EPA-600/3-76-014
January 1976
Ecological Research Series
THE INFLUENCE OF LAND USE ON
STREAM NUTRIENT LEVELS
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into
five series. These five broad categories were established to
facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in
related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
series. This series describes research conducted to develop
new or improved methods and instrumentation for the identifi-
cation and quantification of environmental pollutants at the
lowest conceivably significant concentrations. It also includes
studies to determine the ambient concentrations of pollutants in
the environment and/or the variance of pollutants as a function
of time or meteorological factors.
This document is available to the public through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/3-76-014
January 1976
THE INFLUENCE OF LAND USE
ON
STREAM NUTRIENT LEVELS
By
James M. Omernik
Eutrophication Survey Branch
Cervallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Con/all is, Oregon 97330
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97330
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Con/all is Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
National Eutrophication Survey (NES) data for 473 non-point type
drainage areas in the eastern United States were studied for relation-
ships between drainage area characteristics (particularly land use)
and nutrient levels in streams. Both the total and inorganic forms of
phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations and loads in streams were
considered.
The objectives were to: (1) investigate these relationships, as
they were evidenced by the NES data and; (2) develop a means for esti-
mating stream nutrient levels from knowledge of "macro" drainage area
characteristics.
Mean nutrient levels were considerably higher in streams draining
agricultural watersheds than in streams draining forested watersheds.
The levels were generally proportional to the percentages of land in
agriculture, or the combined percentages of agricultural and urban
land use. Variations in nutrient loads (exports) in streams, associated
with differences in land use categories, were not as pronounced as the
variations in nutrient concentrations. This was apparently due, in
large part, to differences in areal stream flow from different land
use types.
Regression analyses of the combined percentages of agricultural and
urban land uses against both the total and inorganic forms of phosphorus
and nitrogen were performed. Equations for these analyses, together
with maps illustrating the equations' residuals, offer a limited predictive
capability and some accountability for regional characteristics.
ill
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study would not have been possible without the volunteer
manpower supplied by the National Guard of each state. The Guardsmen
were responsible for collecting, preserving, and shipping the monthly
samples from each designated stream site. Their contribution is
sincerely appreciated.
Also gratefully acknowledged are the efforts of Mr. Robert R.
Payne (Coordinator, National Eutrophication Survey, Washington, D.C.),
who worked with each State water pollution control agency in initiating
the survey, and Lt. Col. Louis R. Dworshak (Coordinator of Military
Resources, Washington, D.C.), who arranged for the participation of
the National Guard in each state.
Most of the data compilation (land use photo interpretation,
drainage area and slope measurement, etc.) was accomplished by the
following persons: June Fabryka, Madeline Hall, Thomas Jackson, Rose
McCloud, Martha McCoy, Ted McDowell, Nola Murri, Michael Ness, James
Sachet, and Leta Gay Snyder. Many of these individuals also assisted
in graphics compilation and various aspects of basic research.
Dr. Don A. Pierce was primarily responsible for the construction
of the prediction models. Both Dr. Pierce and Dr. Dale H. P. Boland
provided assistance with computer programming and statistical data
manipulation.
Many of the staff at the Con/all is Environmental Research Laboratory
contributed input to this study through the logistic support, constructive
suggestions, and technical editing. Especially deserving of recognition
are Dr. Jack H. Gakstatter and Dr. Norbert A. Jaworski for their solid
support and invaluable guidance.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables viii
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Introduction 3
History and Objectives 3
Literature 4
Study Area Selection Criteria 6
Overall Study Area Description 8
III Data Collection Methods 12
Drainage Area Measurement and Land Use Identification 12
Land Use Percentage Computation 12
Animal Unit Density Computations 13
Geology Identification 14
Slope Computations 15
Other Procedures 16
IV Discussion of Results 17
Area! Distribution of Data 17
Overall Land Use--Nutrient Runoff Relationships 23
Category Definitions 23
General Analysis 23
Regionality 31
Individual Relationships and Prediction Capability 41
"Contributing" Land Use Types and Stream Nutrients 41
"Contributing" Land Use Types and Nutrient
Concentrations 42
"Contributing" Land Use Types and Nutrient Export 50
Regionality 50
Nutrient Runoff—Soils Relationships 53
Nutrient Runoff--Geology Relationships 59
V References 65
VI Appendix 69
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
1 Distribution of individual NES land use study drainage
areas. 5
2 Physical subdivisions of the eastern United States. 9
3 Geology of the eastern United States. 10
4 Mean annual precipitation in the eastern United States. 11
5 Areal distribution of percentages of land in agriculture
and urban land use in study drainage areas in the eastern
United States. 18
6 Areal distribution of mean total phosphorus concentra-
tions in streams draining study areas in the eastern
United States. 20
7 Areal distribution of mean total nitrogen concentrations
in streams draining study areas in the eastern United
States. 21
8 Distribution of mean annual areal flow in streams draining
study areas in the eastern United States. 22
9 Relationships between general land use and total phosphorus
and total nitrogen concentrations in streams. 24
10 Relationships between general land use and orthophosphorus
and inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams. 26
11 Relationships between general land use and stream exports
of total phosphorus and total nitrogen. 28
12 Relationships between general land use and stream exports
of orthophosphorus and inorganic nitrogen. 29
13 Frequency polygons of mean total phosphorus and mean total
nitrogen concentrations in streams by overall land use
category. 32
14 Frequency polygons of mean orthophosphorus and mean inor-
ganic nitrogen concentrations in streams by overall land
use category. 33
15 Frequency polygons of mean total phosphorus and mean
total nitrogen stream exports by overall land use
category. 34
16 Frequency polygons of mean orthophosphorus and mean
inorganic nitrogen stream exports. 35
VI
-------
17 Land resource regions in the eastern United States. 36
18 Regional relationships between general land use and
total phosphorus concentrations in streams. 37
19 Regional relationships between general land use and
total nitrogen concentrations in streams. 38
20 Regional relationships between general land use and
stream export of total phosphorus. 39
21 Regional relationships between general land use and
stream export of total nitrogen. 40
22 Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to
phosphorus concentrations in streams. 43
23 Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to
nitrogen concentrations in streams. 47
24 Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to
orthophosphorus concentrations in streams. 51
25 Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to
inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams. 52
26 Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to
stream exports of total phosphorus and total nitrogen. 53
27 Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to
exports of orthophosphorus and inorganic nitrogen. 54
28 Areal distribution of residuals from a prediction model
for total phosphorus concentrations in streams studied
in the eastern United States. 56
29 Areal distribution of residuals from a prediction model
for total nitrogen concentrations in streams studied in
the eastern United States. 57
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No.
1 Animal nutrient production. 13
2 Predicted mean total phosphorus concentrations. 42
3 Predicted mean total phosphorus concentrations for
simple and regional models. 45
4 Predicted mean total nitrogen concentrations. 46
5 Predicted mean total nitrogen concentrations for
simple and regional models. 48
6 Ranges and mean values for export of total phosphorus
from 31 southern Ontario watersheds. 60
7 Ranges and mean values for export of total phosphorus
from 43 watersheds. Values include data given in
Table 6 and additional data from the literature. 60
8 Geologic classification and mean values for stream
nutrient concentrations and exports from 223 sub-
drainage areas in the eastern United States. Data
grouped by overall land use category. 62
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of drainage area characteristics and stream nutrient
runoff data compiled for 473 non-point source-type drainage areas in
the eastern United States indicate that:
1. Streams draining agricultural watersheds had, on the average,
considerably higher nutrient concentrations than those draining forested
watersheds. Nutrient concentrations were generally proportional to the
percent of land in agriculture. Mean total phosphorus concentrations
were nearly ten times greater in streams draining agricultural lands
than in streams draining forested areas. The difference in mean total
nitrogen concentrations was about five-fold.
2. In general, inorganic nitrogen made up a larger percentage of
total nitrogen concentrations in streams with larger percentages of land
in agriculture. The inorganic nitrogen component increased from about
27% in streams draining forested areas to over 75% in streams draining
agricultural watersheds. The inorganic portion (orthophosphorus) of
the total phosphorus component stayed roughly at the 40% level regardless
of land use type.
3. Differences in nutrient loads in streams associated with different
land use categories were not as pronounced as differences in nutrient
concentrations. Mean total phosphorus export from agricultural lands was
3.7 times greater than that from forested lands; mean total nitrogen export
was 2.2 times greater. Differences in magnitude between the relationships
of concentration to land use and export to land use appear to be due mainly
to differences in areal stream flow from different land use types, and to
a lesser degree, to differences in the mean annual precipitation patterns
and mean slope of study areas.
-------
4. Relationships between nutrient levels in streams and "contribu-
ting" land use types (percent of drainage area in agricultural land
plus the percent in urban land use [% agriculture plus % urban]) were
found to be more significant than those considering only one land use
type. Separate regression analyses of % agriculture plus % urban
against both the total and inorganic forms of phosphorus and nitrogen
concentrations were performed. Equations from these analyses offer a
limited predictive capability. More complicated equations taking into
consideration regional characteristics and/or drainage area character-
istics other than land use, afforded only slightly better predictive
capabilities over the simple equations.
5. Because of the effects of various aspects on the "flow" portion
of the export computation, the most accurate method of predicting export
values or stream loads appears to be by using the appropriate model for
stream nutrient concentrations and then multiplying by flow.
6. Qualitative refinement of the simple prediction models for
total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations are provided in
maps of each model's residuals. These maps indicate where, in the
eastern United States, nutrient concentrations can be expected to
be greater, equal to, or less than those predicted by the models.
7. Surface soil pH appeared to have a significant effect on
nutrient concentrations in streams, but because of the time and expense
involved in procuring accurate surface soil pH data, no further analyses
were accomplished.
8. Using a geological classification scheme based on origin and
the National Eutrophication Survey nutrient runoff data, no clearly
significant relationships were found between geology and phosphorus
or nitrogen in streams. It is hypothesized that use of a rock-type
classification system based on mineral composition, instead of origin,
would reveal significant differences.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY AND OBJECTIVES
The initial planning for the National Eutrophication Survey (NES)
visualized a detailed watershed land use study for each of the approxi-
mately 750 lakes which was to be done parallel to the field sampling
program. The idea stemmed from a desire to better understand the rela-
tionship between lake trophic state and watershed land use. It was hoped
that the "fruits" of this effort would be the development of a quick,
relatively accurate method of assessing nutrient loadings to lakes based
on land use analysis of their watersheds.
The original concept pictured identification and mensuration of overall
land use types through aerial photo and topographic map interpretation of
the entire watershed of each lake included in the NES. For many reasons,
including the unavailability of good photo and/or map coverage for many
watersheds or parts of watersheds, the original concept was considerably
modified. Presently, the project consists of a study of about 1,000 non-
point type drainage areas, mostly within watersheds of lakes being studied
by the NES.
As it is now envisioned, the basic objectives of the NES land use study
are to investigate the relationships between "macro" drainage area character-
istics (particularly general land use) and nutrient runoff in streams with
an aim of developing a means for estimating nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus)
runoff based on land use and related geographic characteristics. The project
is part of a massive stream and lake sampling program being conducted by NES
and includes a large number of drainage areas covering a nationwide variety
of climatic and geographic conditions. This affords a unique opportunity
to look at the land use—nutrient loadings—eutrophication relationships on
-------
a national scale, and to develop a system utilizing coefficients, or a
range of coefficients, to reflect geographical or regional differences.
Because of its ties with the NES field sampling program, which is
being accomplished in three phases, the NES land use study follows the
same pattern. In the area in which tributary sampling began in the
summer of 1972, 133 drainage areas were selected for land use analysis.
In the NES study area where sampling was initiated in 1973, 340 drainage
areas were selected; and in the remainder of the conterminous United
States, where sampling began in 1974, 524 drainage areas were defined.
Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of the individual study drainage
areas, as well as the overall areas covered by each of the three phases.
Upon completion of data compilation for each of these phases, a
report was to be written to present the data collected to date and to
present some analyses of these data. This report, as well as providing
an explanation of the overall project, presents the data compiled for
the first two phases. National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No.
25 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974) presented data compiled
through the first phase.
LITERATURE
Recently several extensive literature reviews have been published
relating watershed characteristics to non-point source nitrogen and
phosphorus concentrations and loads in streams (Uttormark, Chapin, and
Green, 1974; Loehr, 1974; Dillon and Kirchner, 1975; and Dornbush,
Anderson, and Harms, 1974). These reviews have gathered many of the
investigations that, for the most part, have based their results on
data collected from a small number of drainage areas within specific
geographic regions. In attempting to develop systems for estimating
nutrient runoff from land use based on coefficients developed entirely,
or in part, from the literature, most reviewers have summarized their
findings by presenting a range of values and, in some cases, midpoints
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF
N.E.S. LAND USE
STUDY DRAINAGE AREAS
Each of the 997 dots
represent a tributary sampling
site and its associated
'71,'73, and '74 refer lo
the years tributary sampling
began in each group of states
Figure 1. Distribution of individual NES land use study drainage areas.
-------
or averages. Generally, these ranges are quite wide and the midpoints,
or other indicators of central tendency, do not vary from one land use
type to another as appreciably as one might expect.
It would seem that uniformity in procedure, which is largely lacking
from one study (basic investigation) to another, would limit the validity
of comparing the results of one with another, or using combined results to
establish nutrient loading coefficients. More important, there is an
insufficient quantity and an inadequate distribution of data points avail-
able from literature sources to study the regional aspects of nutrient
runoff. An example of the latter point is shown later in this paper in
the section dealing with the effects of geology on nutrients in streams.
STUDY AREA SELECTION CRITERIA
In general, criteria for selecting tributary sampling sites for their
associated land use study drainage areas were:
A. Absence of identifiable point sources.
B. , Availability of usable aerial photography (preferably
in scales of from 1:40,000 to 1:80,000) and/or existing
land use studies for identifying land use.
C. Availability of accurate topographic maps for drainage
area delineation.
D. Sufficient relief for clear definition of drainage area
limits and for surface runoff to be a significant factor.
E. Need to encompass a variety of geographic and climatic
areas, and obtain, where possible, land use homogeneity
within subdrainage areas.
