbedrockopenings,includ-
ing fractures (primarily tectonic origin, or due to MFR 1 = (FSi+FS2) + DS + FR + DR, (1)
unloadingextension),faults,andpipes(e.g., lava tubes
and dissolvedopeningsin carbonates),that connect describesmountain-frontrecharge.Despitetheir simplicity,
subsurface water in the mountain block and the basin
waterbalanceequationsareusefultoolsfor conceptualizing
aquifer. Structuralenhancementof rock permeability mountain-frontrecharge.Anotherway of writing the water
dueto faultsand zonesof intensefracturingwithin the balanceequationfor MFR• is
bedrock are especiallyimportantfactors in creating
focusedsubsurfaceflowpaths,which Feth [1964] calls (2)
the 'hiddenpath'. Groundwatertransmission is mostly
WILSON AND GUAN 119
where P is precipitationinput in the mountainblock and This water balanceequationexcludesthe subsurfacewater

themountain-front
zone(P=P•,+Pf, whereP•,• Pf),ETa, transfer in the streambed. If we broaden the definition of
andETfareevapotranspiration
in themountain blockand mountain-blockrechargeto includethis component,then
mountain-frontzone,respectively,andDRO is streamflow we have
at the downstream end of the mountain-front zone into the
basin. MBR2 -FS 2 + FR + DR. (8)
In the arid and semi-arid southwest United States a num-
ber of simplificationsare taken,leadingto lesscomprehen- This mountain-block
waterbalanceequationcanbe written
sive definitionsof mountain-frontrecharge.First, stream as
runoff at the mountainfront is generallyephemeral,and

almostalways disappearswithin the mountainfront zone. MBR2 = P- ETa,- RO (9)
Therefore,downstreamrunoff beyondthe mountainfront is
often negligible (DRO = 0). In this case, MFR can be whenthe front-sloperunoff is negligible.
defined as Why bother to write out these various versionsof the
water balanceequation?They illustratethe range of dif-
(3) ferent conditionsthat apply in nature and the range of
assumptions that peoplemake in order to understandand
This canbe rewritten,in termsof thefourcomponents
at the estimatemountain-frontand mountain-blockrecharge.In
mountain front, as particular,for methodsadoptinga particularconceptual
water balancemodel, they showwhat is being neglected
MFR2 - (RO- RETf+ FS2) + DS + FR + DR. (4) and so point out bias. The assumptionsused by analysts
andmodelersare not alwaysconsistentwith the appropri-
whereRETfis theriparianET alongthe focused
stream ate conditionsfor a particular mountain range and its
channelacrossthe mountain-frontzone (thereis a smalldif- boundingbasins.
fusecomponent
of ETf throughout
therestof thezone,
away from the streamchannel,that is alreadyaccountedfor 3. ESTIMATION METHODS
by theDS component).
In some cases the subsurface water transfer from the Variousphysical,chemical,and numericalmethodshave
mountainbedrockto the basinaquiferis neglected.In other beenappliedto studyMFR overthepastfive decades.
Table2
words,only directMFR is considered,with the component summarizes the methods used in several studies of MFR in
formula becomes arid and semiaridregions.While Flint et al. [2002b] sum-
marizes methodsused at Yucca Mountain for estimating
MFR3 = FS + DS. (5) rechargeto the mountainblock itself, herewe review a wide
varietyof the methodsemployedto estimateMFR.
Takingthisonestepfurther,the diffusecomponent andFS2
are alsoneglectedand mountain-frontrechargeis assumed 3.1. Water Balance Method
to be equalto the surfacestreamflowmeasuredat themoun-
tain front,FS•,. This leadsto a very simpledefinitionof Generally,precipitationis theonly waterinputto a moun-
MFR, tain block. The amountof mountain-frontrechargecan be
estimatedif water lossby ET and surfacerunoff is known.
MFR4 = go, (6) Which MFR componentsare estimatedis basedon where
ET and surfacerunoff are quantified.If ET is estimatedin
whereRO is streamflowat the upstreamend of the moun- the mountain block, and stream runoff is measured at the
tain front zone. This model assumes that all stream runoff at upstreamend of the mountainfront zone,then equation(9)
the mountainfront becomesrechargeto the basinaquifer. is applied. The resulting estimate is for mountain-block
As previouslydefined,mountain-blockrecharge(MBR) recharge,MBR2. If, however,the ET is estimatedover the
is rechargeto a basinaquiferfrom the mountainbedrock.It mountain block and the mountain front zone, and the stream
is expressedasthe sumof subsurface components, runoff is measured at the downstream end of the mountain
frontzone,equation(2) is applied.The resultis an estimate
MBR• = FR + DR. (7) of mountain-frontrecharge,MFR•.
ET in mountainsis usuallyestimatedin relationto mean cationsof the Maxey-Eakinmethodin Nevadawere gener-

annualprecipitation, pan evaporation, or derivedfrom the ally in fair agreementwith estimatesfrom otherindepend-
water balanceequationby assming mountainbedrock ent methods.
impermeability. Huntley[1979] estimated actualET lossin More recently,Anderson[1992] presentedan empirical
theSangredeCristoandSanJuanMountainsof Colorado,by relationshipbetweenthe total volume of direct MFR (or
multiplyingcalculated potentialET with an empiricalfactor, MFRs) and the total volume of mountainprecipitation
andreportedthat,respectively, 14% and38% of annualpre- exceeding203 mm, basedon basin-scalewaterbalanceesti-
cipitationbecomesmountain-block recharge,A4•R2 (when matesin south-centralArizona and partsof adjacentstates.
comparing thesenumbers it is interesting
to notethat,among This relationcanbe approximatedby
otherdifferences,the Sangre'sare crystallinerock whereas
the San Juan'sare volcanic).Feth et al. [1966] calculated MFR3= 0.042
(Pm
- 203)
0'98
, (10)
A4•R2 from the WasatchMountainsto the Weber Delta
Districtof Utah usinga similarapproach.A4•R2 wasreport- where MFR is direct mountain-frontrechargein mm per
ed to be 22% of annualprecipitation with an ET lossof 53% year,andPmis meanannualprecipitationin mm per year.
(Table2). Hely et al. [ 1971] estimated A4•R2 for anothersec- MaurerandBerger[ 1997] gaveanotherempiricalregres-
tion of the WasatchMountainsto be 19% annualprecipita- sionfor mountainwateryield (includingsurfacerunoffand
tion,with an ET lossof 44% (reviewedby Manning[2002]). subsurfaceflow, approximatelyequivalentto ]IdFR2) at
The accuracyof a waterbalanceapproach depends mainly Carson Basin, Nevada,
on the estimationof ET, which is difficultto quantify,espe-
ciallyfor thecomplexterrainandvariedvegetation of moun- MFR
2= 2.84
x10-5Pm
2'43 (11)
tains.In semiaridregions,ET is a dominantwaterbalance
component evenin mountains[Brandesand Wilcox,2000]. wherePmis themeanannualprecipitation in mm peryear.
The uncertainty of theET estimateis amplifiedby theuncer- When estimatedrechargeby the Maxey-Eakinmethodis
taintyof otherbalancecomponents. Takewaterbalanceequa- plottedagainstthe mid-valueof eachof four precipitation
tion (2) as an example.If the actualET is 60% of P, and zones,with Pm= 8-12, 12-15, 15-20, and >20 inches,and
MFR• is 20% of P, thena 20% uncertainty in theET estimate with scalingfactors0.03, 0.07, 0.15, and0.25, respectively
leadsto a 60% uncertaintyin MFR1, assming that P and (for the White River Basin, Nevada [Maxey and Eakin,
DRO aremeasured exactly.Thisundermines thereliabilityof 1949]), another power law empirical relationship is
MFR quantification usingthewaterbalancemethod. revealed,
Due to largeuncertaintyin ET quantification, ET is often
empiricallyrelatedto the local meanannualprecipitation, MFR-- 9xl O-9Pm
3'72 (12)
reflectinga direct functionbetweenMFR and the moun-
tain's mean annualprecipitation.Maxey and Eakin [1949] wherePmis the meanannualprecipitation in mm per year.
consideredthe high spatial variation of precipitationin Equation(12) deviatesfrom Maxey-Eakinestimateswhen
mountains and demonstratedan empirical relationship Pm> 600mm_--23.6 inches.
betweenprecipitationzonesand the MFR to groundwater Thesethree empiricalequations(10)-(12) providesub-
basinsin Nevada. In the Maxey-Eakin method, MFR is stantiallydifferentMFR estimates(Figure4), eventhough
estimatedby the followingsteps[AvonandDurbin, 1994]: theywereall developedfor portionsof theBasinandRange
(1) identifying severalmean annual precipitationzones; Provinceof the southwesternUnited States,and have some-
(2) assigningeachzone a scalingfactorto accountfor the what similarclimates.AlthoughdifferentMFR components
loss of water by ET and runoff; and (3) summingthe are quantified in these equations,the large deviation
rechargeamountof eachzone. Since,both ET and runoff betweenMFR3 and]IdFR2,i.e. (10) and(11), suggests that
loss is consideredin Maxey-Eakin method,the recharge theseempiricalestimatesare likely restrictedto the locale
estimateis conceptuallyeitherA4•R2 or ]IdFR1,depending wheretheyweredevelopedandshouldnotbe transferred to
on the spatial extent of precipitationestimationand the other areas.
locationof runoffestimation(seeabove).Sincethe Maxey-
Eakin methodcrudely considersspatiallydistributedpre- 3.2. Precipitation-Runoff
Regression
Method
cipitation,it is preferableto other water balancemethods
that use only a single scalingfactor for ET for an entire When subsurface recharge(M•R2) is negligible,stream
mountainarea.Avon andDurbin [ 1994] reportedthat appli- runoffat the mountainfront (runoffmeasuredat point B in
WILSON AND GUAN 121
Table 2 Quantitativeassessment
on mountainfront rechargeby variousmethods
MFR or MBR amount
Precipita-
Location Authors Methods inmm/year tion Notes
(percentage of
precipitation)
mm/year
Water balance Streamflow at
WasatchRange/ mountain front is

Feth
etal. method,
precipitation 25% annual
Weber Delta andET estimatedby MBR2 : 201 (22%) 926
Dsitrict, Utah [1966] increments
of precipitationin the
elevation. mountain.
Water balance
method, Volcanic rock with
San Juan Mtns /
Huntley ET estimatedfrom Not
SanLuis Valley, MBR2 =(38%) highpermeabilityin
[ 1979] calculated
potential, reported the mountain.
Colorado
ET multipliedby crop
coefficient.
Water balance
Shists,gneiss,and
method,
Sangrede Cristo Not
graniticintrusives,
Huntley ET estimatedfrom well-cemented
Mtns / San Luis MBR2 =(14%)
[ 1979] calculated
potential, reported
Valley, Colorado sedimentaryrocksin
ET multipliedby crop the mountain.
coefficient.
White River Maxey and Not
Not reported
Valley, Navada Eakin
[1949] Maxey-Eakin
method. reported
MFR4 = 23 (4.6%) Subsurface inflow
Sandia Mtns / Precipitation-runoff
(Waitemeyermodel) and ET at mountain
Albuquerque Anderholm regressionmethod,
MFR4 =66(13%) 510 front was believed
Basin, New [2000] usingtwo empirical
(HeameandDewey
Mexico equations. negligible.
model)
Carson Mtns, Weathered and
MFR3 = 27 (7.8%)
VirginaMtns/ Maureret al. Chloridemass fracturedgranitic,
(dataresultedfrom 350 basaltic and
EagleValley, [ 1997] balance. four subcatchments)
Navada metamorphicrocks.
Sandia Mtns /
0.3 mg/1chloride
Albuquerque Anderholm ChlorideMass MFR3 = 31 (6.1%) 510 conc. used for bulk
Basin,New [2000] Balance. precipitation.
Mexico
Santa Catalina
Analyticalseasonal
Chavez et al. stream flow model MBR2: 1.1 (0.2%) 280-760 Layeredgneisswith
Mtns / Tucson
[1994] with stochastic folds.
Basin, Arizona
estimationprocedures.
Carson Mtns, Weathered and
MFR1 = 31 (8.8%)
Virgina Mtns / Maurer et al.
350
fracturedgranitic,
Darcy's law. [dataresultedfrom basaltic and
EagleValley, [1997]
four subcatchments]
Nevada metamorphic
rocks.
Sandia Mtns / Modelingof basin
Precipitationdata
Albuquerque Tiedeman et aquifer,
MFR• = 132 (26%) 510 from Anderholm
Basin, New al. [ 1998a] calibratedusing
[2000].
Mexico inverse method.
Sandia Mtns / Modelingof basin Precipitationdata
Albuquerque Sanford et al. aquifer,
MFR• = 15 (3%) 510 from Anderholm
Basin, New [2000] calibrated
using14C [2000].
Mexico groundwaterage
2D Numerical
EagleMtns / Red Hibbs and modelingof both Widespread,well-
Light Draw Darling mtnsandvalley area, MFR• = 1.8 (0.6%) 3OO developedcalcicsoil
Valley, Texas [1995] calibratedusing horizon in basin.
groundwaterage.
Yucca Mtns, Flint et al. Modeling in Welded and non-
MBR• = 4.5 (2.7%) 170
Nevada [2001] mountains. welded tuff.
240 tributeto the focusedrechargealongthe channel.How does

