SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Water Resources Management”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17Linked to original sources

USGS2007

Cooperative water-resources monitoring in the St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair Basin, Michigan

As part of the Lake St. Clair Regional Monitoring Project, this report describes numerous cooperative water-resources monitoring efforts conducted in the St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair Basin over the last 100 years. Cooperative monitoring is a tool used to observe and record changes in water quantity and quality over time. This report describes cooperative efforts for monitoring streamflows and flood magnitudes, past and present water-quality conditions, significant human-health threats, and flow-regime changes that are the result of changing land use. Water-resources monitoring is a long-term effort that can be made cost-effective by leveraging funds, sharing data, and avoiding duplication of effort. Without long-term cooperative monitoring, future water-resources managers and planners may find it difficult to establish and maintain public supply, recreational, ecological, and esthetic water-quality goals for the St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair Basin.

Michigan↗

USGS2007

Nowcasting Beach Advisories at Ohio Lake Erie Beaches

Data were collected during the recreational season of 2007 to test and refine predictive models at three Lake Erie beaches. In addition to E. coli concentrations, field personnel collected or compiled data for environmental and water-quality variables expected to affect E. coli concentrations including turbidity, wave height, water temperature, lake level, rainfall, and antecedent dry days and wet days. At Huntington (Bay Village) and Edgewater (Cleveland) during 2007, the models provided correct responses 82.7 and 82.1 percent of the time; these percentages were greater than percentages obtained using the previous day?s E. coli concentrations (current method). In contrast, at Villa Angela during 2007, the model provided correct responses only 61.3 percent of the days monitored. The data from 2007 were added to existing datasets and the larger datasets were split into two (Huntington) or three (Edgewater) segments by date based on the occurrence of false negatives and positives (named ?season 1, season 2, season 3?). Models were developed for dated segments and for combined datasets. At Huntington, the summed responses for separate best models for seasons 1 and 2 provided a greater percentage of correct responses (85.6 percent) than the one combined best model (83.1 percent). Similar results were found for Edgewater. Water resource managers will determine how to apply these models to the Internet-based ?nowcast? system for issuing water-quality advisories during 2008.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

Climate Change Science Activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in New England

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has actively pursued research in the effects of climate change on the hydrology of New England. Ongoing focus areas of climate change science activities of the USGS in New England include the following: • Hydrologic climate-response data (initiating or expanding long-term hydrologic climate-response data collection networks to detect and monitor climate-related changes in hydrology) • Relations between historical climatic and hydrologic variation (investigating historic relations between long-term climatic variation and hydrologic variation and connecting these relations to future conditions as forecasted by the Interagency Panel on Climate Change (Nakićenović and others, 2000) • Hydrologic change on natural and human (incorporating climate change scenarios into assessments of how flows in streams or water levels in aquifers may change) • Relations between climatic and hydrologic variation (characterizing impacts of climate change on floods and droughts, the long-term availability of water supplies for societal and natural uses in response to climate changes) • Developing tools to forecast ecosystem change and water resources management (developing regionally consistent tools for forecasting ecosystem change and resource management) This fact sheet presents recent climate change investigations of the USGS in New England using selected recent publications. These publications highlight the broad spectrum of expertise and commitment to understanding the relations of climate change and water resources in New England.

New England↗

USGS1998

How do we determine when the beaches are safe for swimming?

The use of Lake Erie and other public waters for swimming is a valuable recreational resource for the people of Ohio and elsewhere in the United States. Water-resource managers and the scientific community have recognized the need for rapid methods to determine the quality of these recreational waters to adequately protect public health. Fecal-indicator bacteria, such as Escherichia coli ( E. coli ) and fecal coliforms, are used to determine the risk of contracting waterborne disease from fecal-contaminated recreational waters. Fecal-indicator bacteria are not necessarily pathogens ( disease-causing organisms), but their presence can indicate the possible presence of pathogens. Although improvements to existing sewage treatment systems are continuously being made in many areas, fecal contamination is still a possibility. Therefore, findings from carefully designed monitoring programs are needed to inform the public on the risk of swimming in fecal-contaminated waters. Current methods to assess the concentrations of fecal indicators-that is, the number of bacteria in a certain volume of water-take at least 24 hours to complete. Due to the long time frame, some scientists have suggested using other water-quality or environmental surrogates (substitutes) to determine these concentrations. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is working to address this concern in a study conducted at three Lake Erie beaches in the Cleveland, Ohio, area. The study has shown that turbidity (the amount of light scattered or absorbed by suspended materials in a water sample), rainfall, and wave height could be used in a statistical model to predict E. coli concentrations.