A few exceptions to these criteria were necessary to accomodate
study of particular types of areas. Within the 1973 study area, several
heavily mined watersheds and several predominately urban watersheds (but
without apparent industrial or municipal wastewater treatment facilities)
have been included.
It should be noted that an overriding selection constraint was that
tributary sampling sites for land use study drainage areas had to be
-------
drawn from those already selected for support of NES lake reports, or
had to be selected within a reasonable distance of NES study lake areas
to accomodate sampling by the National Guard. At the time selections
were being made of drainage areas within the 1972 study area, tributary
sampling sites had already been selected and the actual field sampling
was underway. Moreover, at that time, the major thrust of the Survey
was on point source impact to lakes, particularly that due to municipal
wastewater treatment plant discharges. Generally, only "problem" lakes
had been selected for study and many of these were in watersheds having
"problem" type land uses. Hence, it was somewhat difficult to find
drainage areas without point sources; and obtain adequate coverage of
all land use types.
At the time tributary sites were being selected for 1973 NES study
area lakes, emphasis was still on point sources. However, tributary
sampling had not yet begun in several of the 1973 area states which
allowed an opportunity to choose additional sites where their inclusion
was warranted by land use homogeneity and other factors suitable for
land use and nutrient runoff analyses.
Selection of tributary sampling sites for land use study drainage
areas in the 1974 area (west of the Mississippi) was made under more
ideal conditions. By this time water research mandates had been revised
by passage of Public Law 92-500. These revisions resulted in a broaden-
ing of Survey objectives to include assessment of relationships of
non-point sources to lake nutrient levels. In addition, lake selection
criteria were modified to no longer include just "problem" lakes, but
lakes representative of a full range of water quality. This presented
a better balance of lake watersheds and land use types as well as lake
types. In several instances, where it was necessary to achieve a
better geographic distribution of drainage areas or obtain a better
balance of land use categories, sites were selected outside NES lake
watersheds.
-------
OVERALL STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
The geographic area for which data are presented encompasses most
of the United States east of the Mississippi River including Minnesota.
All of Florida, some of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts and northwestern
Minnesota were not included because of insufficient relief to allow
accurate drainage area delineation and/or to enable surface runoff to
be a significant factor. Although the overall study area does not
exhibit the physiographic or climatic extremes found in the remainder
of the conterminous United States west of the Mississippi River, there
is considerable diversity. Landforms range from flat to rolling plains
along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts and in the interior lake states, to
hills, dissected plateaus and low mountains in the northeast-southwest
trending Appalachian Highlands. Physical subdivisions are shown in
Figure 2, and the general geology of the area is shown in Figure 3.
The climate in the northern half of the area is humid continental and
in the southern half, humid subtropical. The northern half is char-
acterized by humid, warm to hot summers and cold winters; the southern
half, hot humid summers and cool winters. Yearly temperature ranges
are generally greater toward the interior. Most of the study area
receives between 80 to 120 centimeters of precipitation per year (Figure
4). Extreme mean annual precipitation varies from less than 60 cm. in
western Minnesota to over 160 cm. in parts of the Appalachians.
-------
Dakota —Minnesota Drift
and Lake—bed Flats
Middle Western
Up land Plain
Lower Mississippi
Alluvial Plain
O
t—
0
Figure 2.
Physical subdivisions of the eastern United States. Adapted
from U.S. Geological Survey (1970) and Hammond (1964).
Lower New England
4OO
800 Km
200
Scale
4OOMi
-------
PALEOZOIC [Igneous Rocki o
Plutonic Ong
Figure 3. Geology of the eastern United States
U.S. Geological Survey (1970).
Adapted from
10
-------
MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
Centimeters
400
800 Km
200
Scale
400Mi
Figure 4. Mean annual precipitation in the eastern United States. Adapted
from U.S. Geological Survey (1970).
11
-------
SECTION III
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
DRAINAGE AREA MEASUREMENT AND LAND USE IDENTIFICATION
Following tributary site selection, individual drainage areas were
delineated on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps and their
areas determined by use of a compensating polar planimeter or an elec-
tronic planimeter. General land use identifications were made using
late-date aerial photography and/or recent land use maps. Land use
categories included: (1) forest, (2) cleared-unproductive, (3) agri-
culture, (4) urban, (5) wetland, and (6) other (including barren,
extractive and open water). These types roughly correspond in level of
classification to Level I of the recently developed USGS Land Use Classi
fication System (U.S. Department of Interior, 1972).
LAND USE PERCENTAGE COMPUTATION
For each drainage area, percent coverage of each land use type was
compiled by use of equidistant dot pattern overlays. The dot patterns
were placed non-selectively over the USGS map overlays on which land
use units had been outlined. To determine the land use percentage for
a given drainage area, the number of dots that fell on each land use
category was totaled; each total was multiplied by 100, and the result-
ing products were divided by the number of dots falling in the drainage
area. Dot pattern densities varied from one drainage area to another
depending on the overall size of the drainage area; generally, the
larger the area the less dense the dot pattern. At least 400 dots per
drainage area, but preferably less than 800 were needed for a valid
determination of percent coverage.
12
-------
ANIMAL UNIT DENSITY COMPUTATIONS
It is generally accepted that animal wastes are major contributors
to the nitrogen and phosphorus in agricultural land runoff (Holt, Timmons,
and Latterell, 1970; Holt, 1971; Robbins, Howells, and Kriz, 1971). Early
in this study, it seemed some mechanism should be developed to analyze
this aspect of agricultural runoff. Because of shifts in agricultural
land use, particularly from season to season and year to year, it seemed
impractical or impossible to accurately separate pasture from cropland.
A more expeditious method was to determine overall animal densities (i.e.,
animal units per acre of subdrainage area).
For the most part, animal unit densities for each drainage area were
computed from U.S. Census of Agriculture figures, other literature sources
and personal communications (Johnson and Mountney, 1969; Miner and Willrich,
1970; Miner, 1971; Anonymous, 1972; Anonymous, 1973; Anonymous, 1974;
Arscott, 1975; Harper, 1975; Hohenboken, 1975; and Miner, 1975). The
quantities of total nitrogen and total phosphorus produced annually by
common farm animals were also compiled from these sources (Table 1).
TABLE 1. ANIMAL NUTRIENT PRODUCTION (kgs/yr/animal)
Cattle
Hogs
Sheep
Poultry
Layers
Broilers
Turkeys
Total P
17.60
3.23
1.47
0.16
0.09
0.39
Total N
57.49
9.68
10.06
0.42
0.39
0.84
These data, together with Census of Agriculture figures by county,
were used to compile animal unit densities per drainage area using the
13
-------
following equation:
1 Da Ca + (0.184-H)+(0.0084-S)+(0.0093-P1)+(0.0011-Ph)+(0.0222-P.)'
\ / a\ a I D L
A =
n_
and
(0.169-H)+(0.175-S)+(0.0073-P1)+(0.0015-P.)+(0.0147-PJ'
V
where: A = Animal units per square kilometer for Total P;
A = Animal units per square kilometer for Total N;
A = Total agricultural land (by county) in square kilometers;
D, = Percent of subdrainage area in agriculture;
a
C3 = Total cattle and calves (by county);
a
H = Total hogs and pigs (by county);
S = Total sheep and lambs (by county);
PI = Total layers (by county);
P. = Total broilers (by county); and
Pt = Total turkeys (by county).
For drainage areas located in more than one county, weighted unit
densities were determined based on the amount of each drainage area's
agricultural land in each county. The coefficients have been adjusted
to reflect average, animal weights relative to an average weight for
cattle and calves (same sources as for Table 1). It should be noted
that coefficients for poultry take into consideration average life
spans and broods per year.
GEOLOGY IDENTIFICATION
Some recent works on non-point source nutrients in streams have
given as much or more emphasis to the effects of geology than to the
effects of land use (Dillon and Kirchner, 1975; Likens and Bormann,
14
-------
1974; Thomas and Crutchfield, 1974). Using the paper by Dillon and
Kirchner as a guide, the following general breakdown was used to
classify NES study subdrainage areas:
1. Sedimentary rocks or deep alluvium (>61 meters) with
some or all limestone.
2. Sedimentary rocks or deep alluvium (>61 meters) without
any mapped limestone.
3. Igneous rocks of volcanic origin.
4. Metamorphic rocks.
5. Igneous rocks of plutonic origin.
Where drainage areas included two of the above classifications,
combinations were shown with the predominant type first. Sources for
these data were mostly state and federal government geologic maps of
varying dates and scales; although most were of individual states at
scales ranging from 1:250,000 to 1:500,000.
SLOPE COMPUTATIONS
For each drainage area mean slope was calculated using an equidis-
tant dot pattern overlay. Less dense patterns were used for this work
than were used for computing land use percentages. For this procedure,
40-80 dots per drainage area were used. The overlays were placed
randomly over the topographic maps on which the drainage areas had been
outlined. Then, using an appropriate slope indicator, the percent of
slope for the points under each dot was calculated. The data were then
totaled and divided by the total number of points falling in the drainage
area. The slope indicators used were transparent templates indicating
percent of slope from distances between map contours, adjusted for map
scale and contour interval.
15
-------
OTHER PROCEDURES
Explanations of the following procedures are given in NES Working
Paper No. 1 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974); and NES
Working Paper No. 175 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975):
1. Tributary sampling methods and handling.
2. Analytical methods (stream samples).
3. Nutrient loading estimates.
4. Stream flow estimates.
It should be noted that nutrient exports were computed using "nor-
malized" flow data (adjusted for seasonality and sampling year) from
the USGS and drainage area measurements as determined by NES. For a
few tributary sampling sites, where the USGS had not provided flow
estimates, they were calculated by NES from runoff patterns in adja-
cent, overlapping, or nearby areas for which USGS estimates were
provided. Loadings for all drainage areas in this study were estimated
according to the following equation:
Annual Load = (C)(F)(31,356)
where: C = Mean annual concentration in milligrams per liter, and
F = Mean normalized annual stream flow in cubic meters per
second.
The factor 31,356 is used to adjust the concentration and flow
data in order to obtain loads in kilograms per year. The annual loads
were then divided by the area (in square kilometers) of their respec-
tive watershed.
16
-------
SECTION IV
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This section discusses the analysis of land use, other drainage area
characteristics, and stream nutrient runoff data compiled for drainage
areas within the first two groups of states covered by the NES. The
raw data are presented in Appendix A and the distribution of the 473
data points (comprising the 1972 and 1973 areas) are illustrated in
Figure 1. Subsequent reports will present data on the 524 drainage
areas west of the Mississippi River where tributary sampling is still
in progress.
AREAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF DATA
After compiling the data presented in Appendix A, several types of
these data were sorted into classes and plotted on maps of the eastern
half of the United States using a graduated color scheme. It was
theorized that this might aid in uncovering correlations, regional
patterns, and (by comparison with maps of other "macro" aspects such as
physiographic regions, geology, soils, and climate) possible covariants.
Maps were compiled for total P concentrations, total N concentrations,
total P export, total N export, % agriculture plus % urban, flow per unit
area per year, and mean slope. Maps illustrating the most significant
patterns are included in black and white as Figures 5 through 8.
The map (Figure 5) of various classes of percent of drainage area
in agricultural land use plus the percent in urban land use (% agriculture
+ % urban) revealed what might be expected from a knowledge of general
land use patterns in the eastern United States. High percentages of land
in agricultural and urban uses were present in the midwest farming and
17
-------
LAND USE
(%of land In Aorkultur*
% of land in Urban)
80
80 to 90
>90
Figure 5. Areal distribution of percentages of land in agricultural and
urban land use in study areas in the eastern United States.
18
-------
manufacturing belt from the northwest corner of Pennsylvania through Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, and southern Wisconsin to southern Minnesota.
Agricultural and urban land uses also predominated in Delaware and
east-central Maryland, parts of the "ridge and valley" portion of
the Appalachians, and patches of the "finger lakes" area of New York.
Low percentages of these land use types were present in much of
New England, northern Pennsylvania, and numerous places throughout
the Appalachians and Southeast.
The map (Figure 6) illustrating the areal distribution of mean
total phosphorus concentrations data uncovered a pattern roughly
similar to that of the land use map, and hence a possible correlation.
Comparison of the two maps (Figures 5 and 6) revealed several groups
of drainage areas with notably lower phosphorus concentrations than
might be expected from land use alone. These areas were in east-
central Maryland, Pennsylvania, and parts of central and eastern Ohio
and New York (particularly the finger lakes area).
The map (Figure 7) of total nitrogen concentrations, like that for
total P, had a pattern similar to the map of land use. Some noteworthy
differences were: (1) particularly high total nitrogen concentrations
in the Midwest and middle Atlantic region, from Maryland and Delaware
through New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut; and (2) very low values
in the mixed farming areas of the central and southwestern Appalachians
and remainder of the Southeast.
Examination of the areal distributions of both total P and total N
export values revealed some similarities in pattern to that of land use,
but far less than the likenesses between nutrient concentrations and
land use. The distribution maps of slope and flow (discharge/unit
area) values (Figure 8) were constructed to study the possible relation-
ships of these factors to the differences in correlation between nutrient
concentration and land use, and nutrient export and land use. Analyses
of these data will follow in other sections of this paper.
19
-------
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
CONCENTRATIONS img/ll
mg/l
O to .01 - O
.01 to .02 - O
02 to .03 - O
.03 to OS - O
.OS to .1 - O
.1 to .15 - O
.5 to .2 - O
Figure 6. Area! distribution of mean total phosphorus concentrations
in streams draining study areas in the eastern United States.
20
-------
MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN
CONCENTRATIONS (mg/l)
mg/l
1.3 — O
1.3I02.O— O
— O
>3.O—
Figure 7. Areal distribution of mean total nitrogen concentrations in
streams draining study areas in the eastern United States.
21
-------
Figure 8. Distribution of mean annual area! flows in streams draining
study areas in the eastern United States.
