Figure 1-1. Location of study area
PDF

Figure 1-2. Major physiographic provinces
PDF

Figure 1-3. Geographic features
PDF

Figure 1-4. Land-Use coverage
PDF

Figure 1-5. Major groundwater basins
PDF

Figure 1-6. Rainfall totals at various rainfall gauges (2001, 2009, and long-term aver-
PDF

Figure 2-1. NFSEG maximum active model domain and grid extent
PDF

Table 2-1. Summary of groundwater hydrology system
PDF

Figure 2-2. Land-surface elevation (and upper limit of the surficial aquifer system;
PDF

Figure 2-3. Bottom elevation of the surficial aquifer system (NAVD88 feet; after Davis
PDF

Figure 2-4. Thickness of the surficial aquifer system (SAS, feet; after Davis and Boniol,
PDF

Figure 2-5. Top elevation of the intermediate confining unit (NAVD88 feet)
PDF

Figure 2-6. Bottom Elevation of the intermediate confining unit (and/or top of the up-
PDF

Figure 2-7. Thickness of the intermediate confining unit (feet; after Davis and Boniol, digi-
PDF

Figure 2-8. Estimated leakance distribution of the intermediate confining unit (ICU, per
PDF

Figure 2-9. Intermediate confining unit vertical head difference, 2001 (feet)
PDF

Figure 2-10. Intermediate confining unit vertical head difference, 2009 (feet)
PDF

Figure 2-11. Hydrogeologic relation between the Floridan aquifer system and the South-
PDF

Figure 2-12. Elevation of 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/l) total-dissolved-solids iso-
PDF

Figure 2-13. Bottom elevation of Zone 1 (and top elevation of Zone 2, feet NAVD88; after
PDF

Figure 2-14. Thickness of Zone 1 (Feet; after Davis and Boniol, digital communication,
PDF

Figure 2-15. Bottom elevation Zone 2 (and top elevation of Zone 3, feet NAVD88; after Da-
PDF

Figure 2-16. Thickness of Zone 2 (Feet; after Davis and Boniol, digital communication 2013;
PDF

Figure 2-17. Bottom elevation of Zone 3 (Feet NAVD88; after Davis and Boniol, digital com-
PDF

Figure 2-18. Thickness of Zone 3 (Feet; after Davis and Boniol, digital communication 2013;
PDF

Figure 2-19. Bottom elevation of the Floridan aquifer system within its freshwater extent
PDF

Figure 2-20. Top elevation of the lower semi-confining unit (NAVD88 Feet; after Miller 1986;
PDF

Figure 2-21. Bottom elevation of the lower semi-confining unit (and top elevation of the Fer-
PDF

Figure 2-22. Thickness of the lower semi-confining unit (feet; after Miller, 1986; Miller, writ-
PDF

Figure 2-23. Top elevation of the Fernandina Permeable Zone (FPZ; feet NAVD88; after
PDF

Figure 2-24. Bottom elevation of the Fernandina Permeable Zone (FPZ, feet NAVD88; after
PDF

Figure 2-25. Thickness of the Fernandina Permeable Zone (FPZ, feet; after Miller, 1986;
PDF

Figure 2-26. Aquifer-performance-test transmissivity estimates, Zone 1 (feet squared per
PDF

Figure 2-27. Estimated transmissivity, upper Floridan aquifer (feet squared per day; after
PDF

Figure 2-28. Estimated potentiometric surface, upper Floridan aquifer, 2001 (Feet NAVD88)
PDF

Figure 2-29. Estimated potentiometric surface, upper Floridan aquifer, 2009 (Feet NAVD88)
PDF

Figure 2-30. Middle confining unit vertical head difference, 2001 (Feet)
PDF

Figure 2-31. Middle confining unit vertical head difference, 2009 (Feet)
PDF

Figure 2-32. Locations and relative discharge rates of springs, 2001
PDF

Figure 2-33. Locations and relative discharge rates of springs, 2009
PDF

Figure 2-35. USGS gauges used for evaluation of baseflow-estimation approach
PDF

Figure 2-36. Cumulative baseflow estimates at selected USGS gauges, 2001
PDF

Figure 2-37. Cumulative baseflow estimates at selected USGS gauges, 2009
PDF

Figure 2-39. Estimated baseflow pickups, Region B, 2001
PDF

Figure 2-40. Estimated baseflow pickups, Region C, 2001
PDF

Figure 2-41. Estimated baseflow pickups, Region A, 2009
PDF

Figure 2-42. Estimated baseflow pickups, Region B, 2009
PDF

Figure 2-43. Estimated baseflow pickups, Region C, 2009
PDF

Figure 2-44. Distribution of total groundwater withdrawals by county (MGD), 2001
PDF

