Ground-water resources of the Upper Chattahoochee River basin in Georgia and Subarea 1 of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa river basins

Chapman, Melinda J.; Peck, Michael F.

doi:10.3133/ofr96363

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, the product T e

D_{d}^{2}

is thought to exhibit little variability given the relationship between watershed drainage density and transmissivity. For example, highly transmissive watersheds will generally have a lower drainage density and vice versa [ Chapman and Peck , ; Brutsaert and Sugita , ; Brutsaert , ]. Discrepancies in the estimates of K are likely due to the differences in derivation of recession hydrograph data points which comprise the recession cloud within the plot of –dQ/dt versus Q.…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of watershed storage trends over the eastern and upper Midwestern regions of the United States, 2003–2015

Thomas

Landerer

Wiese

et al. 2016

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Basin‐scale groundwater storage trends calculated from long‐term streamflow records provide insight into the evolution of watershed behaviors. Our study presents the first spatially relevant validation of recession‐based trend approaches by comparing three independent storage trend estimates using GRACE‐derived groundwater storage, in situ groundwater elevation observations, and recession‐based approaches for the time period of 2003–2015. Results documented consistent agreement between spatially interpolated groundwater observation trends and recession‐based storage trends, while GRACE‐derived groundwater trends were found to exhibit variable, poor comparisons. A decreasing trend in watershed storage was identified in the southeastern U.S. while increasing trends were identified in the northeast and upper Midwest estimated from recession‐based approaches. Our recession‐based approach conducted using nested watershed streamflow records identified variable watershed storage trends at scales directly applicable for comparative hydrology studies and for assisting in watershed‐based water resources management decisions.

show abstract

“…In particular, the product T e

D_{d}^{2}

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of watershed storage trends over the eastern and upper Midwestern regions of the United States, 2003–2015

Thomas

Landerer

Wiese

et al. 2016

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Initially, the surface and subsurface parameter values were developed based on literature values and previous experience, and available data (e.g., DCIA). Values for physical subsurface data such as elevation of ground surface, elevation of bottom of water table aquifer, elevation of channel bottom (to determine threshold stage for groundwater flow) and porosity were initially set based on a literature review of geologic investigations in the Atlanta area (Chapman and Peck, 1996;Herrick and LeGrand, 1949).…”

Section: Hydrologic/hydraulic Modeling -Swmmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Watershed Quantity and Quality Approaches for a Big Creek

Wagner¹,

Schmidt²

2002

proc water environ fed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Big Creek watershed is located in the upper Chattahoochee River Basin, north of Atlanta, Georgia. Jurisdictions within the 100-square mile watershed include Fulton, Forsyth and Cherokee Counties, and the Cities of Cumming, Roswell and Alpharetta. Rapid growth is occurring in this area, particularly in Forsyth County, one of the top ten fastest-growing counties in the United States.Concerns about water quality led to two concurrent water quality modeling studies of the watershed. A study for the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) was initiated to assess growth impacts and benefits of alternative management strategies, with particular interest in water quality near the watershed outlet, where the City of Roswell drinking water intake is located. The Fulton County Big Creek Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) evaluated flooding, erosion, and water quality within the Fulton County boundaries (Roswell, Alpharetta, and unincorporated Fulton County), as part of a larger project that also included chemical and biological monitoring and hydrologic/hydraulic modeling to assess stream aquatic integrity and problems such as excessive instream velocities and flooding.The two water quality studies were conducted using different, yet coordinated, models. The ARC study used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) for water quality and water quantity. In contrast, the Fulton County WRMP used the EPA SWMM for water quantity and the EPA BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources) graphical user interface (GUI) with the Hydrologic Simulation Program -FORTRAN (HSPF). Both models were calibrated to United States Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow monitoring data (hydrology/hydraulics) and local National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater runoff monitoring data (water quality). The calibrated models were then applied to assess water quality under existing conditions, future conditions (no controls), and future conditions with alternative management strategies. Modeled parameters included the 12 standard NPDES parameters, plus fecal coliform bacteria. Three stream segments in the Big Creek watershed, and two more in nearby watersheds, are on the State of Georgia 303(d) list for fecal coliform bacteria. Therefore, parameters of greatest concern in the study area include bacteria, along with sediment from hydrologic changes and erosion in the study area, and total phosphorus discharges to the Chattahoochee River, which may contribute to eutrophication impacts in a downstream reservoir.This paper compares and contrasts the application of the two public domain water quality models (SWMM and BASINS) to the same study area. Points of comparison include the ease of model calibration, model capabilities and limitations, and model results (e.g., annual loads, and concentration-frequency relationships). The annual load results will be compared to those generated by the Watershed Management Model (WMM), which is a...

show abstract

“…The states of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida are locked in a dispute over surface water and groundwater quantity and quality within river drainage basins that traverse major portions of these states. In response to restrictions on surface water use and relative water scarcity, individuals, industries, and municipalities are turning increasingly to groundwater for primary or supplemental water supplies (Chapman and Peck, 1996). Along with this shift has come the need to better understand groundwater in the Pied-• • mont, including potential groundwater contamination mechanisms and surface-water-groundwater interaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater Quality Implications of Bank-Storage in a Crystalline-Rock Setting

Mayer¹,

Brinson²,

George³

2002

Environ. Geosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerical simulation of interaction between a river and adjacent alluvium and saprolite groundwaters in the Piedmont physiographic province of western Georgia, U.S.A. suggests that bank storage in this crystalline-rock setting is mediated by elastic storativity rather than the more commonly assumed piston flow. Hydraulic head responds almost instantly to river stage increase despite relatively low hydraulic conductivity of surficial materials. Modeling suggests that aquifer hydraulic head variation is primarily a pressure response to stream stage change and that very little infiltration of river water into alluvium and saprolite occurs. Most unconfined aquifer bank storage models do not account for elastic effects and will therefore greatly underpredict the rate and magnitude of groundwater hydraulic head change and greatly overpredict surface water infiltration. Results suggest that groundwater adjacent to this and similar streams in crystalline-rock settings is not necessarily threatened by contamination from passing surface-water flood waves, even when a strong hydraulic connection between river and groundwater exists and even in cases where hydraulic gradient reverses and is temporarily directed from the river into its banks. Because this site is typical of many near-stream sites in the Piedmont and other crystalline-rock settings, these results may be widely applicable.

show abstract

Ground-water resources of the Upper Chattahoochee River basin in Georgia and Subarea 1 of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa river basins

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

A comparison of watershed storage trends over the eastern and upper Midwestern regions of the United States, 2003–2015

A comparison of watershed storage trends over the eastern and upper Midwestern regions of the United States, 2003–2015

Watershed Quantity and Quality Approaches for a Big Creek

Groundwater Quality Implications of Bank-Storage in a Crystalline-Rock Setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About