22
-------
OVERALL LAND USE-NUTRIENT RUNOFF RELATIONSHIPS
Category Definitions
Individual drainage areas were assigned overall land use categories
according to the following criteria:
1. Forest; other types negligible
a. >75% forest (including forested wetland)
b. <7% agriculture
c. <2% urban
2. Mostly forest; other types present
a. >50% forest
b. not included in forest category
3. Mostly agriculture; other types present
a. >50% agriculture
b. not included in agriculture category
4. Agriculture; other types negligible
a. >75% agriculture
b. <7% urban
5. Urban
>39% urban
6. Mixed; not included in any other category
General Analysis
The relationships between these overall land use categories and
nutrient runoff are illustrated in Figures 9 through 12. It should
be emphasized that these graphs contain mean annual nutrient stream
values from the entire 24-state area and do not reflect regional
relationships. For example, one should not conclude from Figure 9
that total phosphorus concentrations in streams draining "mostly
agricultural" areas in Vermont and New York will average about 0.066.
23
-------
IV)
NUMBER
OF SUBS
53 FOREST
other types negllble
170 MOSTLY FOREST
other types present
52 MIXED
11 MOSTLY URBAN
other types present
96 MOSTLY AGRIC.
other types present
91 AGRICULTURE
other types present
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
vs
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SUBDRAINAGE AREAS IN
EASTERN UNITED STATES
OF SUBS
53
170
52
11
96
91
FOREST
other types negligible
MOSTLY FOREST
MIXED
MOSTLY URBAN
other types present
MOSTLY AGRIC.
other [ypes present
AGRICULTURE
other types present
<
~jj 0.014
-| 0.035
., *-. [ K „, ^ \ „ / j 0.040
' '-• ' / ' '"'*!*• »^ .*i£&?S ~-:>'*^"/1 0-066
? "^^^ " ^ ^.^ ^^"'Fft ^5^^ -^^ 5"~"^ "M 0.066
) 0.05 0.10 °-15
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
vs
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SUBDRAINAGE AREAS IN
EASTERN UNITED STATES
4.170
2.0
M/LLIGRAMS PER LITER
3.0
4.0
Figure 9. Relationships between general land use and total phosphorus and total
nitrogen concentrations in streams.
-------
From analysis of other values in the same geographical region, an average
regional value would probably be somewhat smaller. By the same token,
one would expect higher concentrations in streams draining "mostly agri-
culture" areas in the Corn Belt. Obviously, other interrelated factors
such as agricultural practices, slope, soils, climate, etc., are important.
However, Figures 9 through 12 illustrate some significant overall
relationships. Nutrient concentrations are significantly lower in
streams draining forested areas than in streams draining areas that
are used primarily for agricultural purposes. This is true for both
nutrients but to a greater degree for total phosphorus than total
nitrogen. Total phosphorus concentrations are roughly 10 times higher
in streams draining predominantly agricultural watersheds than in
streams draining forested watersheds. On the other hand, mean total
nitrogen stream concentrations only show a difference of 5-fold from
forested watersheds to agricultural watersheds. Interestingly, based
on these mean concentration values, phosphorus would be expected to be
limiting in surface waters draining either forest or agricultural-areas.
The total nitrogen to total phosphorus ratios are 60:1, 25:1, 32:1, 27:1
and 31:1 for "forest", "mostly forested", "mixed", "mostly agriculture"
and "agriculture" areas, respectively. Generally phosphorus is the
limiting nutrient as long as the N:P ratio exceeds 14:1 (Vollenweider,
1968). Also noteworthy is the fact that Figure 9 shows nearly the same
mean values as did similar graphs prepared earlier for the 143 subdrain-
age areas covered by Working Paper No. 25 (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1974).
Figure 10 shows the relationships of overall land use categories
to mean concentrations of orthophosphorus and inorganic nitrogen. For
orthophosphorus, the relationships appear about the same as those between
total phosphorus and land use. Regardless of land use, mean orthophos-
phorus concentrations represented from 40% to 43% of the mean total phos-
phorus, except with predominantly urban drainage areas of which there
were only 11.
25
-------
NUMBER
OF SUBS
53 FOREST
Other types negligible
170 MOSTLY FOREST
other types present
52 MIXED
11 MOSTLY URBAN
other types present
96 MOSTLY AGRIC.
other types present
91 AGRICULTURE
other Types present
MEAN ORTHOPHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
vs
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SUBDRAINAGE AREAS IN
EASTERN UNITED STATES
°-006
0.014
0.017
0.01
0.02
0.03 0.04
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
°-058
0.05
0.06
CTl
NUMBER
OF SUBS
53 FOREST
other types negligible
170 MOSTLY FOREST
other types present
52 MIXED
11 MOSTLY URBAN
other types present
96 MOSTLY AGRIC.
other types present
91 AGRICULTURE
other types present
MEAN INORGANIC NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
vs
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SUBDRAINAGE AREAS IN
EASTERN UNITED STATES
°-678
0.50
1.00
1.50 2-00
MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
2.50
3.00
Figure 10. Relationships between general land use and orthophosphorus and inorganic
nitrogen concentrations in streams.
-------
By comparing Figure 9 with Figure 10, one can see that mean inorganic
nitrogen concentrations represent an increasing percentage of mean total
nitrogen concentrations with increased amounts of agricultural land use.
The percentages are 27%, 39%, 53%, 57% and 76% for "forest", "mostly
forest", "mixed", "mostly agriculture" and "agriculture" categories,
respectively. This probably reflects the use of inorganic nitrogen
fertilizers and the high water solubility of inorganic nitrogen com-
pounds.
Mean inorganic nitrogen represented nearly 98% of the mean total
nitrogen in the 11 "mostly urban" drainage areas. As mentioned
earlier, no industrial or municipal waste treatment facilities or out-
falls were known within these urban areas. However, the time and
expense that would have been involved did not allow field checking.
The data probably reflect effects of runoff from streets and lawns,
and to some extent, the effects of septic tanks.
The nutrient loads per unit area of watershed for both forms of
phosphorus and nitrogen are shown in Figures 11 and 12. These data
indicate that the differences in export from different land use cate-
gories are considerably less pronounced than the differences in nutrient
concentrations. Total phosphorus export was only 3.7 times greater from
agricultural lands than from forested lands and total nitrogen export,
only 2.2 times greater. Partial explanation of the difference in the
relationships of concentrations to land use and export to land use
apparently lies in the differences in stream flow (per unit area per
year) between agricultural lands and forested lands. Regression analysis
of flow (cubic meters per square kilometer per year) to the percent of
subdrainage area in forest revealed a fairly good correlation (r = 0.64).
This was probably due to greater slopes and thinner soils in the forested
areas as opposed to the agricultural areas. The correlation coefficient
between mean slope and the percent of drainage area in forest was 0.65 and
the correlation coefficient for flow and the mean slope was 0.60. One
would expect direct surface runoff to increase with increased slope, but
27
-------
NUMBER
OF SUBS
53 FOREST
other types negligible
170 MOSTLY FOREST
other types present
52 MIXED
11 MOSTLY URBAN
other types present
96 MOSTLY AGRIC.
Other types present
91 AGRICULTURE
other types present
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS EXPORT
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SUBDRAINAGE AREAS IN
EASTERN UNITED STATES
8.3
17.4
"1 18.4
10 20
KILOGRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER YEAR
30
40
ro
oo
NUMBER
OF SUBS
53 FOREST
other types negligible
170 MOSTLY FOREST
other types present
52 MIXED
11 MOSTLY URBAN
other types present
96 MOSTLY AGRIC.
other types present
91 AGRICULTURE
other types present
MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN EXPORT
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SUBDRAINAGE AREAS IN
EASTERN UNITED STATES
440.1
1 449.4
552'4
500
788.6
1000
KILOGRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER YEAR
Figure 11. Relationships between general land use and stream exports of total
phosphorus and total nitrogen.
-------
NUMBER
OF SUBS
53 FOREST
other types negligible
170 MOSTLY FOREST
other types present
52 MIXED
11 MOSTLY URBAN
other types present
96 MOSTLY AGRIC.
other types present
91 AGRICULTURE
other types present
MEAN ORTHOPHOSPHORUS EXPORT
vs
LAND USE
DATA ON 473 SUBDRAINAGE AREAS IN
EASTERN UNITED STATES
4.1
5 10
KILOGRAMS PER SQUARE KILOMETER PER YEAR
PO NUMBER
-------
not average annual stream discharge as was shown with these data;
therefore, one or more covariants seem probable.
Some additional explanation of the difference between relationships
of nutrient concentrations to land use and nutrient export to land use
may be found in differences in mean annual precipitation patterns
relative to study area locations. From analysis of study area locations,
it appeared that most of the forested drainage areas were located in
regions receiving slightly greater average annual precipitation amounts
than regions where most of the agricultural watersheds were located.
Greater annual precipitation amounts would help explain the greater
flow values in forested study areas. However, the correlation between
percent of subdrainage area in forest and mean annual precipitation was
found to be statistically less significant (r = 0.56) than the correlation
between slope and forest.
The data also indicate that urban land usage seems to have a pronounced
effect on the amount of export. Again, the cause is probably increased
flow rates, but in this case it was more likely because of greater areas
of impervious surfaces.
For additional help in understanding the differences in the relation-
ships between concentrations and land use, and export and land use, it
is important to recognize that the drainage areas included in this study
are not control plots. Rather, they are natural drainage areas which
represent, typical land use- and geographically-related characteristics
in their respective areas. If one were studying control plots where
slope, soil type, and climate conditions were similar from one plot to
another, one would expect a significantly higher nutrient export rate
(as well as a higher nutrient concentration) from plots in agricultural
land use than from forested plots. Runoff as well would probably be
somewhat greater from agricultural plots than from forested plots. Natural
drainage areas, on the other hand, possess different topographic, soils,
and climatic characteristics. These characteristics are important in
determining land use in the first place. In general, flat to rolling
terrain and~rich soils, such as are found in southern Minnesota, lend
30
-------
themselves to agricultural land use. Conversely, where the terrain
is too mountainous or dissected or the soil too poor for agriculture
to be economically feasible, such as in much of New England, forests
are allowed to predominate.
The fact that study subdrainage area sizes vary, and that those
categorized as forest were considerably smaller than any other category,
suggested that size might have a bearing on nutrient concentrations
and/or stream flow. If either factor was related to size, then export
would also be related. However, analysis of these data revealed no
significant correlations.
The frequency polygons (Figures 13 through 16) illustrate how the
nutrient concentration and export data were distributed for each land
use type. Comparison of these polygons with Figures 9 through 12 show
the data for forested drainage areas were grouped more tightly around
the mean values than were data for agricultural drainage areas. The
irregular data distributions for urban drainage areas are of question-
able significance, mainly because of the small sample size.
Regionality
To refine the relationships of land use to nutrient runoff shown by
the bar graphs and frequency polygons, a regional analysis is presented
(Figures 18 through 21). Because the data appeared to be more closely
related to land use than any other one "macro" element, it seemed a
regional breakdown should be based on general land use and related geo-
graphical aspects that were instrumental in determining land usage. A
modified breakdown of Austin's Land Resource Regions (1972) fits this
description and the overall data distribution (Figure 17).
These graphs help explain where, within a given data distribution
(in Figures 13 through 16), one is most likely to find concentration or
export values based on regional location, but their use is limited. Where
31
-------
Forest (N=53)
Mostly forest (N=170)
Mixed (N = 52)
Mostly agriculture (N = 96)..
Agriculture (N=91)
Mostly urban (N=11)
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS (mg/l)
Forest (N = 53)
Mostly forest (N = 170)
Mixed (N = 52)
Mostly agriculture !N=96).
Agriculture (N = 9l)
Mostly urban (N=1l)
24 30 36 42 4E 54 60 66
MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS (mg/l)
Figure 13. Frequency polygons of mean total phosphorus and mean total
nitrogen concentrations in streams by overall land use
category.
32
-------
Forest (N-53) -
Mostly forest (N = 170)
Mixed (N=52)
Mostly agriculture (N=96).....
Agriculture (N=91) ,
Mostly urban (N = 11) _
MEAN ORTHOPHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS (mg/l)
Forest (N = 53)
Mostly forest (N = I70) m
Mixed (N = 52)
Mostly agriculture (,N = 96) .
Agriculture (N = 91) H
Mostly urban (N=11) _
20 25 30 35 4U 45 50 55 60
MEAN INORGANIC NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS (mg/l)
/80
764B
Figure 14.
Frequency polygons of mean orthophosphorus and mean
inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams by overall
land use category.
33
-------
Fores! (N=53)
Mostly forest (N=170>
Mixed (N=52)
Mostly agriculture (N = 96)...._
Agriculture (N=91) ,
Mostly urban (N=11) -
30 36 n 48 54 60 66 72
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS EXPORT (kgs/krrr/yr)
Forest (N = 53)
Mostly forest (N=17d)
Mixed (N=52)
Mostly agriculture JN = 96).
Agriculture (N=91)
Mostly urban (N=11)
600 750 900 I0"50 1200
MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN EXPORT (kgs/krn
Figure 15. Frequency polygons of mean total phosphorus and mean total
nitrogen stream exports by overall land use category.
34
-------
Forest (N = 53)
Mostly (ores! (N=170)
Mixed (N = 52)
Mostly agriculture (N=96)
Agriculture (N=91) ,
Mostly urban (N = 11)
MEAN ORTHOPHOSPHORUS EXPORT (kgs/km
Forest (N=53)
Mostly forest (N = 170)
Mixed (N = 52J
Mostly agriculture (N = 96).
Agriculture (N=91)
Mostly urban (N = 1l)
200
0 500 1000
MEAN INORGANIC NITROGEN EXPORT (kgW -:r.-v
Figure 16. Frequency polygons of mean orthophosphorus and mean
inorganic nitrogen stream exports.
35
-------
LAND RESOURCE REGIONS
North and Northeastern Forest and Forage Region
Corn Belt and Dairy Region
East and Central General Farming and
Forest Region
Piedmont and Coastal Plain Mixed Farming
and Forest Region
Adapted From Austin '1972'
Scale
400 Mi
_==
600 Km
Figure 17- Land resource regions in the eastern United States.
Adapted from Austin (1972).
