Mountain-Block Hydrology and Mountain-Front Rechar

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/251871304
Mountain-Block Hydrology and Mountain-Front Recharge
Article · January 2004

DOI: 10.1029/009WSA08
CITATIONS READS
255 2,623
2 authors:
John L Wilson Huade Guan

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology Flinders University
205 PUBLICATIONS 8,272 CITATIONS 166 PUBLICATIONS 5,018 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by John L Wilson on 13 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Mountain-Block Hydrology and Mountain-Front Recharge*
John L. Wilson and Huade Guan

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico
In semiarid climates, a significant component of recharge to basin aquifers oc-

curs along the mountain front. Traditionally called “mountain-front recharge”
(MFR), this process has been treated by modelers of basins as a boundary condi-
tion. In general, mountain-front recharge estimates are based on the general pre-
cipitation characteristics of the mountain (as estimated, e.g., by the chloride mass
balance and water balance methods), or by calibration of a basin groundwater
model. These methods avoid altogether the complexities of the hydrologic sys-
tem above the mountain front, or at best consider only traditional runoff process.
Consequently hydrology above the mountain front is an area ripe for significant
scientific advancement. A complete view would consider the entire mountain
block system and examine hydrologic processes from the slope of the highest
peak to the depth of the deepest circulating groundwater. Important aspects
above the mountain front include the partitioning of rainfall and snowmelt into
vegetation-controlled evapotranspiration, surface runoff, and deep infiltration
through bedrock, especially its fractures and faults. Focused flow along mountain
stream channels and the diffuse movement of groundwater through the underly-
ing mountain block would both be considered. This paper first defines some key
terms, then reviews methods of studying MFR in arid and semiarid regions, dis-
cusses hydrological processes in the mountain block, and finally addresses some
of the basic questions raised by the new mountain-block hydrology approach, as
well as future directions for mountain-block hydrology research.
ducing the potential for evapotranspiration (ET).

1. INTRODUCTION Mountains also have thin soils that can store less water,
reducing the amount potentially lost by transpiration.
The term “mountain-front recharge” (MFR) is gen- Fast flow along bedrock fractures that underlie the thin
erally used in arid and semiarid climates to describe the soil cover may also limit water loss to ET (Plate 1). A
contribution of mountains regions to the recharge of study of 20 selected catchments worldwide shows that
aquifers in adjacent basins. Basin aquifer recharge is the area-weighted mountain contribution to annual
typically focused along stream channels and the moun- river basin discharge is about 4 times that of the basin
tain front; in many cases MFR is the dominant source floor [Viviroli et al., 2003]. In arid and semiarid re-
of replenishment [Hely et al., 1971; Maurer et al., gions, the mountain contribution can be greater.
1999]. Diffuse recharge of basin aquifers, through MFR has been studied from one of two perspectives:
direct infiltration of precipitation, is limited or absent (1) the traditional basin-centered view (Plate 2a), or (2)
due to small precipitation volumes, deep vadose zones, a mountain-centered view (Plate 2b). With a basin-
and the water scavenging vegetation found in dry cli- centered perspective, the mountain front is viewed as a
mates [Foster and Smith-Carrington, 1980; Phillips, boundary condition for the basin aquifers, thus avoid-
1994; Izbicki ,et al., 2000; Flint, 2002a; Walvoord et ing the complexities of the hydrologic system above
al., 2002]. Mountains, due to orographic effects, re- the mountain front. Basin-centered methods include
ceive more precipitation than the basin floor, with a Darcy’s law calculations along the mountain front
significant fraction in the form of snow. In addition, [Maurer and Berger, 1997] and calibration of ground-
mountains have lower temperatures, and sometimes a water models of the basin aquifer [Tiedeman et al.,
larger surface albedo due to the snow cover, thus re- 1998a; Sanford et al., 2000]. With a mountain-centered
*
Preprint of paper to be published in Groundwater Recharge in A Desert Environment: The Southwestern United
States, edited by Fred M. Phillips, James Hogan, and Bridget Scanlon, 2004, AGU, Washington, DC.
2 MOUNTAIN-BLOCK HYDROLOGY AND MOUNTAIN-FRONT RECHARGE
perspective, precipitation amounts over the mountains diffuse movement of groundwater through the sur-
are crudely related to MFR rates, and do not consider rounding and underlying mountain blocks. It considers
the subsurface hydrologic mechanics in the mountains. recharge from rainfall, snowmelt, surface runoff, and
Examples of mountain-centered methods include: (1) through fractures and faults, as well as water returned
comparing the geochemical or isotopic characteristics to the atmosphere through vegetation-controlled
of mountain precipitation with the groundwater at the evapotranspiration. When water is discharged from the
mountain front (e.g., the chloride mass balance mountain block to the adjacent basin, through focused
method) [Dettinger, 1989; Maurer and Berger, 1997; and diffuse surface and subsurface components, it be-
Anderholm, 2000]; (2) using locally developed empiri- comes MFR.
cal relations between MFR and precipitation [Maxey
and Eakin, 1949; Anderson et al., 1992; Maurer et al.,
1999; Anderholm, 2000]; and (3) subtracting estimated
ET from precipitation [Feth, 1966; Huntley, 1979].
The studies of MFR in either perspective so far neglect
detailed hydrologic processes in mountains.
Hydrologic processes in mountains have been stud-
ied in detail at the hillslope scale, with a focus on
streamflow responses to precipitation in humid regions
(e.g., McGlynn et al., 2002; Peters et al., 1995; Tani,
1997). Few of these studies were conducted in arid and
semiarid regions [Wilcox et al., 1997; Puigdefabregas
et al., 1998]. Hillslope studies typically only examine
hydrologic processes in the thin soil layer above the
bedrock surface (Plate 1). Studies of semiarid moun-
tain hydrologic processes below the bedrock surface
have mostly been limited to Yucca Mountain, the pro-
posed vadose zone nuclear waste repository in Nevada,
with an emphasis on solute migration issues.
Plate 2. Two different remote sensing perspectives on MFR.

(a) The valley-centered perspective is represented by this
horizontal view of the Albuquerque Basin bounded by the
Sandia Mountains Mountains (~25 km visible in this view).
The view is east across the city of Albuquerque, with a 5-
times vertical exaggeration (TM image 7, 4, 2 bands draping
over a DEM). (b) The mountain-centered perspective is rep-
resented by this ~130 km wide vertical view of the southern
Plate 1. Vegetation, thin soil cover, and limestone bedrock on
Sangre de Cristo Mountains, New Mexico and part of Rio
a hillslope of the eastern Sandia Mountains, New Mexico. Grande valley, with a 5-times vertical exaggeration (TM 7, 4,
The rock is dipping to the north (left). The vegetation is 2 bands draping over a DEM). The east slopes of the Jemez
mainly Pinõn and Juniper. Mountains are on the left.
Hydrologic science above the mountain front, incor- MFR is an important, if not predominant, source of
porating a full view of the entire mountain block sys- recharge to basins in arid and semiarid regions, how-
tem and not just the thin soil cover and its vegetation, ever it is simultaneously the least well quantified. Es-
is an area ripe for significant scientific advancement. timates of the basin-margin recharge to the Middle Rio
This more complete perspective examines hydrologic Grande Basin vary by one order of magnitude [Sanford
processes from the slopes of the highest peak to the et al., 2000]. Uncertainty is amplified by climate vari-
depths of deepest circulating groundwater. It includes ability, climate change, and increasing anthropogenic
the focused flow of mountain stream channels, and the
WILSON AND GUAN 3
disturbances that alter mountain environments [Luck-

man and Kavanagh, 2002], mountain hydrology, and
thus mountain-front recharge. Some direct human im-
pacts (e.g., septic systems, transportation, resort devel-
opment, mine dewatering/contamination) also affect
water quality in mountains. A more complete approach
to studying MFR in a mountain-centered perspective
would provide observations of the temporal and spatial
variations of its different components, and improve
prediction of how the mountain hydrologic system
(including MFR) responds to climate and to local dis-
turbances such as changing vegetation patterns. Moun-
tain-centered observations and predictions are essential
for effective groundwater resource management in Figure 1. Schematic cross-section showing naturally occur-
adjacent basins. ring map lines for potential mountain front definitions. A =
point of vegetation change, B = point of piedmont angle (of-
This paper first defines some key terms, then reviews ten a major mountain bounding fault, or master fault, is lo-
methods of studying MFR in arid and semiarid regions, cated in this vicinity), and C = point of plinth angle. In exten-
sional settings, like the Rio Grande Rift and Basin and
describes hydrologic processes in the mountain block,
Range, there are a series of normal faults along the mountain
and finally addresses some of the basic questions front and beneath the alluvial fan leading down into the basin
raised by a proposed new mountain-block hydrology [Russell and Snelson, 1990].
approach, as well as future directions for mountain-
block hydrology research.
2. MOUNTAIN BLOCK, MOUNTAIN FRONT,

AND RECHARGE
A mountain block includes all the mass composing

the mountains, including vegetation, soil, bedrock (ex-
posed and unexposed), and water. A mountain block
can be formed through a number of geological proc-
esses, such as normal faulting in extensional settings,
thrust faulting in compressional settings, and volcanic
eruption. These processes yield the mountain block’s
most important characteristic: significant topographic
relief. Mountain-block hydrology examines all hydro-
logic processes in the mountain block, including the
temporal and spatial distribution of precipitation, vege-
tation interception, snow and snowmelt, ET, runoff,
interflow (throughflow) in the soil layer, water flow
through bedrock matrix and fractures, and surface wa-
ter and subsurface water interactions.
The term mountain-front recharge is frequently used
to describe the contribution from mountains to ground-
water recharge of the adjacent basins along the moun- Figure 2. Schematic diagram showing four hydrologically
tain front. The mountain front is positioned distinctive units of the landscape in map view (a) and in
somewhere between the mountain block and the basin cross-section (b). The cross section also shows various
floor. However, a clear and consistent definition of the groundwater flow paths in the mountain block (modified
mountain front is lacking. Estimates of mountain-front from Toth [1963] and Keith, [1980]).
recharge are consequently ambiguous and difficult to
compare. Is the mountain front a strict line or a narrow Consider the mountain front defined as a line. Sev-
zone? If it is a line, how is it determined? If it is a eral natural lines could be used, including vegetation
zone, what criteria are used to identify this zone? boundaries, soil boundaries (e.g., the edge of bare
rock), slope boundaries, mountain bounding faults, or
even the snow line. Based on Ruxton and Berry’s front zone. For the purpose of studying mountain-front
[1961] description of landforms and weathering pro- recharge in arid and semiarid areas we believe that the
files in arid regions, we define three alternative defini- piedmont zone (the area between points B and C) is the
tions of the mountain front boundary: the point where best definition of the mountain front. The streamflow
there is a change in vegetation (Figure 1, point A), the at point B represents surface runoff from the mountain
point where the mountain abuts the piedmont, often block; the stream loss between points B and C reflects
corresponding to a change in soil type and presence of the water returned to the atmosphere by ET and by
the mountain bounding faults (point B), and the plinth recharge into the mountain front zone (and eventually
angle where the piedmont meets the edge of the basin to the basin aquifer). Mountain bounding faults are
floor (point C). Each of these boundaries is a candi- typically located within this zone, thus including their
date for defining the mountain front because each hydrologic effect on mountain-front recharge. With
might represent a distinct hydrologic transition (Table this defined as the mountain front zone, the landscape
1). is then divided into four hydrologically distinctive ar-
Suppose instead the mountain front is defined as a eas: mountain block, mountain front, basin floor, and
transition zone between the mountain and the basin discharge zones (e.g., phreatic playas and basin ripar-
floor. Theoretically, any zone that utilizes the bounda- ian areas), illustrated in Figures 2a and 2b.
ries defined in Figure 1 can be a potential mountain
Table 1 Comparison of three potential boundaries for mountain front determination