Ohio↗

USGS2021

Evaluation of hydrologic simulation models for fields with subsurface drainage to mitigated wetlands in Barnes, Dickey, and Sargent Counties, North Dakota

Proper identification of wetlands, along with a better understanding of the hydrology of mitigated wetlands, is needed to assist with conservation efforts aimed at maintaining the productivity and ecological function (wetland mitigation) of agricultural lands. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, completed a study to evaluate two models for simulating hydrologic conditions in fields with subsurface drainage to mitigated wetlands at several sites in North Dakota. These two models were evaluated as possible tools for water resource managers to use for designing wetland mitigation projects in the area in the future. The Soil-Plant-Atmosphere-Water (SPAW) model simulates the daily hydrologic water budgets of agricultural landscapes by two linked routines, one for farm fields (field hydrology) and one for impoundments such as wetlands and ponds (pond model). The DRAINMOD model was used in conjunction with the SPAW model because although the SPAW model can be used to simulate the hydrology of small drainage basins containing wetlands, the SPAW model does not contain routines to simulate drainage, either subsurface drainage or surface (drainage ditches), that can directly affect the wetland hydrology. The wetlands in the study areas in this report are all downstream from and adjacent to drained agricultural fields. SPAW and DRAINMOD models were developed and calibrated at three study areas (study areas B, D, and S) to evaluate how the models simulated field-scale hydrologic characteristics and the water balance in wetlands from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2018. The SPAW model developed for study area B included five modeled fields in the field hydrology portion of SPAW that contributed inflow to one wetland simulated in the pond model portion of SPAW. Simulated wetland water depths were most similar to water depths measured at site BWET1, with an absolute mean error of 0.10 foot and a root mean square error of 0.14 foot. Site BWET2 had slightly larger errors, with an absolute mean error of 0.22 foot and a root mean square error of 0.28 foot. Simulated water depths were similar to the pattern of measured water depths at BWET1 and BWET2 from about mid-April 2018 through about mid-September 2018, but overpredicted water depths in the fall from about mid-September 2018 through about mid-October 2018. The SPAW model developed for study area D included six modeled fields in the field hydrology portion of SPAW that contributed inflow to five wetlands connected in series in the pond model portion of SPAW. Simulated water depths compared relatively well to water depths in the five wetlands, with the absolute mean error ranging from 0.17 foot (DWET1) to 0.39 foot (DWET2), and the root mean square error ranging from 0.28 foot (DWET1) to 0.56 foot (DWET5). The SPAW model developed for study area S included one modeled field in the field hydrology portion of SPAW that contributed inflow to one wetland in the pond model portion of SPAW. Among the SPAW models developed for the three study areas, the model for study area S had the best comparison between simulated and measured water depths, with an absolute mean error of 0.06 foot and a root mean square error of 0.10 foot. DRAINMOD models were developed and calibrated at the three study areas and provided inflow from subsurface drainage discharge to the SPAW models for simulating water levels in wetlands in the study areas. The calibrated DRAINMOD model for study area B showed the variability of hydrologic processes in the modeled field throughout the wide range of hydrologic conditions from January 1, 2003, through December 31, 2018. In general, the discharge through the modeled subsurface drainage system was in the spring and early summer (April through June) most years, with little to no discharge later in the year. Although the subsurface drainage system in study area D was the most complex among the three study areas and was simplified into a uniform system within DRAINMOD, simulated water table depths at study area D correlated better to measured water table depths compared to results from the model applications at the other two study areas. Simulated water table depths had an absolute mean error of 0.30 foot and root mean square error of 0.37 foot at site DGW1 and an absolute mean error of 0.29 foot and a root mean square error of 0.34 foot at site DGW2. Although the subsurface drainage system in study area S was the simplest and the modeled field was the smallest among the three study areas, simulated water table depths at study area S did not correlate as well to measured water table depths compared to results from the model applications at the other two study areas. The SPAW and DRAINMOD model applications at the three study areas in southeast North Dakota adequately simulated the hydrologic processes for fields with subsurface drainage that are connected to adjacent wetlands. However, more measured data would be needed to fully evaluate the models throughout the range of possible climatic conditions.