• - ßMFR3 (Anderson) this subsurface flow (FS2)rechargecompareto the surface
runofff.Wroblickyet al. [1998] usednumericalmodelingto
160
-- --MFR2
MFR
(M&B) /
(M& studythe cross-sectional area and temporalvariationof the
lateralhyporheiczoneunderlyingmountainstreamsin two
geologic environments.Their results suggest that the
80
hyporheic zone can conduct significant water into the
mountainfront.At ClearCreek(10,000 acres)of the Carson
Range,Nevada,[MaurerandBerger,1997] subsurface flow
in the sedimentswas about4% of the annualprecipitation,
0 200 400 600 800
and 23% of the surface runoff.
Mean annual precipitation, mm/yr. Thereare alsoreportsthatsubsurfaceflow throughmoun-
tain bedrockcan be important[e.g., Maurer and Berger,
Figure 4. MFR vs. meanannualprecipitationfor threeempirical
relations provided by Anderson [1992], Maurer and Berger
1997]. Thus, the three basic assumptions
for precipitation
[1997], andMaxey andEakin [1949], equations(10)-(12), respec- runoff regressionmethodare not alwaysreasonable.The
tively. Note that Anderson'sequationgives direct MFR, while firstassumption,
neglecting
RETfandDRO, leadsto an
MaurerandBerger'sversiongivesthe totalwateryield [bothsur- overestimateof MFR, while the last two assumptions,
face and subsurface]from the mountain. neglectingFS2, FR and DR, result in an underestimate.
While thesebiasesmay compensatefor each other,some-
Figure 1, or RO) may be considered the total contribution
to timesyieldingreasonableestimatesof MFR, the precipita-
MFR [Anderholm,2000]. The mountain-front rechargeesti- tion-runoff regression method is conceptually less
mateis givenby ]I/IFR4 in equation(6). Regression analysis reasonablethan the water balance method. Its empirical
can be usedto find the relationshipbetweenrunoff from a nature and bias makes the precipitation-runoffregression
mountain area and the mean annual precipitation methodlessusefulfor predictingthe effectsof climateand
[ Waitemeyer, 1994;Maurer andBerger,1997] or winterpre- landuse change,andnon-transferable to otherregions.
cipitation[HearneandDewey,1988] for thatmountainarea.
Threeassumptions are implicitin the applicationof a precip- 3.3. Chloride Mass Balance Method
itation-runoffregressionmethodto estimateMFR: (1) all
steam
rtmoffrecharges
atthemountain
front(i.e.,RETfand The chloridemassbalancemethodis commonlyusedto
DRO are negligible);(2) interflow(FS2)in the streamsedi- estimategroundwaterrechargein arid and semiaridareas.
mentsis negligiblecompared to thestreamrimoff;and(3) the Rechargeestimateson the basinfloor usethe chloridepro-
bedrockin the mountainblockis impermeable. file in the upper 10-15 metersof the vadosezone [Scanlon
In arid and semiarid areas,most streamsat the mountain et al., 1997, 2002; Walvoord et. al, 2002]. A different
frontareephemeral,andmostwaterinfiltratesintotheunder- approachmustbe usedin mountains,whichhaveonly a few
lying basinsediments.Does all this water actuallyrecharge tens of centimeters of soil cover over the bedrock. To esti-
the basin aquifer or is some lost to near channel ET? mate MFR, the chloride concentrationof groundwater
Streamflow at the mountain front can result from intense con- resultingfrom MFR is comparedto that of bulk precipita-
vective storms during the summer or spring snowmelt. tion, to give the fractionof precipitationwhich resultsin
During the snowmeltperiod,the streammay flow for a few recharge [Dettinger, 1989; Maurer and Berger, 1997;
monthsand,beforethe startof the growingseason,ET loss Anderholm,2000]. When integratedover the entiremoun-
may be small in comparisonto the water that becomes tain block, this method ignoresthe complex hydrologic
recharge.In summer,the streamonlyflowsfor a few hoursor processeswithin the mountainblock. The chloridemass
daysfollowinga stormand ceasesbetweenstorms.ET loss balancemethodcanbe expressedas
can be substantialin this situation.Izbicki [2002] estimates
thatrechargeoverthe 15-km lengthof Oro GrandeWashin CpP- CrR
MFR = (13)
theMojaveDesert,is aboutone-tenth theaveragestreamflow Cg
asreportedby Lines [1996]. This suggests thatmuchof the
streamflowalongthe washis lostby ET. whereCgis thechloride concentration
in MFR groundwa-
Besides the surface runoff at the mountain front, some ter,P is theprecipitation
onthemountain,
Cpis chloride
shallowsubsurface
flow in the channelsediments
may con- concentration
in bulkprecipitation,andR andCr arerespec-
WILSON AND GUAN 123
tively the runoff andits chlorideconcentration

at the moun- 3.5. NumericalModeling of Basin Groundwater
tain front.
Major assumptionsinclude:(1) that the bulk precipita- Due to the scarcityof surfaceand subsurfacehydrologic
tion (dry fall and precipitation)is the only sourceof chlo- data in mountains,MFR is often estimatedbasedon hydro-
ride in the system,and chlorideis inert in the system;(2) logic modelingof the adjacentbasins.Few basinnumerical
that the chloridedepositionrate and mean annualprecipi- simulations have been extended to the mountain block
tationrate are accuratelyestimatedandhave beenconstant [Hibbs and Darling, 1995; Tiedeman et al., 1998b;
over the period of groundwaterresidencetime within the Manning, 2002; Keating et al., 2003]. In a basin-centered
mountainblock; and (3) that the measuredchloride con- view, MFR is a boundaryconditionof the basinaquiferand
centrationof groundwaterat the mountainfront accurate- calibration of a numerical model, basedon observeddata, is
ly representsthe meanvalue of total groundwaterresulting used to estimate the amount of MFR [Tiedeman et al.,
from MFR. Regardingthe first assumption,the chloride 1998a;Sanfordet al., 2000]. In calibrationof a groundwa-
mass balance method may not work in mountain blocks ter model, rechargerates and hydraulic conductivityare
that have a chloride source in the rocks (e.g., marine- highly correlatedandthereforethe accuracyof the recharge
derived sedimentaryrock [Claassenand Halm, 1996]) or estimatestronglydependson the availability of hydraulic
a chloridesourcedue to anthropogenicactivities(e.g., the conductivitydata, a parameterthat can range over several
application of road salt) [Maurer and Berger, 1997]. ordersof magnitude.Keating et al. [2003] show that simu-
Failure to account for additional chloride sources leads to lation resultsalso dependon the spatialresolutionof the
an underestimateof MFR. As for the secondassumption, hydrographicunitsusedby the model.
the chloridemassbalancemethodonly appliesto a moun- Model calibrationuniqueness issuesareespeciallyimpor-
tain hydrologicsystemin equilibriumwith currentclimate tant for this approach.In caseswhere only basinhydraulic
conditions.Changes in the average precipitationrate or head data are available,the ratio of rechargeto hydraulic
chloride depositionrates over the period of groundwater conductivitycanbe estimated,but not the conductivityitself
residence time within the mountain block may lead [Townleyand Wilson,1989; Sanford,2002; Scanlonet al.,
to over- or under-estimatesdependingon the nature of 2002]. The additionof flux observations(e.g., baseflowin
the change.The third assumptionmay lead to an errone- streams)or groundwateragescan improveuniquenessand
ous MFR estimatewhen there is significantspatialvaria- the accuracyof the rechargeestimate[Sanford,2002]. For
tion in MFR. For example,if the measuredMFR doesnot example,the additionof 14Cgroundwaterage data in cali-
include some fast-flow deep MBR (that experiencesless bratinga groundwatermodelof theAlbuquerqueBasinpro-
ET loss),MFR will be underestimated. Specifically,if the vided estimatedMFR one order of magnitudeless than
water is sampled at mountain front alluvial aquifer, the whencalibratedwithoutthe data[Sanfordet al., 2000]. This
chloridemassbalancemore possiblygives MFR s, shown complementarydata could also be used to estimatehow
in equation(5). rechargerateshave varied over the last 30 kyrs [Sanford,
2002]. Manning [2002] showsthat groundwatertempera-
3.4. Darcy • Law ture can be anotherexcellentcomplementto obtain more
uniqueestimatesof mountain-blockrecharge.
MFR canbe estimatedusinga simpleDarcy's law calcu-
lation, provided that water equipotentiallines and the 3.6. HydrologicModeling in Mountains
hydraulicpropertiesof sediments androcksat the mountain
front are known [Hely et al., 1971; Belan and Matlock, There have been extensivefield observationsand many
1973;Maurer and Berger,1997;NRC, 2004]. This method numericalsimulationsof waterflow and solutetransport,in
is basedonly on observationdata at the mountainfront, both the unsaturated and saturated zones, at Yucca
avoidingthe complexhydrologicprocesses in the mountain Mountain [Wittweret al., 1995;Ho et al., 1995;Bagtzoglou
blockbut potentiallymissingMFR contributionfrom some et al., 2000; Doughty, 1999; and Flint et al., 2001a]. This
deepMBR flow paths.The accuracyof thismethodstrong- attentionon a single geologicaland climatic setting has
ly dependson the estimatedaquiferhydraulicparameters. helpedimproveour understanding of subsurface hydrologic
Furthermore,a simple calculationof Darcy's law cannot processesin mountain blocks, yet that understanding
deal with complexgeologicalstructures and heterogeneity remainsprimitive. The Yucca Mountain studieshave not
of the aquifermaterialsthat are oftenpresentat the moun- dynamicallycoupledsurfaceand subsurface processes, and
tain front [Koltermannand Gorelick,1996]. obviouslydo not addresssubsurfaceflow in more humid,
high-elevationmountain blocks common throughoutthe flux throughthe soil layersnearLosAlamos,New Mexico.