Types of boundaries Significant change across Advantage Disadvantage
the boundary
A: Vegetation Vegetation type, Good for ecological study. Varies with climate, slope
Evapotranspiration. aspect, etc. Not good for
studying mountain front
recharge.
B: Piedmont angle Slope, soil, Good point to quantify Recharge from surface
infiltration and runoff surface runoff from the runoff beyond this point is
characteristics. mountain, generally ac- not included in mountain
companied with soil front recharge.
change and buried moun-
tain bounding fault zone.
C: Plinth angle Slope, soil, Surface runoff measured May be covered by anthro-
surface structures. past this point is definitely pogenic structures; the
excluded from mountain point is difficult to iden-
front recharge. tify.
MFR is defined by Keith [1980] as groundwater re- from direct contact with surface water bodies [Flint et
charge to a regional (basin) aquifer at the margin of the al., 2001a]. With this definition, the combined satu-
aquifer that parallels a mountain area. MFR is often rated zone of mountain and basin is considered one
divided into two components [Anderson et al., 1992; system, and recharge is the process of adding water
Chavez et al., 1994a; Manning, 2002]: (1) subsurface from above through the vadose zone. From this per-
inflow from the adjacent mountains; and (2) infiltration spective, “mountain-block recharge” would perhaps be
from streams near the mountain front. In this defini- termed “underflow” between two portions of the sys-
tion, MFR includes the addition of water to the basin tem. If instead we consider only the basin aquifer as
aquifer both from the saturated zone under the moun- the system of concern, the broader definition acknowl-
tains and through the unsaturated zone at the mountain edges that “recharge” occurs when water is added to
front. We, and others, call the first component “moun- the aquifer. Meinzer [1923] distinguished these two
tain-block recharge” [Manning, 2002]. Some scientists contributions to aquifer replenishment as direct re-
do not regard this as a component of recharge because charge (from the unsaturated zone) and indirect re-
it fails their strict definition of recharge as water reach- charge (from other saturated formations). A recent Na-
ing the water table through the unsaturated zone or
WILSON AND GUAN 5
tional Research Council [2004] report appears to ac- and disappear at the mountain front, FS1 is equal to RO
cept the less strict definition of recharge. less the loss to ET.
For compatibility with the traditional view of moun- 2) Diffuse near surface component (DS). Diffuse
tain-front recharge in basin hydrologic studies, we sug- near surface flow occurs along steep front slopes via
gest that MFR be defined as all water entering the ephemeral surface runoff (in small unmapped chan-
basin aquifer with its source in the mountain block and nels) and subsurface interflow (through the thin soil
mountain front (zone). This definition includes direct layer) originating in small catchments directly above
water-table recharge at the mountain-front zone (direct the mountain front. This diffuse component also in-
MFR), and the transfer of subsurface water from the cludes the vertical recharge from precipitation falling
mountain bedrock to the basin aquifer (indirect MFR directly on the mountain-front zone. Both of these con-
or mountain-block recharge). In addition to near sur- tributions are reduced by the local ET. Given the small
face (direct) and subsurface paths (indirect), one can area of the mountain front zone compared to the re-
also consider diffuse and focused paths for each, lead- mainder of the mountain block, these contributions
ing to four components of MFR (Figure 3). provide a relatively small component of MFR.
3) Focused subsurface component (FR). This is sub-
surface water transmitted along bedrock openings, in-
cluding fractures (primarily tectonic origin, or due to
unloading extension), faults, and pipes (e.g., lava tubes
and dissolved openings in carbonates), that connect
subsurface water in the mountain block and the basin
aquifer. Structural enhancement of rock permeability
due to faults and zones of intense fracturing within the
bedrock are especially important factors in creating
focused subsurface flowpaths, which Feth [1964] calls
the ‘hidden path’. Groundwater transmission is mostly
by focused flow FR in mountain blocks composed of
crystalline rock.
4) Diffuse subsurface component (DR). There is also
Figure 3. Schematic diagram illustrating MFR components.
a diffuse component of groundwater transmission
FS = focused near-surface recharge, DS = diffuse near-
surface recharge, FR = focused subsurface recharge, DR = along the contact zone between the bedrock of the
diffuse subsurface recharge. mountain block and the sediments of the basin aquifer.
In a mountain block with high matrix permeability,
1) Focused near surface component (FS). This such as a volcanic tuff, or regular and ubiquitous frac-
represents MFR contributions at the mountain front turing, such as a basalt, diffuse flow DR can be an im-
from surface stream runoff (FS1,, easy to measure) and portant component of mountain-front recharge.
shallow subsurface water transmitted by streambed Based on these definitions, a simple water balance
sediments (FS2, difficult to measure). We emphasize equation,
FS2 here because it is sometimes neglected when MFR
is estimated solely from the surface runoff. While the MFR1 = (FS1+FS2) + DS + FR + DR , (1)
stream channel may be dry, there is often significant
subsurface discharge in the sediments underlying the describes mountain-front recharge. Despite their sim-
stream and above the bedrock surface. This subsurface plicity, water balance equations are useful tools for
flow includes the hyporheic zone beneath the stream, conceptualizing mountain-front recharge. Another way
but it can be deeper and wider, especially at the moun- of writing the water balance equation for MFR1 is
tain front. Theoretically, the surface runoff FS1 is the
amount of stream water runoff (RO) that crosses the MFR1 = P – ETb – ETf – DRO , (2)
piedmont angle (Point B in Figure 1) and enters the
mountain front zone. In reality, FS1 is always less than where P is precipitation input in the mountain block
RO, because of ET losses, and because some surface and the mountain-front zone (P=Pb+Pf , where Pb »
runoff manages to flow past the downstream boundary Pf), ETb and ETf are evapotranspiration in the moun-
tain block and mountain-front zone, respectively, and
of the mountain front zone and into the basin (DRO).
DRO is streamflow at the downstream end of the
In arid regions where streams are mostly ephemeral mountain-front zone into the basin.
In the arid and semi-arid southwest United States a when the front-slope runoff is negligible.
number of simplifications are taken, leading to less Why bother to write out these various versions of the
comprehensive definitions of mountain-front recharge. water balance equation? They illustrate the range of
First, stream runoff at the mountain front is generally different conditions that apply in nature and the range
ephemeral, and almost always disappears within the of assumptions that people make in order to understand
mountain front zone. Therefore, downstream runoff and estimate mountain-front and mountain-block re-
beyond the mountain front is often negligible (DRO = charge. In particular, for methods adopting a particular
0). In this case, MFR can be defined as conceptual water balance model, they show what is
being neglected and so point out bias. The assumptions
MFR2 = P – ETb – ETf . (3) used by analysts and modelers are not always consis-
tent with the appropriate conditions for a particular
This can be rewritten, in terms of the four components
mountain range and its bounding basins.
at the mountain front, as
MFR2 = (RO – RETf + FS2 ) + DS + FR + DR (4) 3. ESTIMATION METHODS
where RETf is the riparian ET along the focused stream Various physical, chemical, and numerical methods
channel across the mountain-front zone (there is a have been applied to study MFR over the past five
small diffuse component of ETf throughout the rest of decades. Table 2 summarizes the methods used in sev-
the zone, away from the stream channel, that is already eral studies of MFR in arid and semiarid regions.
accounted for by the DS component). While Flint et al. [2002b] summarizes methods used at
In some cases the subsurface water transfer from the Yucca Mountain for estimating recharge to the moun-
mountain bedrock to the basin aquifer is neglected. In tain block itself, here we review a wide variety of the
other words, only direct MFR is considered, with the methods employed to estimate MFR.
component formula becomes
MFR3 = FS + DS . (5) 3.1 Water Balance Method
Taking this one step further, the diffuse component and Generally, precipitation is the only water input to a
FS2 are also neglected and mountain-front recharge is mountain block. The amount of mountain-front re-
assumed to be equal to the surface stream flow meas- charge can be estimated if water loss by ET and sur-
ured at the mountain front, FS1,. This leads to a very face runoff is known. Which MFR components are
simple definition of MFR, estimated is based on where ET and surface runoff are
quantified. If ET is estimated in the mountain block,
MFR4 = RO , (6)
and stream runoff is measured at the upstream end of
where RO is streamflow at the upstream end of the the mountain front zone, then equation (9) is applied.
mountain front zone. This model assumes that all The resulting estimate is for mountain-block recharge,
stream runoff at the mountain front becomes recharge MBR2. If, however, the ET is estimated over the
to the basin aquifer. mountain block and the mountain front zone, and the
As previously defined, mountain-block recharge stream runoff is measured at the downstream end of the
(MBR) is recharge to a basin aquifer from the moun- mountain front zone, equation (2) is applied. The result
tain bedrock. It is expressed as the sum of subsurface is an estimate of mountain-front recharge, MFR1.
components, ET in mountains is usually estimated in relation to
mean annual precipitation, pan evaporation, or derived
MBR1 = FR + DR . (7) from the water balance equation by assuming mountain
This water balance equation excludes the subsurface bedrock impermeability. Huntley [1979] estimated
water transfer in the streambed. If we broaden the defi- actual ET loss in the Sangre de Cristo and San Juan
nition of mountain-block recharge to include this com- Mountains of Colorado by multiplying calculated po-
ponent, then we have tential ET with an empirical factor, and reported that,
respectively, 14% and 38% of annual precipitation
MBR2 = FS2 + FR + DR . (8) becomes mountain-block recharge, MBR2 (when com-
paring these numbers it is interesting to note that,
This mountain-block water balance equation can be
among other differences, the Sangre’s are crystalline
written as
rock whereas the San Juan’s are volcanic).
MBR2 = P – ETb – RO (9)
WILSON AND GUAN 7
Table 2 Quantitative assessment on mountain front recharge by various methods

