Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 1

QuantifyingReturnFlowintheUpperWindRiverBasinFinalReport: June2014–June2018

PrincipleInvestigators:GingerB.Paige,AssociateProfessor,Dept.ofEcosystemScienceandManagement,UniversityofWyoming,gpaige@uwyo.edu,(307)766-2200.ScottN.Miller,Professor,Dept.ofEcosystemScienceandManagement,UniversityofWyoming,snmiller@uwyo.edu(307)766-4274.AdditionalInvestigator:AndrewD.Parsekian,AssistantProfessor,Dept.ofGeologyandGeophysics,UniversityofWyoming,aparseki@uwyo.edu(307)766-3603.Abstract:Populationgrowthintheintermountainwest,coupledwithfrequentdroughtandtheprospectsofclimatechange,arechallengingthesecurityofwatersuppliesandtheagriculturaleconomyinWyomingandtheregion.AgricultureisthelargestuserofwaterinWyomingandtheintermountainwestandaccountsforapproximatelyninetypercentofthetotalamountofwaterwithdrawnfromstreamsandaquifers.However,onlyaportionofappliedwaterisconsumptivelyused.Therestisreturnedtostreamsoraquifers.Someofthepotentialbenefitsincluderechargeofalluvial(shallow)aquifersthatserveasundergroundstoragereservoirs,increasedlikelihoodofmaintaininglateseasonflowandasteadiermorereliablesourceofwaterdownstreamresultingfromthereturnflowpatternofaninteractivestream-aquifersystem.ThisprojectwillapplynewmethodsandtechniquestodirectlyquantifyreturnflowfromcontrolledagriculturalsystemsintheSpence/MoriartyWildlifeHabitatManagementAreaintheEastForkwatershedintheUpperWindRiverSub-BasininWyoming.Thislocationisidealforthisstudyaswecanworkdirectlywiththemanagerscontrollingtheapplicationandtimingoftheirrigationwater.Wewilluseawaterbalanceapproachatthe“reachscale”toquantifythereturnflowinthesystem.Todirectlymeasureandmonitorthepathwaysandtiming,wewillemploynewmethodsinhydrogeophysicsandtracersatthefieldscale.Geophysicstoolswillbeusedtomapsubsurfaceflowpaths,monitorandquantifyreturnflow.Inaddition,wewillusetracerssuchasisotopesandgeochemicalmarkerstodirectlymeasureandmonitorreturnflowinthesystem.ResultsfromthisstudywillbecomparedtoanirrigationreturnflowstudyconductedintheUpperGreenRiverBasininthe1980s.Anunderstandingofthequantityandtimingofreturnwaterflowiscriticalforeffectivewatermanagementfordownstreamwaterusersandmaintainingagriculturewatersecurityinthestate.StatementofcriticalregionalorStatewaterproblem:AgricultureisthelargestuserofwaterinWyomingandtheintermountainwest.However,increasingpopulationintheintermountainwestandchangingdemandsonlimitedwaterresourcesfromenergyandmunicipalusearechallengesfor