westernU.S., or in differentmountaingeologicalsettings. However, thin soil cover, root controlled subhorizontalsoil
Severalothergroundwatermodelsfocuson groundwater macropores[e.g., Wilcox et al., 1997], and fracturesin the
flow within the mountainblock itself, taking as a boundary bedrockmake profile methodsmuch lessuseful in moun-
conditionpercolationinto the bedrock from the surface. tainsthan on basinfloors.Instead,integratedtracermeas-
Theseare usuallymodelsthat extendout into the basin(see ures and ratios are used, in which concentrationsin MFR
previoussection).For example,Manning [2002] developed componentsare examinedand comparedto eachotherand
a two-dimensionalsteadystatecross-sectional modelof the to precipitation,as we earlier saw with the chloridemass
WasatchMountainsnear Salt Lake City, with prescribed balance method.
rechargeinto the mountainblock, estimatedby modelcali- The stableisotopiccompositionof water(152Hand15180)
bration (see previous section). One difficulty with this is themostfrequentlyusedenvironmental tracer.Stableiso-
approachis that, under steady flow conditions,the pre- tope compositionof precipitationvaries with altitude and
scribedrechargerate into the block simplybecomesthe rate season. In the Southwestern United States this is useful for
of dischargefrom the block; that is, it becomesthe rate of determiningthe relativeimportanceof winter and summer
mountain-blockrecharge(MBR) to the adjacentbasin(s). (monsoon)precipitationfor groundwater recharge[Simpson
The many other studiesof mountainhydrologyconsid- et al., 1972; Cunninghamet al., 1998; Winogradet al.,
erednear surfacehydrologicprocesses, but give little or no 1998; Newman and Duff, 2001] and for identifyingthe
attentionto deeppercolationinto the mountainblock or to locationof this recharge(mountainvs. basin)[Eastoeet al,
any otherdeepsubsurface processes within the block.These thisvolume;Plummetet al., this volume].Its not only used
studieshaveexamineda wide varietyof settings,sometimes in the southwest,Abbott et al. [2000] identifiedtwo distinc-
focusedat the hillslope scale, and other times at surface tive rechargezones in a mountainin Vermont,USA, by
watersheds. For example,Kafri andBen-Asher(1976) used comparingthe stableisotopiccompositions of precipitation
a numerical model to simulate individual rainfall events andgroundwater.
resultingin percolationthroughthin mountainsoil cover, Using multiple conservativeenvironmentaltracersit is
withoutfurtherinvestigatingwater flow at depth.An inter- possibleto delineatedetailedgroundwaterrechargepaths
estingcontrastare the papersby Chavez et al. [1994a and and quantitiesat a higher spatial resolution.Adar et al.
1994b], who developedan analyticmodelwith a stochastic [1990] usedenvironmentaltracers(ions and O/H isotopes)
estimationprocedureto estimatestreamrunoff and MBR combinedwith a mixing-cellmodelto quantitativelyassess
(=MBR• or possiblyMBR2).This modelappliedEagleson's the spatialdistributionof MFR. Someradioactiveisotopes
[ 1978] vegetalequilibriumhypothesis to estimateET based canbe usedto obtaingroundwaterresidencetimesandthus
on vegetationcover.The increasingavailability of remote to estimaterechargerates.Guerin [2001] reportedfast frac-
sensingdata(e.g.,precipitation,fractionalvegetationcover, ture flow in Yucca Mountain based on tritium and 36C1 data.
interception,ET, etc.) and high resolutionDEMs, together Recently,dissolvedgasesin groundwaterhavebeenusedto
with improvedmodelsof vegetationandthe surfaceenergy estimate the elevation of mountain-block recharge
balance,will substantiallyimprovethe feasibilityof cou- [Manningand Solomon,this volume].
pled models of the surface and subsurfaceof mountain
blocks. 3.8. Other Methods
3.7. Environmental Tracers Temperatureprofilesin the near surfacehave been used

to estimatewater percolationrates under the ephemeral
Environmental tracers other than chloride have also been streambedsalong the mountain front [Niswonger and
intensivelyusedto studywater flow and estimateground- Constantz,2000]. MFR from streamflowinfiltration can be
waterrecharge[Scanlon,1992;Phillips, 1994; Unnikrishna calculated,giventhatthe streamtiming andsaturatedchan-
et al., 1995; Scanlonet al., 1997]. The vertical concentra- nel width are known. Reiter [2000] usedthe temperature
tion profile in the thick vadosezone of basin floor gives profile at depthin the basin aquiferto estimatethe lateral
cluesto its historyof water flow andgroundwaterrecharge. flow ratedueto MFR. While thismay notprovidea quanti-
This approachis sometimesalso appliedon the mountain tative estimate of MFR, it can show evidence of MFR.
hillslopeswith goodsoil covers.Newmanet al. [ 1996]used Manning [2002] foundthat a heat and fluid flow model cal-
profilesof chlorideandaqueousstableisotopiccomposition ibratedwith temperaturedatafrom basinwells couldplace
to estimatethe evaporationdepthand the downwardwater important constraintson MBR. Together, these studies
WILSON AND GUAN 125
suggestthat temperaturedata could be very useful in tiple exchangesof water betweenthesedifferentreservoirs,

quantificationof MFR. controlledby topography,geology,soil cover and vegeta-
In additionto thesephysicaltools,Duffy and colleagues tion, and leadingto a confusionof responseand residence
have usedtime seriesanalysistools in orderto investigate time scales.
the multiplepathsthatwatercantake from the mountaintop Among the many spacescaleswe believe that the two
to the basin floor, with water moving back and forth most importantfor the studyof mountain-blockhydrology
betweenthe mountainstreamsandthe underlyingmountain are the hillslope scaleand the scaleof the entire mountain
block. They combinemultichannel,singular-spectrum data block. It is at the hillslopescalethat water entersthe block,
analysiswith low-dimensionalmodels to understandthe a resultof partitioningof precipitation.It is the scaleof the
temporaland spatialcharacteristics
of hydrologicprocesses mountain block that determinessurface,shallow (local),
in mountains[Shunand Dufj•, 1999; Brandeset al., 1998; anddeep(regional)flow pathways,andhow they are linked
Newmanand Dufj•, 2001]. in time and space.
An integratedmountain-blockhydrologicmodel would
4. MOUNTAIN BLOCK HYDROLOGY allow us to predictchangesin MFR in responseto climate
change and variability, vegetationchange (including the
We have seen that most studies of MFR avoid the com- effects of fin:e),and direct human impacts. But a sound
plexity of hydrologicprocesseswithin and on mountain understanding of mountain-blockhydrologyhas otherben-
blocks.While near-surfacehydrologicprocesses have been efits, suchas the accuratepredictionof water-relatedgeo-
investigatedat the hillslope and watershedscales,these logicalhazardsin mountains[Bell, 1998]. In this sectionthe
studiesalmostalways assumethat the bedrockis imperme- componentsand processesthat comprisemountain-block
able. Likewise, some deep bedrockprocesseshave been hydrology are discussed,stressingfin:stthe hillslope scale
investigatedfor locationslike Yucca Mountain and the and then the entire mountain block. At first reading this
WasatchMountainsoutsideof Salt Lake City, but with an review may appearto be a primer on hydrology,but we use
assumedpercolationrate at the top of the bedrocksurface. it to point out the processes andproblemsthat are especial-
Thereare few integrativestudiesthatbringthesetwo fields ly importantin mountain-blockhydrology.
togetherfor a full view of the mountainhydrologicsystem.
Meteorological,hydrologic,andecologicalconditions vary 4.1. Precipitation
considerably acrossa mountaindueto the steepaltitudegra-
dient.Comparedto thebasinfloor,a mountainblockprovides Precipitationis the onlywaterinputto the mountainblock.
lessstoragefor water,andthusis more sensitiveto climatic Temporalandspatialvariabilityof precipitation, aswell asits
changes.Small variationsin atmosphericforcing on the effects on hydrologicprocesses,has been recognizedas
mountainblock may causedetectablehydrologicimpacts, important[e.g., Goodrichet al., 1995]. Becauseof topo-
includingthe occurrence of springs,the amountanddistribu- graphiccomplexityand elevation,precipitationvarieseven
tion of snow,vegetativecover,andMFR. more markedlywithin a mountainblock and is difficult to
Mountain-block hydrology would addressthese condi- measure.The problemof measurementis exacerbatedby a
tionsthroughthe integratedstudyof processes acrossa vari- lack of precipitationgaugestationsin mountains.Recently,
ety of temporal and spatial scales. For example, radarhasimprovedthe estimationof spatiallydistributed pre-
mountain-blockrechargeto an adjacentbasinrequiresthat cipitation;however,beam blockage,underestimation, and
water enterthe block in the fin:stplace. This takesplace at non-detection of precipitationare significantproblemswhen
the hillslope scale,where precipitationis partitionedinto radaris usedin mountainous terrains[Younget al., 1999].
deeppercolationthat entersthe mountainblock andto other Geostatisticsand other tools can be used to synthesize
processes.Upon enteringthe block somewater may then spatialdistributionestimatesof mountainousprecipitation.
dischargeto headwateror higher-orderstreams,and the In additionto rain gaugemeasurements and radar,second-
blockmay receiveotherwaterfromthe streams,bothoccur- ary variables,suchas terrain and atmosphericcharacteris-
ring along a rangeof shallowand deep flow paths.Water tics that correlatewith precipitation,are used to estimate
that leavesthe mountainblock as run-off (RO, as def'medin precipitationdistribution[Hevesi et al., 1992; Goovaerts,
Section 2) originated as surface runoff from rain and 2000; Kyriakidis et al., 2001]. In mountainousterrain pre-
snowmelt,as interflowthroughthe shallowsoil cover,or as cipitationgenerallycorrelateswell with elevation,provid-
intrablockdischargeof shallow or deep mountain-block ing a strongsecondaryvariableto improvethe estimateof
groundwater.In mountain-blockhydrologywe expectmul- spatiallydistributedprecipitation(Box 1).
Box I Co-kriging monthly precipitation with terrain altitude
Generally,precipitationin the mountainareasstronglycorrelateswith terrianelevation The followingmap shows44

weatherstationsin centralNew Mexico centeredon Albuquerqueand the SandiaMountains.Mean July precipitation
wasobtainedfrom NationalClimateData Center,andcorrelatedwell with I km DEM elevation(r2 = 0.71). Thus,using
co-krigingit is possibleto useelevationas a secondaryvariableto betterestimatethe spatialdistributionof precipita-
tion. This methodestimatesthe precipitationdistributionwith a spatialresolutionequalto that of the elevationdataused,
as evidentby comparingthe co-krigingestimateusingDEM data(shownin the lower left panel and PRISM estimates
[Daly et al., 1994] (lower right panel).
o • o 1 .•o._Precipitation vs elevation
Number of data 44
Number plotted 44
Number trimmed 27298
X Variable: mean 1828.250

std. de¾. 318.087
ß Y Variable: mean 48.896

I0. ß ß std.dev.18.988
o
•-' rank
correlation
0.716
o [0.
' O
o o
o
1300. 1800. 2300. 2800. 3300.