Location Authors Methods MFR or MBR amount Precipita- Notes
in mm/year tion
(percentage of precipi- mm/year
tation )
Wasatch Range / Feth et al. Water balance MBR2 = 201 (22%) 926 Streamflow at moun-
Weber Delta [1966] method, precipitation tain front is 25%
Dsitrict, Utah and ET estimated by annual precipitation
increments of eleva- in the mountain.
tion.
San Juan Mtns / Huntley Water balance MBR2 = (38%) Not re- Volcanic rock with
San Luis Valley, [1979] method, ported high permeability in
Colorado ET estimated from the mountain.
calculated potential,
ET multiplied by crop
coefficient.
Sangre de Cristo Huntley Water balance MBR2 = (14%) Not re- Shists, gneiss, and
Mtns / San Luis [1979] method, ported granitic intrusives,
Valley, Colorado ET estimated from well-cemented sedi-
calculated potential, mentary rocks in the
ET multiplied by crop mountain.
coefficient.
White River Val- Maxey and Maxey-Eakin method. Not reported Not re-
ley, Navada Eakin [1949] ported
Sandia Mtns / Anderholm Precipitation-runoff MFR4 = 23 (4.6%) 510 Subsurface inflow
Albuquerque [2000] regression method, (Waltemeyer model) and ET at mountain
Basin, New Mex- using two empirical MFR4 = 66 (13%) front was believed
ico equations. (Hearne and Dewey negligible.
model)
Carson Mtns, Maurer et al. Chloride mass bal- MFR3 = 27 (7.8%) 350 Weathered and frac-
Virgina Mtns / [1997] ance. (data resulted from tured granitic, basal-
Eagle Valley, four subcatchments) tic and metamorphic
Navada rocks.
Sandia Mtns / Anderholm Chloride Mass Bal- MFR3 = 31 (6.1%) 510 0.3 mg/l chloride
Albuquerque [2000] ance. conc. used for bulk
Basin, New Mex- precipitation.
ico
Santa Catalina Chavez et al. Analytical seasonal MBR2 = 1.1 (0.2%) 280-760 Layered gneiss with
Mtns / Tucson [1994] stream flow model folds.
Basin, Arizona with stochastic esti-
mation procedures.
Carson Mtns, Maurer et al. Darcy’s law. MFR1 = 31 (8.8%) 350 Weathered and frac-
Virgina Mtns / [1997] [data resulted from tured granitic, basal-
Eagle Valley, four subcatchments] tic and metamorphic
Nevada rocks.
Sandia Mtns / Tiedeman et Modeling of basin MFR1 = 132 (26%) 510 Precipitation data
Albuquerque al. [1998] aquifer, from Anderholm
Basin, New Mex- calibrated using in- [2000].
ico verse method.
Sandia Mtns / Sanford et al. Modeling of basin MFR1 = 15 (3%) 510 Precipitation data
Albuquerque [2000] aquifer, from Anderholm
Basin, New Mex- calibrated using 14C [2000].
ico groundwater age
Eagle Mtns / Red Hibbs and 2D Numerical model- MFR1 = 1.8 (0.6%) 300 Widespread, well-
Light Draw Val- Darling ing of both mtns and developed calcic soil
ley, Texas [1995] valley area, calibrated horizon in basin.
using groundwater
age.
Yucca Mtns, Flint et al. Modeling in moun- MBR1 = 4.5 (2.7%) 170 Welded and non-
Nevada [2001] tains. welded tuff.
Feth et al. [1966] calculated MBR2 from the Wasatch parts of adjacent states. This relation can be approxi-
Mountains to the Weber Delta District of Utah using a mated by
similar approach. MBR2 was reported to be 22% of
annual precipitation with an ET loss of 53% (Table 2). MFR 3= 0.042 ( Pm − 203)0.98 , (10)
Hely et al. [1971] estimated MBR2 for another section
of the Wasatch Mountains to be 19% annual precipita- where MFR is direct mountain-front recharge in mm
tion, with an ET loss of 44% (reviewed by Manning per year, and Pm is mean annual precipitation in mm
[2002]). per year.
The accuracy of a water balance approach depends Maurer and Berger [1997] gave another empirical
mainly on the estimation of ET, which is difficult to regression for mountain water yield (including surface
quantify, especially for the complex terrain and varied runoff and subsurface flow, approximately equivalent
vegetation of mountains. In semiarid regions, ET is a to MFR2) at Carson Basin, Nevada,
dominant water balance component even in mountains
[Brandes and Wilcox, 2000]. The uncertainty of the ET MFR 2 = 2.84 × 10 −5 Pm
2.43
, (11)
estimate is amplified by the uncertainty of other bal-
ance components. Take water balance equation (2) as
where Pm is the mean annual precipitation in mm per
an example. If the actual ET is 60% of P, and MFR1 is
year.
20% of P, then a 20% uncertainty in the ET estimate When estimated recharge by the Maxey-Eakin
leads to a 60% uncertainty in MFR1 , assuming that P method is plotted against the mid-value of each of four
and DRO are measured exactly. This undermines the precipitation zones, with Pm = 8-12, 12-15, 15-20, and
reliability of MFR quantification using the water bal- >20 inches, and with scaling factors 0.03, 0.07, 0.15,
ance method. and 0.25, respectively (for the White River Basin, Ne-
Due to large uncertainty in ET quantification, ET is vada [Maxey and Eakin, 1949]), another power law
often empirically related to the local mean annual pre- empirical relationship is revealed,
cipitation, reflecting a direct function between MFR
and the mountain’s mean annual precipitation. Maxey
MFR = 9 × 10 −9 Pm
3.72
and Eakin [1949] considered the high spatial variation , (12)
of precipitation in mountains and demonstrated an em-
pirical relationship between precipitation zones and the where Pm is the mean annual precipitation in mm per
MFR to groundwater basins in Nevada. In the Maxey- year. Equation (12) deviates from Maxey-Eakin esti-
Eakin method, MFR is estimated by the following mates when Pm > 600mm ≅ 23.6 inches.
steps [Avon and Durbin, 1994]: (1) identifying several
mean annual precipitation zones; (2) assigning each
zone a scaling factor to account for the loss of water by
ET and runoff; and (3) summing the recharge amount
of each zone. Since, both ET and runoff loss is consid-
ered in Maxey-Eakin method, the recharge estimate is
conceptually either MBR2 or MFR1, depending on the
spatial extent of precipitation estimation and the loca-
tion of runoff estimation (see above). Since the Maxey-
Eakin method crudely considers spatially distributed
precipitation, it is preferable to other water balance
methods that use only a single scaling factor for ET for
an entire mountain area. Avon and Durbin [1994] re- Figure 4. MFR vs. mean annual precipitation for three em-
pirical relations provided by Anderson [1992], Maurer and
ported that applications of the Maxey-Eakin method in
Berger [1997], and Maxey and Eakin [1949], equations (10)-
Nevada were generally in fair agreement with esti- (12), respectively. Note that Anderson’s equation gives direct
mates from other independent methods. MFR, while Maurer and Berger’s version gives the total wa-
More recently, Anderson [1992] presented an em- ter yield [both surface and subsurface] from the mountain.
pirical relationship between the total volume of direct
MFR (or MFR3) and the total volume of mountain pre- These three empirical equations (10)-(12) provide
cipitation exceeding 203 mm, based on basin-scale substantially different MFR estimates (Figure 4), even
water balance estimates in south-central Arizona and though they were all developed for portions of the Ba-
sin and Range Province of the southwestern United
WILSON AND GUAN 9
States, and have somewhat similar climates. Although environments. Their results suggest that the hyporheic
different MFR components are quantified in these zone can conduct significant water into the mountain
equations, the large deviation between MFR3 and front. At Clear Creek (10,000 acres) of the Carson
MFR2, i.e. (10) and (11), suggests that these empirical Range, Nevada, [Maurer and Berger, 1997] subsurface
estimates are likely restricted to the locale where they flow in the sediments was about 4% of the annual pre-
were developed and should not be transferred to other cipitation, and 23% of the surface runoff.
areas. There are also reports that subsurface flow through
mountain bedrock can be important [e.g., Maurer and
3.2 Precipitation-Runoff Regression Method Berger, 1997]. Thus, the three basic assumptions for
precipitation runoff regression method are not always
When subsurface recharge (MBR2) is negligible, reasonable. The first assumption, neglecting RETf and
stream runoff at the mountain front (runoff measured at DRO, leads to an overestimate of MFR, while the last
point B in Figure 1, or RO) may be considered the total two assumptions, neglecting FS2, FR and DR, result in
contribution to MFR [Anderholm, 2000]. The moun- an underestimate. While these biases may compensate
tain-front recharge estimate is given by MFR4 in equa- for each other, sometimes yielding reasonable esti-
tion (6). Regression analysis can be used to find the mates of MFR, the precipitation-runoff regression
relationship between runoff from a mountain area and method is conceptually less reasonable than the water
the mean annual precipitation [Waltemeyer, 1994; balance method. Its empirical nature and bias makes
Maurer and Berger, 1997] or winter precipitation the precipitation-runoff regression method less useful
[Hearne and Dewey, 1988] for that mountain area. for predicting the effects of climate and land use
Three assumptions are implicit in the application of a change, and non-transferable to other regions.
precipitation-runoff regression method to estimate
MFR: (1) all steam runoff recharges at the mountain 3.3 Chloride Mass Balance Method
front (i.e., RETf and DRO are negligible); (2) interflow
(FS2) in the stream sediments is negligible compared to The chloride mass balance method is commonly
the stream runoff; and (3) the bedrock in the mountain used to estimate groundwater recharge in arid and
block is impermeable. semiarid areas. Recharge estimates on the basin floor
In arid and semiarid areas, most streams at the moun- use the chloride profile in the upper 10-15 meters of
tain front are ephemeral, and most water infiltrates into the vadose zone [Scanlon et al., 1997, 2002; Walvoord
the underlying basin sediments. Does all this water et. al, 2002]. A different approach must be used in
actually recharge the basin aquifer or is some lost to mountains, which have only a few tens of centimeters
near channel ET? Stream flow at the mountain front of soil cover over the bedrock. To estimate MFR, the
can result from intense convective storms during the chloride concentration of groundwater resulting from
summer or spring snowmelt. During the snowmelt MFR is compared to that of bulk precipitation, to give
period, the stream may flow for a few months and, the fraction of precipitation which results in recharge
before the start of the growing season, ET loss may be [Dettinger, 1989; Maurer and Berger, 1997; Ander-
small in comparison to the water that becomes re- holm, 2000]. When integrated over the entire moun-
charge. In summer, the stream only flows for a few tain block, this method ignores the complex hydrologic
hours or days following a storm and ceases between processes within the mountain block. The chloride
storms. ET loss can be substantial in this situation. mass balance method can be expressed as
Izbicki [2002] estimates that recharge over the 15-km
length of Oro Grande Wash in the Mojave Desert, is C p P − Cr R
MFR = (13)
about one-tenth the average streamflow as reported by Cg
Lines [1996]. This suggests that much of the stream-
flow along the wash is lost by ET. where Cg is the chloride concentration in MFR
Besides the surface runoff at the mountain front, groundwater, P is the precipitation on the mountain, Cp
some shallow subsurface flow in the channel sediments is chloride concentration in bulk precipitation, and R
may contribute to the focused recharge along the chan- and Cr are respectively the runoff and its chloride con-
nel. How does this subsurface flow (FS2) recharge centration at the mountain front.
compare to the surface runoff? Wroblicky et al. [1998] Major assumptions include: (1) that the bulk pre-
used numerical modeling to study the cross-sectional cipitation (dry fall and precipitation) is the only source
area and temporal variation of the lateral hyporheic of chloride in the system, and chloride is inert in the
zone underlying mountain streams in two geologic system; (2) that the chloride deposition rate and mean
annual precipitation rate are accurately estimated and
have been constant over the period of groundwater mountain block [Hibbs and Darling, 1995; Tiedeman
residence time within the mountain block; and (3) that et al., 1998b; Manning, 2002; Keating et al., 2003]. In
the measured chloride concentration of groundwater at a basin-centered view, MFR is a boundary condition of
the mountain front accurately represents the mean the basin aquifer and calibration of a numerical model,
value of total groundwater resulting from MFR. Re- based on observed data, is used to estimate the amount
garding the first assumption, the chloride mass balance of MFR [Tiedeman et al., 1998a; Sanford et al., 2000].
method may not work in mountain blocks that have a In calibration of a groundwater model, recharge rates
chloride source in the rocks (e.g., marine-derived and hydraulic conductivity are highly correlated and
sedimentary rock [Claassen and Halm, 1996]) or a therefore the accuracy of the recharge estimate strongly
chloride source due to anthropogenic activities (e.g., depends on the availability of hydraulic conductivity
the application of road salt) [Maurer and Berger, data, a parameter that can range over several orders of
1997]. Failure to account for additional chloride magnitude. Keating et al. [2003] show that simulation
sources leads to an underestimate of MFR. As for the results also depend on the spatial resolution of the hy-
second assumption, the chloride mass balance method drographic units used by the model.
only applies to a mountain hydrologic system in equi- Model calibration uniqueness issues are especially
librium with current climate conditions. Changes in important for this approach. In cases where only basin