Figure 2-45. Distribution of total groundwater withdrawals by county (MGD), 2009
PDF

Figure 2-46. Groundwater withdrawals by county and use type (MGD), 2001
PDF

Figure 2-47. Groundwater withdrawals by county and use type (MGD), 2009
PDF

Figure 3-1. NFSEG model grid
PDF

Table 3-1. Represented hydrogeologic units of NFSEG model layers
PDF

Figure 3-3.
PDF

Figure 3-4.
PDF

Figure 3-5. Hydrogeologic cross section C-C’
PDF

Figure 3-6. Hydrogeologic cross section D-D’
PDF

Figure 3-7. Hydrogeologic cross section E-E’
PDF

Figure 3-8. Top elevation, Layer 1 (Feet NAVD88; after Boniol and Davis, digital communi
PDF

Figure 3-9.
PDF

Figure 3-10. Thickness, Layer 1 (Feet)
PDF

Figure 3-11. Bottom elevation, Layer 2 (and top elevation, Layer 3; after Boniol and Davis,
PDF

Figure 3-12. Thickness, Layer 2 (Feet)
PDF

Figure 3-13. Bottom elevation, Layer 3 (and top elevation, Layer 4; feet NAVD88; after Bo
PDF

Figure 3-14. Thickness, Layer 3 (Feet)
PDF

Figure 3-15. Bottom elevation, Layer 4 (and top elevation, Layer 5; feet NAVD88; after Bo
PDF

Figure 3-16. Thickness, Layer 4
PDF

Figure 3-17. Bottom elevation, Layer 5 (feet NAVD88; after Miller, 1986; Miller, written com
PDF

Figure 3-18. Thickness, Layer 5 (Feet)
PDF

Figure 3-19. Top elevation, Layer 6 (feet NAVD88; after Miller, 1986; Miller, written commu
PDF

Figure 3-20. Bottom elevation, Layer 6 (Feet NAVD88; after Miller, 1986; Miller, written com-
PDF

Figure 3-21. Thickness, Layer 6 (Feet)
PDF

Figure 3-22. Top elevation, Layer 7 (feet NAVD88, after Miller 1986; Miller, written commu
PDF

Figure 3-23. Bottom elevation, Layer 7 feet NAVD88, after Miller, 1986; Miller, written com
PDF

Figure 3-24. Thickness, Layer 7 (Feet)
PDF

Figure 3-25. Model lateral boundaries, Layer 3
PDF

Figure 3-26. Model lateral boundaries, Layer 4
PDF

Figure 3-27. Model lateral boundaries, Layer 5
PDF

Figure 3-28. Model lateral boundaries, Layer 6
PDF

Figure 3-29. Model lateral boundaries, Layer 7
PDF

Figure 3-30. NHDPlusV2 flow-line sub-segments used in river- and drain-package imple
PDF

Figure 3-31. Portions of NHD flowlines for which river stages were obtained from existing
PDF

Figure 3-32. Artesian-derived wetlands represented in the drain package
PDF

Figure 3-33. USGS HUC8 basins for which HSPF models were developed in support of
PDF

Figure 3-34. Simulated flow components--HSPF vs. MODFLOW
PDF

Figure 3-35. HSPF-derived rates of recharge, 2001 (inches per year)
PDF

Figure 3-36. HSPF-derived rates of recharge, 2009 (inches per year)
PDF

Figure 3-40. Locations of concentrated groundwater influxes
PDF

Figure 3-41. Distribution of public-supply, commercial-industrial, and institutional withdrawals
PDF

Figure 3-42. Distribution of public-supply, commercial-industrial, and institutional withdraw-
PDF

Figure 3-43. Distribution of DSS withdrawals (MGD)
PDF

Figure 3-44. Distribution of agricultural withdrawals
PDF

Figure 3-45. Distribution of specified-head grid cells in Layer 1
PDF

Figure 4-1.
PDF

Figure 4-3. Distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity pilot points, Layer?
PDF