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 2

effectivelymanagingourwaterresources.Agricultureaccountsforapproximatelyninetypercentofthetotalamountofwaterwithdrawnfromstreamsandaquifers.However,onlyaportionofappliedwaterisconsumptivelyused.Therestisreturnedtostreamsoraquifersbyoverlandflow,subsurfacelateralflowandbypercolationthroughthesoiltoanaquifer,whichstoresorreturnsittothestreamsystem.Someofthepotentialbenefitsofirrigationcanincluderechargeofalluvial(shallow)aquifersthatserveasundergroundstoragereservoirs,increasedlikelihoodofmaintaininglateseasonflowandasteadiermorereliablesourceofwaterdownstreamresultingfromthereturnflowpatternofaninteractivestream-aquifersystem.Anunderstandingofthequantityandtimingofreturnwaterflowiscriticalforeffectivewatermanagementfordownstreamwaterusersandmaintainingagriculturewatersecurity.Objectives:ThisstudyusedawaterbalanceapproachcoupledwithintensivefieldinvestigationsandcharacterizationsofthesubsurfaceusinggeophysicstoolstoquantifyanddocumentreturnflowprocessintheSpence/MoriartyWildlifeHabitatManagementArea(WHMA)intheUpperWindRiverBasin,inNorthwestWyoming.Thespecificobjectivesareto:1)quantifythecontributionofreturnflowstosustainedlate-seasonflow(baseflow);2)assessthequalityofthereturn-flowwater;and3)compareresultsofthisstudytotheresultsfromthereturnflowstudyofafloodirrigationsystemthatwasconductedintheNewForkintheUpperGreenRiverBasin(Wetsteinetal.,1989).Methods:Toquantifythereturnflow,weusedawaterbalanceapproachatthereachscalecoupledwithtargetedsetsoffieldexperimentsdesignedtospecificallytrackandquantifythewaterthatmovesthroughthesub-surfaceandreturnstothestreamsystem.OurresearcheffortswerefocusedonBearCreekamajortributaryoftheEastForkintheSpence/MoriartyWHMA(Figure1).TheBearCreeksectionoftheSpence/MoriartyWHMAisidealforthisstudyasthereisawell-definedirrigatedsectionofthewatershedthatcanbeisolatedtocaptureareachscalewaterbalance(Figure2).Attheupperendofthereach,waterisdivertedintotheFosherditchtodeliverwatertothefouridentifiedfields(outlinedinred.)PressuretransducerstomeasurewaterdepthwereinstalledatkeylocationswithinBearCreekandFosherditchtocapturechangesinflowduringtheirrigationseasonwithinthereach.Ratingcurvesweredevelopedforeachsitetoconvertdepthsintostreamflow.

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 3

Figure1.LocationoftheEastForkintheUpperWindRiverSub-Basin(courtesy:WyomingWaterDevelopmentOfficehttp://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/bighorn/)Geophysics:Asuiteofbackgroundgeophysicalmeasurementsweremadeoneachfieldtocharacterizethesubsurfacestructureoftheirrigatedfields.Measurementsinclude:Seismic,ERT(electricalresistivitytomography,andGPR(groundpenetratingradar).SurfaceNMR(NuclearMagneticResonance)wasusedtomeasurewatercontentinthesubsurface.Measurementsweretakenbeforeandaftertheirrigationseasonineachoftheirrigatedfieldstocapturechangesinsoilmoisturestoragewithdepthineachirrigatedfield.In2016weaddedBoreholeNMRmeasurements.TheboreholeNMRmeasurementswereusedtomeasurechangesinsoilmoistureinthesubsurfaceduringtheintensiveinfiltrationexperiments.Evapotranspiration:ALargeApertureScintillometer(whichmeasuressensibleheatflux)coupledwithameteorologicalstationwereinstalledtomeasureclimaticconditionsandevapotranspirationononeoftheirrigatedfields(Field1;Figure2).

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 4

Figure2.Locationofinstalledinstrumentationrelativetoirrigatedmeadowsandstream.ReachScaleWaterBalance:ThereachscalewaterbalanceforBearCreekwascalculatedusingthefollowingequation:

(P+QIRR)=DS+QRT+(ETB+ETNB)+S

wherePisprecipitation(mm),QIRRisappliedirrigationwater(mm),DSisthechangeinstorageinthesubsurface(mm),QRTisreturnflow(mm)=(QIN-QOUT),ETB,