the average precipitation rate or chloride deposition hydraulic head data are available, the ratio of recharge
rates over the period of groundwater residence time to hydraulic conductivity can be estimated, but not the
within the mountain block may lead to over- or under- conductivity itself [Townley and Wilson, 1989; San-
estimates depending on the nature of the change. The ford, 2002; Scanlon et al., 2002]. The addition of flux
third assumption may lead to an erroneous MFR esti- observations (e.g., baseflow in streams) or groundwa-
mate when there is significant spatial variation in ter ages can improve uniqueness and the accuracy of
MFR. For example, if the measured MFR does not the recharge estimate [Sanford, 2002]. For example,
include some fast-flow deep MBR (that experiences the addition of 14C groundwater age data in calibrating
less ET loss), MFR will be underestimated. Specifi- a groundwater model of the Albuquerque Basin pro-
cally, if the water is sampled at mountain front alluvial vided estimated MFR one order of magnitude less than
aquifer, the chloride mass balance more possibly gives when calibrated without the data [Sanford et al., 2000].
MFR3, shown in equation (5). This complementary data could also be used to esti-
mate how recharge rates have varied over the last 30
3.4 Darcy’s Law kyrs [Sanford, 2002]. Manning [2002] shows that
groundwater temperature can be another excellent
MFR can be estimated using a simple Darcy’s law complement to obtain more unique estimates of moun-
calculation, provided that water equipotential lines and tain-block recharge.
the hydraulic properties of sediments and rocks at the
mountain front are known [Hely et al., 1971; Belan 3.6 Hydrologic Modeling in Mountains
and Matlock, 1973; Maurer and Berger, 1997; NRC,
2004]. This method is based only on observation data There have been extensive field observations and
at the mountain front, avoiding the complex hydrologic many numerical simulations of water flow and solute
processes in the mountain block but potentially missing transport, in both the unsaturated and saturated zones,
MFR contribution from some deep MBR flow paths. at Yucca Mountain [Wittwer et al., 1995; Ho et al.,
The accuracy of this method strongly depends on the 1995; Bagtzoglou et al., 2000; Doughty, 1999; and
estimated aquifer hydraulic parameters. Furthermore, a Flint et al., 2001a]. This attention on a single geologi-
simple calculation of Darcy’s law cannot deal with cal and climatic setting has helped improve our under-
complex geological structures and heterogeneity of the standing of subsurface hydrologic processes in moun-
aquifer materials that are often present at the mountain tain blocks, yet that understanding remains primitive.
front [Koltermann and Gorelick, 1996]. The Yucca Mountain studies have not dynamically
coupled surface and subsurface processes, and obvi-
3.5 Numerical Modeling of Basin Groundwater ously do not address subsurface flow in more humid,
high-elevation mountain blocks common throughout
Due to the scarcity of surface and subsurface hydro- the western U.S., or in different mountain geological
logic data in mountains, MFR is often estimated based settings.
on hydrologic modeling of the adjacent basins. Few Several other groundwater models focus on ground-
basin numerical simulations have been extended to the water flow within the mountain block itself, taking as a
WILSON AND GUAN 11
boundary condition percolation into the bedrock from horizontal soil macropores [e.g., Wilcox et al., 1997],
the surface. These are usually models that extend out and fractures in the bedrock make profile methods
into the basin (see previous section). For example, much less useful in mountains than on basin floors.
Manning [2002] developed a two-dimensional steady Instead, integrated tracer measures and ratios are used,
state cross-sectional model of the Wasatch Mountains in which concentrations in MFR components are exam-
near Salt Lake City, with prescribed recharge into the ined and compared to each other and to precipitation,
mountain block, estimated by model calibration (see as we earlier saw with the chloride mass balance
previous section). One difficulty with this approach is method.
that, under steady flow conditions, the prescribed re- The stable isotopic composition of water (δ2H and
18
charge rate into the block simply becomes the rate of δ O) is the most frequently used environmental tracer.
discharge from the block; that is, it becomes the rate of Stable isotope composition of precipitation varies with
mountain-block recharge (MBR) to the adjacent ba- altitude and season. In the Southwestern United States
sin(s). this is useful for determining the relative importance of
The many other studies of mountain hydrology con- winter and summer (monsoon) precipitation for
sidered near surface hydrologic processes, but give groundwater recharge [Simpson et al., 1972; Cunning-
little or no attention to deep percolation into the moun- ham et al., 1998; Winograd et al., 1998; Newman and
tain block or to any other deep subsurface processes Duffy, 2001] and for identifying the location of this
within the block. These studies have examined a wide recharge (mountain vs. basin) [Eastoe et al, this vol-
variety of settings, sometimes focused at the hillslope ume; Plummer et al., this volume]. Its not only used in
scale, and other times at surface watersheds. For ex- the southwest, Abbott et al. [2000] identified two dis-
ample, Kafri and Ben-Asher (1976) used a numerical tinctive recharge zones in a mountain in Vermont,
model to simulate individual rainfall events resulting in USA, by comparing the stable isotopic compositions of
percolation through thin mountain soil cover, without precipitation and groundwater.
further investigating water flow at depth. An interest- Using multiple conservative environmental tracers it
ing contrast are the papers by Chavez et al. [1994a and is possible to delineate detailed groundwater recharge
1994b], who developed an analytic model with a sto- paths and quantities at a higher spatial resolution.
chastic estimation procedure to estimate stream runoff Adar et al. [1990] used environmental tracers (ions and
and MBR (=MBR1 or possibly MBR2). This model ap- O/H isotopes) combined with a mixing-cell model to
plied Eagleson’s [1978] vegetal equilibrium hypothesis quantitatively assess the spatial distribution of MFR.
to estimate ET based on vegetation cover. The increas- Some radioactive isotopes can be used to obtain
ing availability of remote sensing data (e.g., precipita- groundwater residence times and thus to estimate re-
tion, fractional vegetation cover, interception, ET, etc.) charge rates. Guerin [2001] reported fast fracture flow
and high resolution DEMs, together with improved in Yucca Mountain based on tritium and 36Cl data.
models of vegetation and the surface energy balance, Recently, dissolved gases in groundwater have been
will substantially improve the feasibility of coupled used to estimate the elevation of mountain-block re-
models of the surface and subsurface of mountain charge [Manning and Solomon, this volume].
blocks.
3.8 Other Methods
3.7 Environmental Tracers
Temperature profiles in the near surface have been
Environmental tracers other than chloride have also used to estimate water percolation rates under the
been intensively used to study water flow and estimate ephemeral streambeds along the mountain front [Nis-
groundwater recharge [Scanlon, 1992; Phillips, 1994; wonger and Constantz, 2000]. MFR from stream flow
Unnikrishna et al., 1995; Scanlon et al., 1997]. The infiltration can be calculated, given that the stream
vertical concentration profile in the thick vadose zone timing and saturated channel width are known. Reiter
of basin floor gives clues to its history of water flow [2000] used the temperature profile at depth in the ba-
and groundwater recharge. This approach is some- sin aquifer to estimate the lateral flow rate due to MFR.
times also applied on the mountain hillslopes with While this may not provide a quantitative estimate of
good soil covers. Newman et al. [1996] used profiles MFR, it can show evidence of MFR. Manning [2002]
of chloride and aqueous stable isotopic composition to found that a heat and fluid flow model calibrated with
estimate the evaporation depth and the downward wa- temperature data from basin wells could place impor-
ter flux through the soil layers near Los Alamos, New tant constraints on MBR. Together, these studies sug-
Mexico. However, thin soil cover, root controlled sub-
gest that temperature data could be very useful in quan- groundwater. In mountain-block hydrology we expect
tification of MFR. multiple exchanges of water between these different
In addition to these physical tools, Duffy and col- reservoirs, controlled by topography, geology, soil
leagues have used time series analysis tools in order to cover and vegetation, and leading to a confusion of
investigate the multiple paths that water can take from response and residence time scales.
the mountain top to the basin floor, with water moving Among the many space scales we believe that the
back and forth between the mountain streams and the two most important for the study of mountain-block
underlying mountain block. They combine multichan- hydrology are the hillslope scale and the scale of the
nel, singular-spectrum data analysis with low- entire mountain block. It is at the hillslope scale that
dimensional models to understand the temporal and water enters the block, a result of partitioning of pre-
spatial characteristics of hydrologic processes in moun- cipitation. It is the scale of the mountain block that
tains [Shun and Duffy, 1999; Brandes et al., 1998; determines surface, shallow (local), and deep (re-
Newman and Duffy, 2001]. gional) flow pathways, and how they are linked in time
and space.
4. MOUNTAIN BLOCK HYDROLOGY An integrated mountain-block hydrologic model
would allow us to predict changes in MFR in response
We have seen that most studies of MFR avoid the to climate change and variability, vegetation change
complexity of hydrologic processes within and on (including the effects of fire), and direct human im-
mountain blocks. While near-surface hydrologic proc- pacts. But a sound understanding of mountain-block
esses have been investigated at the hillslope and water- hydrology has other benefits, such as the accurate pre-
shed scales, these studies almost always assume that diction of water-related geological hazards in moun-
the bedrock is impermeable. Likewise, some deep tains [Bell, 1998]. In this section the components and
bedrock processes have been investigated for locations processes that comprise mountain-block hydrology are
like Yucca Mountain and the Wasatch Mountains out- discussed, stressing first the hillslope scale and then the
side of Salt Lake City, but with an assumed percolation entire mountain block. At first reading this review may
rate at the top of the bedrock surface. There are few appear to be a primer on hydrology, but we use it to
integrative studies that bring these two fields together point out the processes and problems that are espe-
for a full view of the mountain hydrologic system. cially important in mountain-block hydrology.
Meteorological, hydrologic, and ecological condi-
tions vary considerably across a mountain due to the 4.1 Precipitation
steep altitude gradient. Compared to the basin floor, a
mountain block provides less storage for water, and Precipitation is the only water input to the mountain
thus is more sensitive to climatic changes. Small varia- block. Temporal and spatial variability of precipita-
tions in atmospheric forcing on the mountain block tion, as well as its effects on hydrologic processes, has
may cause detectable hydrologic impacts, including the been recognized as important [e.g., Goodrich et al.,
occurrence of springs, the amount and distribution of 1995]. Because of topographic complexity and eleva-
snow, vegetative cover, and MFR. tion, precipitation varies even more markedly within a
Mountain-block hydrology would address these con- mountain block and is difficult to measure. The prob-
ditions through the integrated study of processes across lem of measurement is exacerbated by a lack of pre-
a variety of temporal and spatial scales. For example, cipitation gauge stations in mountains. Recently, radar
mountain-block recharge to an adjacent basin requires has improved the estimation of spatially distributed
that water enter the block in the first place. This takes precipitation; however, beam blockage, underestima-
place at the hillslope scale, where precipitation is partition, and non-detection of precipitation are significant
tioned into deep percolation that enters the mountain problems when radar is used in mountainous terrains
block and to other processes. Upon entering the block [Young et al., 1999].
some water may then discharge to head-water or Geostatistics and other tools can be used to synthe-
higher-order streams, and the block may receive other size spatial distribution estimates of mountainous pre-
water from the streams, both occurring along a range cipitation. In addition to rain gauge measurements and
of shallow and deep flow paths. Water leaves the radar, secondary variables, such as terrain and atmos-
mountain block as run-off (RO, as defined in Section pheric characteristics that correlate with precipitation,
2) originated as surface runoff from rain and snowmelt, are used to estimate precipitation distribution [Hevesi
as interflow through the shallow soil cover, or as in- et al., 1992; Goovaerts, 2000; Kyriakidis et al., 2001].
trablock discharge of shallow or deep mountain-block
WILSON AND GUAN 13
Box 1 Co-kriging monthly precipitation with terrain altitude

