Premium
HYDROLOGIC MODELING AT THE WATERSHED SCALE USING NPSM 1
Author(s) -
Carrubba Lee
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
jawra journal of the american water resources association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.957
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1752-1688
pISSN - 1093-474X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb05723.x
Subject(s) - watershed , hydrology (agriculture) , environmental science , hydrological modelling , scale (ratio) , geology , computer science , geography , climatology , geotechnical engineering , cartography , machine learning
The Nonpoint Source Model (NPSM) was chosen for nonpoint source pollutant modeling within three different watersheds. The first step in using NPSM, hydrologic calibration, is discussed here for three 8‐digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs) from the White River Basin in Indiana (Driftwood HUC), the Albemarle‐Pamlico River Basin in Virginia and North Carolina (Contentnea HUC), and the Apalachicola‐Chattahoochee‐Flint River Basin in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida (Ichawaynochaway HUC). Model predicted flows were compared statistically with USGS gauge data at the HUC outflow points for an uncalibrated and calibrated model run for the period from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 1992, and a validation run for the period from January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1995. Least squares regression of NPSM predicted flows versus USGS gauge data were 0.75, 0.44, and 0.69 for the calibration runs and 0.71, 0.69, and 0.64 for the validation runs in the Driftwood, Contentnea, and Ichawaynochaway HUCs, respectively. Nash Sutcliffe coefficient values were not as strong, ranging from −0.66 to 0.45 for the calibration runs and 0.31 to 0.37 for the validation runs of the model. The Ichawaynochaway HUC proved the most difficult to calibrate indicating that the model may not be as useful in some geographic locations.