36
-------
NUMBER OVERALL LAND
OF SUBS USE CATEGORY
18 FOREST
44 MOSTLY FOREST
14 MIXED
2 MOSTLY URBAN
25 MOSTLY AGRIC.
5 AGRICULTURE
0 FOREST
4 MOSTLY FOREST
12 MIXED
1 MOSTLY URBAN
26 MOSTLY AGRIC
80 AGRICULTURE
34 FOREST
64 MOSTLY FOREST
13 MIXED
5 MOSTLY URBAN
27 MOSTLY AGRIC
4 AGRICULTURE
1 FOREST
57 MOSTLY FOREST
13 MIXED
3 MOSTLY URBAN
18 MOSTLY AGRIC.
2 AGRICULTURE
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS (mg/l
vs
LAND USE
BY LAND RESOURCE REGION
North and Northeastern Forest
°nd Forage Region
Corn Belt and Dairy Region
0.05
East and Central General Farming
and Forest Region
005
010
Piedmont and Coastal Plain Mixed
Farming and Forest Region
015
Figure 18. Regional relationships between general land use and
total phosphorus concentrations in streams.
37
-------
NUMBER OVERALL LAND
OF SUBS USE CATEGORY
18 FOREST
44 MOSTLY FOREST
14 MIXED
2 MOSTLY URBAN
25 MOSTLY AGRIC
5 AGRICULTURE
0 FOREST
4 MOSTLY FOREST
12 MIXED
1 MOSTLY URBAN
26 MOSTLY AGRIC.
80 AGRICULTURE
34 FOREST
64 MOSTLY FOREST
13 MIXED
5 MOSTLY URBAN
27 MOSTLY AGRIC
4 AGRICULTURE
1 FOREST
57 MOSTLY FOREST
13 MIXED
3 MOSTLY URBAN
18 MOSTLY AGRIC
2 AGRICULTURE
MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS Img/l
vs
LAND USE
BY LAND RESOURCE REGION
North and Northeastern Forest
and Forage Region
i
2.0
3.0
40
50
Corn Belt and Dairy Regii
2.0
3.0
40
50
East and Central Genera! Farming
and Forest Region
3.0
40
50
Piedmont and Coastal Plain Mixed
Farming and Forest Region
40
50
Figure 19. Regional relationships between general land use and
total nitrogen concentrations in streams.
38
-------
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS EXPORT (Kg/km2)
vs
LAND USE
BY LAND RESOURCE REGION
NUMBER OVERALL LAND
OF SUBS USE CATEGORY
18 FOREST
44 MOSTLY FOREST
14 MIXED
2 MOSTLY URBAN
25 MOSTLY AGRIC
5 AGRICULTURE
0 FOREST
4 MOSTLY FOREST
12 MIXED
1 MOSTLY URBAN
26 MOSTLY AGRIC
80 AGRICULTURE
34 FOREST
64 MOSTLY FOREST
13 MIXED
5 MOSTLY URBAN
27 MOSTLY AGRIC
4 AGRICULTURE
1 FOREST
57 MOSTLY FOREST
13 MIXED
3 MOSTLY URBAN
18 MOSTLY AGRIC
2 AGRICULTURE
North and Northeastern Forest
and Forage Region
East and Central General Farming
| and Forest Region
Piedmont and Coastal Plain Mixed
Farming and Forest Region
Figure 20. Regional relationships between general land use and
stream export of total phosphorus.
39
-------
MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN EXPORT (Kg/km
vs
LAND USE
BY LAND RESOURCE REGION
NUMBER OVERALL LAND
OF SUBS USE CATEGORY
18 FOREST
44 MOSTLY FOREST
14 MIXED
2 MOSTLY URBAN
25 MOSTLY AGRIC
5 AGRICULTURE
^^^-^^^^^ North and Northeastern Forest
^^^^^^^j ond Fora9e Re9ion
0 FOREST
4 MOSTLY FOREST
12 MIXED
1 MOSTLY URBAN
26 MOSTLY AGRIC
80 AGRICULTURE
Corn Belt ond Dairy Region
34 FOREST
64 MOSTLY FOREST
13 MIXED
5 MOSTLY URBAN
27 MOSTLY AGRIC
4 AGRICULTURE
1 FOREST
57 MOSTLY FOREST
13 MIXED
3 MOSTLY URBAN
18 MOSTLY AGRIC
2 AGRICULTURE
East and Central General Farming
and Forest Region
Piedmont and Coastal Plain Mixed
Farming and Forest Region
Figure 21. Regional relationships between general land use and
stream export of total nitrogen.
40
-------
sample sizes for a particular land use category are small, the concen-
tration or export values for that category are of questionable use. For
example, it is not safe to assume that, based on data for two drainage
areas, streams draining "agriculture" areas in the Piedmont and Coastal
Plain Mixed Farming Region (P.C. Region) are going to have generally
higher total nitrogen concentrations than streams in the Corn Belt and
Dairy Region (C.D. Region). As a matter of fact, from looking at the
data for "mostly agriculture" areas, where the sample size was fairly
large for both regions, one would probably estimate total nitrogen
concentrations to be slightly lower in the P.C. Region than the C.D.
Region. Also, because of the "room" within these overall land use
categories (e.g. drainage areas categorized "forest" may contain from
75 to 100 percent forest and 0 to 6.9 percent agriculture), where
sample sizes are small on either end of the overall land use category
"scale" for a given Land Resource Region, the amount of that land use
type within those few drainage areas can be expected to be smaller than
it would be with a region where sample sizes are larger on the same end
of the "scale".
INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIPS AND PREDICTION CAPABILITY
"Contributing" Land Use Types and Stream Nutrients
Figures 22 through 27 illustrate the relationships between land uses
generally considered nutrient contributing (% agriculture plus % urban)
and nutrients in streams. Several ways of looking at the effects of
land use on nutrient concentrations or loads in streams were investigated.
In general, nutrient loads increased with increased percentages in agri-
cultural land usage, and decreased percentages in forested land. Little
to no correlation was found between nutrient levels and percent of land
in either cleared-unproductive, urban or wetland. This was expected
because of the probable masking effects by agriculture and forest.
41
-------
Since increased or decreased percentages of all general land use types
appeared to have some effect on nutrient levels, a land use ratio of
"contributing" (agriculture + urban) over "non-contributing" (forest +
cleared-unproductive + wetland) types was investigated for its utility
as a single factor including all land use types. Generally, relationships
between these ratios and nutrient levels in streams were found to be more
significant than those considering only one land use type. It was then
determined that use of just the numerator (% agriculture plus % urban)
from the ratio provided more easily understood land use values and
eliminated the graphing problems encountered by working with values to
infinity.
Use of "% agriculture plus % urban" to relate effects of land use on
nutrient levels in streams appears to be appropriate where agriculture
and/or forest comprise the predominant type(s). These two land use
categories comprise the bulk of the land use data gathered for this
study, but also constitute by far the predominant land use in the
eastern half of the United States. The use of "% agriculture plus %
urban" even seems to compensate for minor amounts of the other general
land use types. However, its use is probably unsatisfactory for pre-
dicting or estimating nutrient concentrations or loads for areas where
either urban, cleared-unproductive, or wetland land use types predominate;
particularly where urban predominates. Insufficient data have been col-
lected for these types.
"Contributing" Land Use Types and Nutrient Concentrations
Figure 22 shows the relation between mean total phosphorus concen-
trations in streams and "% agriculture plus % urban". The equation for
the regression line shown in Figure 22 is:
Log1Q (PCONC) - -1.831 + 0.0093 (% agric. + % urban) (1)
The correlation coefficient for this relationship is 0.73. The
utility of the equation for predictions is illustrated in Table 2.
42
-------
-p.
CO
O>
E
z
o
u
Z
o
u
O
Q.
in
O
Z
Q.
o
z
.435 H
4-
.3-
.05-
.04-
03'
.02H
.005
r = 0.73
i
10
Figure 22.
20 30 40 50 60 70
% IN AGRICULTURE + % IN URBAN
Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related
to phosphorus concentrations in streams.
80
90
100%
-------
TABLE 2. PREDICTED MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
% Ag + % Urb
0
25
50
75
100
Avg. PCONC
0.015
0.025
0.043
0.074
0.126
67% Limits
0.008-0.027
0.014-0,046
0.023-0.079
0.040-0.135
0.068-0.231
95% Limits
0.004-0.050
0.007-0.086
0.013-0.146
0.022-0.249
0.037-0.427
For example, for streams draining areas with a combined agriculture
plus urban land use percentage of 25%, mean total phosphorus concentrations
average 0.025 mg/1. However, because of the variation around this pre-
diction, there is only a 67% probability that the true value will fall in
the range 0.014 to 0.046 mg/1, and there is a 95% confidence that the
value will be within the wider range of 0.007 to 0.086 mg/1.
The next most complex model makes a correction in the sense that
streams in the Corn Belt and Dairy Land Resource Region (region B) have
somewhat higher mean total phosphorus concentrations than one would
predict from data for the other Land Resource regions (regions A, C
and D) only. Equations for this model are:
Log1Q (PCONC) = -1.805 + 0.0081 (% agric. + % urban) (2)
for region B and
Log1Q (PCONC) = -1.676 + 0.0081 (% agric. + % urban) (3)
for regions A, C and D.
This model explains that for drainage areas having similar combined
agriculture plus urban land use percentages, streams in region B will
have predicted phosphorus concentrations about 37% higher than those
in regions A, C and D.
44
-------
However, the root mean square deviation using this model is only
0.26 as compared to 0.27 for the first model (1), which means it is not
appreciably better for prediction. In other words, although the model
does predict somewhat different average phosphorus concentrations
because of some regional characteristics, the unexplained variation
around this prediction is so great that the change is really not
significant. Differences in predicted values using the two models are
shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3. PREDICTED MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/1) FOR SIMPLE AND REGIONAL MODELS
Simple Model Regional Model
Avg. PCONC in Avg. PCONC in
Ag + % Urb Avg. PCONC Region B Regions A, C and D
0
25
50
75
100
0.015
0.025
0.043
0.074
0.126
0.021
0.034
0.054
0.085
0.136
0.016
0.025
0.040
0.063
0.101
Finally, a model which incorporates every variable on file in this
study (listed in Appendix A) that has a statistically significant effect,
adjusted for other related variables on file, is the following:
Log,0 (PCONC) = -2.576 - 0.0046 slope + 0.0021 precip. +
0.129 pH + 0.0071 (% agric. + % urban) (4)
The correlation coefficient for this model is 0.75 and the root mean
square deviation is 0.255 meaning that again, predictions using this model
are not appreciably better than those derived from the simple model.
Inclusion of this model is primarily to show the effect of the statisti-
cally significant variables used, holding everything else constant. It
45
-------
is notable that inclusion of the surface soil pH value makes it unneces-
sary to fit a different model for region B. Also interesting is the fact
that after adjusting for "% agriculture plus % urban", the effect of
animal unit density is not statistically significant for total phosphorus
concentrations. Animal unit density had a significant effect on total
phosphorus concentrations for the data (on 143 drainage areas) collected
for Working Paper No. 25 (Environmental Protection Agency, 1974). This
may have been due to the fact that most of the agricultural areas included
in the Working Paper No. 25 data set were dairy oriented. With the present
data set (473 subdrainage areas) it is probable that other agricultural
characteristics have masked the effects of animal unit densities.
Figure 23 shows the relationship between mean total nitrogen concen-
trations and "% agriculture plus % urban". The equation for the regression
line shown in Figure 23 is:
Log]0 (NCONC) = -0.278 + 0.0088 (% agric. + % urban) (5)
The correlation is stronger (r = 0.83) than that shown for phosphorus
concentrations (Figure 22), and there is noticeably less variation around
the regression. Thus, the model does a little better in predicting than
did the simple model for phosphorus. The utility of this equation for
predicting mean total nitrogen concentrations is shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4. PREDICTED MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
% Ag + % Urb Avg. NCONC 67% Limits 95% Limits
0
25
50
75
100
0.53
0.87
1.45
2.41
4.00
0.35-0.80
0.58-1.31
0.97-2.18
1.61-3.62
2.67-6.00
0.24-1.19
0.39-1.96
0.64-3.26
1.07-5.42
1.78-9.00
46
-------
8.84-1
, -.••• ..^
10
I
20
1 I
50 60 70
% IN AGRICULTURE + % IN URBAN
i
30
I
40
Figure 23. Scattergram of ''contributing" land use types related
to nitrogen concentrations in streams.
i
90
100%
-------
The next most complex model, as was the case with phosphorus, fits
one regression line for region B and another for regions A, C and D.
However, the two equations for predicting total nitrogen concentrations
not only have different intercepts, but different slopes as well. One
partial explanation is that the effect of "35 agriculture + % urban" on
nitrogen concentrations is not linear over a very wide range.
The equations for the regional model are:
Log,0 (NCONC) = -0.331 + 0.0101 (% agric. + % urban) (6)
for region B and
Log1Q (NCONC) = -0.236 + 0.0071 (% agric. + % urban) (7)
for regions A, C and D.
This regional model, like that for total phosphorus concentrations,
does not give appreciably better predictions than the simple model, due
to the large amount of unexplained variation. The root mean square
deviation for the regional model is 0.17 as compared to 0.19 for the
simple model. Differences in predicted values using the two models are
shown in Table 5,
TABLE 5. PREDICTED MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
(mg/1) FOR SIMPLE AND REGIONAL MODELS
Simple Model Regional Model
Avg. NCONC in Avg. NCONC in
Ag + % Urb Avg. NCONC Region B Regions A, C & D
0
25
50
75
100
0.53
0.87
1.45
2.41
4.00
0.83
1.49
2.67
4.77
0.58
0.87
1.32
1.98
2.98
48
-------
A third model using all variables on file which are statistically
significant, adjusted for other related variables on file, is the
following:
Log1Q (NCONC) = 0.237 - 0.0018 (% Forest) - 0.002 slope - 0.0018
precip. - 0.0012 animal unit density + 0..0013 (%
agric. + % urban) + 0.000055 (35 agric. + % urban)2 (8")
This model has a root mean square deviation of about the same as the
previous two models (0.17) and a correlation coefficient of 0.84, indi-
cating it is not significantly better for predictive purposes than the
simple model. It does show, however, which variables have statistically
significant effects when other variables are held constant. It is
interesting to note that animal unit density has a significant effect
on mean total nitrogen concentrations .