Generally, precipitation in the mountain areas strongly correlates with terrain elevation. The following map
shows 44 weather stations in central New Mexico centered on Albuquerque and the Sandia Mountains. Mean July precipi-
tation was obtained from National Climate Data Center, and correlated well with 1 km DEM elevation (r2 = 0.71). Thus,
using co-kriging it is possible to use elevation as a secondary variable to better estimate the spatial distribution of precipi-
tation. This method estimates the precipitation distribution with a spatial resolution equal to that of the elevation data used,
as evident by comparing the co-kriging estimate using DEM data (shown in the lower left panel) and PRISM estimates
[Daly et al., 1994] (lower right panel).
Left: DEM of Sandia Mountains and surrounding areas, and the location of 40 precipitation stations;
Right: correlation between the mean July precipitation (mm) with 1km pixel elevation.
Left: Mean July precipitation distribution from co-kriging gauge precipitation and
elevation; Right: Prism precipitation data.
In mountainous terrain precipitation generally corre- 4.2 Interception

lates well with elevation, providing a strong secondary
variable to improve the estimate of spatially distributed Not all measured precipitation reaches the ground
precipitation (Box 1). surface; some is lost through interception by the vege-
Accuracy of precipitation gauge measurement is also tation canopy. In some tropical forests canopy inter-
a significant concern [Goodrich et al., 1995]. Major ception may approach 50% of gross precipitation
systematic errors result from the wind’s influence on [Schellekens et al., 1999]. In semiarid regions, where
falling precipitation, rain gauge evaporation, and wet- vegetation cover is generally sparse, interception is less
ting of the walls of rain gauge [Lapin, 1990]. Wind but may still be as much as 30% of the gross annual
speed is the most important factor in determining rainfall [Llorens and Gallart, 2000; Navar and Bryan,
gauge error [Nespor and Sevruk, 1999], especially 1990]. Interception loses for the vegetation found in
when snow and mixed precipitation falls during the the mountains of the southwestern Unitied States has
winter [Yang et al., 1999]. Precipitation intensity also not been well studied.
contributes to wind-induced measurement error. These A water balance for interception [Crockford and Re-
problems exist for all gauge measurements but are chardson, 1990] illustrates some of the many processes
more challenging in mountains because of complex that must be accounted for before the precipitation
terrain and extreme weather conditions. Before using reaches the ground,
rain gauge data it is important to assess the potential
magnitude of these errors and make the necessary cor- I = E + S = P – TF – SF , (14)
rections.
Snow and ice pose another problem to mountain hy- where I = interception,
drology. In most mountains, winter precipitation falls E = water evaporated during the precipitatio
in the form of snow. Afterwards the snow is redistrib- event,
uted by strong winds and avalanches. This adds to the S = water stored in vegetation during the
spatial variability inherited from the snowfall. In event and evaporated after the event,
western United States, snow water equivalence (SWE) P = gross precipitation,
is estimated at over 600 SNOTEL sites, many located TF = throughfall, and
in mountainous headwater catchments, but which have SF = stem flow.
poor spatial coverage for any one basin or range. The magnitude of interception is controlled by vegeta-
Mountain hydrology requires a more detailed mapping tion characteristics (areal vegetation density, vegetation
of the spatial statistics and distribution of SWE [Balk type, leaf area index, etc.) and meteorological charac-
and Elder, 2000; Marks et al., 2002], using remote teristics (such as precipitation form, intensity and dura-
sensing and other tools. Another problem of snow and tion, temperature, and wind speed). For continuous
ice hydrology is the timing of the snowmelt. Solid wa- precipitation events, water evaporation during the
ter is not immediately active in the hydrologic proc- storm is negligible, thus interception approaches the
esses; therefore it is necessary to determine when melt canopy storage capacity. For intermittent events, water
occurs and the equivalent liquid volume. In addition to evaporated during the storm can be several times the
locking water in a solid form, snow cover dramatically canopy storage capacity, leading to greater interception
changes the surface albedo, altering the energy balance losses.
and consequently changing the dynamics of mountain
hydrology. Two types of models are currently applied 4.3 Evapotranspiration
to estimate snowmelt rate: energy-balance models and
temperature-index models [Dingman, 1994]. The en- Hydrologically active water (from rainfall and
ergy-balance model involves more physical processes snowmelt) at the ground surface partitions into surface
and thus requires substantial data [Brock and Arnold, runoff, interflow within the soil and sediments at the
2000; Marks et al., 2002]. The temperature-index surface, ET, and deep percolation through bedrock
model is less complex, based only on temperature dis- fractures and matrix. In arid and semiarid mountain
tribution that may be related to topographic data (e.g. environments ET represents the largest water loss from
DEM). the mountain block [Brandes and Wilcox, 2000]. ET
can be estimated from point measurements, as with (1)
lysimeters [Gee et al., 1991; Tomlinson, 1996], (2) the
Bowen ratio method [Gay, 1991; Stannard, 1991; and
Tomlinson, 1996], (3) the eddy-covariance method
WILSON AND GUAN 15
[Tanner et al., 1985; Weaver, 1991], or (4) by calculat- flow through the shallow soil that coves the bedrock?
ing potential ET derived from point meteorological That is, under what conditions can we assume essen-
data or from pan evaporation [Beyazgul et al., 2000; tially impervious bedrock?
Allen, 2000]. ET can be estimated from areal meas- We ran some preliminary steady-state numerical
urements with instruments such as (5) scintillometers simulations of saturated-unsaturated flow on 2-D
[Meijninger and de Bruin, 2000], or (6) derivation us- cross-sections of hypothetical hillslopes. These simula-
ing remote sensing data [Bastiaanssen et al., 1998; tions indicate that bedrock with sufficiently high bulk
Granger et al., 2000; Caparrini and Castelli, 2002; (fracture and matrix) permeability has the potential to
Nishida et al., 2003]. ET can also be derived from (7) allow for significant deep percolation. For the studied
hydrologic modeling [Droogers, 2000; Kite, 2000]. conditions this threshold permeability is 10-16 m2.
Most ET quantification in semiarid and arid regions Some mountain bedrock, such as a tuff, has a matrix
has been conducted on irrigated agricultural areas. permeability far exceeding this value, whereas intact
Some ET measurement has been done on naturally crystalline rock is essentially impermeable to signifi-
vegetated surface areas that are topographically flat cant flow through the matrix. When rock is fractured,
and homogenous, or located in lower elevation riparian its permeability can increase by several orders magni-
zones. Few ET quantifications have been attempted in tude. For example, Gimmi et al. [1997] estimated a
mountainous terrains, partially because measuring ET permeability of 10-18 m2 for a crystalline rock that lacks
in complex terrain remains a major technical problem. fractures at the investigation scale. Using packer tests,
Because of the spatial variability of topography, Snow [1979] reported bulk (or composite) permeability
vegetation, and incoming solar radiation in the moun- at 10-14 m2 for most of the fractured crystalline rocks he
tain block, upscaling a few point ET measurements to considered. Caine et al. [2003] similarly estimated a
estimate ET for a whole mountain block makes little bulk permeability of 10-13 to 10-14 m2 for intensively
sense. However, point data can be synthesized with fractured crystalline rock in the Turkey Creek Water-
remote sensing data to provide spatially distributed ET shed of the Front Range of Colorado. Most of these
with high spatial resolution at the time remote sensed bulk permeabilities are above the threshold, suggesting
data is obtained. ET during periods between instanta- that if the water is available, and the rock is fractured,
neous remote sensed events can be estimated by inter- it can accept water at rates high enough to lead to sig-
polation with the assumption of constant crop coeffi- nificant deep percolation.
cients or evaporative fraction [Allen, 2000]. Accuracy What can prevent water from reaching the soil-
of the remote sensing method in the complex terrain of bedrock interface? Conditions may be sufficiently arid
mountainous areas has not been well tested. that not enough water infiltrates into the soil to begin
Another approach for estimating spatially distributed with, or actual ET may be strong enough to remove it
ET is via distributed hydrologic modeling with system- before water content at the interface is large enough to
dependent ET simulations. The ET in the model is con- cause deep percolation. The main barrier observed in
strained by the atmospheric demand (potential ET) and the field [Wilcox et al., 1997], which we have simu-
soil water potential (a root-water-uptake model). The lated, appears to be the development of strong soil lay-
root-water-uptake model is a key link to demonstrate ering. It prevents downward infiltration to the soil-
the vegetation effects in the hydrologic models. How- bedrock interface, diverts water to down slope inter-
ever, little of the data needed to develop these models flow, and stores water for later extraction by transpira-
for natural vegetation exists. A root-water-uptake data- tion. What can cause water to reach the interface, even
base of natural vegetation is necessary for rigorous in the presence of these conditions? Significant pre-
hydrologic modeling of arid and semiarid environ- cipitation variability can lead to occasional wet periods
ments. with substantial percolation, despite average dry condi-
tions [NRC, 2004]. Surface, soil layer, and bedrock
4.4 Bedrock Percolation topography can focus water into areas with enhanced
flow and enhanced water content at the interface, lead-
Seepage into bedrock has been noticed for decades ing to percolation into the bedrock [Flint et al., 2002b].
[Chorley, 1978]. However, most hillslope hydrologic Some of the water entering the bedrock may return,
studies assume that the bedrock is essentially imperme- mostly via fractures, to streams, the sediments underly-
able and do not allow significant deep percolation. ing streams, or even to the surface. The rest recharges
Does much of the water that reaches the soil-bedrock the bedrock aquifer of the mountain block and eventu-
interface partition into deep percolation (into the bed- ally becomes MBR. Water in the shallow soil layer
rock), or does it all move down the hillslope, as inter- that does not percolate into the bedrock will flow in the
soils and sediments toward streams or the mountain Stratigraphic units with different hydrologic properties
front, or be lost to the atmosphere via ET. may lead to the lateral water movement along some
interfaces [Flint et al., 2001b], and even discharge to
4.5 Groundwater Flow in Mountain Blocks the surface as springs [Mayo et al., 2003]. In a moun-
tain block with low matrix permeability it is fracture
After the water percolates into the bedrock, where networks, especially zones of intense fractures near
does it go and how long does it take to get there? Flow faults, that play the major role in transmitting subsur-
paths with various lengths can occur in mountain face water. Fractures also connect water in different
blocks (Figure 2b) [Toth, 1963; Keith, 1980]. Local hydrostratigraphic units, which would otherwise be
flow paths involve shallow water circulation, transmit- isolated by lower permeability features [Flint et al.,
ting water to nearby streams, or back to the shallow 2001b].
soil cover. Regional flow paths involve deep water Theoretically, fracture density and aperture, and bed-
circulation in the mountain block, which transmit water rock matrix porosity, decrease with depth due to an
to the adjacent basins, i.e., MBR. A study conducted increase of over-burden stress, leading to a decrease of
by Tiedeman et al. [1998b] near Mirror Lake, New bulk permeability with depth in the mountain block.
Hampshire, shows that about 60% of the MFR (or its However, data from some deep boreholes indicates that
equivalent) into the basin travels along deeper flow at least in some cases, fracture distribution does not
paths in bedrock. Research conducted by Maurer and decrease significantly within the first several thousand
Berger [1997] in Eagle Valley, Nevada, also showed meters (Box 2). This presents the possibility that some
that more than 40% of water was transmitted through mountain blocks are permeable to significant depths,
the bedrock in the mountain block to the adjacent basin allowing deep groundwater circulation and MBR to
(Figure 5). Deep water circulation is also evident by adjacent basin aquifers. It should be noted that this
persistent water discharge in tunnels and mine open- active deep groundwater circulation can be confined to
ings constructed in some mountains [e.g., Feth, 1964; permeable zones, leaving inactive zones between
Marechal, 2000], the drawdown in the overlying aqui- [Mayo et al., 2003]. In stratified mountain blocks,
fer due to the tunnel or mine construction [e.g., some low-permeable sub-horizontal formations may
Olofsson, 1994], and the geochemical signals in tunnel impede vertical groundwater movement, and strongly
or mine water [e.g., Olofsson, 1994]. reduce groundwater circulation at depth [Mayo et al.,
2003].
Faults play an important role in regulating water
flow paths in mountain blocks. Faults are believed to
act as both hydraulic conduits and barriers. Faults that
developed in brittle crystalline or lithified sedimentary
rock have a damage zone and a core zone. Due to in-
tense fracturing, the saturated permeability of the dam-
age zone is several orders of magnitude higher than
undamaged rock, whereas the core zone has a perme-
ability several orders of magnitude lower [Evans et al.,
1997]. Brittle-rock faults may become a saturated flow
hydraulic conduit in a direction parallel to the fault
plane, while acting as a hydraulic barrier when perpen-
dicular to the fault. Faults in poorly lithified sedi-
Figure 5. Comparison of water discharge from a mountain ments, including non-welded tuffs, usually develop
block by different paths, summarized from Maurer and Ber-
ger [1997] for watersheds tributary to Eagle Valley of west-
deformation bands with significantly reduced perme-
ern Nevada. The watersheds are: A: C-Hill, B: Kings Canyon, ability [Rawling et al., 2001; Ogilvie et al., 2001; Wil-
C: Goni, and D: Centenial Park, Carson City, Nevada. son, et al., 2003], instead of fractures, and other fea-
tures that lead them to become saturated flow hydraulic
The capacity of a mountain block to transmit subsur- barriers. The type of deformation also influences the
face water to the basin depends on the hydrogeological hydraulic effects of faults. For example, brittle-rock
architecture of the mountain block. Heterogeneous and faults and fractures developed in structurally exten-
anisotropic hydrologic properties (e.g., permeability), sional domains, like the Basin and Range, may poten-
especially those controlled by geologic structural ele- tially conduct more water than those in structurally
ments like faults, strongly control groundwater flow. contractional domains [Ohlmacher, 1999].
WILSON AND GUAN 17
MFR for a mountain block composed of high-

permeability tuff.
In the vadose zone, which comprises a significant
portion of many mountain blocks, the presence of cap-
illary forces can dramatically alter the role of faults.
Subvertical fractured damage zones still provide en-
hanced fault-parallel permeability, but only if condi-
tions are sufficiently wet [NRC, 2001]. Instead of bar-
riers, deformation bands enhance fault-parallel perme-
ability under sufficiently dry conditions [Sigda and
Wilson, 2003]. Under wetter conditions tilted deforma-
tion band [Sigda et al., 2003] and brittle-rock faults
redistribute and focus unsaturated flows laterally.
Box 2. Fracture characteristics with depth

