USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · sir20045073

Ground-water and surface-water flow and estimated water budget for Lake Seminole, southwestern Georgia and northwestern Florida

Abstract

Lake Seminole is a 37,600-acre impoundment formed at the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers along the Georgia?Florida State line. Outflow from Lake Seminole through Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam provides headwater to the Apalachicola River, which is a major supply of freshwater, nutrients, and detritus to ecosystems downstream. These rivers,together with their tributaries, are hydraulically connected to karst limestone units that constitute most of the Upper Floridan aquifer and to a chemically weathered residuum of undifferentiated overburden. The ground-water flow system near Lake Seminole consists of the Upper Floridan aquifer and undifferentiated overburden. The aquifer is confined below by low-permeability sediments of the Lisbon Formation and, generally, is semiconfined above by undifferentiated overburden. Ground-water flow within the Upper Floridan aquifer is unconfined or semiconfined and discharges at discrete points by springflow or diffuse leakage into streams and other surface-water bodies. The high degree of connectivity between the Upper Floridan aquifer and surface-water bodies is limited to the upper Eocene Ocala Limestone and younger units that are in contact with streams in the Lake Seminole area. The impoundment of Lake Seminole inundated natural stream channels and other low-lying areas near streams and raised the water-level altitude of the Upper Floridan aquifer near the lake to nearly that of the lake, about 77 feet. Surface-water inflow from the Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers and Spring Creek and outflow to the Apalachicola River through Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam dominate the water budget for Lake Seminole. About 81 percent of the total water-budget inflow consists of surface water; about 18 percent is ground water, and the remaining 1 percent is lake precipitation. Similarly, lake outflow consists of about 89 percent surface water, as flow to the Apalachicola River through Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, about 4 percent ground water, and about 2 percent lake evaporation. Measurement error and uncertainty in flux calculations cause a flow imbalance of about 4 percent between inflow and outflow water-budget components. Most of this error can be attributed to errors in estimating ground-water discharge from the lake, which was calculated using a ground-water model calibrated to October 1986 conditions for the entire Apalachicola?Chattahoochee?Flint River Basin and not just the area around Lake Seminole. Evaporation rates were determined using the preferred, but mathematically complex, energy budget and five empirical equations: Priestley-Taylor, Penman, DeBruin-Keijman, Papadakis, and the Priestley-Taylor used by the Georgia Automated Environmental Monitoring Network. Empirical equations require a significant amount of data but are relatively easy to calculate and compare well to long-term average annual (April 2000?March 2001) pan evaporation, which is 65 inches. Calculated annual lake evaporation, for the study period, using the energy-budget method was 67.2 inches, which overestimated long-term average annual pan evaporation by 2.2 inches. The empirical equations did not compare well with the energy-budget method during the 18-month study period, with average differences in computed evaporation using each equation ranging from 8 to 26 percent. The empirical equations also compared poorly with long-term average annual pan evaporation, with average differences in evaporation ranging from 3 to 23 percent. Energy budget and long-term average annual pan evaporation estimates did compare well, with only a 3-percent difference between estimates. Monthly evaporation estimates using all methods ranged from 0.7 to 9.5 inches and were lowest during December 2000 and highest during May 2000. Although the energy budget is generally the preferred method, the dominance of surface water in the Lake Seminole water budget makes the method inaccurate and difficult to use, because surface water makes up m

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 28.998531814051795° to 32.731840896865684° latitude; -86.484375° to -83.43017578125° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Melinda S. Dalton, Brent T. Aulenbach, Lynn J. Torak. 2004. Ground-water and surface-water flow and estimated water budget for Lake Seminole, southwestern Georgia and northwestern Florida. https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20045073

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Baseline water-quality inventory and summary for the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park, New Jersey

The Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (PAGR), established in 2011 in the City of Paterson, New Jersey, contains many cultural, historical, and natural resources. Because of the PAGR’s young age and limited resources, a long record of natural resource data is not available for use to guide future park management and planning decisions. A detailed natural resource inventory was identified as an immediate need in the “Foundation Document—Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park,” given the history of extensive industrial activity throughout the PAGR and the Passaic River Basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership for the Lower Passaic River, inventoried water-quality monitoring efforts and compiled historical water-quality data from secondary data sources to define baseline conditions in the PAGR and the surrounding study area. This report documents the methods used to harmonize water-quality data aggregated from multiple sources for the PAGR study area. Procedures implemented during data harmonization include compiling data from multiple sources, assessing the dataset for completeness, addressing metadata concerns, and creating a consistent and quality-assured dataset for future analysis. The harmonized dataset contains 14 aggregated surface-water sites, 1,103 individual sampling days, and 32,000 water-quality records throughout the period of record defined for this study (1952–2021). Summary statistics and comparison to water-quality criteria are provided for focus parameters that can support PAGR management, including field properties, suspended material, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, chloride, sulfate, Escherichia coli, nutrients, contaminants of concern related to fish consumption advisories, and litter and floatable debris. A spatial data gap was identified for the recreational area near the base of the Great Falls and immediately downstream from a known combined sewer overflow discharge location. Analytic data gaps were identified for continuous streamflow and water-quality parameters, floatable debris characterization, and harmful algal blooms identification. Continuous collection of contaminants of concern was identified as a temporal data gap, as these parameters were not consistently collected within the study area. The water-quality data synthesis and summary presented in this report can assist PAGR staff in understanding the complex baseline water resources within the study area and can serve as a baseline to design future water-quality monitoring efforts and evaluate changes in water quality over time. The harmonized dataset, as well as future New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and New Jersey Harbor Discharge Group monitoring data and assessments, can also be used to examine the status and trends in surface-water quality, support compliance with the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and further investigate changes to park water resources that can affect ecological and human health.

New Jersey↗

Slip tendency and dilation tendency of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming

This report presents the results of slip tendency and dilation tendency analysis of Quaternary faults in the Great Basin region, in the states of Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. This effort was undertaken as part of two studies: the U.S. Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Office-funded Innovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project, which is a multidisciplinary, multi-institution effort to develop new methodologies and best practices to accelerate the discovery of new, commercially viable hydrothermal resources; and the U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Resources Investigations Project. The goal of this work is to identify faults and fault segments that are appropriately oriented to be stress-loaded for slip or to dilate under the ambient stress conditions. Both conditions may make such faults more likely to host permeability and fluid flow relative to other faults in the region. Slip tendency and dilation tendency were calculated for all fault segments in the study area from the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Results demonstrate that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency are common in the Great Basin region. The areas containing many high slip tendency and dilation tendency fault segments are associated with high strain rates. These areas also host a relatively high proportion of the known hydrothermal systems. This indicates that faults with high slip tendency and dilation tendency in areas with high strain-rate are potentially most prospective for hosting hydrothermal systems. The database published in coordination with this report contains the slip tendency and dilation tendency results data, including the fault geometry and stress data used to calculate these quantities, for both the Great Basin study area and the smaller INGENIOUS study area.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, ↗

A spatial analysis of the groundwater emergence flood hazard in Long Island, New York, and coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound in New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island

Long Island, New York, and nearby coastal areas surrounding Long Island Sound are densely populated and, like other coastal areas, are susceptible to flooding from several potential sources, including stormwater from precipitation events, tidal flooding and storm surge, and groundwater emergence flooding. Groundwater emergence fooding refers to the intersection of a rising water table with land surface or critical infrastructure. Many studies of flood drivers either neglect or only briefly discuss how shallow groundwater conditions may contribute to or exacerbate flood conditions. As a part of a comprehensive study of compound flood hazards in the coastal areas of Long Island and Long Island Sound, a spatial analysis was completed by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Long Island Sound Partnership, formerly called the Long Island Sound Study, using available regional datasets to characterize the potential hazard for groundwater emergence flooding. The approximately 3,100 square mile study area was subdivided into 11,407 grid cells that were 900 meters by 900 meters (approximately 3,000 feet by 3,000 feet), for the purpose of integrating the spatial datasets to calculate and map the groundwater emergence flood hazard. The depth to the water table, hydrologic soil groups, and National Land Cover Database were harmonized to the common grid. A groundwater emergence flood hazard score was calculated for each grid cell for current average conditions following a set of rules accounting for the depth to the water table and the percentage of area within each cell with slow infiltrating soils. A scenario with a higher sea-level position was also calculated for the Long Island part of the study area. The calculated groundwater emergence flood hazard score was reviewed in conjunction with the National Land Cover Database to identify developed areas and associated infrastructure that may be at risk of potential groundwater emergence flooding. Study results indicate that the groundwater emergence flood hazard is highest in coastal areas and near surface water where the water table is close to ground surface. Inland areas away from surface waterbodies are not likely to be exposed to groundwater emergence flooding. For Long Island, in the scenario with higher sea-level position, a greater groundwater emergence flood hazard is calculated for some locations closer to the coast and where land is submerged. Away from the coast and surface-water drainage, the groundwater emergence flood hazard is similar between the current average sea-level condition and the higher sea-level position scenario.

Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island↗