0 , 40 :', Kilo er
elevation(lkm-dem)
Left: DEM of SandiaMountainsand surroundingareas,and the locationof 40 precipitationstations;

Right: correlationbetweenthe meanJuly precipitation(mm) with lkm pixel elevation
35 6 .
%•,• • 35 6 15,3
135
120
35 35.2 105
90
75
6O
34 8 ' 34 8
30
344F "' '" , 344

-lO7 -lo6 5 -z•6 -zo -lo• 5 -106 -105 5
Long Long
Left: Mean July precipitationdistributionfrom co-kriginggaugeprecipitationand

elevation;Right: Prismprecipitationdata.
WILSON AND GUAN 127
Accuracyof precipitationgaugemeasurement is also a Navar and Bryan, 1990]. Interceptionlosesfor the vegeta-
significantconcern[Goodrichet al., 1995]. Major system- tion found in the mountains of the southwestern Unitied
atic errorsresult from the wind's influenceon falling pre- States has not been well studied.
cipitation,rain gaugeevaporation, andwettingof the walls A water balance for interception [Crockford and
of rain gauge[Lapin, 1990]. Wind speedis the mostimpor- Rechardson,1990] illustratessomeof the many processes
tant factorin determininggaugeerror [Nesporand $evruk, that mustbe accountedfor beforethe precipitationreaches
1999], especiallywhen snowand mixed precipitationfalls the ground,
duringthe winter [Yanget al., 1999]. Precipitationintensity
also contributes to wind-induced measurement error. These I = E + S = P- TF- SF, (14)
problemsexist for all gaugemeasurements but are more
challengingin mountainsbecauseof complexterrain and where I -- interception,
extremeweatherconditions.Beforeusingrain gaugedatait E -- water evaporatedduring the precipitation
is importantto assess
thepotentialmagnitudeof theseerrors event,
andmakethe necessarycorrections. S -- water storedin vegetationduring the event
Snowand ice poseanotherproblemto mountainhydrolo- and evaporatedafter the event,
gy.In mostmountains, winterprecipitation
falls in the form P = grossprecipitation,
of snow. Afterwards the snow is redistributedby strong TF-- throughfall,and
winds and avalanches.This addsto the spatialvariability SF-- stemflow.
inherited from the snowfall. In western United States, snow The magnitudeof interceptionis controlledby vegetation
waterequivalence(SWE) is estimatedat over 600 SNOTEL characteristics(areal vegetationdensity,vegetationtype,
sites,many locatedin mountainous headwatercatchments, leaf area index, etc.) and meteorologicalcharacteristics
but whichhave poor spatialcoveragefor any one basinor (suchasprecipitationform, intensityandduration,temper-
range.Mountainhydrologyrequiresa more detailedmap- ature,andwind speed).For continuousprecipitationevents,
ping of the spatialstatisticsand distributionof SWE [Balk water evaporationduringthe stormis negligible,thusinter-
and Elder, 2000; Marks et al., 2002], usingremotesensing ceptionapproaches the canopystoragecapacity.For inter-
andothertools.Anotherproblemof snowandice hydrology mittent events,water evaporatedduring the storm can be
is thetimingof the snowmelt.Solidwateris not immediate- severaltimesthe canopystoragecapacity,leadingto greater
ly activein the hydrologicprocesses; thereforeit is neces- interceptionlosses.
saryto determine whenmeltoccursandtheequivalentliquid
volume.In additionto lockingwater in a solid form, snow 4.3. Evapotranspiration
coverdramaticallychangesthe surfacealbedo,alteringthe
energybalanceandconsequently changingthe dynamicsof Hydrologicallyactivewater(from rainfallandsnowmelt)
mountainhydrology.Two types of models are currently at the groundsurfacepartitionsinto surfacerunoff, inter-
appliedto estimatesnowmeltrate: energy-balance models flow within the soil and sedimentsat the surface, ET, and
andtemperature-index models[Dingman,1994]. The ener- deeppercolationthroughbedrockfracturesand matrix. In
gy-balance modelinvolvesmorephysicalprocesses andthus arid andsemiaridmountainenvironments ET representsthe
requiressubstantialdata[BrockandArnold,2000; Markset largestwater lossfrom the mountainblock [Brandesand
al., 2002]. The temperature-index model is less complex, Wilcox,2000]. ET can be estimatedfrom point measure-
basedonlyon temperature distributionthatmaybe relatedto ments,aswith (1) lysimeters[Gee et al., 1991; Tomlinson,
topographicdata(e.g. DEM). 1996], (2) the Bowen ratio method[Gay, 1991; Stannard,
1991; and Tomlinson, 1996], (3) the eddy-covariance
4.2. Interception method[Tanneret al., 1985; Weaver,1991], or (4) by cal-
culatingpotentialET derived from point meteorological
Not all measuredprecipitationreachesthe groundsur- dataor from pan evaporation[Beyazgulet al., 2000; Allen,
face; some is lost throughinterceptionby the vegetation 2000]. ET canbe estimatedfrom arealmeasurements with
canopy.In sometropical forestscanopyinterceptionmay instruments suchas (5) scintillometers [Meijningerand de
approach50% of grossprecipitation[Schellekenset al., Bruin, 2000], or (6) derivationusingremotesensingdata
1999]. In semiaridregions,wherevegetationcoveris gen- [Bastiaanssen et al., 1998; Grangeret al., 2000; Caparrini
erallysparse,interceptionis lessbut may still be asmuchas and Caste#i, 2002; Nishida et al., 2003]. ET can also be
30% of the grossannualrainfall [Llorensand Gallart, 2000; derived from (7) hydrologicmodeling [Droogers, 2000;
Kite, 2000]. Most ET quantificationin semiaridand arid tuff, has a matrix permeability far exceedingthis value,
regionshasbeenconductedon irrigatedagriculturalareas. whereasintactcrystallinerock is essentiallyimpermeableto
SomeET measurement hasbeendoneon naturallyvegetat- significantflow throughthe matrix.When rock is fractured,
ed surfaceareasthat are topographically flat and homoge- its permeabilitycan increaseby severalordersmagnitude.
nous,or locatedin lower elevationriparianzones.Few ET For example,Gimmi et al. [ 1997] estimateda permeability
quantificationshave been attempted in mountainous of 10-•8 m2 for a crystallinerock that lacksfracturesat the
terrains,partiallybecausemeasuringET in complexterrain investigationscale.Usingpackertests,Snow [ 1979] report-
remainsa major technicalproblem. ed bulk (or composite) permeabilityat 10-•4 m2 for mostof
Becauseof the spatialvariabilityof topography, vegeta- the fracturedcrystallinerocks he considered.Caine et al.
tion, and incomingsolarradiationin the mountainblock, [2003] similarly estimateda bulk permeabilityof 10-•3 to
upscalinga few point ET measurements to estimateET for 10-14 m2 for intensivelyfracturedcrystallinerock in the
a whole mountainblock makeslittle sense.However,point Turkey Creek Watershedof the Front Range of Colorado.
datacanbe synthesized with remotesensingdatato provide Most of thesebulk permeabilitiesare abovethe threshold,
spatiallydistributedET with high spatialresolutionat the suggesting thatif the wateris available,andtherockis frac-
time remote senseddata is obtained.ET during periods tured,it canacceptwaterat rateshighenoughto leadto sig-
between instantaneous remote sensed events can be esti- nificantdeeppercolation.
matedby interpolationwith the assumption of constantcrop What can preventwater from reachingthe soil-bedrock
coefficientsor evaporativefraction[Allen,2000]. Accuracy interface?Conditionsmay be sufficiently arid that not
of the remote sensingmethodin the complexterrain of enoughwaterinfiltratesinto the soil to beginwith, or actu-
mountainous areas has not been well tested. al ET may be strongenoughto removeit beforewater con-
Anotherapproachfor estimatingspatiallydistributedET tent at the interface is large enough to cause deep
is via distributedhydrologicmodelingwith system-depend- percolation.The main barrierobservedin the field [Wilcox
ent ET simulations.The ET in the model is constrainedby et al., 1997], which we have simulated,appearsto be the
the atmosphericdemand (potential ET) and soil water developmentof strongsoil layering.It preventsdownward
potential (a root-water-uptakemodel). The root-water- infiltration to the soil-bedrock interface, diverts water to
uptakemodel is a key link to demonstrate the vegetation down slopeinterflow, and storeswater for later extraction
effectsin the hydrologicmodels.However,little of the data by transpiration.What can causewater to reachthe inter-
needed to develop these models for natural vegetation face, even in the presenceof theseconditions?Significant
exists.A root-water-uptakedatabaseof naturalvegetationis precipitationvariability can lead to occasionalwet periods
necessaryfor rigoroushydrologicmodelingof arid and with substantialpercolation,despiteaveragedry conditions
semiarid environments. [NRC, 2004]. Surface,soil layer, and bedrocktopography
can focus water into areas with enhanced flow and
4.4. Bedrock Percolation enhancedwater contentat the interface,leadingto percola-
tion into the bedrock[Flint et al., 2002b].
Seepageinto bedrock has been noticed for decades Someof thewaterenteringthe bedrockmay return,most-
[Chorley,1978]. However,mosthillslopehydrologicstud- ly via fractures, to streams,the sedimentsunderlying
ies assumethat the bedrockis essentiallyimpermeableand streams,or even to the surface.The rest rechargesthe
do not allow significantdeeppercolation.Doesmuchof the bedrock aquifer of the mountain block and eventually
water that reachesthe soil-bedrockinterfacepartition into becomesMBR. Waterin the shallowsoil layerthatdoesnot
deep percolation(into the bedrock),or does it all move percolateinto the bedrockwill flow in the soilsand sedi-
down the hillslope,as interflowthroughthe shallowsoil mentstoward streamsor the mountain front, or be lost to the
that coves the bedrock?That is, under what conditionscan atmospherevia ET.
we assumeessentiallyimperviousbedrock?
We ran somepreliminarysteadystatenumericalsimula- 4.5. Groundwater Flow in Mountain Blocks
tions of saturated-unsaturated flow on 2-D cross-sections of
hypotheticalhillslopes. These simulationsindicate that After the waterpercolatesinto the bedrock,wheredoesit
bedrockwith sufficientlyhigh bulk (fractureand matrix) go andhow long doesit take to get there?Flow pathswith
permeabilityhasthe potentialto allow for significantdeep variouslengthscan occurin mountainblocks(Figure 2b)
percolation.For the studiedconditionsthis thresholdper- [Toth,1963;Keith, 1980]. Local flow pathsinvolveshallow
meability is 10-•6 m2. Some mountainbedrock,suchas a water circulation,transmittingwater to nearbystreams,or
WILSON AND GUAN 129
i surface runoff
50- Theoretically,fracturedensityand aperture,and bedrock
•[] flow in sediment matrix porosity,decreasewith depth due to an increaseof
40' .r• flow in bedrock over-burdenstress,leadingto a decreaseof bulk permeabil-
ity with depthin the mountainblock. However,data from
"30'
somedeep boreholesindicatesthat at least in somecases,
E fracturedistributiondoesnot decreasesignificantlywithin
E 20-
the first severalthousandmeters(Box 2). This presentsthe
possibilitythat somemountainblocksare permeableto sig-
lO
nificant depths,allowing deepgroundwatercirculationand
MBR to adjacentbasinaquifers.It shouldbe notedthatthis
activedeepgroundwatercirculationcanbe confinedto per-
A B C D
meablezones,leavinginactivezonesbetween[Mayo et al.,
2003]. In stratifiedmountainblocks, some low-permeable
Figure 5. Comparison of waterdischarge from a mountainblock
sub-horizontalformationsmay impedeverticalgroundwater
by differentpaths,summarizedfrom Maurer and Berger[1997]
for watershedstributaryto EagleValley of westernNevada.The movement,and stronglyreducegroundwatercirculationat
watershedsare: A: C-Hill, B: Kings Canyon, C: Goni, and D: depth[Mayo et al., 2003].
CentenialPark, CarsonCity, Nevada. Faults play an importantrole in regulatingwater flow
pathsin mountainblocks.Faultsare believedto act as both
backto the shallowsoil cover.Regionalflow pathsinvolve hydraulic conduitsand barriers.Faults that developedin
deepwatercirculationin the mountainblock,which trans-
mit water to the adjacentbasins,i.e., MBR. A studycon- Box2.-Fracture._charaeteriSties
with depth:
ductedby Tiedemanet al. [1998b]near Mirror Lake, New
Hampshire,showsthatabout60% of theMFR (or its equiv- Fracm• .aperture,
connectivity,_
anddensity
--three-•
_factors-that:
control.the capacity of •k _-to_
alent) into the basin travels along deeper flow paths in
conduct
water:-Bemuse--of
unloading
and:weathering
bedrock.Researchconductedby Maurer andBerger[ 1997] processes•
bedrocknearthe-surface-tends
to havehigher
in EagleValley,Nevada,alsoshowedthatmorethan40% of fracturedensity-andlarger-apertures.
•s-unloading
waterwas transmittedthroughthe bedrockin the mountain •-zone: in- graniteusuallyoccursin the-top20
block to the adjacentbasin(Figure 5). Deep water circula- meters
andischaracterized'by
fracture
planes
__
parallel
to
tion is alsoevidentby persistentwater dischargein tunnels theground
surface.
[Price_•and
Cosgrove,
1'990]-.
Data
from40 •ck wells-at-the
fracttn•:l-rock
research
site
and mine openingsconstructedin some mountains[e.g.,
in:theMirrorLake:area,
NewHampshireindicate that-at
Feth, 1964; Marechal, 2000], the drawdownin the overly- s•11owdepths,thereappeartobemore:fractures
beneath
ing aquifer due to the tunnel or mine construction[e.g., the•slope • beneath
thevalley[Johnso_n,
1999;_
OloJ•son,1994], and the geochemicalsignalsin tunnelor Harte, 199-7].'Fracture
density-at-this
sitedecreases
with
mine water [e.g., Oloj•son, 1994]. depth-•the-top
100meters
[Johnson,
1_999].
However,
The capacityof a mountainblockto transmitsubsurface this trend does-not continuewith-greater depth.
water to the basin dependson the hydrogeologicalarchi- S•larly, no decrease
in-fracturing
with_depth.-was
observedin-the CajOnPass scientific•-hole,
tecture of the mountain block. Heterogeneous and California, at depthsbetween 1800-and 3500 meters
anisotropic hydrologic properties (e.g., permeability), [Barton-and
Zoback,1992].Data:of-hydro-conductive
especiallythosecontrolledby geologicstructuralelements -fractures
from.227-wells• crystalline
rocksin Coastal
like faults, strongly control groundwater flow. Maine .indicate that'-there is no evidence that-fracture
Stratigraphicunits with different hydrologic properties yieldm fractur.
e densitydecrease
withdepth•inat least
_
the upper180 meters[LoiselleandEvans,19__95].