Fracture aperture, connectivity, and density are
three factors that control the capacity of bedrock to conduct
water. Because of unloading and weathering processes, bed-
rock near the surface tends to have higher fracture density
and larger apertures. This unloading fracture zone in granite
usually occurs in the top 20 meters and is characterized by
fracture planes parallel to the ground surface [Price and
Cosgrove, 1990]. Data from 40 bedrock wells at the frac-
tured-rock research site in the Mirror Lake area, New Hamp-
shire indicate that at shallow depths, there appear to be more
fractures beneath the hillslope than beneath the valley [John-
son, 1999; Harte, 1997]. Fracture density at this site de-
creases with depth in the top 100 meters [Johnson, 1999].
Plate 3. Subsurface saturated-unsaturated flow field within a However, this trend does not continue with greater depth.
mountain block bounded by a Basin-and-Range type high- Similarly, no decrease in fracturing with depth was observed
angle normal fault that juxtaposes basin-fill sediments (k = in the Cajon Pass scientific drill hole, California, at depths
4×10-12m2) and the mountain bedrock. (a) A fractured granite between 1800 and 3500 meters [Barton and Zoback, 1992].
Data of hydro-conductive fractures from 227 wells in crystal-
(bulk k = 1×10-16m2) mountain with a 20-meter unloading
line rocks in Coastal Maine indicate that there is no evidence
and weathering zone (k = 1×10-15m2) at the top. (b) A moun-
that fracture yield or fracture density decrease with depth in
tain with highly permeable tuff (bulk k = 1.6×10-15m2). The at least the upper 180 meters [Loiselle and Evans, 1995].
magnitude of the vectors is shown next to the legend. These These studies suggest that for some situations fracture charac-
isothermal steady-state simulations have a prescribed uni- teristics may not change significantly with depth in mountain
form infiltration rate at the top boundary (note the different blocks, except for the top weathering zone. In fact, fracture
infiltration rates for the two cases), and a constant hydraulic flow has been observed at a depth of 2000 meters [Barton et
head at the distal end of the basin. Fault internal architecture al., 1995]. Fracture networks in the mountain mass may
was not simulated. therefore be able to carry water to an elevation below the
valley floor and recharge valley aquifer by “hidden paths”, as
Faults may also juxtapose two distinctive hydraulic first suggested by Feth [1964].
units and change the groundwater flow field [Titus,
1963; Huntoon, 1983; Haneberg, 1995; Mailloux et al.,
1999]. We present simulated subsurface saturated-
unsaturated flow fields for two hypothetical mountain
blocks in Plate 3. The mountain blocks are juxtaposed 5. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
with basin-filled sediments by normal faulting. One
mountain block is composed of a high (bulk) perme- MFR is an important and even predominant compo-
ability volcanic tuff and the other of a crystalline gran- nent of the basin groundwater balance in arid and
ite. The fault zone at the mountain front becomes a semiarid areas. Improved understanding of mountain-
focused MFR recharge path for the low-permeability block hydrology and estimation of MFR is critical for
granite mountain block. However, the mountain effective basin water management.
bounding fault does not have a significant effect on
MFR is traditionally estimated using basin-centered Several key questions should be among those pur-
approaches, such as basin groundwater modeling or by sued in order to develop a better understanding of
a Darcy’s law calculation at mountain fronts. These MFR. These questions are aimed at improved under-
methods take advantage of data available in the basin, standing of processes, and the integration of observing
but do not consider the hydrology above the mountain strategies and technology with models.
front. Isotopic signatures, temperature, and age of Form, intensity, duration, pattern and redistribution
groundwater in basins can improve these basin- of mountain precipitation. How can better estimates of
centered MFR estimates. Most mountain-centered the space-time distribution of mountain precipitation be
MFR estimation approaches have been empirical; MFR obtained? How is hydrologically active water (at the
is estimated by the equations derived from locally in- land surface) affected by interception and the redistri-
strumented mountain watersheds and the results are bution of snow by wind and avalanche? What effect
difficult to transfer to other areas or to use predictively does distribution have on mountain hydrologic proc-
if climate, vegetation, or land-use changes. esses? In particular, how does precipitation affect deep
The mountain-block hydrologic system is ripe for percolation into bedrock?
new studies that advance understanding, improve ob- Evapotranspiration. What approaches can be most
servational and synthesis capabilities, and make predic- effectively used to improve estimates of the space-time
tive modeling possible. These studies are currently distribution mountain ET? How is mountain ET af-
challenged by the size, complexity, and even the acces- fected by soil moisture and the nature of soil layering
sibility of mountain systems, as well as the limited in the thin soil cover? What are appropriate root-water-
availability of historic and paleo hydrologic data. Most uptake models and parameterizations for mountain
recent efforts have been limited to the mountain front vegetation, soils and rock, and what are appropriate
or the thin mantle of soil and vegetation overlying the root distributions?
mountains. These studies are insufficient for inte- Partitioning to bedrock. At the hillslope scale, how
grated understanding of hydrologic processes through- do slope and aspect, bedrock characteristics (matrix
out an entire mountain block. and fracture), vegetation cover, and soil cover (type
To overcome limited understanding of MFR we pro- and thickness) affect the partitioning of water between
pose an integrated mountain-centered approach, yield- interflow in the thin overlying soil and deep percola-
ing high-resolution models and visualization of water tion into mountain bedrock?
movement in mountain blocks. This approach inte- Water flow through mountain blocks. What is the
grates hydrologic processes across time and space pattern of shallow and deep flow paths and residence
scales: water input from precipitation (accounting for times within typical mountain blocks? How do the hy-
snow and interception), surface processes (ET, infiltra- drogeologic characteristics of mountain blocks, and the
tion, and runoff), interflow through the thin soil layer stream network geometry, affect these patterns and
covering bedrock, deep percolation into fractured bed- rates? In particular how do they affect the rates and
rock, and water discharged via near-surface and deep patterns of flow to streams and to adjacent basins?
flow paths to streams and to the basin at the mountain What is the relative streamflow contribution of surface
front. New scientific methods, such as precipitation runoff, the shallow soil cover interflow, and the dis-
radar, remote sensing techniques for accessing ET, charges from shallow to deep subsurface mountain-
snow cover, and vegetation cover, and digital elevation block flow paths? How does the geologic “architec-
models (DEM) and GIS techniques, are all necessary to ture” of the mountain block, especially the dominant
improve both understanding and characterization. Geo- fracture and fault zones (e.g., mountain bounding
physical techniques for characterizing geology of the faults), influence the relative importance of different
mountain block and mountain front, geochemical and pathways to produce MFR, and how does it influence
paleohydrology approaches (especially environmental the amount of that recharge? How can we efficiently
tracers) for characterizing water flow paths and resi- improve characterization of important hydrogeologic
dence time distributions, field-sampling campaigns and structures within mountain blocks?
long-term observations are also required to unravel the Mountain front recharge. What controls the contri-
complexity of mountain-block hydrologic systems. By bution of each component of MFR at the mountain
reducing the uncertainty of mountain hydrology, and front? In particular, for what conditions is the subsur-
closing the water balance at the hillslope, watershed face (MBR) component important? When is flow
and mountain block scales, we will move mountain through streambed sediments (FS2) significant relative
hydrology closer to a predictive science, including pre- to surface runoff (RO)? Does all surface runoff arriv-
dictions of MFR. ing at the mountain front actually recharge the adjacent
WILSON AND GUAN 19
basin groundwater? If not, what determines the portion of IAH, Lausanne, Switzerland, 571-581, 1990.
of stream runoff at the mountain front that becomes Allen, R.G., Using the FAO-56 dual crop coefficient method
MFR leaving the remainder to ET or downstream flow over an irrigated region as part of an evapotranspiration in-
(DRO)? Which of the existing MFR estimation meth- tercomparison study, J. of Hydrology, 229, 27-41, 2000.
Anderholm, S.K., Mountain-front recharge along the eastern
ods shows the most promise for continued use, when a
side of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, central New Mexico,
whole mountain-block hydrology approach is unrealis-
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Re-
tic or inappropriate? Is there another, simple MFR es- port 00-4010, 2000.
timation approach, perhaps relying on new technology, Anderson, T.W., G.W. Freethey, and P. Tucci, Geohydrology
that can be used for these situations? and water resources of alluvial basins in south central Ari-
The integrated mountain-centered hydrologic ap- zona and parts of adjacent states, U.S. Geological Survey
proach provides estimates of all four components of Professional Paper 1406-B, 1992.
MFR previously described in equation (1). With var- Avon, L., and T.J. Durbin, Evaluation of the Maxey-Eakin
ied atmospheric boundary conditions due to climate method for estimating recharge to ground-water basins in
change or variability, the response of mountain block Nevada, Water Resources Bulletin, 30, 99-111, 1994.
hydrologic systems to past and potential future condi- Bagtzoglou A.C., T.L. Tolley, S.A. Stothoff, and D.R. Turner,
Perched aquifers in arid environments and inferences for
tions can be simulated. Likewise, an improved under-
recharge rates, IAHS-AISH Publication no.262, 401-406,
standing of how water partitions within the mountain 2000.
block and mountain front will improve our ability to Balk, B., and K. Elder, Combining binary decision tree and
predict how land use (e.g., grazing, housing develop- geostatistical methods to estimate snow distribution in a
ments) and land cover changes (e.g., thickening forests mountain watershed, Water Resources Research, 36, 13-26,
due to fire suppression or fire itself) impact mountain 2000.
block hydrology and MFR rates. These models can Barton, C.A., and M.D. Zoback, Self-similar distribution and
also help detect the impacts of long-term climate properties of macroscopic fractures at depth in crystalline
change and local disturbances, and help estimate po- rock in the Cajon Pass Scientific Drill Hole, J. of Geophysi-
tential hydrogeological hazards due to high-rate cal Research, 97(B4), 5181-5200, 1992.
snowmelt or intensive summer storms. Although a bet- Barton, C.A., M.D. Zoback, and D. Moos, Fluid flow along
potentially active faults in crystalline rock, Geology, 23, 683-
ter understanding of mountain block hydrology has
686, 1995.
these and other ancillary benefits, our prime motive Bastiaanssen, W.G.M., M. Menenti, R.A. Feddes, and A.A.M.
here is that it will quantify the link between precipita- Holtslag, A remote sensing surface energy balance algorithm
tion and recharge to basins bounding the mountain for land (SEBAL), J. of Hydrology, 212-213, 198-212, 1998.
front. Belan, R.A., and W.G. Matlock, Groundwater recharge from a
portion of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Hydrology and
Acknowledgements. Laurel B. Goodwin from New Mex- Water Resources in Arizona and the Southwest, 3, 33-40,
ico Institute of Mining and Technology provided assistance 1973.
in building mountain block archetypes for the simulations in Bell, F.G., Environmental Geology: Principles and Practice,
Plate 3. Mary Black and James Hogan provided editorial Blackwell Science Ltd, London, 594p, 1998.
Beyazgul, M., Y. Kayam, and F. Engelsman, F., Estimation
assistance. Valuable comments from two reviewers are
methods for crop water requirements in the Gediz Basin of
greatly appreciated. This material is based upon work sup-
western Turkey, J. of Hydrology, 229, 19-26, 2000.
ported by SAHRA (Sustainability of semi-Arid Hydrology Brandes D., C. J. Duffy, and J. Cusumano, Stability and damp-