Figure 4-4. Distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity pilot points, Layer 3
PDF

Figure 4-5. Distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity pilot points, Layer 7
PDF

Figure 4-6. Distribution of vertical hydraulic conductivity pilot points, Layer 6
PDF

Figure 4-7. Distribution of vertical hydraulic conductivity pilot points and vertical hydraulic
PDF

Figure 4-8.
PDF

Figure 4-9. Distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity pilot points and horizontal hy-
PDF

Figure 4-10. Distribution of anisotropy pilot points, model Layer 3
PDF

Figure 4-11. (a). Residuals of hydraulic head (feet), model Layer 1, 2001
PDF

Figure 4-11. (b). Relative residuals of hydraulic head (feet), model Layer 1, 2001
PDF

Figure 4-12. (b). Relative residuals of hydraulic head (feet), model Layer 1, 2009
PDF

Figure 4-13. Observed hydraulic head (feet NAVD88), model Layer 1, 2001
PDF

Figure 4-14. Observed versus simulated hydraulic head (feet NAVD88), model Layer 1,
PDF

Figure 4-15. Simulated water table of model Layer 1 (feet NAVD88), 2001
PDF

Figure 4-16. Simulated water table of model Layer 1 (feet NAVD88), 2009
PDF

Figure 4-17. Residuals of vertical head differences (feet), model Layers 1 and 3, 2001
PDF

Figure 4-18. Residuals of vertical head differences (feet), model Layers 1 and 3, 2009
PDF

Figure 4-19. Observed versus simulated vertical head differences (feet), model Layers 1 and
PDF

Figure 4-20. Observed versus S=simulated vertical head differences (feet), model Layers 1
PDF

Figure 4-21. (a). Residuals of hydraulic head (feet), model Layer 3, 2001
PDF

Figure 4-21. (b). Relative Residuals of Hydraulic Head (Feet), Model Layer 3, 2001
PDF

Figure 4-22. (a). Residuals of Hydraulic Head (Feet), Model Layer 3, 2009
PDF

Figure 4-22. (b). Relative Residuals of Hydraulic Head (Feet), Model Layer 3, 2009
PDF

Figure 4-23. Observed versus simulated hydraulic head (feet NAVD88), model Layer 3, 2001
PDF

Figure 4-24. Observed versus simulated hydraulic head (Feet NAVD88), model Layer 3,
PDF

Figure 4-25. Residuals of horizontal head differences (feet), model Layer 3, 2001
PDF

Figure 4-26. Residuals of horizontal head differences (feet), model Layer 3, 2009
PDF

Figure 4-27. Observed versus simulated horizontal head differences (feet), model Layer 3,
PDF

Figure 4-28. Observed versus simulated horizontal head differences (feet), model Layer 3,
PDF

Figure 4-29. Simulated potentiometric surface, model Layer 3 (Feet NAVD88), 2001
PDF

Figure 4-30. Simulated potentiometric surface, model Layer 3 (Feet NAVD88), 2009
PDF

Figure 4-31. Residuals of vertical head differences (feet), model Layers 3 and 5, 2001
PDF

Figure 4-32. Residuals of vertical head differences (feet), model Layers 3 and 5, 2009
PDF

Figure 4-33. Observed versus simulated vertical head differences (feet), model Layers 3 and
PDF

Figure 4-34. Observed versus simulated vertical head differences (feet), model Layers 3 and 4
PDF

Figure 4-35. Residuals of hydraulic head (feet), model Layer 5, 2001
PDF

Figure 4-36. Residuals of hydraulic head (feet), model Layer 5, 2009
PDF

Figure 4-37. Observed versus simulated hydraulic head (feet NAVD88), model Layer 5,
PDF

Figure 4-38. Observed versus simulated hydraulic head (feet NAVD88), model Layer 5,
PDF

Figure 4-39. Simulated potentiometric surface, model Layer 5 (feet NAVD88), 2001
PDF

Figure 4-40. Simulated potentiometric surface, model Layer 5 (feet NAVD88), 2009
PDF

Figure 4-41. Magnitude 1 springs and spring groups and corresponding estimated flowrates
PDF

Figure 4-42. Magnitude 1 springs and spring groups and corresponding estimated flowrates
PDF