Figures 24 and 25 show the relationships between "% agriculture
plus % urban" and both mean orthophosphorus concentrations and mean
inorganic nitrogen concentrations. The equation for the regression
line shown in Figure 24 is:
Log1Q (OPCONC) = -2.208 + 0.0089 (% agric. + % urban) (9)
The equation for the regression line shown in Figure 25 is:
Log1Q (INCONC) = -0.873 + 0.0136 (% agric. + % urban) (10)
The correlation coefficients (r = 0.70 for OPCONC and % agric. +
% urban, and 0.82 for INCONC and % agric. + % urban) for these relation-
ships are a little lower than similar relationships for total phosphorus
and total nitrogen shown in Figures 22 and 23.
1 Data from the three drainage areas with extremely high animal unit
densities were not used to fit the above model. In these three cases,
county figures were apparently not appropriate and gave distorted
animal unit density values.
49
-------
"Contributing" Land Use Types and Nutrient Export
Figures 26 through 27 illustrate the relationships between nutrient
export and "% agriculture plus % urban". These figures show less
significant relationships between nutrient export and "contributing"
land use than were shown between nutrient concentrations and "contribu-
ting" land use. From an earlier analysis of overall land use and nutrient
runoff, lower correlations (r = 0.41 between total P export and "% agric. +
% urban", 0.36 between orthophosphorus export and "% agric. + % urban",
0.46 between total nitrogen export and "% agric. + % urban", and 0.61 for
inorganic nitrogen export and "% agric. + % urban") were to be expected.
Because of the covariants mentioned earlier, and other effects on the
"flow" portion of the export computation, a more accurate method of
predicting export values (or stream loads) would be to use the appro-
priate model for concentration prediction and then multiply by flow.
Stream flow data are available for most of the United States from the
U.S. Geological Survey. For drainage areas where flow data are not
available, good estimates can be made for USGS flow records on overlapping,
adjacent, or nearby areas, together with some general knowledge of the
topographic and climatic characteristics of the particular area.
Regionality
Figures 28 and 29 illustrate the regional aspects of the two simple
models [(1) and (5)] for predicting nutrient concentrations in streams
from combined percentages of agricultural and urban existing land use.
These maps offer some qualitative refinement of the models by revealing,
on the basis of data gathered for this study, geographical areas where
nutrient concentrations can be expected to be greater, much the same as,
or less than those predicted by the models.
The data in Figure 28 illustrate some fairly obvious regional patterns.
They indicate that phosphorus concentrations in streams are generally
50
-------
O)
.2-
in
O H
DC
I-
z
.05-
.04-
Z
8 °3
3 .02-
g
E
8 01-
.005
004
.003-
.002-
.001
r = 0.70
10
20 30 40 50 60 70
% IN AGRICULTURE + % IN URBAN
80
90
100%
Figure 24. Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to
orthophosphorus concentrations in streams.
-------
cn
IX)
10—a
5-
4-
3-
2H
-
z
Q
u
i
U
< .1-1
O
— .05-
Z .04-
I "-
.02-
.01
r = 0.82
10
i
20
30 40 50 60 70
% IN AGRICULTURE + % IN URBAN
Figure 25. Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related
to inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams.
80
90
100 %
-------
225
200
>• 100-
"te
r =0.47
20 30 40 50 60 70
% IN AGRICULTURE + % IN URBAN
eo 90
£2000-
Jt
*..
1
Z 500-
X 400-
50-
40
' = 0.46
1 —1 1 1
30 40 50 60
IN AGRICULTURE + % IN URBAN
70 80
90 |00%
Figure 26. Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related
to stream exports of total phosphorus and total nitrogen,
53
-------
IN URBAN
X MOO-
TS
S
2
X
•» 50
Z 400-
s _,
O 300-
u
I-
2 200—
-------
higher than those predicted by the prediction model in a region extending
from eastern Ohio through central and southern Indiana to southern Illinois.
This region may extend around through the western tips of Kentucky and
Tennessee into Mississippi, north-central Alabama and parts of northern
Georgia. Another area where phosphorus concentrations are generally
higher than those predicted by the model comprises much of Wisconsin and
south-central and southeastern Minnesota. Still another "high" area may
exist in a region extending from west-central Virginia through eastern
Virginia and into central Delaware, but large gaps in data points make
definition of this area difficult to support. A very large region where
phosphorus concentrations are nearly the same as, or lower than, those
predicted by the model includes most of the Northeast from West Virginia,
Maryland, and Pennsylvania through Maine, with the exception of the area
centered on southeastern New York and Connecticut. Other smaller areas
where phosphorus concentrations are mostly lower than those predicted,
are central Illinois, central Ohio, west-central Tennessee, and a small
region extending from south-central Kentucky to the northwestern tip
of Georgia.
The regional patterns were even more evident for total nitrogen (Figure
29) than they were for total phosphorus (Figure 28). Interestingly though,
the regional patterns illustrated by residuals of the nitrogen prediction
model show little to no resemblance to those of the phosphorus model. It
is also noteworthy that, neither map reveals patterns that appear to have
any clear correlation with map units of the macro-aspects (such as physio-
graphic regions, climatic characteristics, soil types, and geology), that
one might expect to affect the regional patterns of the residuals.
Figure 29 reveals two major areas where the data show nitrogen
concentrations in streams to be near or above those predicted by the
model. The first area is centered on eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey
and southeastern New York and includes much of Delaware, east-central
Maryland, central Pennsylvania, northeastern New York and Connecticut.
The second area extends from southeastern Wisconsin, through central
55
-------
RESIDUALS EXPRESSED IN
STANDARD DEVIATION UNITS
FROM THE LOG MEAN
RESIDUAL OF THE MODEL:
log (P) •-I.S31 + .0093 (% in Ag.+% in Urban)
1.0 lo 1.5
0.5 to 1.0 .
as to as
i.o to-as .
1.5 lo -1.0
t-1.5 .
Figure 28. Area! distribution of residuals from a prediction model
for total phosphorus concentrations in streams studied
in the eastern United States.
56
-------
RESIDUALS EXPRESSED IN
STANDARD DEVIATION UNITS
FROM THE LOO MEAN
RESIDUAL Of THE MODEL:
LoolN) = -.278* .00881% In Ag. » % in Urban)
map symbol
> 1.5 ... 3
1.0 to 1.5 ... 2
0.5 to 1.0 ... 1
-as to 0.5 ... •
-1.0 to-O.5 . . . (D
-1.5 to -1.0 . . .
Figure 29. Area! distribution of residuals from a prediction model
for total nitrogen concentrations in streams studied in
the eastern United States.
57
-------
Illinois, south-western Michigan, north-central Indiana and west-central
Ohio. Data on the central and eastern Illinois part of the latter region
show nitrogen concentrations in streams in that area to average much
higher than would be predicted from the model. Data on Figure 29 also
suggest that throughout most of the Appalachian highlands, and adjacent
parts of the Piedmont, southern Illinois, southern Indiana and southern
Ohio, nitrogen concentrations in streams can be expected to be near or
below what one would predict from the model. Another area of lower
nitrogen concentrations consists of the extreme northeastern New England
states of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
Although the models presented illustrate a significant increase in
the predictability of nutrient concentrations in streams through the
use of land use parameters, rather than simply using mean values of
data points regardless of land use parameters, the models only indicate
correlations found between existing land use patterns and nutrient
concentrations in streams. It does not necessarily follow that the
models can be used to predict changes in concentrations with associated
changes in land use. However, gross predictions of this nature may be
aided by analysis of the raw data (Appendix A) together with some of the
individual relationships and regional patterns which have been illustrated
Nutrient Runoff—Soils Relationships
The preliminary analysis of the relationships between soils and
nutrient concentrations in streams, discussed in Working Paper No. 25,
indicated significant correlations between pH characteristics in soils
and nutrient concentrations in streams. Generally, concentrations were
found to be considerably higher in streams draining areas with soil
orders characteristically high in bases, than in streams draining areas
with mostly acid-type soils. Efforts were therefore made to include
consideration of surface soil pH in the analysis of results in this
follow up study. It was found that even a good approximation of mean
58
-------
surface soil. pH for each of the 473 drainage areas was not available
except through time-consuming work with numerous large-scale maps from
widely scattered sources and contact with local soils scientists. The
time and expense ruled this approach out, at least for the present.
Considering time and expense, the best available source was a
collection of estimates of surface soil pH ranges for map units appearing
on the National Atlas soils map (Smith, 1975; and U.S. Geological Survey,
1970). Each drainage area was identified with a midpoint of the pH range
for the soils map unit predominant within it. This system left much to
be desired for the actual surface soil pH values probably varied con-
siderably with land use within the area covered by a given soils map
unit. For instance, for a given soils map unit in central South Carolina,
the surface soil pH is probably a great deal higher in the active cropland
areas than in the parts where pine forests predominate. Even with these
limitations, which if anything would have a "diluting" effect on the pH
to stream nutrient concentration correlations, there appear to be suffi-
ciently significant correlations to warrant a more detailed examination
of the relationship. The correlation coefficients for the relationships
between surface soil pH and mean nutrient concentrations in streams were
as follows:
pH and Total Phosphorus, r = 0.58
pH and Orthophosphorus, r = 0.57
pH and Total Nitrogen, r = 0.61
pH and Inorganic Nitrogen, r = 0.55
Nutrient Runoff—Geology Relationships
Discussions of water quality differences from one lake watershed to
another, particularly with respect to nitrogen and phosphorus loads and
concentrations, often include some mention of geological effects.
However, little data are available on the specific effects of geology
59
-------
on nutrients in either lakes or streams. One of the few articles
written on the subject (Dillon and Kirchner, 1975) has suggested a
strong effect of geology on phosphorus loads in streams. It was the
strength of Dillon and Kirchner's conclusions, together with the
suitability of their system to NES non-point source study data, that
motivated the inclusion of geology as a macro-aspect to be considered
in this paper.
Tables 6 and 7, from Dillon and Kirchner, illustrate the results
of their findings.
TABLE 6. RANGES AND MEAN VALUES FOR EXPORT OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
FROM 31 SOUTHERN ONTARIO WATERSHEDS (kg/km2/yr)
Land Use
Geological Classification
Igneous Sedimentary
Forest
Range
Mean
Forest + Pasture
Range
Mean
2.5-7.7
4.8
8.1-16.0
11.7
6.7-14.5
10.7
20.5-37.0
28.8
TABLE 7. RANGES AND MEAN VALUES FOR EXPORT OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS FROM
43 WATERSHEDS. VALUES INCLUDE DATA GIVEN IN TABLE 6 AND
ADDITIONAL DATA FROM THE LITERATURE (kg/km2/yr)
Land Use
Geological Classification
Igneous Sedimentary
Forest
Range
Mean
Forest + Pasture
Range
Mean
0.7-8.8
4.7
5.9-16.0
10.2
6.7-18.3
11.7
11. 1-13.0
23.3
60
-------
These data indicate a strong effect of the sedimentary geology
classification on phosphorus loads in streams. Generally their mean
values for sedimentary watersheds were between 2 1/4 and 2 1/2 times
greater than those from igneous watersheds. It should be noted that
the igneous watersheds shown in Tables 6 and 7 are of plutonic origin.
Additional data from the literature led Dillon and Kirchner to conclude
that one would expect phosphorus loads in streams draining igneous
watersheds of volcanic origin to be 15 times greater than in streams
draining igneous watersheds of plutonic origin.
Table 8 was prepared to illustrate the possible effects of geology
on nutrient concentrations and loads in streams with respect to data
collected by the NES on 473 non-point source-type drainage areas in
the eastern United States. The drainage areas were identified accord-
ing to the geological classification outlined earlier in this paper.
The numbers shown after the classification provide a coding scheme for
handling combinations. The data were grouped by overall land use
category to hold land use as constant as possible. Data were not
presented for drainage areas in mixed, mostly urban, and mostly agri-
culture categories because of the greater variability of land use
within these categories.
Generally, data in Table 8 indicate that given this classification
scheme and the NES data, there is no apparent significant effect of
geology on either phosphorus or nitrogen loads in streams. The same
appears true for phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations. Although
there was a paucity of purely igneous watersheds, there were many
where igneous rocks were present, or even represented the predominant
type; enough it was felt, to see an effect of this classification if
existent. By looking at the "mostly forested" data set, which contains
the largest number of predominantly igneous-piutonic watersheds, one
can see little difference in mean total phosphorus concentration or
export values between sedimentary watersheds and igneous-piutonic
watersheds. Interestingly, although the mean total phosphorus export
61
-------
CTl
r\5
TABLE 8. GEOLOGIC CLASSIFICATION AND MEAN VALUES FOR STREAM NUTRIENT
CONCENTRATIONS AND EXPORTS FROM 223 SUBDRAINAGE AREAS IN THE
EASTERN UNITED STATES. DATA GROUPED BY OVERALL LAND USE CATEGORY
Number of Concentrations (mg/1 )
Geologic Classification Subdrainage
Land Use and Grouping Code(s) Areas T-P 0-P T-N I-N
Forest
Sedimentary; some or all limestone (10)
Sedimentary; without limestone (20)
Sedimentary; all (10 & 20)
Predominantly sedimentary (10, 14, & 20)
Igneous; volcanic origin (30)
Metamorphic (40)
Igneous; plutonic origin (50)
Igneous and metamorphic (40 & 45)
Predominantly igneous and metamorphic (40, 41,
42, & 45)
MostJLy Forest
Sedimentary; some or all limestone (10)
Sedimentary; without limestone (20)
Sedimentary; all (10 & 20)
Predominantly sedimentary (10, 14, 20, 23, 24, & 25)
Igneous; volcanic origin (30)
Igneous; volcanic origin (present but not dominant,
23 & 43)
Metamorphic (40)
Igneous; plutonic origin (50)
Predominantly igneous; plutonic origin (50, 52, & 54)
Igneous and metamorphic (40, 43, 45, 50, & 54)
Predominantly igneous and metamorphic (40, 41, 42,
43, 45, 50, 52, & 54)
Agriculture
Sedimentary; some or all limestone (10)
Sedimentary; without limestone (20)
Sedimentary; all (10 & 20)
53
19
11
30
31
0
16
0
18
22
170
55
48
103
118
0
4
32
1
6
40
52
91
80
11
91
.011
.014
.012
.012
-
.017
-
.017
.016
.037
.035
.036
.036
-
.038
.035
.026
.032
.036
.035
.136
.123
.135
.006
.007
.006
.006
-
.007
-
.007
.007
.015
.014
.014
.014
-
.018
.014
.010
.013
.014
.014
.059
.055
.058
.860
.766
.825
.818
-
.520
-
.533
.625
1.056
.817
.945
.930
-
.975
.762
.951
1.049
.798
.827
4.315
3.497
4.225
.287
.337
.306
.301
-
.103
-
.119
.135
.488
.288
.395
.374
-
.328
.277
.138
.317
.269
.284
3.296
2.335
3.190
T-P
6.4
9.0
7.4
7.3
-
10.3
-
10.3
9.7
16.3
18.0
17.1
17.1
-
13.1
20.7
7.4
13.6
19.2
18.2
30.5
23.6
29.7
Export (kg/km2/yr)
0-P T-N I-N
3.6
4.5
3.9
3.9
-
4.6
-
4.6
4.3
6.3
6.9
6.6
6.5
-
6.2
8.2
2.8
9.1
8.2
8.1
12.4
10.3
12.2
498.7
467.6
487.3
482.3
-
337.4
-
342.1
380.7
472.1
441.8
458.0
456.5
-
332.2
452.0
269.5
476.2
427.7
433.1
996.8
865.4
982.3
159.6
192.2
171,5
169.1
-
65.2
-
74.6
80.7
233.2
161.2
194.3
186.7
-
115.5
166.0
39.1
134.6
149.8
152.3
748.3
660.1
738.6
Abbreviations:
T-P = Total Phosphorus
0-P = Orthophosphorus
T-N = Total Nitrogen
I-N = Inorganic Nitrogen
-------
value was about 25% greater for sedimentary watersheds than for
igneous-plutonic watersheds, the mean orthophosphorus export value
was about 27% less. Analysis of the remaining data revealed no
significant differences in orthophosphorus to total phosphorus
relationships with different geological classifications.