-These
may leadto the lateralwater movementalongsomeinter-
studies suggestthat for-Some situationsfracture
faces [Flint et al., 200 lb], and even dischargeto the sur-
-characten'stics-may
notchange
significantly
with
face as springs[Mayo et al., 2003]. In a mountainblock mountainblocks,-except-_for
the_topweathering
zone: In
with low matrix permeabilityit is fracturenetworks,espe- fact,fracture
flowhaS'beenobservedat
a depthoœ2000
cially zonesof intensefracturesnear faults,that play the meters-[Barton
et al., 1995], Fracturenetworksin--the
major role in transmittingsubsurfacewater.Fracturesalso _mountain-mass
maytherefore
beable_to
e'an'ywater-toan
connectwater in different hydrostratigraphic units, which elevation_
belowthevalleyfloorandrecharge
valley
aquiferby "hiddenpathS",-as__
•_st suggested
by Feth
would otherwise be isolated by lower permeability fea-
[1964]'.
tures [Flint et al., 2001b].
60000
• Infiltration
rate:
39oo0
1 0.0024cm/day,
29oo0
1 or9mm/year
!9000I
40000 0. I cm/day
20000 ,,; 2? '"
• 00 50000 I ooooo
X{cm)
I h('c'm•]
60ooo 330oo
Infiltration
rate:
t 0.02cm/day,
24000
t or 73 mm/year
15000 !
6000 i
40000
o i 0.3cm/day
-3000:
20000
• 00 50000 !00000
X (cm)
Plate 3. Subsurfacesaturated-unsaturated
flow field within a mountainblockboundedby a Basin-and-Range
type high-
anglenormalfaultthatjuxtaposesbasin-fillsediments
(k=-4x10-12m
2) andthemountain bedrock.(a)A fracturedgran-
ite (bulkk = lx10-16m2) mountain
witha 20-meterunloading andweathering zone(k = lx10-15m2) at thetop.(b) A
mountain withhighlypermeable
tuff (bulkk = 1.6x10-15m2).
Themagnitude of thevectorsis shownnextto thelegend.
Theseisothermalsteadystatesimulationshave a prescribeduniform infiltrationrate at the top boundary(notethe dif-
ferent infiltrationratesfor the two cases),and a constanthydraulichead at the distal end of the basin. Fault internal
architecture was not simulated.
WILSON AND GUAN 131
brittle crystallineor lithified sedimentaryrock have a dam- estimation of MFR is critical for effective basin water man-
agezoneanda corezone.Due to intensefracturing,the sat- agement.
uratedpermeabilityof the damagezoneis severalordersof MFR is traditionally estimated using basin-centered
magnitudehigherthan undamagedrock, whereasthe core approaches,suchas basin groundwatermodelingor by a
zonehas a permeabilityseveralordersof magnitudelower Darcy's law calculationat mountainfronts.These methods
[Evanset al., 1997]. Brittle-rockfaultsmay becomea satu- take advantageof dataavailablein the basin,but do not con-
rated flow hydraulicconduitin a directionparallel to the siderthe hydrologyabovethe mountainfront. Isotopicsig-
fault plane, while actingas a hydraulicbarrier when per- natures,temperature,and age of groundwaterin basins
pendicularto the fault. Faultsin poorlylithified sediments, can improve these basin-centeredMFR estimates.Most
includingnon-weldedtuffs, usually develop deformation mountain-centered MFR estimationapproacheshave been
bandswith significantlyreducedpermeability[Rawlinget empirical;MFR is estimatedby the equationsderivedfrom
al., 2001; Ogilvieet al., 2001; !45'lson,
et al., 2003], instead locally instrumentedmountain watershedsand the results
of fractures,and other featuresthat lead them to becomesat- are difficult to transferto otherareasor to usepredictively
uratedflow hydraulicbarriers.The type of deformationalso if climate,vegetation,or land-usechanges.
influencesthe hydrauliceffectsof faults.For example,brit- The mountain-blockhydrologicsystemis ripe for new
tle-rockfaultsandfracturesdevelopedin structurallyexten- studiesthat advanceunderstanding,improve observational
sionaldomains,like the Basin and Range,may potentially and synthesiscapabilities,and make predictivemodeling
conductmore water than thosein structurallycontractional possible.Thesestudiesare currentlychallengedby the size,
domains[Ohlmacher, 1999]. complexity,andeventhe accessibilityof mountainsystems,
Faults may also juxtapose two distinctive hydraulic as well as the limited availability of historic and paleo
units and changethe groundwaterflow field [Titus, 1963; hydrologicdata.Most recenteffortshavebeenlimited to the
Huntoon, 1983; Haneberg, 1995; Mailloux et al., 1999]. mountainfront or the thin mantle of soil and vegetation
We present simulated subsurfacesaturated-unsaturated overlyingthe mountains.These studiesare insufficientfor
flow fields for two hypotheticalmountainblocksin Plate integratedunderstanding of hydrologicprocesses through-
3. The mountainblocks are juxtaposedwith basin-filled out an entire mountain block.
sedimentsby normal faulting. One mountain block is To overcomelimitedunderstanding
of MFR we proposean
composedof a high (bulk) permeabilityvolcanictuff and integrated
mountain-centered
approach,yieldinghigh-resolu-
the other of a crystallinegranite. The fault zone at the tion models and visualization of water movement in moun-
mountainfront becomesa focusedMFR rechargepath for tain blocks.This approachintegrateshydrologicprocesses
the low-permeability granite mountain block. However, acrosstime and spacescales:water input from precipitation
the mountainboundingfault does not have a significant (accountingfor snow and interception),surfaceprocesses
effect on MFR for a mountainblock composedof high- (ET, infiltration,and runoff), interflowthroughthe thin soil
permeabilitytuff. layer covering bedrock, deep percolation into fractured
In the vadosezone,whichcomprisesa significantportion bedrock,andwaterdischarged via near-surfaceanddeepflow
of many mountainblocks,the presenceof capillary forces pathsto streamsandto the basinat the mountainfront.New
can dramaticallyalter the role of faults. Subverticalfrac- scientificmethods,suchas precipitationradar,remotesens-
tured damagezones still provide enhancedfault-parallel ing techniques for accessingET, snowcover,andvegetation
permeability,but only if conditionsare sufficientlywet cover,and digital elevationmodels(DEM) and GIS tech-
[NRC, 2001]. Instead of barriers, deformation bands niques,are all necessary to improvebothunderstanding and
enhancefault-parallelpermeabilityunder sufficientlydry characterization. Geophysicaltechniquesfor characterizing
conditions[Sigdaand !4•lson,2003]. Under wetter condi- geologyof the mountainblock and mountainfront, geo-
tionstilted deformationband [Sigdaet al., 2003] and brit- chemicaland paleohydrology approaches (especiallyenvi-
tle-rock faults redistribute and focus unsaturated flows ronmentaltracers)for characterizing water flow pathsand
laterally. residencetime distributions, field-samplingcampaignsand
long-termobservations are alsorequiredto unravelthe com-
5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK plexity of mountain-block hydrologicsystems.By reducing
theuncertainty of mountainhydrology,andclosingthewater
MFR is an importantandevenpredominant component of balance at the hillslope,watershedand mountainblock
the basin groundwaterbalancein arid and semiaridareas. scales,we will movemountainhydrologycloserto a predic-
Improvedunderstanding of mountain-blockhydrologyand tive science,includingpredictionsof MFR.
Severalkey questionsshouldbe amongthosepursuedin flow(DRO)? Which of the existingMFR estimationmeth-