Figure 4-43. Observed vs. simulated spring discharges (cfs), 2001 (sign convention for flows
PDF

Figure 4-44. Observed vs. simulated spring discharges (cfs), 2009 (sign convention for flows
PDF

Figure 4-45. Observed vs. simulated spring-group discharges (cfs), 2001 (sign convention
PDF

Figure 4-46. Observed vs. simulated spring-group discharges (cfs), 2009 (sign convention
PDF

Table 4-7. Comparisons of simulated versus estimated spring flows of selected first-magnitude
PDF

Table 4-8. Comparisons of simulated versus estimated spring flows of selected first-magnitude
PDF

Figure 4-48. Estimated baseflow pickup residuals (cfs), Region B, 2001 (sign convention for
PDF

Figure 4-49. Estimated baseflow pickup residuals (cfs), Region C, 2001 (sign convention for
PDF

Figure 4-50. Estimated baseflow pickup residuals (cfs), Region A, 2009 (sign convention for
PDF

Figure 4-51. Estimated baseflow pickup residuals (cfs), Region B, 2009 (sign convention for
PDF

Figure 4-52. Estimated baseflow pickup residuals (cfs), Region C, 2009 (sign convention for
PDF

Figure 4-53. Estimated versus simulated baseflow pickups (cfs), 2001 (sign convention for
PDF

Figure 4-54. Estimated versus simulated baseflow pickups (cfs), 2009 (sign convention for
PDF

Figure 4-55. Cumulative baseflow residuals (cfs), 2001 (sign convention for flows is con-
PDF

Figure 4-56. Estimated vs. simulated cumulative baseflows (cfs), 2009 (sign convention for
PDF

Figure 4-57. Estimated vs. simulated cumulative baseflows (cfs), 2001 (sign convention for
PDF

Figure 4-58. Estimated cumulative baseflow residuals (cfs), 2009 (sign convention for flows
PDF

Figure 4-59. Simulated net recharge rates (inches/year), 2001
PDF

Figure 4-60. Simulated net recharge rates (inches/year), 2009
PDF

Figure 4-61. Flow through lower face, Layer 2, 2001 (downward leakage rate, Layer 2 to 3,
PDF

Figure 4-62. Flow through lower face, Layer 2, 2009 (downward leakage rate, Layer 2 to 3,
PDF

Figure 4-63. Flow through lower face, Layer 2, 2001 (upward leakage rate, Layer 3 to 2,
PDF

Figure 4-64. Flow through lower face, Layer 2, 2009 (upward leakage rate, Layer 3 to 2,
PDF

Figure 4-65. Flow through lower face, Layer 4, 2001 (downward leakage rate, Layer 4 to 5,
PDF

Figure 4-66. Flow through lower face, Layer 4, 2009 (downward leakage rate, Layer 4 to 5,
PDF

Figure 4-67. Flow through lower face, Layer 4, 2001 (upward leakage rate, Layer 5 to 4,
PDF

Figure 4-68. Flow through lower face, Layer 4, 2009 (upward leakage rate, Layer 5 to 4,
PDF

Figure 4-69. Modeled distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity (feet/day), model Layer 1
PDF

Figure 4-70. Modeled distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity (feet/day), model Layer 3
PDF

Figure 4-71. Modeled distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity (feet/day), model Layer 5
PDF

Figure 4-72. Modeled distribution of horizontal hydraulic conductivity (feet/day), model Layer 7
PDF

Figure 4-73. Spatial distribution of transmissivity (feet squared/day), model Layer 3
PDF

Figure 4-74. Spatial distribution of transmissivity (feet squared/day), upper Floridan aquifer —
PDF

Figure 4-75. Difference in transmissivity of Layer 3 and upper-Floridan-aquifer transmissivity
PDF

Figure 4-76. Multi-well-APT-derived transmissivity versus calibration-derived transmissivity
PDF

Figure 4-77. Spatial distribution of transmissivity (feet squared/day), model Layer 5. NFSEG
PDF

Figure 4-78. Modeled distribution of vertical hydraulic conductivity (feet/day), model Layer 2
PDF

Figure 4-79. Modeled distribution of vertical hydraulic conductivity (feet/day), model Layer 4
PDF

Figure 4-80. Modeled distribution of vertical hydraulic conductivity (feet/day), model Layer 6
PDF