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 5

beneficialevapotranspiration(mm),ETNBisnon-beneficialevapotranspiration-riparianvegetation(mm),andS�iserror(mm).TocalculateQrt,QINisstreamdischargeatstreamgageattheupperendofthereachandQOUTisstreamdischargeatthedownstreamgage.WaterQuality:Waterqualitywasmonitoredcontinuouslyattwolocations,aboveandbelowthestudyreachusingin-situwaterqualityprobes.Thesemeasurementsallowustocontinuouslymonitorwaterquality,inparticularECandtemperature,throughouttheirrigationseasonandassessanychangesinwaterqualitywithchangesinflow.WesawnosignificantchangesinECorwaterqualityoverthecourseofthestudy.Geophysics:Backgroundgeophysicalandhydrogeophysicalcharacteristicsweremeasuredinthefourirrigatedmeadowsin2014and2015.SurfaceNMRdatawerecollectedinJune2014tomapwatercontentwithdepth.Thisprocesswasrepeatedin2015,2016and2017butattwotime-steps–beforeandaftertheirrigationseason-toquantifythechangeinwatercontentinthesubsurfaceovertheirrigationseason.In 2016, we added a suite of boreholes for monitoring changes in subsurface flow and ground water. 3 Boreholes were installed along the ERT line (see intensive field experiments) to measure changes in subsurface water content. The borehole NMR is used to directly measure water content with depth (25 cm increments up to 10 meters) during irrigation. In addition, 3 boreholes were installed between the irrigation fields and the riparian area to measure any changes in water level in the phreatic zone between the fields and the stream. These boreholes were fitted with piezometers and a pressure transducer is used to measure any changes in the phreatic zone. Instrumentation:AlargesuiteofhydrologicandhydrogeophysicalinstrumentationwereinstalledordeployedintheBearCreekStudyarea(Table1)overthe2014,2015,2016and2017fieldseasons.LocationsofthepermanentinstrumentationrelativetoBearCreekareshowninFigure2.Together,thesemeasurementswereusedto1)characterizethenearsubsurfaceand2)measurethecomponentsofthewaterbalanceovertheirrigationseason.Installedinstrumentation,exceptforthepressuretransducerslocatedin3boreholes,wasremovedinOctober2017.The3remainingpressuretransducerswereremovedinAugust2018.

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 6

Table1.InstrumentationinstalledinBearCreekstudyareatomeasurecomponentsofthewaterbalanceandquantifyreturnflow.

IntensiveFieldInvestigations:A series of intensive field scale measurements using ERT and borehole NMR during irrigation were used to capture changes in soil moisture and identify subsurface flow paths (Zhou et al. 2001). ERT measures electrical potential differences between a series of electrodes, which are generated by the electric current injected into the subsurface.

INSTRUMENTATION CriteriaMeasured Approx.Date

Permanent:ongoing 10PressureTransducers(7BearCreek&4Ditches)

WaterPressure,Depth,andTemperature Jul-’14/Jun–’15

3ConductivityMeters(2BearCreek&1FocherDitch)

SpecificConductanceandSalinity Jul-’14

MeteorologicalStation:ongoing

Anemometer WindSpeed&Direction Jul-’14

NetRadiometerNetRadiation(Rs,Rl,Albedo) Jul-’14

AirTemperatureSensor Temperature,Humidity Jul-’14TippingBucketRainGage Precipitation Jul-’14SoilMoistureSensors VolumetricWaterContent Jul-’14HeatFluxPlates Soiltemperature Jul–’15

LargeApertureScintillometer SensibleHeatFlux Sept’14EddieCovarianceFluxTower Transpiration May‘16 PERIODIC:

SurfaceNuclearMagneticResonance(NMR) WaterContentinsubsurface

Jun‘14Jun&Oct’15,May&Oct‘16

BoreholeNMRWaterContentinsubsurfaceduringirrigation July2016

ElectricalResistanceTomography(ERT)

