Skip to main content
Log in

Development and comparison of integrated river/reservoir models in the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint basin, USA

  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes the development of a stakeholder-derived, water system model for the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint (ACF) basin (ACF-STELLA) and directly compares simulated daily outputs with a more complex model (HEC-ResSim) used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to formally evaluate alternative basin management options. The two models were compared using 70 years of daily output (1939–2008; n = 25,668) for eight different ACF sites: five flow stations and three reservoir elevations. The comparison between models showed a strong match (p < 0.01 rejection significance) between the daily outputs for six of the eight sites, with median Nash–Sutcliffe coefficient of efficiency ranging from 0.732 to 0.979. In the two sites where daily comparisons were less successful, additional analysis was conducted to explore where simulated results diverged. At the Lake Lanier outflow site, a 7-day moving average comparison provided a successful match with a Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of efficiency of 0.788 (p < 0.01 rejection significance). At the Walter F. George Lake elevation site, comparisons showed that a primary source of disagreement stemmed from a period where HEC-ResSim model outputs were significantly greater than historically observed reservoir elevations. Given the satisfactory model comparison as well as the significantly increased simulation speeds of ACF-STELLA, it was concluded that the ACF-STELLA model could be a useful tool in water policy planning activities to explore alternative basin management scenarios for expanded simulation by the more complex HEC-ResSim model. The use of multiple models in a river basin should not necessarily be interpreted as competitive, but instead can be seen as part of a collaborative effort to empower all stakeholders to systematically engage with their limited water resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arcadis (2010) Unimpaired flow data report surface water availability modeling and technical analysis for statewide water management plan. GA063853/Rpt 2514. Last accessed from http://giec.org/documents/MicrosoftWord-UIF_Rpt_-_Final_2010_04_27.pdf on 10 Feb 2015

  • Bonney SC, Fowler L, Ellis C, Mazak A, Zwald B (2013) -TUC Institutional Options Study: phase 2 report. Prepared for the ACF Stakeholders, Inc. 44 pp. Last accessed from http://acfstakeholders.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ACFS-TUC-IO-Report-Phase-2.pdf on 11 Feb 2015

  • Brisbane Declaration (2007) The Brisbane Declaration: environmental flows are essential for freshwater ecosystem health and human well-being. In: 10th international river symposium, 3–6 September, Brisbane. Last accessed from http://www.watercentre.org/news/declaration on 11 Feb 2015

  • Carter N (2008) Congressional research service report to congress: Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint drought: Federal reservoir and species management. Last accessed from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/mainpage/acf/files/crs_report_congress030508.pdf on 11 Feb 2015

  • Clean Water Act (1972) 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. 2002 Last accessed from http://epw.senate.gov/water.pdf on 10 Feb 2015

  • DuMars CT, Seeley D (2004) The failure of the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin and Alabama–Coosa–Tallapoosa River Basin compact and a guide to the successful establishment of interstate compacts. Georgia State Univ Law Rev 21:373–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Endangered Species Act (1973) 16 U.S.C. 1531. Last accessed from http://www.epw.senate.gov/esa73.pdf on 10 Feb 2015

  • Hamlet A, Leitman S (2000) User’s manual for the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint daily time step shared vision model. Northwest Florida Water Management District, 81 Water Management Drive, Havana, FL

  • Harmel RD, Smith PK, Migliaccio KW, Chaubey I, Douglas-Mankin KR, Benham B, Shukla S, Muñoz-Carpena R, Robson BJ (2014) Evaluating, interpreting, and communicating hydrologic/water quality model performance considering intended use: recommendations and review of best practices. Environ Model Softw 57:40–51. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.02.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hook JE, Hoogenboom G, Paz J, Mullen J, Bergstrom J, Risse P (2010) Agricultural irrigation water demand: Georgia’s major and Minor Crops 2011–2050. http://www.nespal.org/SIRP/waterinfo/State/AWD/AgWaterDemand.htm and http://gfvga.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/3.-Forecasting-Georgias-Irrigation-Water-Needs.pdf

  • ISEE Systems (2014) Systems thinking for education and research. http://www.iseesystems.com/softwares/Education/StellaSoftware.aspx

  • Jordan JL, Wolf AT (eds) (2006) Interstate water allocation in Alabama, Florida and Georgia. University of Florida Press, Gainesville, FL, p 271

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney D (1995) Coordination mechanisms for interstate water resources: an overview of lessons and options with potential applicability to the ACT–ACF Rivers basins. Phase I of the the ACT–ACF comprehensive study

  • Klipsch JD, Hurst MB (2007) HEC-ResSim, reservoir system simulation user’s manual, version 3.0. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC), Davis, Calif. http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/Software/Hec-Ressim

  • Leitman SF (2005) Negotiations of a water allocation formula for the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint Basin. In: Scholz JT, Stiftel B (eds) Adaptive governance and water conflicts: new institutions for collaborative planning. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, p 274