Figure 4-81. Modeled distribution of leakance, model Layer 2
PDF

Figure 4-82. Modeled distribution of leakance, model Layer 4
PDF

Table 4-9. Model calibration and discretization properties
PDF

Table 4-10. Domain-wide groundwater-level calibration statistics comparison
PDF

Table 4-11. Model overlap groundwater-level calibration statistics comparison
PDF

Figure 4-83. Residuals of UFA hydraulic head (feet), North Florida Model Version 2 and
PDF

Figure 4-84. Residuals of UFA hydraulic head (feet), Peninsular Florida Model Version 2
PDF

Figure 4-85. Scatter plot of NFSEG v1.1 transmissivity vs. NFSEG APT database, confined
PDF

Figure 4-86. Scatter plot of NFSEG v1.1 transmissivity vs. NFSEG APT database, unconfined
PDF

Figure 4-87. Locations and results of APTs used for comparisons to calibration-derived
PDF

Figure 4-88. Scatter plot of NF v2 UFA transmissivity vs. NFSEG APT database, confined
PDF

Figure 4-89. Scatter plot of NF v2 UFA transmissivity vs. NFSEG APT database, unconfined
PDF

Figure 4-90. Scatter plot of PF v2 UFA transmissivity vs. NFSEG APT Database, confined
PDF

Figure 4-91. Scatter plot of PF v2 UFA transmissivity vs. NFSEG APT database, unconfined
PDF

Table 4-13. Groundwater-level calibration statistics: overall model domain versus
PDF

Figure 4-92. Map of North Florida regional water supply planning area
PDF

Figure 5-1. Map of annual average precipitation in 2010, and bar charts of 2001, 2009 and
PDF

Figure 5-2.
PDF

Figure 5-6. In the year 2010, the recharge rate was higher than in 2001 and 2009 in the
PDF

Figure 5-3. Map of annual average MSET in 2010, and bar charts of 2001, 2009 and 2010
PDF

Figure 5-4. Difference in precipitation rate between 2010 and 2001 (left) and 2010 and 2009
PDF

Figure 5-5. Map of annual average recharge rate in 2010, and bar charts of 2001, 2009 and
PDF

Figure 5-6. Difference in recharge rate between 2010 and 2001 (left) and 2010 and 2009
PDF

Figure 5-7. Distribution of public-supply, commercial-industrial and institutional withdrawals
PDF

Figure 5-8. Distribution of total groundwater withdrawals by county (MGD), 2010
PDF

Figure 5-9. Distribution of multi-aquifer wells in 2010
PDF

Table 5-1. Summary of groundwater withdrawals and influxes
PDF

Figure 5-10. Distribution of observation wells, 2010
PDF

Figure 5-11. Simulated vs. observed groundwater levels (feet NAVD88), Model Layer 1,
PDF

Figure 5-12. Simulated vs. observed groundwater levels (feet NAVD88), Model Layer 3,
PDF

Figure 5-13. Simulated vs. observed groundwater levels (feet NAVD88), Model Layer 5,
PDF

Figure 5-14. Residual groundwater level statistics comparison for model Layers 1, 3 and 5
PDF

Figure 5-15. Simulated vs. observed spring discharges (cfs), 2010
PDF

Figure 5-16. Residual spring discharge statistics comparison
PDF

Table 5-2. Observed and simulated spring flows
PDF

Table 5-3. Range of estimated cumulative baseflow and simulated baseflow
PDF

Figure 5-17. Simulated vs. estimated easeflow pickups (cfs), 2010
PDF

Figure 5-18. Residual baseflow pickup statistics comparison
PDF

Figure 5-19. Simulated vs. estimated range of cumulative baseflow estimates in 2010
PDF

Figure 5-20. Residual cumulative baseflow statistics comparison
PDF

Table 5-5. Distribution of water level residuals in model Layer 3 by GWB
PDF

Figure 5-21. 2010 groundwater level residuals, model Layer 1
PDF

Figure 5-22. 2010 groundwater level residuals, model Layer 3
PDF

Figure 5-23. Simulated UFA potentiometric surface, 2010
PDF

Figure 5-24. Observed UFA potentiometric surface, 2010
PDF

Figure 5-25. Model wide mass balance summary, 2010 (arrows indicate net flow into or out
PDF