It was difficult to study these data for the possible effects of
igneous rocks of volcanic origin (as compared with igneous rocks of
plutonic origin) on stream nutrient concentrations or loads. No
drainage areas in either the "forest1' or "mostly forest" data sets
were classified as completely or predominantly igneous-volcanic.
However, there were four drainage areas in one data set where igneous
rocks of volcanic origin were present but not predominant. Comparison
of these data with those of other geological classifications revealed
relatively insignificant differences.
It should be emphasized that the above analysis does not suggest
that geology has no effect on nutrient concentrations or loads in streams.
It does point out that no clearly significant effects are apparent using
this type of classification and the NES data. That the NES data did not
support the conclusions in Dillon and Kirchner's paper regarding phos-
phorus export may lie in the method of classification.
Perhaps a more appropriate classification scheme should be based on
the mineral composition of the rocks rather than being based entirely or
primarily on origin. A simplified version of such a scheme might have
just two groups or classes—a class containing rocks generally considered
as being high in phosphorus content and a class containing rocks having
very little phosphorus. Rocks included in the first, or "high phosphorus",
group would be the gabbros, diorites, and basalts, or rocks largely com-
posed of ferromagnesian minerals and containing considerable apatite
(Taylor, 1975; and Goldschmidt, 1958, pp. 454-459). Apatite is the mineral
containing nearly all of the phosphorus in igneous rocks (Rankama and
Sahuma, 1950, pp. 584-586). Common rocks in the "low phosphorus" group
would be granite, syenite, granodiorite, rhyolite and andesite; or rocks
63
-------
largely made up of aluminosilicate minerals and containing little to
no apatite. Apparently all of the southern Ontario watersheds classified
igneous by Dillon and Kirchner contained "low phosphorus" rocks. Meta-
morphic rocks might be fit into one of the above groups depending on the
type or types of rocks metamorphosed.
Although this scheme represents a better breakdown of igneous and
some metamorphic rocks for studying the effects of general rock types on
phosphorus in streams, it may present difficulties. For many parts of
the United States, geologic maps with the level of detail necessary to
accomplish this breakdown, may be lacking or difficult to obtain.
64
-------
SECTION V
REFERENCES
1. Anonymous. 1972. 1969 Census of Agriculture. Vol. I, Parts 1-4, 6,
7 and 13-15. U.S. Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C.
2. Anonymous. 1973. 1973 Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics. Wisconsin
Stat. Rept. Serv., Madison, Wisconsin.
3. Anonymous. 1974. Livestock Waste Management with Pollution Control.
North Central Regional Publication 93. Manuscript.
4. Arscott, G. H. 1975. Personal communication: Poultry Production
Characteristics. Poultry Science Department, School of Agriculture,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
5. Austin, M. E. 1965, revised 1972. Land Resources Regions and Major
Land Resource Areas of the United States Exclusive of Alaska and
Hawaii. Agriculture Handbook 296. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
6. Dillon, P. J. and W. B. Kirchner. 1975. The Effects of Geology and
Land Use on the Export of Phosphorus from Watersheds. Water Research
9:135-148.
7. Dornbush, J. N., J. R. Anderson, and L. L. Harms. 1974. Quantification
of Pollutants in Agricultural Runoff. EPA Environmental Protection
Technology Series #EPA-660/2-74-005. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
65
-------
8. Goldschmidt, V. M. 1958. Geochemistry. London: Oxford University
Press. 730 pp.
9. Hammond, E. H. 1964. Analysis of Properties in Land Form Geography:
An Application to Broad-scale Land Form Mapping. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 54:11-23.
10. Harper, J. A. 1975. Personal communication: Turkey Production
Characteristics. Poultry Science Department, School of Agriculture,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
11. Hohenboken, H. D. 1975. Personal communication: .Sheep Production
Characteristics. Animal Science Department, School of Agriculture,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
12. Holt, R. F., D. R. Timmons, and J. R. Latterell. 1970. Accumulation
of Phosphates in Water. Agricultural Food and Chemistry 18(5):781-784.
13. Holt, R. F. 1971. Surface Water Quality is Influenced by Agricul-
tural Practices. Presented at the 1971 Winter Meeting of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, Illinois.
14. Johnson, T. H. and G. J. Mountney. 1969. Poultry Manure Production,
Utilization, and Disposal. World's Poultry Science Journal 25(3):
202-217.
15. Likens, G. E. and F. H. Bormann. 1974. Linkages between Terrestrial
and Aquatic Ecosystems. Bioscience 24(8):447-456.
16. Loehr, R. C. 1974. Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude of
Non-point Sources. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation
46(8):1849-1872.
66
-------
17. Miner, J. R., ed. 1971. Farm Animal-waste Management. North
Central Regional Publication 206. Iowa Agriculture Experiment
Station Special Report 67. Ames: Iowa State University of
Science and Technology.
18. Miner, J. R. 1975. Personal communication: Swine and Cattle
Production Characteristics. Agricultural Engineering Department,
School of Agriculture, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
19. Miner, J. R. and T. L. Willrich. 1970. Livestock Operations and
Field-spread Manure as Sources of Pollutants. In: Agricultural
Practices and Water Quality. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
20. Rankama, K. and Th. G. Sahama. 1950. Geochemistry. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. 911 pp.
21. Robbins, J. W. D., D. H. Howells, and G. J. Kriz. 1971. Role of
Animal Wastes in Agricultural Land Runoff. Environmental Protection
Agency Report No. 13020 DGX 08/71. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
22. Smith, G. D. 1975. Surface Soil pH Ranges Estimates for National
Atlas Soils Map Map Units. Unpublished. Soil Conservation Service,
Hyattsville, Maryland.
23. Taylor, E. M. 1975. Personal communication: Phosphorus in Rocks.
Department of Geology, School of Science, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon.
24. Thomas, G. W. and J. D. Crutchfield. 1974. Nitrate-nitrogen and
Phosphorus Contents of Streams Draining Small Agricultural
Watersheds in Kentucky. Journal of Environmental Quality 3(1):
46-49.
67
-------
25. U.S. Department of Interior. 1972. A Land Use Classification
System for Use With Remote-sensor Data. Geological Survey
Circular 671.
26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. National Eutrophication
Survey Methods for Lakes Sampled in 1972. National Eutrophication
Survey Working Paper No. 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Eutrophication Research Program, Corvallis, Oregon.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Relationships Between
Drainage Area Characteristics and Non-point Source Nutrients in
Streams. National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 25.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Eutrophication Research
Program, Corvallis, Oregon.
28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. National Eutrophication
Survey Methods, 1973-1976. National Eutrophication Survey Working
Paper No. 175. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Eutrophi'
cation Research Program, Corvallis, Oregon.
29. U.S. Geological Survey. 1970. The National Atlas of the United
States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
30. Uttormark, P. D., J. D. Chapin, and K. M. Green. 1974. Estimating
Nutrient Loadings of Lakes from Non-point Sources. EPA Ecological
Research Series #EPA-660/3-74-020. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
31. Vollenweider, R. A. 1968. Scientific Fundamentals of the Eutro-
phication of Lakes and Flowing Waters with Particular Reference
to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as Factors in Eutrophication. A Report
to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris.
DAS/CSI/68. 2:1-182.
68
-------
SECTION VI
APPENDIX
69
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AKEAS
bUBDKAlNAGE AREAS REGION
STORET NO.
ALABAMA
GANTT RESERVOIR
0103B1
GUNTERSVILLE RESERVOIR
0104A1
0104E1
0104G1
0104J1
0 1Q4L1
HOLT LOCK AND DAM
0105B1
0105C1
010501
LAY LAKE
0106C1
0106D1
MARTIN LAKE
0107C1
-j 0107H1
0 MITCHELL LAKE
010881
PICKWICK LAKE
0109C1
010901
0109K1
0109M1
0109Q1
W. F. GEORGE RESERVOIR
011181
0111C1
0111J1
0111M1
WEISS LAKE
0112C1
0112E1
WILSON LAKE
0114F1
LAKE PURDY
OHSdl
0115C1
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
40
40
34
34
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
30
30
30
1
AREA
(SO KM)
21.26
53.92
78.55
55.06
127.74
22.17
5.44
3.11
29.86
22.07
45.38
40.71
43.36
26.94
174.80
134.32
42.48
173.63
111.63
31.44
117.85
25.74
32.50
26.42
23.65
7.30
8.44
3.99
FOR
74.5
52.2
34.9
24.4
42.8
60.0
93.8
92.5
85.0
74.7
69.0
73.3
79.1
63.2
64.8
74.8
76.6
80.2
80.4
84.6
81.6
72.9
58.0
89.2
50.3
25.7
89.8
72.5
LAND
a
CL
.6
3.4
2.5
1.1
1.6
1.3
1.4
3.5
1.0
1.5
2.6
6.0
1.3
.7
9.0
4.1
4.2
3.5
11.3
2.3
5.3
5.6
3.9
1.4
45.2
8.1
1.3
0
USE PERCENTAGES
AG URB WET
24.9
43.5
61.8
74.3
55.4
24.0
2.4
1.0
0
23.8
27.7
19.5
19.1
35.7
24.6
20.7
19.1
16.2
8.3
11.2
12.6
19.8
37.5
9.4
4.5
66.1
8.8
26.9
0
0
.5
0
.1
0
0
3.0
0
0
.1
1.1
0
0
.9
.1
0
0
0
0
0
.2
0
0
0
0
0
.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3
0
0
0
0
0
.9
.3
1.5
.4
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER
0
.9
.3
.2
.1
14.7
2.4
0
14.0
0
.6
.1
.5
.1
.7
.3
.1
.1
0
1.0
.2
0
.2
0
0
.1
.1
.3
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
FOREST
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
rt. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
,M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
SOILS
3 4
MAP UNIT PH
U06-01
U05-01
U05-01
U05-01
U05-OI
U05-01
108-Ofa
108-06
108-06
U06-11
UOb-11
U05-03
U05-03
U05-04
U06-11
U06-11
U06-11
U06-11
004-01
U05-03
U05-03
U06-01
U06-01
U06-11
U06-11
U06-01
108-06
ioa-06
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
MEAN AVE AN
SLOPE PRECI
(%) (CM)
8.8
11.0
5.9
3.6
4.7
9.3
16.2
29.6
21.9
6.6
10.3
9.2
7.3
9.0
13.0
16.7
15.8
18.2
19.5
8.2
9.0
10.1
7.9
20.4
7.5
3.6
19.8
12.1
147
137
137
132
132
132
135
135
135
140
140
135
135
142
127
127
127
127
132
135
135
132
135
132
132
127
140
140
FLOW 5
(CMS/SU KM)
.0073
.0261
.0201
.0195
.0192
.0208
.0162
.0162
.0162
.0175
.0189
.0176
.0075
.0201
.0131
.0135
.0244
.0160
.0164
.0145
.0115
.0126
.0126
.0170
.0165
.0141
.0214
.0214
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AKEAS
SUBORAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7 (AN UNITS/SQ KM)
FLAG GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
ALABAMA
GANTT RESERVOIR
010361
GUNTERSVILLE RESERVOIR
0104A1
0104E1
0104G1
0104J1
0104L1
HOLT LOCK AND DAM
010581
0105C1
0105D1
LAY LAKE
0106C1
0106D1
MARTIN LAKE
0107C1
^ 0107H1
MITCHELL LAKE
0103B1
PICKWICK LAKE
0109C1
0109D1
0109K1
0109M1
0109Q1
W. F. GEORGE RESERVOIR
OlllBl
0111C1
0111J1
Oil 1M1
WEISS LAKE
0112C1
oiiati
WILSON LAKE
U114F1
LAKE PUHDY
01 15dl
0115C1
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SED W/0 L
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED/MET
SED/MET
MET
MET
MET/SWOL
SED
SEO
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED
SED W/0 L
SED w/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SEO W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SEO
SwOL/MET
SWOL/MET
23.0
65.8
93.4
115.2
57.2
18.6
2.0
.8
0
39.7
46.3
24.6
25.5
33.4
19.2
13.0
12.8
11.5
5.2
10.2
11.4
13.0
24.6
10.8
4.4
41 .4
14.7
44.9
23.1
68.0
102.3
125.6
60.9
19.3
2.0
.9
0
39.3
45. 8
24.7
27.3
33.8
18.4
12.9
12.6
11.4
5.0
10.0
11.2
12.9
24.4
10. b
4.4
41.1
14. b
44.5
.018
.072
.042
.051
.044
.027
.021
.020
.012
.039
.040
.021
.045
.032
.035
.039
.011
.014
.029
.015
.027
.024
.032
.014
.030
.046
.052
.057
.005
.017
.012
.010
.011
.007
.007
.008
.006
.012
.018
.008
.017
.012
.010
.011
.006
.009
.011
.006
.007
.008
.008
.006
.009
.019
.016
.011
.805
1.433
2.129
2.492
2.145
1.H65
1.235
1.314
.897
.650
.892
.450
.691
1.021
.729
.b31
.532
.674
.711
.840
.527
. 779
.797
.655
1.137
1.713
1. 177
.605
.215
.688
1.318
1.497
1.511
2.405
.736
.774
.508
.270
.253
.116
.150
.327
.264
.193
.205
.225
.134
.091
.092
.224
.373
.137
.107
.893
.106
.100
tea.