and Riparian Areas) under the STC Program of the National ing in a dynamical model of hillslope hydrology, Water Re-
Science Foundation, Agreement No. EAR-9876800. PACES, sources Research, 34, 3303-3313, 1998.
a NASA university research center located at UTEP, pro- Brandes, D., and B.P. Wilcox, Evapotranspiration and soil
vided the remote sensing images. moisture dynamics on a semiarid ponderosa pine hillslope, J.
of the American Water Resources Association, 36, 965-974,
REFERENCES 2000.
Brock, B.W. and N.S. Arnold, A spreadsheet-based (Microsoft
Abbott, M.D., A. Lini, and P.R. Bierman, δ18O, δ D and 3H Excel) point surface energy balance model for glacier and
measurements constrain groundwater recharge patterns in an snow melt studies, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms
upland fractured bedrock aquifer, Vermont, USA, J. of Hy- 25, 649-658, 2000.
drology, 228, 101-112, 2000. Caine, J.S., and S.R.A. Tomusiak, Brittle structures of the
Adar, E.M., A.S. Issar, and E. Rosenthal, The use of environ- Turkey Creek Watershed, Colorado Rocky Mountain Front
mental tracers for quantitative assessment of MFRs into an Range: aquifer system characterization and controls on
arid basin, in Water Resources in Mountainous Regions, vol. groundwater hydrology, Geological Society of America Bul-
22, edited by A. Parriaux, MEMOIRES of the 22nd Congress letin, in press, 2003.
Caparrini, F., and F. Castelli, Remote sensing used to estimate Delta District, including Ogden, Utah, U. S. Geological Sur-
land surface evaporation, EOS Transactions, 83(27), 290- vey Professional Paper 518, 1966.
291, 2002. Flint, A.L., L.E. Flint, E.M. Kwicklis, G.S. Bodvarsson, and
Chavez, A., S.N. Davis, and S. Sorooshian, Estimation of J.M. Fabryka-Martin, Hydrology of Yucca Mountain, Ne-
mountain-front recharge to regional aquifers 1: Development vada, Reviews of Geophysics, 39, 447-470, 2001a.
of an analytical hydroclimatic model, Water Resources Re- Flint, A.L., L.E. Flint, G.SW. Bodvarsson, E.M. Kwicklis, and
search, 30(7), 2157-2167, 1994a. J. Fabryka-Martin, Evolution of the conceptual model of
Chavez, A., S. Sorooshian, and S.N. Davis, Estimation of unsaturated zone hydrology at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, J.
mountain-front recharge to regional aquifers 2: A maximum of Hydrology, 247, 1-30, 2001b.
likelihood approach incorporation prior information, Water Flint, A.L., L.E. Flint, J. Blainey, and J.A. Hevesi, Determining
Resources Research, 30(7), 2169-2181, 1994b. regional ground-water recharge in the Great Basin, Geologi-
Chorley, R.J., The hillslope hydrological cycle, in Hillslope cal Society of America, Rocky Mountain Section, 54th annual
Hydrology, edited by M.J. Kirby, pp. 1-42, John Wiley & Meeting, Abstracts with Programs, 34(4), 56, 2002a.
Sons, Ltd., New York, 1978. Flint, A.L., L.E. Flint, E. M. Kwicklis, J.T. Fabryka-Martin,
Claassen, H.C., and D.R. Halm, Estimation of evapotranspira- and G. S. Bodvarsson, Estimating recharge at Yucca Moun-
tion or effective moisture in Rocky Mountain watersheds tain, Nevada, USA: comparison of methods, Hydrogeology
from chloride ion concentrations in stream flow, Water Re- J., 10, 180-204, 2002b.
sources Research, 32(2), 363-372, 1996. Foster, S.S.D., and A. Smith-Carrington, The interpretation of
Crockford, R.H., and D.P. Richardson, Partitioning of rainfall tritium in the Chalk unsaturated zone, J. of Hydrology, 46,
in an eucalypt forest and pine plantation in southeastern Aus- 343-364, 1980.
tralia: III. Determination of the canopy storage capacity of a Gay, L.W., Bowen ratio measurements at sites C and L, in
dry sclerophyll eucalypt forest, Hydrological Processes, 4, Evapotranspiration measurements of native vegetation,
157-167, 1990. Owens Valley, California, June 1986, edited by D.H. Wilson,
Cunningham, E.E.B., A. Long, C. Eastoe, and R.L. Bassett, R.J. Reginato, and K.J., Hollet, U.S. Geological Survey Wa-
Migration of recharge waters downgradient from the Santa ter-Resources Investigation Report 91-4159, 1991.
Catalina Mountains into the Tucson basin aquifer, Arizona, Gee, G.W., M.D. Campbell, and S.O. Link, Arid site water
USA, Hydrogeology J., 6, 94-103, 1998. balance using monolith weighing lysimeters: Richland,
Daly, C., R.P. Neilson, D.L. Phillips, A statistical-topographic Wash., Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Report PNL-
model for mapping climatological precipitation over moun- SA-18507, 1991.
tain terrain, J. of Applied Meteorology, 33, 140-158, 1994. Gimmi, T., M. Schneebeli, H. Fluhler, H. Wydler, and T. Baer,
Davis, S.N., D.O. Whittemore and J. Fabryka-Martin, Uses of Field-scale water transport in unsaturated crystalline rock,
chloride/bromide ratios in studies of potable waters, Ground Water Resources Research, 33, 589-598, 1997.
Water, 36, 338-350, 1998. Goodrich, D.C., J. Faures, D.A. Woolhiser, L.J. Lane, S.
Doughty, C., Investigation of conceptual and numerical ap- Sorooshian, Measurement and analysis of small-scale con-
proaches for evaluating moisture, gas, chemical, and heat vective storm rainfall variability, J. of Hydrology, 173, 283-
transport in fractured unsaturated rock, J. of Contaminant 308, 1995.
Hydrology, 38,(1-3), 69-106, 1999. Goovaerts, P., Geostatistical approaches for incorporating
Dettinger, M.D., Reconnaissance estimates of natural recharge elevation into the spatial interpolation of rainfall, J. of Hy-
to desert basins in Nevada, U.S.A., by using chloride balance drology, 228, 113-129, 2000.
calculations, J. of Hydrology, 106, 55-78, 1989. Granger, R.J., Satellite-derived estimates of evapotranspiration
Dingman, S.L., Snow and snowmelt, in Physical Hydrology, in the Gediz basin, J. of Hydrology, 229, 70-76, 2000.
edited by S.L. Dingman, pp. 159-209, Prentice Hall, Engle- Guerin, M., Tritium and 36Cl as constraints on fast fracture flow
wood Cliffs, N.J., 1994. and percolation flux in the unsaturated zone at Yucca Moun-
Droogers, P., Estimating actual evapotranspiration using a tain, J. of Contaminant Hydrology, 51, 257-288, 2001.
detailed agro-hydrological model, J. of Hydrology, 229, 50- Haneberg, W.C., Steady state groundwater flow across ideal-
58, 2000. ized faults, Water Resources Research, 31, 1815-1820, 1995.
Eagleson, P.S., Climate, soil and vegetation, 6, Dynamics of the Harte, P.T., Preliminary assessment of the lithologic and
annual water balance, Water Resources Research, 4(5), 749- hydraulic properties of the glacial drift and shallow bedrock
764, 1978. in the Mirror Lake area Grafton County, New Hampshire,
Eastoe, C.J., A. Gu and A. Long, The origins, ages and flow U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-654A, 1997.
paths of groundwater in Tucson Basin: results of a study of Hearne, G.A., and J.D. Dewey, Hydrological analysis of the
multiple isotope systems, this volume. Rio Grande Basin north of Embudo, New Mexico, Colorado
Evans, J.P., C.B. Forster, and J.V. Goddard, Permeability of and New Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
fault-related rocks, and implications for hydraulic structure Investigations Report 86-4113, 1988.
of fault zones, J. of Structural Geology, 19, 1393-1404, 1997. Hely, A.G., R.W. Mower, and C.A. Harr, Water resources of
Feth, J. H., Hidden recharge, Ground Water, 2(4), 14-17, 1964. Salt Lake County, Utah, Utah Dept. of Natural Resour.,
Feth, J.H., D.A. Barker, L.G. Moore, R.J. Brown, and C.E. Technical Publication No.31, 1971.
Veirs, Lake Bonneville: geology and hydrology of the Weber
WILSON AND GUAN 21
Hevesi, J.A., J.D. Istok, and A.L. Flint, Precipitation estimation imitating, and descriptive approaches, Water Resources Re-
in mountain terrain using multivariate geostatistics, Part I: search, 32, 2617-2658, 1996.
structure analysis, J. of Applied Meteorology, 31 (7), 661- Kyriakidis P.C., J. Kim, and N.L. Miller, Geostatistical map-
676, 1992. ping of precipitation from rain gauge data using atmospheric
Hevesi, J.A., A.L. Flint, and J.D. Istok, Flint, Precipitation and terrain characteristics, J. of Applied Meteorology, 40,
estimation in mountain terrain using multivariate geostatis- 1855-1877, 2001.
tics, Part II: isohyetal maps, J. of Applied Meteorology, Lapin, M., Measurement and processing of atmospheric precipi-
31(7), 677-688, 1992. tation in mountainous areas of Slovakia, in Hydrology of
Hibbs, B.J., and B.K. Darling, Environmental isotopes and Mountainous Areas, edited by L. Molnar, pp. 47-56, Interna-
numerical models for understanding aquifer dynamics in tional Association of Hydrological Sciences, Publication no.
southwestern basins, In Advances in the Development and 190, 1990.
Use of Models in Water Resources, edited by T. G. Cleve- Lines, G.C., Ground-water and surface-water relations along
land, 195-201, Houston, Texas, 1995. the Mojave River, Southern California, U.S. Geol. Surv. Wa-
Ho, C.K., S.J. Altman, and B.W. Arnold, Alternative concep- ter Resource Investigation Report 95-4189, 1996.
tual models and codes for unsaturated flow in fractured tuff: Llorens, P., and F. Gallart, A simplified method for forest water
preliminary assessments for GWTT-95, Sandia Report Sand storage capacity measurement, J. of Hydrology, 240, 131-
95-1546, 1995. 144, 2000.
Huntley, D., Groundwater recharge to the aquifers of northern Loiselle, M., and D. Evans, Fracture density distributions and
San Luis Valley, Colorado. Geological Society of America well yields in Coastal Maine, Ground Water, 33, 190-196,
Bulletin, Part II, 90(8), 1196-1281, 1979. 1995.
Huntoon, P.W., Fault severing of aquifers and other geologi- Luckman, B., and T. Kavanagh, Impact of climate fluctuations
cally controlled permeability contrasts in the basin-mountain on mountain environments in the Canadian Rockies, AMBIO,
interface, and the implications for ground water recharge to 29, 371-380, 2002.
and development from the major artesian basins of Wyo- Mailloux, B.J., M. Person, S. Kelley, N. Dunbar, S. Cather, L.
ming, Wyoming Water Research Center, Research Project Strayer, and P. Hudleston, P., Tectonic controls on the
Technical Completion Report (A-034-WYO), 1983. hydrogeology of the Rio Grande Rift, New Mexico, Water
Izbicki, J.A., J. Radyk, and R.L. Michel, Water movement Resources Research, 35, 2641-2659, 1999.
through a thick unsaturated zone underlying an intermittent Manning, A.H., Using noble gas tracer to investigate mountain-
stream in the western Mojave Desert, southern California, block recharge to an intermountain basin, Dissertation, Uni-
USA, J. of Hydrology, 238, 194-217, 2000. versity of Utah, 2002.
Izbicki, J. A., Geologic and hydrologic controls on the move- Manning, A.H., and D.K. Solomon, , Constraining mountain-
ment of water through a thick, heterogeneous unsaturated block recharge to the eastern Salt Lake Valley, Utah with
zone underlying an intermittent stream in the western Mojave dissolved noble gas and tritium data, this volume.
Desert, southern California, Water Resources Research, 38, Marechal, J.C., The Mont-Blanc massif: identification of a
21-214, 2002. water-bearing important structure, Houille Blanche-Revue
Johnson, C.D., Effects of lithology and fracture characteristics Internationale De Leau, (2000), no.6, 78-86, 2000.
on hydraulic properties in crystalline rock: Mirror Lake Re- Marks, D., A. Winstral, and M. Seyfried, Simulation of terrain
search Site, Grafton County, New Hampshire, in U.S. Geo- and forest shelter effects on patterns of snow deposition,
logical Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, Pro- snowmelt and runoff over a semi-arid mountain catchment,
ceedings of the Technical Meeting, U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Processes, 16, 3605-3626, 2002.
Water-Resources Investigations 99-4018c, Vol 3 of 3, pp, Maurer, D.K., and D. L. Berger, Subsurface flow and water
795-802. 1999. yield from watersheds tributary to Eagle Valley hydrographic
Kafri, U., and J. Ben-Asher, Evaluation of recharge through area, west-central Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Water-
soils in a mountain region: a case study on the Empire and Resources Investigation Report 97-4191, 1997.
the Sonoita basins, Hydrology and Water Resources in Ari- Maurer, D.K., D.E. Prudic, D.L. Berger, and C.E. Thodal,
zona and the Southwest, 6, 203-213, 1976. Sources of water flowing into basin-fill aquifers underlying
Keating, E.H., V.V. Vesselinov, E. Kwicklis, and Z.Lu, Cou- Carson City, Nevada, Geological Society of America, 1999
pling basin-and site-scale inverse models of the Espanola Annual Meeting, Abstracts with Programs, 31(7), 87, 1999.
aquifer, Ground Water, 41(2), 200-211, 2003. Maxey, G.B., and T.E. Eakin, Ground water in White River
Keith, S.J., Mountain front recharge, in Regional Recharge Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln Counties, Nevada,
Research for Southwest Alluvial Basins, edited by L.G. Wil- Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
son et al., pp. 4-1 to 4-44, Chapter 4, Tucson, University of Water Resources Bulletin, no. 8, 1949.
Arizona, 1980. Mayo, A.L., T.H. Morris, S. Peltier, E.C. Petersen, K. Payne,