Figure 5-26. USGS estimated predevelopment potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer
PDF

Figure 5-27. NFSEG simulated no-pumping Layer 3 potentiometric surface and USGS esti-
PDF

Figure 5-28. Differences between the USGS estimated predevelopment potentiometric sur-
PDF

Figure 5-29. Increases in depth of flooding of NFSEG Layer 1 between the NFSEG 2009 and
PDF

Table 5-9. Summary statistics of annual average flow and annual average baseflows,
PDF

Table 5-12. Summary statistics of annual average flow and annual average baseflows, 1933
PDF

Table 5-15. Summary statistics of annual average Flow and annual average baseflows,
PDF

Figure 6-3. Simulated model wide mass balance for 2009
PDF

Figure 6-5. Simulated model wide mass balance for no-pumping
PDF

Table 6-2. Simulated model wide mass balance for 2009 (all flows in/yr)
PDF

Table 6-4. Simulated model wide mass balance for no-pumping (all flows in/yr)
PDF

Figure 6-7. Simulated mass balance of GWB 1 for 2009
PDF

Figure 6-8. Simulated mass balance of GWB 1 for 2010
PDF

Table 6-6. Simulated mass balance of GWB 1 for 2009 (all flows in/yr)
PDF

Figure 6-9. Simulated mass balance of GWB 1 for no-pumping
PDF

Figure 6-10. Simulated mass balance of GWB 2 for 2001
PDF

Figure 6-12. Simulated mass balance of GWB 2 for 2010
PDF

Table 6-10. Simulated mass balance of GWB 2 for 2009 (all flows in/yr)
PDF

Table 6-11. Simulated mass balance of GWB 2 for 2010 (all flows in/yr); Figure 6-13. Simulated mass balance of GWB 2 for no-pumping
PDF

Figure 6-14. Simulated mass balance of GWB 3 for 2001
PDF

Figure 6-16. Simulated mass balance of GWB 3 for 2009
PDF

Table 6-15. Simulated mass balance of GWB 3 for 2010 (all flows in/yr)
PDF

Figure 6-17. Simulated mass balance of GWB 3 for no-pumping
PDF

Figure 6-19. Simulated mass balance of GWB 4 for 2009
PDF

Figure 6-20. Simulated mass balance of GWB 4 for 2010
PDF

Table 6-20. Simulated mass balance of GWB 4 for no-pumping (all flows in/yr)
PDF

Figure 6-22. Simulated mass balance of GWB 5 for 2001
PDF

Figure 6-24. Simulated mass balance of GWB 5 for 2010
PDF

Table 6-23. Simulated mass balance of GWB 5 for 2010 (all flows in/yr)
PDF

Figure 6-26. Simulated mass balance of GWB 6 for 2001
PDF

Figure 6-28. Simulated mass balance of GWB 6 for 2010
PDF

Table 6-26. Simulated mass balance of GWB 6 for 2009 (all flows in/yr)
PDF

Figure 6-29. Simulated mass balance of GWB 6 for no-pumping
PDF

Table 6-28. Simulated mass balance of GWB 6 for no pumping (all flows in/yr)
PDF

Figure 6-30. Simulated mass balance of GWB 7 for 2001
PDF

Figure 6-32. Simulated mass balance of GWB 7 for 2009
PDF

Table 6-31. Simulated mass balance of GWB 7 for 2010 (all flows in/yr)
PDF

Figure 6-33. Simulated mass balance of GWB 7 for no-pumping
PDF

Figure 6-35. Inflows and outflows of simulated model wide mass balance for 2009
PDF

Figure 6-37. Inflows and outflows of simulated model wide mass balance for no-pumping
PDF

Table 7-1. Traditional Sensitivity Analysis Parameter Sets
PDF

Figure 7-1. Sensitivity of simulated groundwater levels to changes in aquifer parameters and
PDF

Figure 7-2. Sensitivity of simulated baseflows levels to changes in aquifer parameters and
PDF

Figure 7-3. Sensitivity of simulated spring flows levels to changes in aquifer parameters and
PDF

Figure 7-4. Sensitivity of simulated groundwater levels to changes in lateral boundary heads
PDF

Figure 7-5. Sensitivity of simulated baseflows to changes in lateral boundary heads
PDF

Figure 7-6. Sensitivity of simulated spring flows to changes in lateral boundary heads
PDF