Resistance–backgroundChangesinresistanceduringirrigation

Aug‘14&Aug‘15July&Aug‘16June&Aug‘17

Seismic/GroundPenetratingRadar/ElectricalMagnetic SubsurfaceStructures

Jul-Aug‘15Aug‘17

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 7

The resistivity is directly related to the soil water content in the soil. We use time-lapse ERT measurements over a 60 m. transect to quantify the changes in soil water content during wetting and drying cycles over time and map wetting front velocities. Modelingandparameteridentification:Toanalyzetheresultsoftheintensivefieldinvestigations,HydrusandHydrus2D(https://www.pc-progress.com/en/Default.aspx),process-basedhydrologicmodelsusingRichards’equationwereusedto1)testobservedbehaviorinthepropagationofwettingfrontsunderfloodirrigationand2)identifyhydrologicparametersthatdescribetheobservedflowdynamicsinthesubsurface.Results:Streamflowandirrigation:Streamflowwithinthereachismeasuredusingaseriesof7-streamflowgagingstations(stillingwells,Figure2)wereinstalledinBearCreekandmonitoredoverthe2014and2015irrigationseasons.Inaddition,flowismeasuredintheirrigationditchestoquantifywaterremovedfromBearCreekandappliedthroughtheirrigationsystem.Resultsfrom2015areshowninFigure3.Ratingcurvesdevelopedforeachofthegagingstationsiteshadverygoodstage–dischargerelationships(averageR2=0.97).

Figure3.Seasonalhydrographs,precipitationandirrigationfromallsites(2015).Returnflowfortheentirereachwascalculatedbysubtractingoutflowfrominflowovertheirrigationseason(Fig.4).TheshiftinhydrographsbetweenJune20andAugust1showsthatreturnflowoccursduringtheirrigationseason.

0

50

100

150

200

250012345678

Apr 6 Apr 27 May 18 Jun 8 Jun 29 Jul 20 Aug 10 Aug 31 Sep 21 Oct 12 Nov 2

Prec

ipita

tion

[mm

]

Dis

char

ge [m

3s-

1 ]

Time

PrecipitationGage 1Gage 2Gage 4Gage 6Gage 7Irrigation

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 8

Figure4.Inflowandoutflowhydrographsusedtocalculatereturnflowin2015(QRT).Evapotranspiration:Evapotranspirationfortheirrigatedmeadowwascalculatedforthegrowingseasonusingthescintillometerandmetstationmeasurements.Theresultsfrommeadow1wereextrapolatedtotheothermeadowsusingareavegetationmeasurementscollectedbeforemowingofthefields.StrongcorrelationsbetweenPenman-MonteithandthescintillometerprovidedfoundationforusingPenman-MonteithtoestimateETfromtheriparianareas(Fig.5).

Figure5.Evapotranspirationforthe2015irrigationseason.Non-beneficialETistheevapotranspirationfortheriparianareascalculatedfromusingPenman-Montheith.BeneficialETwascalculatedfromthescintillometer.ETmeasurementsusingthescintillometerwerecontinuedoverthe2016and2017fieldseasonsandtheresultsarecurrentlybeingsummarizedandcomparedtotheresultsfromtheEdieCovariancetowermeasurements.

0

50

100

150

200

250012345678

Apr 6 Apr 27 May 18 Jun 8 Jun 29 Jul 20 Aug 10 Aug 31 Sep 21 Oct 12 Nov 2

Prec

ipita

tion,

Irrig

atio

n [m

m]

Dis

char

ge [m

3s-

1 ]

Time

PrecipitationIrrigationOutflowInflow

0

50

100

150

200

25005

101520253035

Jun 8 Jun 29 Jul 20 Aug 10 Aug 31 Sep 21 Oct 12 Nov 2

Prec

ipita

tion

[mm

]

ET, I

rriga

tion

[mm

]

Time

Precipitation

Irrigation

Beneficial ET

Non-Beneficial ET

Net ET

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 9

ClosingtheWaterBalance:Eachofthecomponentsofthewaterbalancewasmeasuredorcalculatedindependentlyforthe2015irrigationseason.Thisallowedustoclosethereachwaterbalanceequation:

(P+QIRR)=DS+QRT+(ETB+ETNB)+S

36 mm + 867 mm = 110 mm + 345 mm + (184 mm + 209 mm) + 54 mm Thisresultedinacalculatedreturnflowforthereachof38.2%.Thisvalueislessthanthefour-yearaveragereturnflowof70%fortheNewForkIrrigationdistrictintheUpperGreenRiverBasin(Wetsteinetal.,1989).Wealsofoundthatthereturnflowwasquickandnotaslow,delayedresponseasobservedintheNewFork.Thisresultwasnotunexpectedduetothesignificantdifferencesinthecharacteristicsofthesetwobasins.Similarresponseswereobservedinthe2016irrigationseason.Inthe2017season,thereweresignificantchangesinthechannelmorphologymakingitdifficulttopinpointthechangesinflowthroughouttheirrigationseason.Weusedsomemodelinganddataapproximationtechniquestofillinsomeofthedatagaps. IntensiveFieldExperiments:TimelapseERThasbeenusedtomapchangesinresistivityinmeadow1(Fig.2)duringirrigation.Thechangesinresistivitycanbedirectlyrelatedtoincreasesinsoilwatercontent(Fig.6).Thesestudieswillberepeatedandexpandedoverthenextfieldseasontoquantifysubsurfaceflowandmappotentialflowpaths.Thesemeasurements,coupledwiththereachwaterbalancemetrics,arebeingusedtoidentifythemechanismscontrollingthequantityandtimingofreturnflowinthissystem.

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 10

Figure6.TimeLapseERTduringwettinganddrying(before,duringandafterirrigationapplications).

In2016&2017,theintensivefieldexperimentswerecontinuedandexpandedupon.Wecompletedtwowettinganddryingstudiesandwereabletomapwaterflowdynamicsinthesubsurfaceduringwettinganddryingphasesusingtime-lapseERTandboreholeNMRmeasurements(Figures7&8.)

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 11

Figure7.Comparisonoftime-lapseresistivityduringirrigationexperimentsin2015and2016.Thechangesinresistivityarebeingconvertedtochangesinwatercontent.

Figure8.ComparisonofresultsfromsurfaceNMRandtime-boreholeNMRshowingwatercontentincreasingatthesamedepthinthesubsurface.

July2015: - Differencein

resistivityafter18hoursofirrigation

-Whiteareasdidn’tchangemorethan5%fromstartingresistivity

June2016: -Differenceinresistivityafter24hoursofirrigation

SurfaceNMR BoreholeNMR

4weeksinbetween

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 12

Intensivefieldstudyresults:2017irrigationseason

Figure9.Wettingfrontvelocitiesanddominantflowpathsidentifiedfromthetime-lapseERTdata.Keyinthisprojectisbeingabletotrackthewettingfrontandflowpathsinthesubsurfaceduringandfollowingfloodirrigationapplications.A new method was developed for tracking wetting front in subsurface using time-lapse ERT. The method is based on saturated resistivity and was tested using Hydrus 1D with both synthetic conditions and observations from the field experiments (Figure 10). The method is able to track the observed movement of the wetting front in the subsurface under intensive water application using time-lapse ERT. Theobservedwettingfrontsweremodeledinhydrus1Dusingatwolayersoilprofile.

Figure10.Comparisonofmodeledandobservedwettingfrontmovementinthesubsurfaceunderintenseirrigation.

-4-3.5

-3-2.5

-2-1.5

-1-0.5

00 1 2 3 4 5 6

Dept

h of

wet

ting

front

[m]

Time from start of infiltration [hour]

Modeled infiltration for a Loamy SandInfiltration front from time lapse ERT

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 13

Additionalfieldresults:Conductivity:Conductivity(EC)wasnotfoundtoincreasesignificantlyatthestudysite,andvariedbetween150and280MS/cmoverthecourseoftheirrigationseason.However,theconductivitymetersinstalledontheupstreamanddownstreamstationswereusedtrackchangesinECoverthecourseoftheirrigationseasons.

