1984
DOI: 10.3133/ofr83757
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ground-water resources of Rusk County, Texas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1987
1987
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Estimates of total recharge from two county studies (Sandeen, 1972;Loskot and others, 1982) were about 1.2 in/yr. However as previously discussed, finite-difference models on average simulate less than total recharge.…”
Section: Simulated and Estimated Water-budget Componentsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Estimates of total recharge from two county studies (Sandeen, 1972;Loskot and others, 1982) were about 1.2 in/yr. However as previously discussed, finite-difference models on average simulate less than total recharge.…”
Section: Simulated and Estimated Water-budget Componentsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…per year (in./yr) to 7 in./yr. A few additional studies report recharge rates within this range (Tarver, 1968;Sandeen, 1972;Loskot and others, 1982). An in-depth discussion of the results from previous recharge studies in the study area is available in Kasmarek and Robinson (2004).…”
Section: Groundwater Flow Conditions Recharge and Dischargementioning
confidence: 95%
“…Because aquifer discharge to streams is not well known, such data are not particularly helpful for comparison with simulated data for purposes of calibration; there was little incentive to add more complexity to an already complex model by explicitly computing flow between streams to the aquifers. Although some additional recharge rates have recently been determined (Tarver, 1968;Sandeen, 1972;Loskot and others, 1982;Baker, 1986; and Kasmarek and Robinson, 2004), the additional complexity of including that information specifically, by substituting the GHB package with the River or Stream package and the Recharge package, was determined to be beyond the scope of this report.…”
Section: Recharge and Dischargementioning
confidence: 98%
“…He agreed with the stratigraphic position of the Burkeville confining layer within the Fleming Formation, but extended the underlying Jasper aquifer deeper into the Catahoula Sandstone. A later study by Sandeen (1968) in nearby San Jacinto County, Texas, recognized the Chicot aquifer above the Evangeline aquifer. Popkin (1971) also recognized the Chicot aquifer above the Evangeline aquifer in Montgomery County, Texas, and in addition divided the Jasper aquifer into two units.…”
Section: C6mentioning
confidence: 99%