Figure 7-8. Composite-scaled sensitivities for groundwater-level observations. Parameter
PDF

Figure 7-10. Composite-scaled sensitivities for groundwater-level observations. Parameter
PDF

Figure 7-12. Locations evaluated in the prediction uncertainty analysis.
PDF

Figure 7-13. Histogram for the predicted change in flow in the Upper Floridan aquifer ground-
PDF

Figure 7-14. Histogram for the predicted flow reduction in the Santa Fe River near Fort White
PDF

Figure 9-1. Legend for HSPF model simulation graphics in Figure 2 and Figure 3
PDF

Table 9-2. HSPF meteorological boundary conditions
PDF

Table 9-4. Spatial data
PDF

Table 9-5. NLDAS parameters in forcing file
PDF

Table 9-6. List of datasets used to develop the NLDAS precipitation dataset
PDF

Figure 9-2. Illustration of water storage and movement in HSPF PERvious LaND (PERLND)
PDF

Figure 9-3. Illustration of water storage and movement in the HSPF model impervious land
PDF

Figure 9-4. Water collection and movement in a HSPF reach/reservoir element (RCHRES)
PDF

Table 9-7. Comparison of available data from NLDAS, NEXRAD and rain gauges
PDF

Figure 9-5. Average annual difference between NEXRAD and NLDAS precipitation
PDF

Figure 9-6. NLDAS annual precipitation for 2001 in inches
PDF

Figure 9-7. NLDAS annual precipitation for 2009 in inches
PDF

Figure 9-8. NLDAS annual precipitation for 2010 in inches
PDF

Figure 9-9. Comparison of NLDAS potential evaporation to USGS potential evaporation at
PDF

Table 9-8. Monthly tensioning factors for NLDAS potential evaporation
PDF

Figure 9-10. Potential evaporation for 2001 from NLDAS tensioned to USGS
PDF

Figure 9-11. Potential evaporation for 2009 from NLDAS tensioned to USGS
PDF

Figure 9-12. Potential evaporation for 2010 from NLDAS tensioned to USGS
PDF

Table 9-9. Irrigation type matched to appropriate part of HSPF water balance
PDF

Figure 9-13. USGS HUC8 watersheds
PDF

Figure 9-14. Elevation from the National Elevation Dataset (NED), now 3DEP
PDF

Table 9-10. NLCD and HSPF land cover classifications
PDF

Table 9-10. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-10. -- Continued
PDF

Figure 9-15. National Land Cover database, land cover for 2001
PDF

Table 9-11. Percentage pervious land cover of directly connected impervious area
PDF

Figure 9-16.
PDF

Table 9-12. USGS flow data quality categories (Kennedy 1983)
PDF

Figure 9-17. USGS quality assessment of flow data for water year 2009
PDF

Table 9-13. Literature total evapotranspiration by land cover
PDF

Table 9-13. -- Continued
PDF

Figure 9-18. Map of closed basins within the NFSEG model
PDF

Figure 9-19. Conventional representation of a subwatershed for a tributary basin
PDF

Figure 9-20. Closed basin representation of a sink to replace outflow, where surface flow Q = 0
PDF

Figure 9-21. Sink and drainage wells within NFSEG domain
PDF

Figure 9-22. Conceptual framework for the IGWO representation of springs
PDF

Figure 9-23. UFA Potentiometric surface and springsheds in the Suwannee River Basin
PDF

Figure 9-24. Identified subwatersheds that were used as springshed outlets
PDF

Figure 9-25. Overview of calibration process
PDF

Table 9-14. Observations and statistics used in the PEST objective function for each USGS
PDF

Table 9-14. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-15. Total Actual ET (TAET) observation groups in the objective function.
PDF

Table 9-16. Grading model calibration performance. Adapted from Moriasi et al. (2007)
PDF

Table 9-17. Observed and simulated mean monthly flows, percent differences in flows, and Nash-Sutcliffe coefficients for monthly data. All flow values are in cubic feet per second (cfs).
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Table 9-17. -- Continued
PDF

Figure 9-26. Map showing Nash-Sutcliffe values for model calibrations at individual gauges
PDF

Figure 9-27. Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency values plotted against USGS data quality evaluation
PDF

Figure 9-28. Percent bias chart plotted against USGS data quality evaluation
PDF