Figure11:Conductivityanalysisusingtheupstreamanddownstreamconductivity loggers. Return flow signal becomes apparent through the reach analysis. ComparisonwithNewForkStudy:

Thisstudyindicatesthatbetween25%and38%ofappliedwater(QRT=271+/-32mm;QIRR=867mm+/-67mm)returnstoBearCreek.Wefoundthatasignificantproportion(~28%)ofirrigationwaterinthissystemwenttosupportriparianareasintheformofETorstorageandroughly17%ofreturnflowatthe

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 14

siteoccurredinthemonthofOctober,afterirrigationhadceased.Thisisnotablebecauseitindicatesthatthesite’squickresponsetoappliedwaterdidnotprecludelateseasonsupplementationofbaseflows.EventhehigherrangeofreturnflowobservedattheBearCreeksite(38%),belowtheamount(50%)assumedbythestate(Gordonetal.,201x).BearCreekreturnflowprovidesalower“bookend”forwatermanagersandpolicymakersseekingtoconstrainreturnflowestimationsinabroaderrangeofsystems.TheotherWyomingstudyintheNewFork(Wetsteinetal.,1989)foundanaveragereturnflowof70%withapproximately10%contributingtolateseasonbaseflow.BearCreekreturnflowresultsareinlinewithaUtahstudyinBearRiver(Lecinaetal.2011),whichfoundthat28%ofwaterappliedwasnotconsumedbycrops.However,directmeasuresofreturnflowtothestreamsystemwerenotmadeinLecinaetal.(2011)sodirectcomparisonsaredifficult.Summary&Conclusions:ThisprojectsuccessfullyappliednewmethodsandtechniquestodirectlyquantifyreturnflowfromcontrolledagriculturalsystemsintheSpence/MoriartyWildlifeHabitatAreaintheEastForkwatershedintheUpperWindRiverSub-BasininWyoming.Thislocationwasidealforthisstudyaswewereabletoworkdirectlywiththemanagerscontrollingtheapplicationandtimingoftheirrigationwater.Weusedawaterbalanceapproachatthe“reachscale”toquantifythereturnflowinthesystem.Todirectlymeasureandmonitorthepathwaysandtiming,weusednewmethodsinhydrogeophysicsatthefieldscale.Geophysicstoolswereusedtomapsubsurfaceflowpaths,monitorandquantifyreturnflow.Theresultsfromthefieldstudiescoupledwiththereachscalewaterbalanceindicatethatthemajorityofthereturnflowistheresultofsubsurfacelateralflowfromthefields.Resultsfromthisstudyfoundthatreturnflowinthissystemwasapproximately38%,lowerthanthe50%assumedbythestatewatermanagersandmuchlowerthanthe~70%fromtheNewForkstudyconductedintheUpperGreenRiverBasininthe1980s.Anunderstandingofthequantityandtimingofreturnwaterflowiscriticalforeffectivewatermanagementfordownstreamwaterusersandmaintainingagriculturewatersecurityinthestate.References:Gordon,B.L.,S.N.Miller,G.B.Paige,N.Claes,A.Parsekian.201x.Awaterbalancebasedapproachtoquantifyingreturnflowfromirrigatedfieldsinasemi-aridagriculturalsystem.submittedtoJournalofHydrology(revised).Lecina,S.,Neale,C.M.U.,Merkley,G.P.,&DosSantos,C.aC.,2011.IrrigationevaluationbasedonperformanceanalysisandwateraccountingattheBearRiverIrrigationProject(U.S.A.).AgriculturalWaterManagement,98(9),1349–1363.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.04.001