North Dakota↗

USGS2009

Watershed Models for Decision Support for Inflows to Potholes Reservoir, Washington

A set of watershed models for four basins (Crab Creek, Rocky Ford Creek, Rocky Coulee, and Lind Coulee), draining into Potholes Reservoir in east-central Washington, was developed as part of a decision support system to aid the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, in managing water resources in east-central Washington State. The project is part of the U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation collaborative Watershed and River Systems Management Program. A conceptual model of hydrology is outlined for the study area that highlights the significant processes that are important to accurately simulate discharge under a wide range of conditions. The conceptual model identified the following factors as significant for accurate discharge simulations: (1) influence of frozen ground on peak discharge, (2) evaporation and ground-water flow as major pathways in the system, (3) channel losses, and (4) influence of irrigation practices on reducing or increasing discharge. The Modular Modeling System was used to create a watershed model for the four study basins by combining standard Precipitation Runoff Modeling System modules with modified modules from a previous study and newly modified modules. The model proved unreliable in simulating peak-flow discharge because the index used to track frozen ground conditions was not reliable. Mean monthly and mean annual discharges were more reliable when simulated. Data from seven USGS streamflow-gaging stations were used to compare with simulated discharge for model calibration and evaluation. Mean annual differences between simulated and observed discharge varied from 1.2 to 13.8 percent for all stations used in the comparisons except one station on a regional ground-water discharge stream. Two thirds of the mean monthly percent differences between the simulated mean and the observed mean discharge for these six stations were between -20 and 240 percent, or in absolute terms, between -0.8 and 11 cubic feet per second. A graphical user interface was developed for the user to easily run the model, make runoff forecasts, and evaluate the results. The models; however, are not reliable for managing short-term operations because of their demonstrated inability to match individual storm peaks and individual monthly discharge values. Short-term forecasting may be improved with real-time monitoring of the extent of frozen ground and the snow-water equivalent in the basin. Despite the models unreliability for short-term runoff forecasts, they are useful in providing long-term, time-series discharge data where no observed data exist.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2014

The effects of changing land cover on streamflow simulation in Puerto Rico

This study quantitatively explores whether land cover changes have a substantive impact on simulated streamflow within the tropical island setting of Puerto Rico. The Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) was used to compare streamflow simulations based on five static parameterizations of land cover with those based on dynamically varying parameters derived from four land cover scenes for the period 1953-2012. The PRMS simulations based on static land cover illustrated consistent differences in simulated streamflow across the island. It was determined that the scale of the analysis makes a difference: large regions with localized areas that have undergone dramatic land cover change may show negligible difference in total streamflow, but streamflow simulations using dynamic land cover parameters for a highly altered subwatershed clearly demonstrate the effects of changing land cover on simulated streamflow. Incorporating dynamic parameterization in these highly altered watersheds can reduce the predictive uncertainty in simulations of streamflow using PRMS. Hydrologic models that do not consider the projected changes in land cover may be inadequate for water resource management planning for future conditions.