4.1
59.0
26.5
30.8
26.4
17.6
10.9
10.1
5.9
21.6
22.9
11.5
10.4
20.1
l4.it
16. b
8.4
6.9
14.9
6.7
9.4
9.4
12.7
7.6
15. b
17.8
34.8
40.3
1.1
13.9
7.6
6.0
6.6
4.6
3.6
4.0
3.0
6.6
10.3
4.4
3.9
7.5
4.1
t.6
4.6
4.4
5.6
2.7
2.4
3.1
3.2
3.3
4. t
7.3
10.7
7.8
184.0
1175.0
1342.8
1504.3
1284.7
1213.4
640.7
662.4
442.7
360.2
511.6
246.1
159.9
641.7
299.5
224.4
408.4
331.1
364.2
377.0
183.7
303.7
315.3
357.6
587.9
662.2
7e7.1
427.9
49.2
564.1
831.3
903.7
905.0
1564.7
381.8
390.2
250.7
149.6
145.1
63.4
34.7
205.5
108.4
81. b
157.4
110. b
68.6
40.8
32.1
87.3
147.5
74.8
55.3
34b.2
70.9
70.7
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUHDRAINAGE AREAS
1
SUBDRA1NAGE AREAS
STOKET NO.
CONNECTICUT
ASPINOOK POND
0901C1
0901F1
HANOVER POND
0905bl
LAKE ZOAR
0910B1
0910C1
091001
0910F1
0910G1
0910H1
REGIOM
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
FLOW 5
(CMS/SO KM)
.0209
.0188
.0198
.0211
.0197
.0207
.0210
.0202
.0186
DELAWARE
! KILLEN POND
1002A2
1002B1
SILVER LAKE
1008B1
WILLIAMS POND
1009C1
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA RES.
1301F1
CHATUGE
1303A1
1303C1
CLARK HILL RES
1304C1
1304F1
1304J1
1304K1
JACKSON LAKE
1309A1
SIDNEY LANIER LAKE
1310C1
131001
1310E1
40
40
40
40
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
37.40
2.28
5.02
4.01
46.54
15.44
23.34
31.13
71.92
43.38
25.64
188.84
63.56
53.54
43.15
36.0
23.4
6.1
29.0
96.2
91.3
89.5
80.4
7U.3
67.9
62.4
59.3
61.5
53.4
51.5
1.8
0
.5
10.1
1.8
.5
2.4
9.3
3.8
2.b
2.7
2.1
1.8
.5
2.0
61.0
76.6
92.1
59.4
1.8
8.2
8.1
10.1
25.2
29.5
33.8
37.6
36.6
45.6
45.0
.8
0
.9
1.5
0
0
0
0
.7
0
.8
.6
.1
.3
1.4
.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
0
.1
0
0
0
.4
0
.2
0
0
.2
0
.1
. J
.3
0
.1
.1
M. AGKIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
FOREST
M. FOK.
M. FOK.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
U01-04
U05-05
U05-05
U05-05
U05-06
U05-04
U05-04
U05-03
U05-01
U05-01
U05-01
U05-03
U05-03
U05-03
U05-01
5.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
1.3
1.2
1.9
.6
20.0
42.4
43.4
7.7
9.0
6.9
8.3
6.3
15.4
12.3
14.2
117
117
114
117
132
152
163
117
117
117
117
119
152
157
163
.0147
.0148
.0166
.0017
.0141
.0234
.0232
.0093
.0039
.0082
.0032
.0139
.0274
.0194
.0194
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS dY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBORAINAGE AREAS
STORE! NO.
CONNECTICUT
ASPINOOK POND
0901C1
0901F1
HANOVER POND
0905B1
LAKE ZOAR
0910dl
0910C1
0910D1
0910F1
0910G1
0910H1
DELAWARE
KILLEN POND
-j 1002A2
00 1002B1
SILVER LAKE
1008B1
WILLIAMS POND
1009C1
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA RES.
1301F1
CHATUGE
1303A1
1303C1
CLARK HILL RES
1304C1
1304F1
1304J1
1304K1
JACKSON LAKE
1309A1
SIDNEY LANIER LAKE
1310C1
131001
1310E1
FLAG
ANIMAL DENSITY
7 (AN UNITS/SU KM)
GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N 1NORG N
4
3
3
1
3
1
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MET
MET
SWOL/IG-V
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
SED */0 L
SEO W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SEO W/0 L
MET
MET
MET
MET
IGNEOUS-P
MET/IG-P
MET
MET/IG-P
MET
MET
MET
17.2
19.6
.3
13.7
5.9
37.4
15.2
25.1
11.4
16.3
20.5
26.9
85.2
1.9
17.0
16.8
2.1
32.3
39.9
46.9
30.2
204.8
233.5
230.4
16.4
18.8
.3
13.5
5.8
36.8
14.6
24.2
11.2
17.2
21.6
26.5
109.0
2.2
15.2
15.1
2.1
31.4
37.6
43.6
29.9
222.3
261.9
258.4
.041
.021
.045
.021
.032
.031
.018
.044
.034
.261
.126
.047
.083
.024
.028
.038
.025
.026
.029
.036
.032
.072
.055
.062
.009
.010
.022
.011
.009
.008
.010
.079
.012
.192
.057
.020
.030
.006
.006
.006
.017
.010
.012
.017
.008
.030
.020
.Olb
1.25fe
.959
1.664
.532
.956
.978
1.126
1.-+16
1.069
3.322
2.743
7.610
1.382
.401
.458
.458
.532
.951
.818
1.189
.m
.931
1.072
1.295
.440
.291
.995
.295
.279
.416
.721
.758
.653
2.523
1.836
7.406
.601
.041
.136
.130
.164
.138
.090
.191
.232
.465
.626
.679
EXPORT
(KG/SQ KM)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
845.1 296.1
565.5 171.6
1055.7 631.3
27.6
12.4
28.5
15.4
22.2
20.2
11.4
29.8
20.0
16.0
69.3
6.1
5.9
14.0
8.1
6.3
5.2
6.3
53.6
7.0
85.3
31.4
23.5
6.5
10.7
20.5
27.6
13.7
62.9
33.5
36.0
10.0
2.3
2.7
4.4
4.4
7.3 5.0
7.4 2.8
7.5 3.1
10.1 4.8
3.4
26.2
12.2
9.3
390.2
664.5
636.2
710.9
960.4
627.8
178.3
334.8
332.3
304.6
812.9
652.9
752.8
216.4
193.9
270.6
455.2
514.1
383.5
1476.1 1121.1
1508.9 1010.0
3802.7 3700.8
108.1 47.0
18.2
99.4
94.3
155.4 47.9
269.5 39.1
212.9 23.4
334.4 53.7
99.4
406.0
381.3
394. 7
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SU8DRAINAGE AREAS
1
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS REGION AREA
STORE! NO. (SO KM) FOR
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
CL AG URB
GEORGIA
NOTTELY RES.
1311C1 30 71.77 73.9 1.9 24.2
131101 30 29.84 82.0 .8 17.2
SEMINOLE LAKE
1312D1 40 55.43 67.7 4.0 27.1
BLUE RIDGE LAKE
1316A1 30 9.40 85.9 2.7
1316C1 30 36.36 83.4 1.3
1316D1 30 10.23 86.0 2.5
1316E1 30 16.96 96.0 .8
BURTON LAKE
131861 30 16.14 98.0 0
1318C1 30 20.33 99.4 0
131801 30 17.25 99.2 0
^ 1318E1 30 14.71 99.1 0
-*• HIGH FALLS POND
1319B1 40
ILLINOIS
CARLYLE RESERVOIR
1706D1 20
1706E1 20
1706H1 20
CRAB ORCHARD LAKE
1712C1 20 43.90 39.3 7.0 52.6
LAKE DECATUR
1714B1 20 20.90 .5 2.0 97.4
1714C1 20 109.06 3.6 1.2 93.8
1714E1 20 53.54 0 .9 99.1
1714F1 20 45.56 0 1.1 98.9
1714G1 20 26.37 2.0 2.8 93.9
1714H1 20 57.06 .6 2.3 97.1
1714J1 20 21.63 1.4 2.8 95.8
LAKE LOU YEAGER
1726C1 20 51.13 1.4 1.1 97.3
REND LAKE
1735B1 20 229.14 27.8 3.4 b8.0
1735F1 20 130.82 20.8 3.2 76.0
11.4
15.3
11.5
3.2
2.0
.6
.8
.9
99.30 54.9 3.5 40.7
134.89 14.9 3.0 80.5
223.41 29.0 4.5 66.2
59.39 9.9 2.5 86.8
1.5
.2
.8
.3
.1
1.2
0
0
1.2
0
0
.6
0
T
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER
0
0
.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5
.1
.1
0
.8
0
.2
0
0
.1
0
0
.2
.2
0
OVERALL
LANU USE
CATEGORY
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
M. FOR.
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AbRIC
SOILS
MEAN AVE AN
3 4
MAP UNIT
U05-06
U05-04
U06-01
U05-06
U05-06
U05-06
UOS-Ob
U05-03
U05-06
U05-03
U05-06
U05-01
A01-03
A01-03
A01-03
A06-07
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
M0t>-06
M06-06
A01-03
A01-03
PH
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.3
SLOPE
(*)
17.8
27.4
4.7
31.1
25.6
20.8
35.5
34.3
38.0
39.9
36.6
6.8
1.5
2.3
1.5
8.3
2.2
1.7
.5
.6
1.5
1.7
1.6
.7
3.7
2.6
PRECI
(CM)
135
135
132
132
132
132
132
165
165
165
165
122
104
102
102
117
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
91
107
107
FLOw 5
(CMS/SU KM)
.0192
.0176
.0112
.0287
.0285
.0292
.0289
.0340
.0330
.0332
.0332
.0141
.0063
.0064
.0062
.0061
.0061
.0063
.0062
.0062
.0061
.0062
.0061
.0061
.0064
.0061
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBORAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORE! NO.
GEORGIA
NOTTELY RES.
1311C1
1311D1
SEMINOLE LAKE
131201
BLUE RIDGE LAKE
1316A1
1316C1
1316D1
1316E1
BURTON LAKE
1318B1
1318C1
131801
^ 1318E1
^ HIGH FALLS POND
131961
ILLINOIS
CARLYLE RESERVOIR
170601
1706E1
1706H1
CRAB ORCHARD LAKE
1712C1
LAKE DECATUR
171461
1714C1
171461
1714F1
1714G1
1714H1
1714J1
LAKE LOU YEAGER
1726C1
REND LAKE
1735B1
1735F1
13.5
18.1
13.6
9.8
3.3
1.0
1.3
1.5
13.1
17.6
13.2
11.4
3.8
1.1
1.5
1.7
.018
.031
.046
.010
.008
.015
.009
.008
.006
.007
.007
.007
.005
.010
.005
.005
.769
.487
.729
.470
.422
.466
.342
.353
.174
.108
.070
.043
.080
.066
.052
.082
16.2
28.1
42.3
9.1
8.5
15.7
9.7
8.5
5.4
6.3
6.4
6.3
5.3
10.5
5.4
5.3
692.6
441.0
670.3
425.8
450.9
488.7
366.8
376.2
156.7
97.8
64.4
39.0
85.5
69.2
55.8
87.4
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
FLAG GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
1 MET
4 MET
1 SED W/0 L
1 MET
1 MET
1 MET
4 MET
1 MET
1 MET
1 MET
1 MET
1 MET
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SQ KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
41.4
38.5
16.5
13.5
18.1
13.6
9.8
3.3
1.0
1.3
1.5
38.7
27.7
21.7
29.1
28.8
12.3
11.9
12.5
15.6
13.4
15.4
12.1
38.9
25.4
29.0
38.5
35.0
20.5
13.1
17.6
13.2
11.4
3.8
1.1
1.5
1.7
38.6
27.3
21.4
28.7
28.4
12.2
11.7
12.4
15.4
13.2
15.1
12.0
38.1
24.9
28.4
.037
.035
.106
.018
.031
.046
.010
.008
.015
.009
.008
.025
.243
.134
.273
.089
.122
.153
.092
.078
.160
.115
.127
.177
.198
.143
.009
.010
.047
.619
.759
.794
.185
.110
.098
.007
.105
.045
.093
.021
.522
2.095
1.720
2.305
2.236
.227
.750
.529
.734
1.395
12.3
11.9
12.5
15.6
13.4
15.4
12.1
12.2
11.7
12.4
15.4
13.2
15.1
12.0
.122
.153
.092
.078
.160
.115
.127
.041
.078
.032
.026
.089
.035
.044
6.399
5.292
6.84fa
5.510
5.453
6.227
6.955
5.093
4.897
5.832
4.920
4.809
5.645
6.051
23.8
30.4
18.3
15.0
30.4
21.5
22.1
8.0
15.5
6.4
5.0
16.9
6.5
7.7
1248.0
1049.8
1363.6
1061.8
1037.4
1163.4
1209.9
993.3
971.5
1161.3
948.1
914.9
1054.7
1052.6
.090
.041
.026
7.265
2.390
2.138
6.066
.710
.685
22.1
19.5
37.2
16.2
28.1
42.3
9.1
8.5
15.7
9.7
8.5
11.2
<+7.4
26.7
54.4
17.2
23.8
30.4
18.3
15.0
30.4
21.5
22.1
33.6
39.6
27.6
5.4
5.6
16.5
5.4
6.3
6.4
6.3
5.3
10.5
5.4
5.3
3.1
20.5
9.0
18.2
4.0
8.0
15.5
6.4
5.0
16.9
6.5
7.7
17.1
8.2
5.0
234.1
857.0
342.8
450.3
431.2
101.8
146.4
105.4
143.4
269. 0
1381.1 1153.2
477.5
413.3
141.8
132.4
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAuE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORE! NO.
