Ground-water resources of the lower-middle Chattahoochee River basin in Georgia and Alabama, and middle Flint River basin in Georgia - Subarea 3 of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa River basins

Mayer, Gregory C.

doi:10.3133/ofr96483

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An extensive list of the studies conducted as part of the NAWQA Program are provided at http://ga.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/ publications.html. Groundwater resources of the ACFB were discussed in a series of USGS reports in the mid-1990s (Torak and McDowell, 1996;Chapman and Peck, 1997a, b;Mayer, 1997). Further groundwater studies were completed in portions of the lower ACFB, mainly where the Floridan aquifer system crops out ( fig.…”

Section: Previous Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin in the southeastern United States

LaFontaine¹,

Hay²,

Viger³

et al. 2013

Scientific Investigations Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS.For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprodTo order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. AbstractA hydrologic model of the Apalachicola-ChattahoocheeFlint River Basin (ACFB) has been developed as part of a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center effort to provide integrated science that helps resource managers understand the effect of climate change on a range of ecosystem responses. The hydrologic model was developed as part of the Southeast Regional Assessment Project using the Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS), a deterministic, distributed-parameter, process-based system that simulates the effects of precipitation, temperature, and land use on basin hydrology. The ACFB PRMS model simulates streamflow throughout the approximately 50,700 square-kilometer basin on a daily time step for the period 1950-99 using gridded climate forcings of air temperature and precipitation, and parameters derived from spatial data layers of altitude, land cover, soils, surficial geology, depression storage (small water bodies), and data from 56 USGS streamgages. Measured streamflow data from 35 of the 56 USGS streamgages were used to calibrate and evaluate simulated basin streamflow; the remaining gage locations were used for model delineation only. The model matched measured daily streamflow at 31 of the 35 calibration gages with Nash-Sutcliffe Model Efficiency Index (NS) greater than 0.6. Streamflow data for some calibration gages were augmented for regulation and water use effects to represent more natural flow volumes. Time-static parameters describing land cover limited the ability of the simulation to match historical runoff in the more developed subbasins.Overall, the PRMS simulation of the ACFB provides a good representation of basin hydrology on annual and monthly time steps. Calibration subbasins were analyzed by separating the 35 subbasins into five classes based on physiography, land use, and stream type (tributary or mainstem). The lowest NS values were rarely below 0.6, whereas the median NS for all five classes was within 0.74 to 0.96 for annual mean streamflow, 0.89 to 0.98 for mean monthly streamflow, and 0.82 to 0.98 for monthly mean streamflow. The median bias for all five classes was within -4.3 to 0.8 percent for annual mean streamflow, -6.3 to 0.5 percent for mean monthly streamflow, and -9.3 to 1....

show abstract

Section: Previous Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%