Journal of the American Water Resources Associatio↗

USGS2006

Cumulative uncertainty in measured streamflow and water quality data for small watersheds

The scientific community has not established an adequate understanding of the uncertainty inherent in measured water quality data, which is introduced by four procedural categories: streamflow measurement, sample collection, sample preservation/storage, and laboratory analysis. Although previous research has produced valuable information on relative differences in procedures within these categories, little information is available that compares the procedural categories or presents the cumulative uncertainty in resulting water quality data. As a result, quality control emphasis is often misdirected, and data uncertainty is typically either ignored or accounted for with an arbitrary margin of safety. Faced with the need for scientifically defensible estimates of data uncertainty to support water resource management, the objectives of this research were to: (1) compile selected published information on uncertainty related to measured streamflow and water quality data for small watersheds, (2) use a root mean square error propagation method to compare the uncertainty introduced by each procedural category, and (3) use the error propagation method to determine the cumulative probable uncertainty in measured streamflow, sediment, and nutrient data. Best case, typical, and worst case data quality scenarios were examined. Averaged across all constituents, the calculated cumulative probable uncertainty (%) contributed under typical scenarios ranged from 6% to 19% for streamflow measurement, from 4% to 48% for sample collection, from 2% to 16% for sample preservation/storage, and from 5% to 21% for laboratory analysis. Under typical conditions, errors in storm loads ranged from 8% to 104% for dissolved nutrients, from 8% to 110% for total N and P, and from 7% to 53% for TSS. Results indicated that uncertainty can increase substantially under poor measurement conditions and limited quality control effort. This research provides introductory scientific estimates of uncertainty in measured water quality data. The results and procedures presented should also assist modelers in quantifying the quality of calibration and evaluation data sets, determining model accuracy goals, and evaluating model performance.

Transactions of the ASABE↗

USGS1998

Water quality in the Georgia-Florida coastal plain, Georgia and Florida, 1992-96

This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1992 and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the Georgia-Florida Coastal Plain Study Unit and to relate these findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. The information is primarily intended for those who are involved in water-resource management. Yet, the information contained here may also interest those who simply wish to know more about the quality of water in the rivers and aquifers in the area where they live.

Florida, Georgia↗

USGS1998

Water quality in the Western Lake Michigan Drainages, Wisconsin and Michigan, 1992-95

This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1992 and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the Western Lake Michigan Drainages Study Unit and torelate these findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. The information in primarily intended for those who are involved in water-resource management. Yet, the information contained here may also interest those who simply wish to know more about the quality of water in the rivers and aquifers in the area where they live.

Michigan, Wisconsin↗

USGS1998

Water quality in the Ozark Plateaus, Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, 1992-95

This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1992 and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the Ozark Plateaus Study Unit and to relate these findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. The information is primarily intended for those who are involved in water-resource management. Yet, the information contained here may also interest those who simply wish to know more about the quality of water in the rivers and aquifers in the area where they live.

Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma↗

USGS1998

Water quality in the San Joaquin-Tulare basins, California, 1992-95

This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1992 and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the San Joaquin-Tulare Basins Study Unit and to relate these findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. The information is primarily intended for those who are involved in water-resource management. Yet, the information contained here may also interest those who simply wish to know more about the quality of water in the rivers and aquifers in the area where they live.

California↗

USGS1998

Water quality in the upper Snake River basin, Idaho and Wyoming, 1992-95

This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1992 and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the Upper Snake River Basin Study Unit and to relate these findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. This information is primarily intended for those who are involved in water-resource management. Yet, the information contained here may also interest those who simply wish to know more about the quality of water in the rivers and aquifers in the area where they live.

Idaho;Wyoming↗

USGS1998

Water quality in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, 1991-95

This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1991 and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the Willamette Basin Study Unit and to relate these findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. The information is primarily intended for those who are involved in water-resource management. Yet, the information contained here may also interest those who simply wish to know more about the quality of water in the rivers and aquifers in the area where they live.

Oregon↗

USGS1998

Water quality in the lower Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1992-95

This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1992 and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the lower Susquehanna River basin study unit and to relate these findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. The information is primarily intended for those who are involved in water-resource management. Yet, the information contained here may also interest those who simply wish to know more about the quality of water in the rivers and aquifers in the area where they live.