Kite, G.W., Using a basin-scale hydrological model to estimate L.S. Holman, D. Tingey, T. Fogel, B.J. Black, and T.D.
crop transpiration and soil evaporation, J. of Hydrology, 229, Gibbs, Active and inactive groundwater flow systems: Evi-
59-69, 2000. dence from a stratified, mountainous terrain, Geological
Koltermann, C.E., and S.M. Gorelick, Heterogeneity in sedi- Society of America Bulletin, 115, 1456-1472, 2003.
mentary deposits: A review of structure-imitating, process-
McGlynn, B.L., J.J. McDonnel, and D.D. Brammer, A review lation to characterize recharge and groundwater flow in the
of the evolving perceptual model of hillslope flowpaths at the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New Mexico, this volume.
Maimai catchments, New Zealand, J. of Hydrology, 257, 1- Price, N.J., and J.W. Cosgrove, Diapirs, related structures and
26, 2002. circular features, in Analysis of Geological Structures, pp.
Meijninger, W.M.L., and H.A.R. de Bruin, The sensible heat 89-122, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
fluxes over irrigated areas in western Turkey determined with Puigdefabregas, J., G. del Barrio, M.M. Bore, L. Gutierrez, and
a large aperture scintillometer, J. of Hydrology, 229, 42-49, A. Sole, Differential responses of hillslope and channel ele-
2000. ments to rainfall events in a semi-arid area, Geomorphology,
Meinzer, O.E., Outline of ground-water hydrology with defini- 23, 337-351, 1998.
tions, US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 494, 1923. Rawling, G.C., L.B. Goodwin, and J.L. Wilson, Internal archi-
National Research Council, Conceptual Models of Flow and tecture, permeability structure, and hydrologic significance
Transport in the Fractured Vadose Zone, National Research of contrasting fault-zone types, Geology, 29, 43-46, 2001.
Council, Washington, DC, 382 p., 2001. Reiter, M., Hydrogeothermal studies in the Albuquerque
National Research Council, Groundwater Fluxes Across Basin—preliminary results, U.S. Geological Survey Open-file
Interfaces, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 84 Report 00-488, 44, 2000.
p., 2004. Russell, L. R., and S. Snelson, Structural style and tectonic
Navar, J., and R. Bryan, Interception loss and rainfall redistri- evolution of the Albuquerque Basin segment of the Rio
bution by three semi-arid growing shrubs in northeastern Grande rift, in The Potential of Deep Seismic Profiling for
Mexico, J. of Hydrology, 115, 51-63, 1990. Hydrocarbon Exploration, edited by B. Pinet and C. Bois,:
Nespor V., and B. Sevruk, Estimation of wind-induced error of Institut Francais Petrole Research Conference Proceedings,
rainfall gauge measurements using a numerical simulation, J. Editions Technip, Paris, 1990.
Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 16(4), 450-464, 1999. Ruxton, B.P., and L. Berry, Weathering profiles and geomor-
Newman, B.D., A.R. Campbell, and B.P. Wilcox, Tracer-based phic position on granite in two tropical regions, Rev. Geo-
studies of soil water movement in semi-arid forest of New morphic Dynamics, 12, 16-31, 1961.
Mexico, J. of Hydrology, 196, 251-270, 1997. Sanford, W.E., L.N. Plummer, D.P. McAda, L.M. Bexfield, and
Newman, B.D., and C.J. Duffy, Evaluating the hydrogeochemi- S.K. Anderholm, Estimation of hydrologic parameters for the
cal response of springs using singular spectrum analysis and ground-water model of the Middle Rio Grande Basin using
phase-plane plots, in New Approaches Characterizing carbon-14 and water-level data. U.S. Geological Survey
Groundwater Flow, edited by K.P.Seiler and S. Wohnlich, Open-file Report 00-488, 4-6, 2000.
v.2, pp. 763-767, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, 2001. Sanford, W.E. Recharge and groundwater model: an overview.
Nishida, K., R.R. Nemani, S.W. Running, and J.M. Glassy, Hydrogeology J., 10, 110-120, 2002.
Remote sensing of land surface evaporation (I) theoretical Scanlon, B.R., Evaluation of liquid and vapor water flow in
basis for an operational algorithm, J. of Geophysical Re- desert soils based on chlorine 36 and tritium tracers and noni-
search D (Atmosphere), 108(9), ACL5-1 to -14, 2003. sothermal flow simulations, Water Resources Research, 28,
Niswonger, R.G., and J. Constantz, Using heat as a tracer to 285-297, 1992.
estimate mountain-front recharge at Bear Canyon, Sandia Scanlon, B.R., S.W. Tyler, and P.J. Wierenga, Hydrologic
Mountains, New Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey Middle Rio issues in arid, unsaturated systems and implications for con-
Grande Basin Study—Proceedings of the Third Annual taminant transport, Reviews of Geophysics, 35, 461- 490,
Workshop, Albuquerque, New Mexico, I 19.76:99-203, 71-72, 1997.
2000. Scalon, B.R., R.W. Healy and P.G. Cook, Choosing appropriate
Ogilvie, S.R., J.M. Orribo, and P.W.J. Glover, The influence of techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge, Hydro-
deformation bands upon fluid flow using profile per- geology J., 10, 18-39, 2002.
meametry and positron emission tomography, Geophysical Schellekens, J., F.N. Scatena, L.A. Bruijnzeel, and A.J. Wickel,
Research Letters, 28, 61-64, 2001. Modelling rainfall interception by a lowland tropical rain
Ohlmacher, G.C., Structural domains and their potential impact forest in northeastern Puerto Rico, J. of Hydrology, 225, 168-
on recharge to intermontane-basin aquifers, Environmental & 184, 1999.
Engineering Geoscience, 5(1), 61-71, 1999. Shun, T., and C.J. Duffy, Low-frequency oscillations in precipi-
Olofsson, B., Flow of groundwater from soil to crystalline rock, tation, temperature, and runoff on a west facing mountain
Applied Hydrogeology, 2(3), 71-83, 1994. front: A hydrogeologic interpretation, Water Resources Re-
Peter, D.L., J.M. Buttle, C.H. Taylor, and B.D. LaZerte, search, 35, 191-201, 1999.
Runoff production in a forested, shallow soil, Canadian Sigda, J.M., and J.L. Wilson, Are faults preferential flow paths
Shield basin, Water Resources Research, 31, 1291-1304, through semiarid and arid vadose zone?, Water Resources
1995. Research, 39, 1225-1240, 2003.
Phillips, F.M., Environmental tracers for water movement in Sigda, J.M., J. L. Wilson, L.B. Goodwin, and J.L. Conca, J,
desert soils of the American Southwest, Soil Science Society Conduits to catchments: deformation band faults in arid and
of America J., 58, 15-24, 1994. semi-arid vadose zone sands, EOS Transactions, Absract
Plummer L.N., W.E. Sanford, L.M. Bexfield, S.K. Anderholm T12G-11, 83(47), 2002.
and E Busenberg, Using geochemical data and aquifer simu-
WILSON AND GUAN 23
Simpson, E.S., D.B. Thorud, and I. Friedman, Distinguishing Waltemeyer, S.D., Methods for estimating streamflow at
seasonal recharge to groundwater by deuterium analysis in mountain fronts in southern New Mexico, U.S. Geological
southern Arizona, in World water balance, Proceedings of Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4213,
the 1970 Reading Symposium, International Association of 1994.
Scientific Hydrology – UNESCO-WMO, pp. 623-633, 1972. Walvoord, M.A. M.A., Plummer, F.M. Phillips, and A.V.
Snow, D.T., Packer injection test data from sites on fractured Wolfsberg, Deep arid system hydrodynamics 1. Equilibrium
rock, LBL (Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Energy and Envi- states and response times in thick desert vadose zones, Water
ronment Division) Rpt. No. 10080 (197911), 15p., 1979. Resources Research, 38(12), 1291-1302, doi:10.1029/2001
Stannard, D.I., Bowen ratio measurements at sites C and F, in WR000824, 2002.
Evaportranspiration measurements of native vegetation, Weaver, H.L., Eddy-correlation measurements at sites C and F,
Owens Valley, California, June 1986, edited by Wilson, in Evaportranspiration measurements of native vegetation,
D.H., Reginato, R.J., Hollet, K.J., U.S. Geological Survey Owens Valley, California, June 1986, edited by D.H. Wilson,
Water-Resources Investigation Report 91-4159, 1991. R.J. Reginato, and K.J. Hollet, U.S. Geological Survey Wa-
Tani, M., Runoff generation processes estimated from hydro- ter-Resources Investigation Report 91-4159, 1991.
logical observations on a steep forested hillslope with a thin Wilcox, B.P., B.D. Newman, D. Brandes, D.W. Davenport, and
soil layer, J. of Hydrology, 200, 84-109, 1997. K. Reid, Runoff from a semiarid ponderosa pine hillslope in
Tanner, B.D., M.S. Tanner, W.A. Dugas, E.C. Campbell, and New Mexico, Water Resources Research, 33, 2301-2314,
B.L. Bland, Evaluation of and operational eddy correlation 1997.
system for evapotranspiration measurements, in Advances in Wilson, J.E., L.B. Goodwin, and C.J. Lewis, Deformation
Evaportranspiration, American Society of Agricultural En- bands in nonwelded ignimbrites: Petrophysical controls on
gineers, Publication 14-85, pp 87-99, 1985. fault-zone deformation and evidence of preferential fluid
Tiedeman, C.R., J.M. Kernodle, and D P. McAda, Application flow, Geology, 31(10), 837-840, 2003.
of nonlinear-regression methods to a ground-water flow Winograd, I.J., A.C. Riggs, A.C., and T.B. Coplen, The relative
model of the Albuquerque Basin, New Mexico. U.S. Geo- contribution of summer and cool-season precipitation to
logical Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 98- groundwater recharge, Spring Mountains, Nevada, USA,
4172, 90p. 1998a. Hydrogeology J., 6, 77-93, 1998.
Tiedeman, C.R., D.J. Goode, and P.A. Hsieh, Characterizing a Wittwer, C., G. Chen, G. Bodvarsson, M. Chornack, A. Flint, L.
ground water basin in a New England mountain and valley Flint, E. Kwicklis, and R. Spengler, Preliminary development
terrain, Ground Water, 36, 611-620, 1998b. of the LBL/USGS three-dimensional site-scale model of
Titus, F.B., Jr., Geology and ground-water conditions in eastern Yucca Mountain, Nevada, U.S. Department of Energy, Rpt.
Valencia County, New Mexico, New Mexico Bureau of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, LBL 37356,
Mines and Mineral Resources Ground Water Report, 7, UC0814, 69p., 1995.
1963. Wroblicky, G.J., M.E. Campana, H.M. Valett, and C.N. Dahm,
Tomlinson, S.A., Comparison of Bowen-ratio, eddy-correlation, Seasonal variation in surface-subsurface water exchange and
and weighing–lysimeter evapotranspiration for two sparse- lateral hyporheic area of two stream-aquifer systems, Water
canopy sites in Eastern Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Resources Research, 34, 317-328, 1998.
Water-Resources Investigation Report 96-4081, 1996. Yang, D., E. Elomaa, A. Tuominen, A. Aaltonen, B. Goodison,
Toth, J., A theoretical analysis of groundwater flow in small T. Gunther, V. Golubev, B. Sevruk, H. Madsen, and J. Milk-
drainage basins, J. of Geophysical Research, 68(16), 4795- ovic, Wind-induced precipitation undercatch of the Hellmann
4812, 1963. gauges, Nordic Hydrology, 30, 57-80, 1999.
Townley, L.R. and J.L. Wilson, Estimation of boundary values Young, C. B., C.D. Peters-Lidard, A. Kruger, M.L. Baeck, B.
and identification of boundary types, Transport in Porous R. Nelson, A.A. Bradley, and J.A. Smith, An evaluation of
Media, 4(6), 567-584, 1989 NEXRAD precipitation estimates in complex terrain. J. of
Unnikrishna, P.V., J.J. McDonnell, D.G. Tarboton, and C. Geophysical Research, 104 (D16), 19691-19703, 1999.
Kendall, Isotopic analysis of hydrologic processes in a small ___________
semiarid catchment, paper presented at International Union Mr. Huade Guan, Dept. of Earth & Environmental Sci-
of Geodesy and Geophysics; XXI general assembly, Colo- ence, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 87801.
rado, 237-238, 1995. Prof. John L. Wilson, Dept. of Earth & Environmental
Viviroli, D., R. Weingartner, and B. Messerli, Assessing the Science, New Mexico Tech, Socorro, NM 87801.
hydrological significance or the world’s mountains, Moun-
tain Research and Development, 23, 32-40, 2003.
View publication stats

Mountain-Block Hydrology and Mountain-Front Rechar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mountain-Block Hydrology and Mountain-Front Rechar

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 Rechar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Mountain-Block Hydrology and Mountain-Front Recharge

Article · January 2004

John L Wilson Huade Guan

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

John L. Wilson and Huade Guan

In semiarid climates, a significant component of recharge to basin aquifers oc-

ducing the potential for evapotranspiration (ET).

Plate 2. Two different remote sensing perspectives on MFR.

disturbances that alter mountain environments [Luck-

2. MOUNTAIN BLOCK, MOUNTAIN FRONT,

A mountain block includes all the mass composing

Table 1 Comparison of three potential boundaries for mountain front determination

MFR2 = (RO – RETf + FS2 ) + DS + FR + DR (4) 3. ESTIMATION METHODS

MFR3 = FS + DS . (5) 3.1 Water Balance Method

Table 2 Quantitative assessment on mountain front recharge by various methods

Box 1 Co-kriging monthly precipitation with terrain altitude

In mountainous terrain precipitation generally corre- 4.2 Interception

MFR for a mountain block composed of high-

Box 2. Fracture characteristics with depth

View publication stats

You might also like