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 15

Wetstein,J.H.,V.R.HasfurtherandG.L.Kerr(1989).ReturnFlowAnalysisofaFloodIrrigatedAlluvialAquifer:FinalReporttoWyomingWaterResearchCenterandWyomingWaterDevelopmentCommission.Zhou,Y.Q.,Shimada,J.,andSato,A.,(2001).ThreeDimensionalSpatialandTemporalMonitoringofSoilWaterContentUsingElectricalResistivityTomography.WaterResour.Res.,Vol.37,pp.273–285.AdditionalProjectSupport:Thisprojecthasleveragedadditionalsupportfromtwofundingsourcestoexpandtheinstrumentationandprovideadditionalfundingtosupportgraduatestudentresearch. 1)WyomingCenterforEnvironmentalHydrologyandGeophysics(WyCEHG, (NSF EPS-1208909)) 2)WaltonFoundation(throughtheHaubSchoolofEnvironmentandNatural Resources,UniversityofWyoming)providedfundingforMSgraduate student(BeaGordon).Publications:PaigeG.B.,N.Claes,A.Parsekian,B.Gordon,S.N.Miller.2018.TrackingagriculturalwaterinWyoming:Quantifyingreturnflowstostreams.Reflections.UniversityofWyoming,AES.Laramie,WY.Gordon,B.L.(2014),Measuringreturnflows.WesternConfluenceMagazineVol.1,RuckelshausInstitute,LaramieWY.Gordon,B.L.(2016).DeterminationofEvapotranspirationandReturnFlowinaSemiAridAgriculturalSystem.MSthesis,UniversityofWyoming,Laramie,WYClaes,N.G.B.Paige,A.Parsekian.201x.Uniformandlateralpreferentialflowunderfloodirrigationatfieldscale.SubmittedtoHydrologicalProcesses.(inrevision)Gordon,B.L.,S.N.Miller,G.B.Paige,N.Claes,A.Parsekian.201x.Awaterbalancebasedapproachtoquantifyingreturnflowfromirrigatedfieldsinasemi-aridagriculturalsystem.SubmittedtoJournalofHydrology(inrevision)RefereedPublicationsinpreparation:*Claes,N.,G.B.Paige,A.Parsekian.201x.Parameterizationofahydrologicalmodelwithgeophysicaldatatodetermineunsaturatedflowpathsinthesubsurface.TobesubmittedtoVadoseZoneJournal.*Claes,N.,G.B.Paige,A.Parsekian,B.Gordon,S.N.Miller201x.Floodirrigationgeneratedsubsurfaceflowsinalocalwaterbalance.TobesubmittedtoVadoseZoneJournal.

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 16

*Gordon,B.L.,S.N.Miller,G.B.Paige,N.Claes,A.Parsekian,D.Beverly.201x.Ascintillometer-basedevaluationofevapotranspirationinasemi-aridagriculturalsystemPresentations:*Cook,J.N.E.W.Kempema,B.L.Gordon,N.Claes,S.N.Miller,G.B.Paige.2018.ReturnFlows:Quantifyingwateravailability.Flow2018:ManagingRivers,ReservoirsandLakesintheFaceofDrought.April24-26,2018.FortCollins,CO.(poster)*Claes,N.G.B.Paige,A.Parsekian.2018.Estimationofwettingfrontmovementatfieldscale.AnnualSymposiumontheApplicationofGeophysicstoEngineeringandEnvironmentalProblems(SAGEEP).NewOrleans,LA.March28th,2018(oralpresentation).*Claes,N.,G.B.Paige,A.Parsekian,S.N.Miller,E.Kempema.2017.QuantifyingReturnFlowintheUpperWindRiverBasin.WyCEHG:3rdWaterInterestGroupMeeting,Laramie,WY.October30,2017.(invited)Paige,G.B.2017.WyCEHG:BuildingcapacityinhydrologyandgeophysicsinWyoming.WyomingWaterAssociationAnnualMeeting,Sheridan,WY.October27,2017.(invited)*Claes,N.,G.B.Paige,A.Parsekian,B.Gordon,S.N.Miller,J.Cook.2017.Identificationofsurfaceandsubsurfaceflowpathsaffectingreturnflow:merginghydrologyandgeophysics.UCOWR/NIWRAnnualMeeting2017.FortCollins,CO.June13-15,2017.(invited)Claes,N.,G.B.Paige,andA.DParsekian.2016.ReturnFlow:ahydrogeophysicalassessmentofflowpaths.2016AGUFallMeeting,December14-18,2016,SanFrancisco,CA.(poster) Paige,G.B.,S.N.Miller,A.D.,Parsekian,B.LGordon,N.Claes.2016.QuantifyingReturnFlowintheUpperWindRiverBasin.BigHornBasinPlanningMeeting,March15,2016,Worland,WY.(invitedpresentation)Claes,N.,G.B.Paige,A.DParsekian,andS.NMiller.2016.Time-lapseERTandNMRforquantificationofthelocalhydrologicimpactofirrigationmanagement.29thAnnualSymposiumontheApplicationofGeophysicstoEngineeringandEnvironmentalProblems(SAGEEP),March20-24,2016,Denver,CO.(poster) ParsekianA.D.,Paige,G.B.,MillerS.N.,GordonB.L.,Claes,N.2015.Returnflow:untanglingthewaterbudgetonflood-irrigatedfields.2015WaterInterestGroupMeeting,Oct.13,2015,Laramie,WY.(invited)Gordon,B.L.,Miller,S.N.,Paige,G.B,Claes,N.,Parsekian,A.,Beverly,D.2015.A