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitman SF, Graham S, Stover C (2012) An evaluation of the common ground between environmental and navigation flows in the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint Basin. Final report submitted to the USDA, Apalachicola Riverkeeper’s and Tri-Rivers Waterway Development Association. Apalachicola Riverkeeper, Apalachicola, FL

  • Leitman SF, Kiker G, Wright D (2015a) Simulating system-wide effects of reducing irrigation withdrawals in a disputed river basin. Agric Ecosyst Environ (submitted)

  • Leitman S, Pine B, Kiker G (2015b) Management options during the 2011–2012 drought on the Apalachicola River: a systems dynamic model evaluation. Environ Manage (submitted)

  • Liang H, Zeng W, Jiang F (2014) Investigation of uncertainties in surface water resource assessment of Georgia’s State Water Plan. J Water Resour Plan Manag 140:228–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Light HM, Vincent KR, Darst MR, Price FD (2006) Water-level decline in the Apalachicola River, Florida, from 1954 to 2004, and effects on Floodplain Habitats. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Report, 2006-5173

  • McMahon GF (2009) Models and realities of reservoir management. J Water Resour Plan Manag 135(2):57–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer RN (1998) A history of shared vision modeling in the ACT–ACF comprehensive study: a modeler’s perspective. In: Whipple W, Jr. (eds) Proceedings of special session of ASCE’s 25th annual conference on water resources planning and management and the 1998 annual conference on environmental engineering. Chicago, IL, pp 221–226

  • Richter BD (2014) Chasing water: a guide for moving from scarcity to sustainability. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 171

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter A, Muñoz-Carpena R (2013) Predictive ability of hydrological models: objective assessment of goodness-of-fit with statistical significance. J Hydrol 480(1):33–45. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetra Tech (2013) Final updated scoping report environmental impact statement: update for the water control manual for the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint basin, Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. http://www.sam.usace.army.mil/Portals/46/docs/planning_environmental/acf/docs/1ACF%20Scoping%20Report_Mar2013.pdf. Accessed 9 Feb 2015

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Mobile District and the Hydrologic Engineering Center (1997) Surface water availability: volume 1, unimpaired flow. Prepared under ACT/ACF Comprehensive Water Resources Study

  • USACE, Mobile District (1989) Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint Basin water control plan. In: Post authorization change notification report for the reallocation of storage from hydropower to water supply at Lake Lanier, Georgia, Appendix A

  • USACE, Mobile District (2012) Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint (ACF) remand modeling technical report. Published online at http://www.sam.usace.army.mil

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Hydrologic Engineering Center (USACE-HEC) (1998) HEC-5 simulation of flood control and conservation systems user’s manual. http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/publications/ComputerProgramDocumentation/HEC-5_UsersManual(CPD-5).pdf

  • USACE, Mobile District (2015) Water management data from corps of engineers, Mobile District web page. http://water.sam.usace.army.mil/gage. Accessed 20 March 2015

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Hydrologic Engineering Center (USACE-HEC) (2014) Reservoir system simulation (HEC-ResSim) software. http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ressim/documentation/HEC-ResSim_31_UsersManual.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2014

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2006) United States fish and wildlife service biological opinion and conference report on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Interim Operating Plan for Jim Woodruff Dam and Associated Releases to the Apalachicola River. Last accessed from http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2006/r06-055.html on 11 Feb 2015

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2008) Amended biological opinion and conference report on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. Exceptional drought operations for the interim operating plan for Jim Woodruff Dam and Associated Releases to the Apalachicola River. Last accessed from http://www.fws.gov/southeast/drought/pdf/BO%20for%20RIOP%206-1-2008.pdf on 11 Feb 2015

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012) Biological opinion on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Revised Interim Operating Plan for the Jim Woodruff Dam and the Associated Releases to the Apalachicola River. 166 p. Last accessed from http://www.fws.gov/southeast/news/2012/pdf/woodruffBOFinal.pdf on 11 Feb 2015

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2013a) July 19, 2013 letter from Donald Imm, Project Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Area Office to Curtis Flakes, Chief of Planning and Environmental Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2013b) Planning aid letter, Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint Water control manual update. August 29, 2013 letter from Robin Goodloe, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Athens, Georgia sub-office to Curtis Flakes, Chief of Planning and Environmental Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District

  • Vano JA, Lettenmaier DP (2014) A sensitivity-based approach to evaluating future changes in Colorado River discharge. Clim Change 122:621–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WWAP (World Water Assessment Programme) (2009) The United Nations world water development report 3: water in a changing world. UNESCO/Earthscan, Paris/London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was partially supported as part of an agricultural extension initiative: ‘‘Climate variability to climate change: Extension challenges and opportunities in the Southeast USA’’ and was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant No. 2011-67003-30347 from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). We thank Susan Marynowski for editorial assistance and Stacey Graham, Alabama Power, and Randie Denker for helpful comments on early drafts of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to S. Leitman or G. A. Kiker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leitman, S., Kiker, G.A. Development and comparison of integrated river/reservoir models in the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint basin, USA. Environ Syst Decis 35, 410–423 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9564-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9564-3

Keywords

Navigation