order to develop a better understandingof MFR. These ods shows the most promise for continueduse, when a
questionsare aimedat improvedunderstanding of process- whole mountain-blockhydrologyapproachis unrealisticor
es, andthe integrationof observingstrategiesandtechnolo- inappropriate?Is there another, simple MFR estimation
gy with models. approach,perhapsrelying on new technology,that can be
Form, intensity,duration,pattern and redistributionof used for these situations?
mountainprecipitation. How can better estimatesof the The integratedmountain-centeredhydrologic approach
space-time distribution of mountain precipitation be providesestimatesof all four componentsof MFR previ-
obtained?How is hydrologicallyactive water (at the land ously describedin equation(1). With varied atmospheric
surface)affectedby interceptionand the redistributionof boundaryconditionsdue to climate changeor variability,
snowby wind andavalanche? What effectdoesdistribution the responseof mountainblock hydrologicsystemsto past
have on mountainhydrologicprocesses? In particular,how andpotentialfutureconditionscanbe simulated.Likewise,
doesprecipitationaffectdeeppercolationinto bedrock? an improvedunderstandingof how water partitionswithin
Evapotranspiration.What approaches canbe mosteffec- the mountainblock and mountainfront will improve our
tively usedto improveestimatesof the space-timedistribu- ability to predicthow landuse(e.g., grazing,housingdevel-
tion mountainET? How is mountainET affectedby soil opments)and land cover changes(e.g., thickeningforests
moisture and the nature of soil layering in the thin soil dueto fire suppression or fire itself) impactmountainblock
cover?What are appropriateroot-water-uptakemodelsand hydrology and MFR rates. These models can also help
parameterizations for mountainvegetation,soilsand rock, detectthe impactsof long-termclimate changeand local
andwhat are appropriateroot distributions? disturbances, and help estimatepotentialhydrogeological
Partitioning to bedrock.At the hillslope scale,how do hazards due to high-rate snowmeltor intensive summer
slopeand aspect,bedrockcharacteristics (matrix and frac- storms.Althougha betterunderstanding of mountainblock
ture), vegetationcover,and soil cover(type and thickness) hydrologyhastheseand otherancillarybenefits,our prime
affectthe partitioningof waterbetweeninterflowin the thin motive here is that it will quantifythe link betweenprecip-
overlyingsoil anddeeppercolationinto mountainbedrock? itation andrechargeto basinsboundingthe mountainfront.
Waterflow throughmountainblocks.What is the pattern
of shallowand deepflow pathsand residencetimeswithin Acknowledgments.Laurel B. Goodwin from New Mexico
typical mountainblocks?How do the hydrogeologicchar- Instituteof Mining and Technologyprovidedassistance in build-
acteristics of mountain blocks, and the stream network ing mountainblock archetypesfor the simulationsin Plate3. Mary
geometry,affectthesepatternsand rates?In particularhow Black and JamesHogan providededitorial assistance. Valuable
do they affectthe ratesandpatternsof flow to streamsand commentsfrom two reviewersare greatlyappreciated.This mate-
to adjacentbasins?What is the relative streamflowcontri- rial is basedupon work supportedby SAHRA (Sustainabilityof
bution of surface runoff, the shallow soil cover interflow, semi-AddHydrologyandRiparianAreas)underthe STC Program
of the National Science Foundation, Agreement No. EAR-
and the discharges from shallowto deepsubsurface moun-
9876800. PACES, a NASA universityresearchcenterlocatedat
tain-block flow paths?How does the geologic"architec-
UTEP, providedthe remotesensingimages.
ture" of the mountain block, especially the dominant
fracture and fault zones (e.g., mountainboundingfaults), REFERENCES
influencethe relative importanceof differentpathwaysto
produceMFR, andhow doesit influencethe amountof that
Abbott,M.D., A. Lini, andP.R.Bierman,15180,
15D and3H meas-
recharge?How canwe efficientlyimprovecharacterization urementsconstraingroundwaterrechargepatternsin an upland
of important hydrogeologicstructureswithin mountain fracturedbedrockaquifer,Vermont,USA, d. of Hydrology,228,
blocks? 101-112, 2000.
Mountainfront recharge.What controlsthe contribution Adar, E.M., A.S. Issar, and E. Rosenthal,The use of environmen-
of eachcomponentof MFR at the mountainfront?In par- tal tracers for quantitativeassessmentof MFRs into an arid
ticular,for what conditionsis the subsurface (MBR) compo- basin, in Water Resourcesin MountainousRegions,vol. 22,
nentimportant?When is flow throughstreambedsediments editedbyA. Parriaux,
MEMOIRESof the22ndCongress
oflAH,
Lausanne,Switzerland, 571-581, 1990.
(FS2) significantrelativeto surfacerunoff (RO)? Does all
Allen, R.G., Usingthe FAO-56 dual crop coefficientmethodover
surface runoff arriving at the mountain front actually an irrigatedregionaspart of an evapotranspiration
intercompar-
rechargethe adjacentbasingroundwater? If not, what deter- isonstudy,d. of Hydrology,229, 27-41, 2000.
minesthe portionof streamrunoff at the mountainfront that Anderholm,S.K., Mountain-frontrechargealong the easternside
becomesMFR leavingthe remainderto ET or downstream- of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, central New Mexico, U.S.
WILSON AND GUAN 133
GeologicalSurvey Water-Resources
InvestigationReport 00- hoodapproachincorporation prior information,WaterResources
4010, 2000. Research,30(7), 2169-2181, 1994b.
Anderson,T.W., G.W. Freethey,and P. Tucci, Geohydrologyand Chorley, R.J., The hillslope hydrologicalcycle, in Hillslope
water resources of alluvial basins in south central Arizona and Hydrology,editedby M.J. Kirby, pp. 1-42, JohnWiley & Sons,
partsof adjacentstates,U.S. GeologicalSurveyProfessional Ltd., New York, 1978.
Paper 1406-B, 1992. Claassen,H.C., and D.R. Halm, Estimationof evapotranspiration
Avon,L., andT.J. Durbin, Evaluationof the Maxey-Eakinmethod or effectivemoisturein RockyMountainwatersheds from chlo-
for estimatingrechargeto ground-waterbasinsin Nevada,Water ride ion concentrations in stream flow, Water Resources
ResourcesBulletin, 30, 99-111, 1994. Research,32(2), 363-372, 1996.
BagtzoglouA.C., T.L. Tolley, S.A. Stothoff,and D.R. Turner, Crockford, R.H., and D.P. Richardson,Partitioningof rainfall in
Perched aquifers in arid environmentsand inferencesfor an eucalypt forest and pine plantation in southeastern
rechargerates,IAHS-AISHPublicationno. 262, 401-406, 2000. Australia:III. Determinationof the canopystoragecapacityof
Balk, B., and K. Elder, Combiningbinary decisiontree and geo- a dry sclerophylleucalyptforest,HydrologicalProcesses,4,
statistical methods to estimate snow distribution in a mountain 157-167, 1990.
watershed,WaterResourcesResearch,36, 13-26, 2000. Cunningham,E.E.B., A. Long, C. Eastoe, and R.L. Bassett,
Barton, C.A., and M.D. Zoback, Self-similar distributionand Migration of rechargewaters downgradientfrom the Santa
properties
of macroscopicfracturesat depthin crystallinerock Catalina Mountains into the Tucson basin aquifer, Arizona,
in the Cajon Pass ScientificDrill Hole, •/. of Geophysical USA, HydrogeologyJ., 6, 94-103, 1998.
Research,97(B4), 5181-5200, 1992. Daly, C., R.P. Neilson, D.L. Phillips,A statistical-topographic
Barton,C.A., M.D. Zoback, andD. Moos, Fluid flow alongpoten- model for mappingclimatologicalprecipitationover mountain
tially active faults in crystallinerock, Geology,23, 683-686, terrain,J. of AppliedMeteorology,33, 140-158, 1994.
1995. Davis, S.N., D.O. Whittemore and J. Fabryka-Martin,Uses of
Bastiaanssen,W.G.M., M. Menenti, R.A. Feddes, and A.A.M. chloride/bromideratios in studiesof potable waters, Ground
Holtslag,A remotesensing surfaceenergybalancealgorithmfor Water, 36, 338-350, 1998.
land(SEBAL), •/. of Hydrology,212-213, 198-212, 1998. Doughty,C., Investigation
of conceptual
andnumericalapproach-
Belan,R.A., andW.G. Matlock, Groundwaterrechargefrom a por- es for evaluatingmoisture,gas,chemical,andheattransportin
tion of the Santa Catalina Mountains,Hydrology and Water fracturedunsaturated rock,J. of ContaminantHydrology,38,(1-
Resourcesin Arizona and the Southwest,3, 33-40, 1973. 3), 69-106, 1999.
Bell, F.G., Environmental Geology: Principles and Practice, Dettinger,M.D., Reconnaissance estimatesof naturalrechargeto
Blackwell ScienceLtd, London,594p, 1998. desertbasinsin Nevada,U.S.A., by usingchloridebalancecal-
Beyazgul,M., Y. Kayam,andF. Engelsman, F., Estimationmeth- culations,J. of Hydrology,106, 55-78, 1989.
odsfor cropwaterrequirementsin the Gediz Basinof western Dingman,S.L., Snowandsnowmelt,in PhysicalHydrology,edit-
Turkey,•/. of Hydrology,229, 19-26, 2000. ed by S.L. Dingman,pp. 159-209,PrenticeHall, Englewood
BrandesD., C. J. Duffy, andJ. Cusumano, Stabilityanddamping Cliffs, N.J., 1994.
in a dynamicalmodelof hillslopehydrology,WaterResources Droogers,P.,Estimatingactualevapotranspirationusinga detailed
Research, 34, 3303-3313, 1998. agro-hydrological
model,•/. of Hydrology,229, 50-58, 2000.
Brandes,D., and B.P. Wilcox, Evapotranspiration
and soil mois- Eagleson,P.S.,Climate,soil and vegetation,6, Dynamicsof the
turedynamicson a semiaridponderosa pinehillslope,•/. of the annualwaterbalance,WaterResourcesResearch,4(5), 749-764,
American Water ResourcesAssociation,36, 965-974, 2000. 1978.
Brock, B.W. and N.S. Arnold, A spreadsheet-based(Microsoft Eastoe,C.J.,A. Gu andA. Long,The origins,agesandflow paths
Excel)pointsurfaceenergybalancemodelfor glacierandsnow of groundwater in TucsonBasin:resultsof a studyof multiple
melt studies,Earth SurfaceProcesses
and Landforms25, 649- isotopesystems,this volume.
658, 2000. Evans,J.P.,C.B. Forster,andJ.V. Goddard,Permeabilityof fault-
Caine,J.S., and S.R.A. Tomusiak,Brittle structures
of the Turkey relatedrocks,and implicationsfor hydraulicstructureof fault
CreekWatershed, ColoradoRockyMountainFrontRange:aquifer zones,•/. of StructuralGeology,19, 1393-1404,1997.
systemcharacterization andcontrolson groundwater hydrology, Feth,J. H., Hiddenrecharge,GroundWater,2(4), 14-17, 1964.
GeologicalSocietyofAmericaBulletin,in press,2003. Feth, J.H., D.A. Barker,L.G. Moore, R.J. Brown, and C.E. Veirs,
Caparrini,F., andF. Castelli,Remotesensing
usedto estimate land Lake Bonneville:geologyand hydrologyof the WeberDelta
surfaceevaporation, EOS Transactions,83(27), 290-291, 2002. District, including Ogden, Utah, U.S. Geological Survey
Chavez,A., S.N. Davis, and S. Sorooshian,Estimationof moun- ProfessionalPaper 518, 1966.
tain-frontrechargeto regionalaquifers1: Developmentof an Flint, A.L., L.E. Flint, E.M. Kwicklis, G.S. Bodvarsson,and J.M.
analyticalhydroclimaticmodel, Water ResourcesResearch, Fabryka-Martin, Hydrology of Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
30(7), 2157-2167, 1994a. Reviewsof Geophysics, 39, 447-470, 2001a.
Chavez,A., S. Sorooshian,and S.N. Davis, Estimationof moun- Flint, A.L., L.E. Flint, G.SW. Bodvarsson, E.M. Kwicklis, and J.
tain-frontrechargeto regionalaquifers2: A maximumlikeli- Fabryka-Martin, Evolutionof the conceptual modelof unsatu-
rated zone hydrology at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, d. of isohyetalmaps,d. of Applied Meteorology,31(7), 677-688,
Hydrology,247, 1-30, 200lb. 1992.
Flint, A.L., L.E. Flint, J. Blainey,and J.A. Hevesi,Determining Hibbs,B.J.,andB.K. Darling,Environmentalisotopesandnumer-
regionalground-waterrechargein the Great Basin, Geological ical modelsfor understanding
aquiferdynamicsin southwestern
Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section, 54th annual basins,In Advancesin the Developmentand Useof Modelsin
Meeting,Abstractswith Programs,34(4), 56, 2002a. WaterResources,editedby T. G. Cleveland,195-201,Houston,
Flint, A.L., L.E. Flint, E. M. Kwicklis, J.T.Fabryka-Martin,andG. Texas, 1995.
S. Bodvarsson, Estimating recharge at Yucca Mountain, Ho, C.K., S.J.Altman, and B.W. Arnold,Alternativeconceptual
Nevada, USA: comparisonof methods,Hydrogeologyd., 10, modelsandcodesfor unsaturated flow in fracturedtuff:prelim-
180-204, 2002b. inaryassessmentsfor GWTT-95, SandiaReportSand95-1546,
Foster,S.S.D., andA. Smith-Carrington,
The interpretationof tri- 1995.
tium in the Chalk unsaturatedzone,d. of Hydrology,46, 343- Huntley,D., Groundwaterrechargeto the aquifersof northernSan
364, 1980. Luis Valley, Colorado.GeologicalSocietyof AmericaBulletin,
Gay, L.W., Bowen ratio measurementsat sites C and L, in Part II, 90(8), 1196-1281, 1979.
Evapotranspirationmeasurements of native vegetation,Owens Huntoon,P.W., Fault severingof aquifersand othergeologically
Valley, California, June 1986, edited by D.H. Wilson, R.J. controlledpermeabilitycontrastsin the basin-mountaininter-
Reginato, and K.J., Hollet, U.S. Geological Survey Water- face, and the implicationsfor groundwater rechargeto and
ResourcesInvestigationReport91-4159, 1991. developmentfrom the major artesianbasins of Wyoming,
Gee, G.W., M.D. Campbell, and S.O. Link, Arid site water bal- WyomingWater ResearchCenter,ResearchProject Technical
ance using monolith weighing lysimeters:Richland, Wash., CompletionReport(A-O34-W70), 1983.
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Report PNL-SA- Izbicki,J.A.,J. Radyk,andR.L. Michel,Watermovement through
18507, 1991. a thickunsaturated zoneunderlyingan intermittentstreamin the
Gimmi, T., M. Schneebeli,H. Fluhler, H. Wydler, and T. Baer, western Mojave Desert, southernCalifornia, USA, d. of
Field-scale water transportin unsaturatedcrystallinerock, Hydrology,238, 194-217, 2000.
Water ResourcesResearch, 33, 589-598, 1997. Izbicki, J. A., Geologicandhydrologiccontrolson themovement
Goodrich, D.C., J. Faures, D.A. Woolhiser, L.J. Lane, S. of waterthrougha thick,heterogeneous unsaturated zoneunder-
Sorooshian,Measurementand analysisof small-scaleconvec- lying an intermittentstreamin the westernMojave Desert,
tive stormrainfall variability,d. of Hydrology,173, 283-308, southernCalifornia, Water ResourcesResearch, 38, 21-214,
1995. 2002.
Goovaerts,P., Geostatisticalapproachesfor incorporatingeleva- Johnson,C.D., Effectsof lithologyand fracturecharacteristicson
tion into the spatialinterpolationof rainfall,d. of Hydrology, hydraulicpropertiesin crystallinerock: Mirror Lake Research
228, 113-129, 2000. Site,GraftonCounty,New Hampshire, in U.S. GeologicalSurvey
Granger,R.J., Satellite-derivedestimatesof evapotranspiration in Toxic SubstancesHydrology Program, Proceedingsof the
the Gedizbasin,d. of Hydrology,229, 70-76, 2000. TechnicalMeeting, U.S. GeologicalSurvey Water-Resources
Guerin,M., Tritium and 36C1as constraints on fast fractureflow Investigations99-4018c,Vol 3 of 3, pp, 795-802. 1999.
andpercolationflux in the unsaturatedzoneat YuccaMountain, Kafri, U., andJ. Ben-Asher,Evaluationof rechargethroughsoils
d. of ContaminantHydrology,51,257-288, 2001. in a mountainregion:a case studyon the Empire and the
Haneberg,W.C., Steadystategroundwaterflow acrossidealized Sonoitabasins,Hydrologyand WaterResources in Arizonaand
faults, WaterResourcesResearch,31, 1815-1820, 1995. the Southwest,6, 203-213, 1976.
Harte,P.T.,Preliminaryassessment of the lithologicandhydraulic Keating,E.H., V.V. Vesselinov, E. Kwicklis,andZ.Lu, Coupling
propertiesof the glacialdrift and shallowbedrockin the Mirror basin-andsite-scaleinversemodelsof the Espanolaaquifer,
Lake area GraftonCounty,New Hampshire,U.S. Geological GroundWater,41(2), 200-211, 2003.
SurveyOpen-FileReport96-654A, 1997. Keith,S.J.,Mountainfrontrecharge, in RegionalRechargeResearch
Heame, G.A., and J.D. Dewey, Hydrologicalanalysisof the Rio for Southwest AlluvialBasins,editedby L.G.Wilsonet al.,pp.4-
Grande Basin north of Embudo, New Mexico, Colorado and 1 to 4-44, Chapter4, Tucson,Universityof Arizona,1980.
New Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Kite, G.W., Using a basin-scalehydrologicalmodelto estimate
InvestigationsReport 86-4113, 1988. crop transpiration and soil evaporation,
d. of Hydrology,229,
Hely, A.G., R.W. Mower, and C.A. Harr, Water resourcesof Salt 59-69, 2000.
Lake County,Utah, Utah Dept. of Natural Resour.,Technical Koltermann,C.E., and S.M. Gorelick,Heterogeneityin sedimen-
Publication No.31, 1971. tarydeposits:
A reviewof structure-imitating,
process-imitating,
Hevesi,J.A., J.D. Istok,andA.L. Flint, Precipitation estimationin and descriptiveapproaches,Water ResourcesResearch,32,
mountainterrainusingmultivariategeostatistics, Part I: struc- 2617-2658, 1996.
tureanalysis,d. ofAppliedMeteorology,31 (7), 661-676, 1992. KyriakidisP.C.,J. Kim, andN.L. Miller, Geostatistical
mappingof
Hevesi,J.A.,A.L. Flint, andJ.D. Istok,Flint, Precipitation estima- precipitationfromraingaugedatausingatmospheric andterrain
tion in mountainterrainusingmultivariategeostatistics, PartII: characteristics,
d. ofAppliedMeteorology, 40, 1855-1877,2001.
WILSON AND GUAN 135
Lapin, M., Measurementandprocessingof atmosphericprecipita- Meinzer, O.E., Outline of ground-waterhydrologywith defini-