Paige, Miller, & Pareskian: “Quantifying Return Flow in the Upper Wind River” 17

ComparisonofMethodsforCalculatingEvapotranspirationinaSemi-AridAgriculturalSystem,2015AGUFallMeeting,December14-18,2015,SanFrancisco,CA.(poster)Claes,N.,Paige,G.B,Parsekian,A.D.,Miller,S.N.,Gordon,B.L.2015.Characterizationofreturnflowpathwaysduringfloodirrigation.2015AGUFallMeeting,December14-18,2015,SanFrancisco,CA.(poster)Gordon,B.L.,Miller,S.N.,Paige,G.B,Claes,N.,Parsekian,A.,Beverly,D.2015.CalculatingReturnFlowsandConsumptiveUseinaSemi-AridAgriculturalSystem,2015WaterInterestGroupMeeting,Oct.13.2015,Laramie,WY.(poster) Claes,N.,Paige,G.B,Parsekian,A.D.,Miller,S.N.,Gordon,B.L.,2015.Characterizationoffloodirrigation:merginghydrologyandgeophysics.WyCEHGWaterInterestGroupandWyomingRound-Up,2015,14thOctober,Laramie,WY.(poster)Claes,N.,Paige,G.B,Parsekian,A.D.,Miller,S.N.,Gordon,B.L.2015.Time-lapseERT:detailedcharacterizationofreturnflowfromfloodirrigation.RAD-seminar,2015,13thNovember,Laramie,WY.Gordon,B.L.,Paige,G.B,Miller,S.N.2014.EastForkreturnflowstudy,WyomingGameandFishDepartment,AquaticHabitatManagers.Dubois,WY.GraduateStudents:DirectlyFunded:NeilsClaes,PhD.PrograminHydrology,UniversityofWyoming.StartedJanuary2015–DefendingOctober2018.PartiallySupported:BeaGordon,MS,RangelandEcologyandWatershedManagement/WaterResources.UniversityofWyoming.DefendedApril2016.ThesisTitle:DeterminationofEvapotranspirationandReturnFlowinaSemi-AridAgriculturalSystemJoeCook,MS.VisitingGraduateStudentfromDept.,ObservatoiredesSciences,UniversitedeRennes,Rennes,France.StartedMarch2016.Undergraduates:Over25undergraduateshaveconductedfieldinvestigationsfortheprojectaspartoftheWyCEHGGeophysicsTeam:Collectedbackgroundgeophysicalcharacteristicsofthefieldsite.(partialsupportfortheundergraduatesfromWyCEHG)