Circular↗

USGS1998

Water quality in the Red River of the North Basin, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, 1992-95

This report is intended to summarize major findings that emerged between 1992 and 1995 from the water-quality assessment of the River River of the North basin study unit and to relate these findings to water-quality issues of regional and national concern. The information in primarily intended for those who are involved in water-resource management. Yet the information contained here may also interest those who simply wish to know more about the quality of water in the rivers and aquifers in the area where they live.

Circular↗

USGS2005

New York Water-Use Program and data, 2000

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been publishing estimates of water use every five years since 1950 in the Estimated use of water in the United States circular series. In 1978, the Congress expanded the water-use activities of the USGS by establishing the National Water-Use Information Program (NWUIP). The water-use program in New York is part of the NWUIP and is based on a cooperative agreement between the USGS and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Together, the NYSDEC and USGS collect, compile, and store water-use data to provide a data base that is useful for water-resources management. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) collects a wide variety of data elements relating to public-water supplies such as the name and location of the suppliers and the amount of water withdrawn. This valuable information is provided to the water-use program. The information summarized in this fact sheet has been published in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1268, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000 which can be accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse . The 2000 data (by county) as well as previous years data can also be found at that site. Water withdrawal refers to the removal of water from the ground or its diversion from a surface-water source for use. Withdrawals of fresh and saline surface water and fresh ground water during 2000 were included in this study. The categories considered in this data compilation are public-water supply; deliveries to domestic from public-water suppliers and domestic self-supplied; industrial; thermoelectric-power generation; and irrigation. Saline withdrawals were included for the categories of industrial, mining, and thermoelectric-power generation. Saline water is a significant percentage of total withdrawals for the category of thermoelectric-power generation. The categories of withdrawal for which data were compiled for the 2000 calendar year do not include some of the categories that were addressed in 1995 and published in USGS Circular 1200, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. For the 2000 compilation, emphasis was placed on ensuring the quality of data that were collected, rather than attempting to address all categories and data elements on a national scale. Categories that were included in 1995 but not in 2000 are commercial; livestock; mining; the non-withdrawal categories of hydroelectric-power generation, wastewater treatment and public-water supply deliveries to commercial and industrial users. Any comparison made between 1995 and 2000 data need to be made with these category differences in mind. In 1995, the categories of commercial, livestock, and mining were about 280 Mgal/d (million gallons per day) of freshwater and 2.7 percent of total freshwater withdrawals. In addition, the report, New York water-use program and data, 1995, U. S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 014-02, concentrated on freshwater and did not include saline-surface water withdrawals in the figures. Any comparison between the 1995 and 2000 figures need to be made with this in mind. In 2000, about 12,100 Mgal/d (million gallons per day) of fresh surface and ground water and saline surface water were withdrawn from New York's rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, bays, and aquifers for the categories addressed. Freshwater withdrawals comprised about 7,080 Mgal/d of this total. With a total population of 18,980,000 people in New York State, the total freshwater withdrawals represent an average of more than 370 gal/d (gallons per day) per capita. The amounts of fresh surface water, ground water, saline surface water, and total amounts of water withdrawn by categories of water use in New York during 2000 are shown. Many of New York's large population centers have developed along major rivers and lakes; as a result, more than 87 percent of the freshwater withdrawals in 2000 were from surface-water bodies (6,190 Mgal/d). More than 65 percent of fresh surface-water withdrawals were for thermoelectric-power generation, and about 32 percent were by public-water suppliers. Of the 890 Mgal/d of ground water withdrawn in 2000 statewide, 65 percent was withdrawn by public-water suppliers, and about 16 percent each by industrial and domestic users. More freshwater is withdrawn by thermoelectric plants than for any other water-use category. Of the freshwater withdrawals within New York, about 57 percent were made by fossil-fuel and nuclear powerplants; about 36 percent were for public-water supply; about 4.2 percent was by industrial users, 2.0 percent by domestic users, and about 0.5 percent was for irrigation. Total withdrawals, total surface-water and fresh ground-water withdrawals, in New York are plotted, by county. The categories of public-water supply and thermoelectric power account for the withdrawals that exceed 100 Mgal/d per county. The counties that have public-water supply withdrawals that exceed 100 Mgal/d are: Delaware (453 Mgal/d), Ulster, Nassau, Erie, Sullivan, Westchester, Suffolk, Putnam, and Schoharie (115 Mgal/d). These large withdrawals are from surface water except in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island, where groundwater is the sole source of freshwater. Delaware, Putnam, Schoharie, Sullivan, Ulster, and Westchester Counties, in the southeastern part of the State, provide surface water to the aqueducts that supply drinking water to New York City. In 2000, the average amount of water delivered to New York City from these counties averaged 1,260 Mgal/d. Erie County, in western New York, had withdrawals totaling 176 Mgal/d of fresh surface water for public-water supply. More freshwater and more total water is withdrawn for the generation of thermoelectric power than for any other water-use category. All of the withdrawals are of surface water. Seven counties have total thermoelectric withdrawals that exceed 500 Mgal/d: Queens (1,690 Mgal/d), Westchester, Oswego, Suffolk, Erie, Orange, and Rockland (560 Mgal/d). The counties of Oswego, Erie, and Orange withdrew only fresh surface water for thermoelectric plants. Their sources of water were Lake Ontario (Oswego County), Niagara River (Erie County), and the Hudson River (Orange County). Queens, Westchester, Suffolk, and Rockland withdraw only saline surface water for the production of thermoelectric power. The sources of saline surface water for the thermoelectric plants in the counties of Queens, Westchester, Suffolk, and Rockland are the estuaries of the Hudson River and East River and bays of the Atlantic Ocean (Long Island Sound and the eastern shore of Jamaica Bay). New York ranked eighth in the United States in 2000 in total withdrawals (fresh and saline water); the States that exceeded New York in total withdrawals are those that have large populations (such as California and Texas) and (or) use large quantities of water for irrigation (such as Florida and Idaho). Of the categories considered for the 2000 compilation, New York did not have nationally significant withdrawals for either irrigation or industrial water use. New York ranked third after California and Texas in withdrawals of freshwater for public supply, in the withdrawal of fresh surface water for public-water supply, in total population, and in number of people served by public-water supplies. New York ranked sixth in total withdrawals for the generation of thermoelectric power and total surface-water withdrawals. Finally, New York ranked fourth in withdrawals of ground water for public supply.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