tion in mountainous areas of Slovakia, in Hydrology of tions, US GeologicalSurveyWaterSupplyPaper 494, 1923.
Mountainous Areas, edited by L. Molnar, pp. 47-56, National Research Council, Conceptual Models of Flow and
InternationalAssociationof HydrologicalSciences,Publication Transport in the Fractured VadoseZone, National Research
no. 190, 1990. Council,Washington,DC, 382 p., 2001.
Lines, G.C., Ground-waterand surface-waterrelationsalong the NationalResearchCouncil,GroundwaterFluxesAcrossInterfaces,
Mojave River, SouthernCalifornia, U.S. Geol. Surv. Water NationalResearchCouncil,Washington,DC, 84 p., 2004.
ResourceInvestigationReport 95-4189, 1996. Navar, J., and R. Bryan, Interceptionloss and rainfall redistribu-
Llorens,P.,andF. Gallart,A simplifiedmethodfor forestwaterstor- tion by three semi-aridgrowingshrubsin northeasternMexico,
agecapacitymeasurement, d. of Hydrology,240, 131-144,2000. J. of Hydrology, 115, 51-63, 1990.
Loiselle,M., and D. Evans,Fracturedensitydistributionsandwell Nespor V., and B. Sevruk, Estimationof wind-inducederror of
yields in CoastalMaine, Ground Water,33, 190-196, 1995. rainfall gaugemeasurements using a numericalsimulation,J.
Luckman,B., and T. Kavanagh,Impact of climatefluctuationson Atmosphericand OceanicTechnology,16(4), 450-464, 1999.
mountain environmentsin the Canadian Rockies, AMBIO, 29, Newman, B.D., A.R. Campbell, and B.P. Wilcox, Tracer-based
371-380, 2002. studies of soil water movement in semi-arid forest of New
Mailloux, B.J., M. Person,S. Kelley, N. Dunbar, S. Cather, L. Mexico, J. of Hydrology,196, 251-270, 1997.
Strayer,and P. Hudleston,P., Tectoniccontrolson the hydroge- Newman, B.D., and C.J. Duffy, Evaluatingthe hydrogeochemical
ology of the Rio GrandeRift, New Mexico, WaterResources responseof springsusingsingularspectrumanalysisandphase-
Research,35, 2641-2659, 1999. plane plots, in New ApproachesCharacterizingGroundwater
Manning,A.H., Using noble gas tracerto investigatemountain- Flow, editedby K.P.Seiler and S. Wohnlich, v.2, pp. 763-767,
block recharge to an intermountain basin, Dissertation, A.A. Balkema Publishers,Rotterdam,2001.
Universityof Utah, 2002. Nishida, K., R.R. Nemani, S.W. Running, and J.M. Glassy,
Manning,A.H., andD.K. Solomon,,Constrainingmountain-block Remotesensingof land surfaceevaporation(I) theoreticalbasis
rechargeto the easternSalt Lake Valley, Utah with dissolved for an operationalalgorithm, J. of GeophysicalResearchD
noblegasand tritium data,this volume. (Atmosphere),108(9), ACL5-1 to - 14, 2003.
Marechal, J.C., The Mont-Blanc massifi identification of a water- Niswonger,R.G., and J. Constantz,Using heat as a tracerto esti-
bearing important structure, Houille Blanche-Revue mate mountain-front recharge at Bear Canyon, Sandia
InternationaleDe Leau, (2000), no.6, 78-86, 2000. Mountains,
New Mexico,U.S. Geological Survey Middle
Marks, D., A. Winstral,andM. Seyfried,Simulationof terrainand Rio Grande Basin Study--Proceedingsof the Third
forestsheltereffectson patternsof snowdeposition,snowmelt Annual Workshop,
Albuquerque,New Mexico, I 19.76:99-
and runoff over a semi-aridmountaincatchment,Hydrological 203, 71-72, 2000.
Processes,16, 3605-3626, 2002. Ogilvie, S.R., J.M. Orribo, and P.W.J. Glover, The influence of
Maurer, D.K., and D. L. Berger,Subsurfaceflow and water yield deformationbandsupon fluid flow usingprofile permeametry
from watershedstributaryto Eagle Valley hydrographicarea, and positron emission tomography, Geophysical Research
west-centralNevada, U.S. GeologicalSurvey Water-Resources Letters, 28, 61-64, 2001.
InvestigationReport 97-4191, 1997. Ohlmacher,G.C., Structuraldomainsandtheir potentialimpacton
Maurer,D.K., D.E. Prudic,D.L. Berger,andC.E. Thodal,Sources recharge to intermontane-basinaquifers, Environmental &
of water flowing into basin-fill aquifersunderlyingCarsonCity, EngineeringGeoscience,5(1), 61-71, 1999.
Nevada, GeologicalSocietyof America, 1999 Annual Meeting, Olofsson,B., Flow of groundwaterfrom soil to crystallinerock,
Abstractswith Programs,31(7), 87, 1999. AppliedHydrogeology,2(3), 71-83, 1994.
Maxey, G.B., and T.E. Eakin, Ground water in White River Peter, D.L., J.M. Buttle, C.H. Taylor, and B.D. LaZerte, Runoff
Valley,White Pine,Nye, andLincolnCounties,Nevada,Nevada productionin a forested,shallow soil, CanadianShield basin,
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Water WaterResourcesResearch,31, 1291-1304, 1995.
ResourcesBulletin, no. 8, 1949. Phillips,F.M., Environmentaltracersfor watermovementin desert
Mayo, A.L., T.H. Morris, S. Peltier,E.C. Petersen,K. Payne,L.S. soils of the American Southwest,Soil Science Society of
Holman,D. Tingey,T. Fogel,B.J. Black, andT.D. Gibbs,Active America d., 58, 15-24, 1994.
andinactivegroundwaterflow systems:Evidencefrom a strati- Plummer L.N., W.E. Sanford,L.M. Bexfield, S.K. Anderholm and
fied, mountainous terrain, Geological Society of America E Busenberg,Using geochemicaldataand aquifersimulationto
Bulletin, 115, 1456-1472, 2003. characterizerechargeand groundwaterflow in the Middle Rio
McGlynn,B.L., J.J.McDonnel,andD.D. Brammer,A reviewof the Grande Basin, New Mexico, this volume.
evolvingperceptualmodel of hillslopeflowpathsat the Maimai Price,N.J., andJ.W. Cosgrove,Diapirs,relatedstructuresand cir-
catchments, New Zealand,d. of Hydrology,257, 1-26, 2002. cular features,in Analysisof GeologicalStructures,pp. 89-122,
Meijninger,W.M.L., andH.A.R, de Bruin, The sensibleheat flux- CambridgeUniversityPress,1990.
es over irrigated areasin western Turkey determinedwith a Puigdefabregas, J., G. del Barrio, M.M. Bore, L. Gutierrez,andA.
largeaperturescintillometer,
J. of Hydrology,229, 42-49, 2000. Sole,Differentialresponses ofhillslope andchannelelementsto
rainfall eventsin a semi-arid area, Geomorphology,23, 337- Stannard,D.I., Bowen ratio measurementsat sites C and F, in
351, 1998. Evaportranspiration measurements of nativevegetation,Owens
Rawling,G.C., L.B. Goodwin,and J.L. Wilson,INternalarchitec- Valley,California,June1986, editedby Wilson,D.H., Reginato,
ture,permeabilitystructure,andhydrologicsignificance
of con- R.J., Hollet, K.J., U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
trastingfault-zonetypes,Geology,29, 43-46, 2001. InvestigationReport 91-4159, 1991.
Reiter,M., Hydrogeothermal studiesin the AlbuquerqueBasin-- Tani, M., Runoff generationprocessesestimatedfrom hydrologi-
preliminaryresults,U.S. GeologicalSurveyOpen-fileReport cal observationson a steepforestedhillslopewith a thin soil
00-488, 44, 2000. layer,d. of Hydrology,200, 84-109, 1997.
Russell,L. R., and S. Snelson,Structuralstyleandtectonicevolu- Tanner,B.D., M.S. Tanner,W.A. Dugas,E.C. Campbell,and B.L.
tion of theAlbuquerqueBasinsegmentof theRio Granderift, in Bland, Evaluation of and operationaleddy correlationsystem
The Potential of Deep SeismicProfiling for Hydrocarbon for evapotranspiration measurements, in Advances in
Exploration,editedby B. Pinet and C. Bois,: InstitutFrancais Evaportranspiration, American Society of Agricultural
Petrole ResearchConferenceProceedings,Editions Technip, Engineers,Publication14-85, pp 87-99, 1985.
Pads, 1990. Tiedeman,C.R., J.M. Kernodle,and D P. McAda, Applicationof
Ruxton, B.P., and L. Berry, Weatheringprofilesand geomorphic nonlinear-regression
methodsto a ground-waterflow modelof
positionon granitein two tropicalregions,Rev. Geomorphic the AlbuquerqueBasin, New Mexico. U.S. GeologicalSurvey
Dynamics, 12, 16-31, 1961. Water-ResourcesInvestigationReport 98-4172, 90p. 1998a.
Sanford,W.E., L.N. Plummer, D.P. McAda, L.M. Bexfield, and Tiedeman, C.R., D.J. Goode, and P.A. Hsieh, Characterizinga
S.K. Anderholm, Estimation of hydrologic parameters for groundwater basinin a New Englandmountainandvalley ter-
the ground-watermodel of the Middle Rio GrandeBasinusing rain, Ground Water, 36, 611-620, 1998b.
carbon-14and water-leveldata. U.S. GeologicalSurveyOpen- Titus, F.B., Jr., Geology and ground-waterconditionsin eastern
file Report 00-488, 4-6, 2000. ValenciaCounty,New Mexico, New Mexico Bureau of Mines
Sanford,W.E. Rechargeand groundwatermodel: an overview. and Mineral ResourcesGround WaterReport, 7, 1963.
Hydrogeologyd., 10, 110-120, 2002.
Tomlinson,S.A., Comparisonof Bowen-ratio,eddy-correlation,
Scanlon,B.R., Evaluationof liquid andvaporwater flow in desert
and weighing-lysimeter evapotranspirationfor two sparse-
soils based on chlorine 36 and tritium tracers and nonisothermal
canopy sites in EasternWashington,U.S. Geological Survey
flow simulations,WaterResourcesResearch,28, 285-297, 1992.
Water-Resources InvestigationReport 96-4081, 1996.
Scanlon,B.R., S.W. Tyler,andP.J.Wierenga,Hydrologicissuesin
Toth, J., A theoretical analysis of groundwaterflow in small
arid, unsaturatedsystemsand implications for contaminant
drainagebasins,d. of GeophysicalResearch,68(16), 4795-
transport,Reviewsof Geophysics,35, 461- 490, 1997.
4812, 1963.
Scalon,B.R., R.W. Healy and P.G. Cook, Choosingappropriate
Townley,L.R. andJ.L. Wilson,Estimationof boundaryvaluesand
techniquesfor quantifyinggroundwaterrecharge,Hydrogeology
identificationof boundarytypes, Transportin Porous Media,
d., 10, 18-39, 2002.
4(6), 567-584, 1989
Schellekens,J., F.N. Scatena,L.A. Bruijnzeel, and A.J. Wickel,
Unnikrishna,P.V., J.J.McDonnell, D.G. Tarboton,and C. Kendall,
Modellingrainfallinterceptionby a lowlandtropicalrainforestin
northeasternPuertoRico,d. of Hydrology,225, 168-184, 1999. Isotopicanalysisof hydrologicprocesses in a smallsemi-
Shun,T., and C.J. Duffy, Low-frequencyoscillationsin precipita- arid catchment,paperpresentedat InternationalUnion of
tion, temperature,andrunoff on a west facingmountainfront:A Geodesy and Geophysics; XXI general assembly,
Colorado, 237-238, 1995.
hydrogeologicinterpretation,Water ResourcesResearch,35,
191-201, 1999. Viviroli, D., R. Weingartner,andB. Messerli,Assessing
the hydro-
Sigda, J.M., and J.L. Wilson, Are faults preferentialflow paths logical significance or the world's mountains, Mountain
through semiarid and arid vadose zone?, Water Resources Researchand Development,23, 32-40, 2003.
Research,39, 1225-1240, 2003. Waitemeyer,S.D., Methodsfor estimatingstreamflowat mountain
Sigda, J.M., J. L. Wilson, L.B. Goodwin, and J.L. Conca, J, fronts in southernNew Mexico, U.S. GeologicalSurvey Water
Conduits to catchments: deformation band faults in arid ResourcesInvestigationsReport 93-4213, 1994.
and semi-arid vadose zone sands, EOS Transactions, Walvoord, M.A.M.A., Plummer, F.M. Phillips, and A.V.
AbsractT12G-11, 83(47),2002. Wolfsberg, Deep arid systemhydrodynamics1. Equilibrium
Simpson,E.S., D.B. Thorud,and I. Friedman,Distinguishingsea- statesand responsetimes in thick desertvadosezones, Water
sonalrechargeto groundwaterby deuteriumanalysisin south- ResourcesResearch, 38(12), 1291-1302, doi:10.1029/2001
ern Arizona, in Worldwater balance,Proceedingsof the 1970 WR000824, 2002.
Reading Symposium,International Association of Scientific Weaver,H.L., Eddy-correlationmeasurements at sitesC andF, in
Hydrology-UNESCO-WMO, pp. 623-633, 1972. Evaportranspiration measurements of nativevegetation,Owens
Snow,D.T., Packerinjectiontestdatafrom siteson fracturedrock, Valley, California, June 1986, edited by D.H. Wilson, R.J.
LBL (LawrenceBerkeleyLaboratory,Energy and Environment Reginato, and K.J. Hollet, U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Division)Rpt. No. 10080 (197911), 15p., 1979. ResourcesInvestigationReport 91-4159, 1991.
WILSON AND GUAN 137
Wilcox, B.P., B.D. Newman, D. Brandes,D.W. Davenport,and K. lateral hyporheicarea of two stream-aquifersystems,Water
Reid, Runoff from a semiaridponderosa pine hillslopein New ResourcesResearch,34, 317-328, 1998.
Mexico, Water ResourcesResearch, 33,2301-2314, 1997. Yang, D., E. Elomaa,A. Tuominen,A. Aaltonen,B. Goodison,T.
Wilson, J.E., L.B. Goodwin, and C.J. Lewis, Deformation bandsin Gunther, V. Golubev, B. Sevruk, H. Madsen, and J. Milkovic,
nonweldedignimbrites:Petrophysicalcontrolson fault-zone Wind-inducedprecipitationundercatchof theHellmanngauges,
deformationand evidenceof preferentialfluid flow, Geology, Nordic Hydrology, 30, 57-80, 1999.
31(10), 837-840, 2003. Young,C. B., C.D. Peters-Lidard,A. Kruger,M.L. Baeck, B. R.
Winograd,I.J., A.C. Riggs,A.C., and T.B. Coplen, The relative Nelson, A.A. Bradley, and J.A. Smith, An evaluation of
contribution of summer and cool-seasonprecipitation to NEXRAD precipitation estimatesin complex terrain. J. of
groundwater recharge, Spring Mountains, Nevada, USA, GeophysicalResearch,104 (D16), 19691-19703, 1999.
HydrogeologyJ., 6, 77-93, 1998.
Wittwer, C., G. Chen, G. Bodvarsson,M. Chornack, A. Flint, L.
Flint, E. Kwicklis, andR. Spengler,Preliminarydevelopmentof
the LBL/USGS three-dimensional site-scale model of Yucca
Mountain,Nevada, U.S. Departmentof Energy,Rpt. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory,LBL 37356, UC0814, 69p., Huade Guan, Dept. of Earth & EnvironmentalScience,New
1995. Mexico Tech, Socorro,NM 87801.
Wroblicky, G.J., M.E. Campana,H.M. Valett, and C.N. Dahm, JohnL. Wilson, Dept. of Earth & EnvironmentalScience,New
Seasonalvariation in surface-subsurface
water exchangeand Mexico Tech, Socorro,NM 87801.

