{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/46487"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/46487","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Estimating the Components of a Wetland Water Budget","abstract":"The design of wetlands to replace those lost to development requires quantitative understanding of the wetland water budget in order to estimate the amount of water available to the wetland over time. Many methods exist to estimate each component of the wetland water budget. In this study, monthly values of the water budget components namely, precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration, and groundwater seepage were calculated using a water budget model and compared to on-site field measurements for a wetland in Manassas, Prince William County, VA. The monthly precipitation estimated from a weather station 32.18 km from the site differed from the on-site values by as much as 2.9 times. Runoff estimates calculated by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method using antecedent moisture condition (AMC) II underpredicted runoff for every month by as high as 100 percent compared to the on-site measured runoff. The choice of AMC greatly affected the SCS runoff estimates. Runoff was the dominant water budget component at the Manassas wetland. The evapotranspiration (ET) estimates using the Thornthwaite method either over or underestimated ET when compared to ET calculated from diurnal cycles of the water table in the wetland. Groundwater seepage losses were calculated using Darcy's equation with an assumed hydraulic gradient of one, and with gradients measured with nested piezometers. Seepage losses at the Manassas wetland were negligible. Overall, the water budget model provided conservative estimates of the available water in the wetland during the 10-month period of observation.","abstract_html":"The design of wetlands to replace those lost to development requires quantitative understanding of the wetland water budget in order to estimate the amount of water available to the wetland over time. Many methods exist to estimate each component of the wetland water budget. In this study, monthly values of the water budget components namely, precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration, and groundwater seepage were calculated using a water budget model and compared to on-site field measurements for a wetland in Manassas, Prince William County, VA. The monthly precipitation estimated from a weather station 32.18 km from the site differed from the on-site values by as much as 2.9 times. Runoff estimates calculated by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method using antecedent moisture condition (AMC) II underpredicted runoff for every month by as high as 100 percent compared to the on-site measured runoff. The choice of AMC greatly affected the SCS runoff estimates. Runoff was the dominant water budget component at the Manassas wetland. The evapotranspiration (ET) estimates using the Thornthwaite method either over or underestimated ET when compared to ET calculated from diurnal cycles of the water table in the wetland. Groundwater seepage losses were calculated using Darcy's equation with an assumed hydraulic gradient of one, and with gradients measured with nested piezometers. Seepage losses at the Manassas wetland were negligible. Overall, the water budget model provided conservative estimates of the available water in the wetland during the 10-month period of observation.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Fomchenko, Nicole M.S."],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences","degree_department":"Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Persaud, Naraine"],"committee_members":["Focazio, Michael","Aust, W. Michael","Daniels, W. Lee"],"year":1998,"date_issued":"1998-04-23","date_published":"1998-04-23","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:41Z","subjects":["wetland hydrology","water budget","water balance","precipitation","evapotranspiration","runoff","stream flow","groundwater","water storage"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-41398-11346"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-41398-11346","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/46487","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Persaud, Naraine"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Focazio, Michael","Aust, W. Michael","Daniels, W. Lee"]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Fomchenko, Nicole M.S."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T21:52:55Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T21:52:55Z","1999-05-13"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1998-04-23"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["wetland hydrology","water budget","water balance","precipitation","evapotranspiration","runoff","stream flow","groundwater","water storage"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-41398-11346"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/46487"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The design of wetlands to replace those lost to development requires quantitative understanding of the wetland water budget in order to estimate the amount of water available to the wetland over time. Many methods exist to estimate each component of the wetland water budget. In this study, monthly values of the water budget components namely, precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration, and groundwater seepage were calculated using a water budget model and compared to on-site field measurements for a wetland in Manassas, Prince William County, VA. The monthly precipitation estimated from a weather station 32.18 km from the site differed from the on-site values by as much as 2.9 times. Runoff estimates calculated by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method using antecedent moisture condition (AMC) II underpredicted runoff for every month by as high as 100 percent compared to the on-site measured runoff. The choice of AMC greatly affected the SCS runoff estimates. Runoff was the dominant water budget component at the Manassas wetland. The evapotranspiration (ET) estimates using the Thornthwaite method either over or underestimated ET when compared to ET calculated from diurnal cycles of the water table in the wetland. Groundwater seepage losses were calculated using Darcy's equation with an assumed hydraulic gradient of one, and with gradients measured with nested piezometers. Seepage losses at the Manassas wetland were negligible. Overall, the water budget model provided conservative estimates of the available water in the wetland during the 10-month period of observation."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Estimating the Components of a Wetland Water Budget"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Persaud, Naraine"],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Focazio, Michael","Aust, W. Michael","Daniels, W. Lee"],"dc:contributor.department":["Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences"],"dc:creator":["Fomchenko, Nicole M.S."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T21:52:55Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T21:52:55Z","1999-05-13"],"dc:date.issued":["1998-04-23"],"dc:description.abstract":["The design of wetlands to replace those lost to development requires quantitative understanding of the wetland water budget in order to estimate the amount of water available to the wetland over time. Many methods exist to estimate each component of the wetland water budget. In this study, monthly values of the water budget components namely, precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration, and groundwater seepage were calculated using a water budget model and compared to on-site field measurements for a wetland in Manassas, Prince William County, VA. The monthly precipitation estimated from a weather station 32.18 km from the site differed from the on-site values by as much as 2.9 times. Runoff estimates calculated by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) method using antecedent moisture condition (AMC) II underpredicted runoff for every month by as high as 100 percent compared to the on-site measured runoff. The choice of AMC greatly affected the SCS runoff estimates. Runoff was the dominant water budget component at the Manassas wetland. The evapotranspiration (ET) estimates using the Thornthwaite method either over or underestimated ET when compared to ET calculated from diurnal cycles of the water table in the wetland. Groundwater seepage losses were calculated using Darcy's equation with an assumed hydraulic gradient of one, and with gradients measured with nested piezometers. Seepage losses at the Manassas wetland were negligible. Overall, the water budget model provided conservative estimates of the available water in the wetland during the 10-month period of observation."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-41398-11346"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/46487"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["wetland hydrology","water budget","water balance","precipitation","evapotranspiration","runoff","stream flow","groundwater","water storage"],"dc:title":["Estimating the Components of a Wetland Water Budget"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:41Z"}