Simulation of daily streamflow for nine river basins in eastern Iowa using the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, constructed Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System models to estimate daily streamflow for nine river basins in eastern Iowa that drain into the Mississippi River. The models are part of a suite of methods for estimating daily streamflow at ungaged sites. The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System is a deterministic, distributed- parameter, physical-process-based modeling system developed to evaluate the response of streamflow and general drainage basin hydrology to various combinations of climate and land use. Calibration and validation periods used in each basin mostly were October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2012, but differed depending on the period of record available for daily mean streamflow measurements at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations. A geographic information system tool was used to delineate each basin and estimate values for model parameters based on basin physical and geographical features. A U.S. Geological Survey auto-calibration tool that uses a shuffled complex evolution algorithm was used for initial calibration, and then manual modifications were made to parameter values to complete the calibration of each basin model. The main objective of the calibration was to match daily discharge values of simulated streamflow to measured daily discharge values. The accuracy of Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System model streamflow estimates of nine river basins in eastern Iowa as compared to measured values at U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging stations varied. The Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System models of nine river basins in eastern Iowa were satisfactory at estimating daily streamflow at 57 of the 79 calibration sites and 13 of the 14 validation sites based on statistical results. Unsatisfactory performance can be contributed to several factors: (1) low flow, no flow, and flashy flow conditions in headwater subbasins having a small drainage area; (2) poor representation of the groundwater and storage components of flow within a basin; (3) lack of accounting for basin withdrawals and water use; and (4) the availability and accuracy of meteorological input data. The Precipitation- Runoff Modeling System models of nine river basins in eastern Iowa will provide water-resource managers with a consistent and documented method for estimating streamflow at ungaged sites and aid in environmental studies, hydraulic design, water management, and water-quality projects.

Iowa↗