Mountain-Block Hydrology and Mountain-Front Recharge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mountain-Block Hydrology and Mountain-Front Recharge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mountain-Block Hydrology and Mountain-Front Recharge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Sci. and Appl. Groundwater Recharge in a Desert Environment: The Southwestern United States Vol.

New Mexico Instituteof Mining and Technology,

In semiaridclimates,a significantcomponentof rechargeto basin aquifers

1. INTRODUCTION aquifers,throughdirectinfiltrationof precipitation,is limit-

114 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

Plate I Vegetation,thin soil cover,and limestonebedrockon a hillslopeof the easternSandiaMountains,New Mexico

Plate 2. Two differentremotesensingperspectives on MFR. (a) The valley-centeredperspectiveis representedby this

WILSON AND GUAN 115

116 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

ambiguousanddifficultto compare.Is the mountainfronta

Table 1 Comparison of three potential boundaries for mountain front determination

B: Piedmontangle Slope,soil, Goodpointto quantify Rechargefrom surface

C: Plinthangle Slope,soil, Surface runoff measured May be coveredby

WILSON AND GUAN 117

1) Focusednear surfacecomponent(FS). This represents

118 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

--- --- --- Surface Fault Trace

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Figure 3. SchematicdiagramillustratingMFR components. FS = focusednear-surfacerecharge,DS = diffusenear-sur-

2) Diffusenear surfacecomponent(DS). Diffuse nearsur- by focusedflow FR in mountainblockscomposedof

WILSON AND GUAN 119

where P is precipitationinput in the mountainblock and This water balanceequationexcludesthe subsurfacewater

runoff at the mountainfront is generallyephemeral,and

120 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

ET in mountainsis usuallyestimatedin relationto mean cationsof the Maxey-Eakinmethodin Nevadawere gener-

WILSON AND GUAN 121

WasatchRange/ mountain front is

122 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

240 tributeto the focusedrechargealongthe channel.How does

WILSON AND GUAN 123

tively the runoff andits chlorideconcentration

124 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

high-elevationmountain blocks common throughoutthe flux throughthe soil layersnearLosAlamos,New Mexico.

3.7. Environmental Tracers Temperatureprofilesin the near surfacehave been used

WILSON AND GUAN 125

suggestthat temperaturedata could be very useful in tiple exchangesof water betweenthesedifferentreservoirs,

126 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

Box I Co-kriging monthly precipitation with terrain altitude

Generally,precipitationin the mountainareasstronglycorrelateswith terrianelevation The followingmap shows44

X Variable: mean 1828.250

ß Y Variable: mean 48.896

1300. 1800. 2300. 2800. 3300.

Left: DEM of SandiaMountainsand surroundingareas,and the locationof 40 precipitationstations;

344F "' '" , 344

Left: Mean July precipitationdistributionfrom co-kriginggaugeprecipitationand

WILSON AND GUAN 127

128 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

WILSON AND GUAN 129

the upper180 meters[LoiselleandEvans,19__95].

130 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

20000 ,,; 2? '"

WILSON AND GUAN 131

132 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

Severalkey questionsshouldbe amongthosepursuedin flow(DRO)? Which of the existingMFR estimationmeth-

WILSON AND GUAN 135

Lapin, M., Measurementandprocessingof atmosphericprecipita- Meinzer, O.E., Outline of ground-waterhydrologywith defini-

136 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE

WILSON AND GUAN 137

You might also like