ILLINOIS
SHELBYVILLE RESERVOIR
1739B1
1739C1
1739G1
1739H1
SPRINGFIELD LAKE
1742B1
VERMILION RESERVOIR
1748A3
174881
1748C1
1748E1
1748F1
1748G1
SANGCHRIS LAKE
175381
-j 1753C1
°" 1753D1
1753E1
HOLIDAY LAKE
1754A2
RACCOON LAKE
1762A2
LAKE VANDALIA
1764A2
1764B1
1764C1
176401
INDIANA
CATARACT LAKE
1805D1
1805E1
1805E2
GEIST RESERVOIR
181101
MISSISSINEWA RESERVOIR
1827C1
1827D1
1827F1
iGION
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1
AREA
(SO KM)
28.21
40.64
144.39
119*30
60.74
98.52
13.49
24.29
29.73
43.90
35.41
36.23
12.61
17.38
32.17
138.15
90.86
11.47
10.54
4.53
3.16
3.55
6.42
15.67
23.88
7.59
25.62
18.36
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
FOR
3.7
3.0
1.9
4.6
1.1
.2
3.3
.2
.1
.1
1.4
2.8
0
.1
1.8
3.9
22.0
2.6
6.5
5.2
0
54.8
39.0
44.3
6.6
4.9
15.5
1.9
CL
.4
1.0
.8
1.2
.4
.2
.2
.2
.3
0
.7
.2
0
1.0
.5
1.4
2.0
0
0
0
0
4.1
9.2
6.1
1.1
0
.3
0
AG
95.9
96.0
97.2
93.3
98.4
97.6
96.5
99.6
99.6
99.9
97.2
97.0
100.0
98.9
97.6
93.9
75.2
97.4
93.5
94.8
100.0
41.1
51.1
47.9
91.1
93.7
83.6
98.1
URB
0
0
.1
.9
0
1.7
0
0
0
0
.7
0
0
0
0
.8
.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.9
.2
0
WET
0
0
0
0
0
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
0
.5
.4
0
OTHER
0
0
0
0
.1
.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
0
.5
0
0
0
0
0
.7
.6
1.2
0
0
0
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. FOR.
MIXED
MIXED
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
SOILS MEAN AVE ANN
3 4 SLOPE PHECIP
MAP UNIT PH <*> (CM)
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
A07-17
M06-06
M06-06
A07-17
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
M06-06
A01-03
A01-03
A01-03
A01-03
A01-03
A06-06
A06-06
A06-06
A07-04
A07-04
A07-04
A07-04
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
1.1
.9
.7
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.6
.8
.2
.4
.5
1.4
3.0
.9
1.8
1.2
1.4
10.0
7.1
16.3
3.0
1.6
3.4
1.5
97
97
97
99
91
94
97
94
94
97
94
91
91
91
91
86
104
97
97
97
97
107
107
107
91
94
94
94
FLOW S
(CMS/SQ KM)
.0061
.0062
.0064
.0063
.0063
.0063
.0061
.0061
.0062
.0059
.0061
.0061
.0060
.0061
.0061
.0061
.0063
.0060
.0060
.0059
.0059
.0093
.0093
.0093
.0094
.0093
.0093
.0094
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SU8DRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
ILLINOIS
SHEL8YVILLE RESERVOIR
1739B1
1739C1
1739G1
1739H1
SPRINGFIELD LAKE
174281
VERMILION RESERVOIR
1748A3
174881
1748C1
1748E1
1748F1
1748G1
SANGCHRIS LAKE
175381
1753C1
1753D1
ij 1753E1
HOLIDAY LAKE
1754A2
RACCOON LAKE
1762A2
LAKE VANDALIA
1764A2
1764B1
1764C1
1764D1
INDIANA
CATARACT LAKE
180501
1805E1
1805E2
GEIST RESERVOIR
181101
MISSISSINEWA RESERVOIR
1827C1
182701
1827F1
FLAG
ANIMAL DENSITY
7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N
TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SQ KM>
ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
\1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SEO
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SEO
SED
SEO
SED
SEO
SEO
SED
27.2
23.4
15.8
18.1
29.5
19.9
17.4
17.9
17.9
18.0
17.5
17.8
18.3
18.1
26.0
66.0
26.5
31.9
30.6
31.0
32.7
29.8
37.0
34.7
35.1
55.1
35.1
44.8
26.7
22.9
15.3
17.6
28.8
19.6
17.2
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.3
17.4
17.9
17.7
25.5
67.0
26.1
31.5
30.2
30.6
30.3
29.2
36.3
34.0
34.6
53.2
33.8
43.5
.123
.094
.211
.270
.110
.092
.089
.079
.153
.076
.067
.121
.052
.121
.182
.123
.191
.164
.169
.191
.313
.135
.259
.044
.096
.172
.105
.096
.074
.033
.102
.136
.050
.027
.026
.015
.019
.017
.014
.049
.038
.046
.093
.051
.045
.089
.069
.069
.133
.036
.142
.014
.047
.118
.033
.052
5.370
6.660
7.269
7.082
7.332
7.186
8.025
7.827
8.842
8.394
7.809
6.624
6.109 ,
6.510
7.641
7.141
2.775
2.260
2.550
2.108
3.042
1.222
3.215
1 . 1 55 '
5.143
5.226
2.616
5.781
4.694
6.157
6.359
5.961
6.533
7.011
7.444
7.247
7.848
7.630
7.177
5.915
5.229
5.607
6.876
6.292
.599
.888
.791
.575
1.444
.675
1.834
.532
4.424
4.210
1.295
4.730
23.2
18.1
42.6
53.2
22.1
18.4
18.6
15.3
29.0
14.1
12.5
23.0
10.3
24.0
35.5
24.8
37.6
31.4
30.2
39.7
62.1
35.8
75.9
13.2
29.0
49.7
30.8
27.9
14.0
6.4
20.6
26.8
10.1
5.4
5.4
2.9
3.6
3.2
2.6
9.3
7.6
9.1
18.1
10.3
8.9
17.0
12.3
14.3
26.4
9.5
41.6
4.2
14.2
34.1
11.2
15.1
1476.2 1315.3
1440.9
1678.8
1515.6
1678.6
1558.8
1452.1
1261.2
1215.2
1291.9
1489.5
1442.5
545.9
432.5
455.2
437.7
603.7
323.8
942.1
346.7
I40b.8
1557.2
1403.3
1489.9
1416.9
1334.6
1126.2
1040.2
1112.7
1340.4
1271.0
117.8
169.9
141.2
119.4
286.7
178.9
537.4
159.7
1553.2 1336.1
1511.3
768.4
1678.4
1217.5
380.4
1373.3
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBORAINAbE AREAS
SOILS
SU6DRAINAGE AREAS
STORE! NO.
INDIANA
MORSE RESERVOIR
1829B1
WAWASEE LAKE
1836C1
WINONA LAKE
184081
1840C1
MAXINKUCEE LAKE
1843B1
1843C1
OLIVER LAKE
1847B1
VERSAILLES LAKE
18SOB1
185001
PIGEON LAKE
1855A2
185581
MARSH LAKE
1856B1
HAMILTON LAKE
1857B1
OD 1857C1
1857D1
KENTUCKY
LAKE CUMBERLAND
2101C1
2101H1
2101J1
2101K1
2101S1
DALE HOLLOW RESERVOIR
210281
2102C1
2102F1
KENTUCKY LAKE
2104C1
2104D1
2104E1
2104F1
2104K1
2104L1
2104M1
2104N1
2104V1
2104W1
2104X1
2104Y1
2104Z1
REGION AREA
(SO KM)
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
43
43
30
34
34
34
40
30
30
30
30
34
48.02
4.53
29.81
9.27
3.81
5.10
5.52
15.46
11.58
33.20
8.18
5.52
21.89
2.15
1.81
12.61
39.63
40.38
58.43
46.36
12.92
30.46
23.39
76.59
8.96
138.44
32.92
9.61
38.18
19.43
13.99
37.58
55.04
48.02
59.83
19.71
FOR
8.5
16.5
11.9
8.2
9.1
18.6
12.1
25.4
21.0
15.0
10.4
15.1
15.6
17.0
25.7
46.2
47.1
35.4
20.3
89.1
41.0
39.9
78.6
40.2
52.4
54.5
64.3
82.5
76.2
66.7
57.2
74.6
77.5
86.1
79.1
76.1
2
CL
.1
1.9
.4
.8
6.4
6.2
4.0
43.4
10.0
3.0
5.6
15.7
.6
.1
14.9
6.2
1.8
1.8
3.0
6.6
4.7
4.7
6.0
4.8
11.4
2.5
8.7
2.8
4.0
2.5
10.1
2.2
3.6
2.0
2.1
3.2
AG
90.4
80.7
87.1
89.7
84.5
72.0
83.1
31.2
68.4
81.9
84.0
65.7
83.8
82.9
59.4
47.6
50.8
62.5
75.8
2.8
54.3
55.2
15.4
55.0
35.6
42.7
27.0
14.7
19.6
30.5
29.9
22.9
18.6
11.9
18.7
20.7
URB
.9
0
.2
0
0
0
0
0
.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3
0
.8
.5
0
.1
0
0
.3
0
0
0
0
0
2.1
.3
.2
0
.1
0
HfET
0
.9
.2
.5
0
3.2
.8
0
0
0
0
3.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
0
0
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER
.1
0
.2
.8
0
0
0
0
.4
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3
.1
1.0
0
.1
0
0
.3
.2
0
0
.1
.3
.7
0
.1
0
0
0
LAND USE
CATEGORY
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
MIXED
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
MIXED
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
FOREST
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. AGKIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
3 4
MAP UNIT PH
A07-04
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-05
A07-05
A07-01
AOb-02
A06-02
A07-05
A07-05
A07-05
A07-04
A07-05
A07-04
U05-07
U06-06
U06-06
U06-06
U05-07
U05-07
U05-07
108-06
A07-14
U06-03
U06-03
006-03
U06-03
U06-03
U06-03
U06-03
U06-06
U06-06
U06-06
U06-06
U06-03
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
5.8
5.8
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.8
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
SLOPE
(*)
2.1
1.9
2.4
2.8
4.7
5.0
2.4
3.9
3.9
2.4
2.1
6.0
3.4
6.0
8.1
17.8
14.9
13.6
10.1
22.6
16.0
17.2
25.6
7.6
11.0
8.4
10.9
14.8
16.0
11.8
8.1
17.5
17.8
19.4
17.4
10.6
PKECI
(CM)
91
91
94
94
94
94
89
104
104
89
89
89
89
89
89
132
127
127
127
122
127
132
137
122
122
122
122
127
127
127
127
132
132
132
130
127
MEAN AVt ANN
FLOW 5
(CMS/SO KM)
.0111
.0092
.0094
.0093
.0093
.0093
.0092
.0093
.0093
.0094
.0093
.0093
.0093
.0091
.0092
.0132
.0134
.0134
.0134
.0134
.0182
.0182
.0208
.0146
.0146
.0146
.0146
.0146
.0146
.0146
.0146
.0146
.0146
.0146
.0146
.0146
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
FLAG GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
OfcTHO P TOT N
INORG N
INDIANA
MORSE RESERVOIR
1829B1
WAWASEE LAKE
1836C1
WINONA LAKE
1840B1
1840C1
MAXINKUCEE LAKE
1843B1
1843C1
OLIVER LAKE
1847B1
VERSAILLES LAKE
1850B1
185001
PIGEON LAKE
1855A2
1855B1
MARSH LAKE
1856dl
HAMILTON LAKE
1857B1
5 1857C1
1857D1
KENTUCKY
LAKE CUMBERLAND
2101C1
2101H1
2101J1
2101K1
2101S1
DALE HOLLOW RESERVOIR
2102B1
2102C1
2102F1
KENTUCKY LAKE
2104C1
2104D1
2104E1
2104F1
2104K1
2104L1
2104M1
2104N1
2104V1
2104W1
2104X1
2104Y1
2104/1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SEO
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SEO
SED
SED
SED
SEO
SED
SEO
SED
SED
SED W/0 L
SEO W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED W/0 L
43.7
49.2
65.7
67.7
46. 1
41.5
80.4
21.1
46.4
47.7
48.9
38.3
48.8
48.3
34.6
46.7
47.9
61.6
74.7
2.3
53.2
50.6
19.0
30.9
20.0
24.9
16.1
9.6
12.8
19.9
19.5
19.6
12.6
7.3
11.5
13.5
42.8
48. 7
62.5
64.4
45.1
40.7
77.5
20.7
45.3
47.9
49.1
38.4
49.0
48.5
34.7
46.4
47.7
61.2
74.3
2.5
52.9
50.3
20.9
30.6
19.8
24.6
15.9
9.4
12.6
19.6
19,2
19.5
12.4
7.2
11.3
13.3
.070
.043
.073
.Ob4
.163
.130
.035
.031
.080
.078
.104
.161
.087
.074
.052
.021
.025
.020
.021
.009
.015
.011
.012
.129
.025
.013
.042
.008
.009
.010
.020
.019
.018
.012
.023
.008
.045
.023
.020
.014
.085
.039
.015
.013
.037
.020
.042
.105
.031
.009
.013
.008
.014
.009
.011
.007
.008
.005
.007
.037
.013
.030
.009
.006
.006
.006
.007
.008
.009
.007
.010
.006
4.029
5.048
2.781
2.928
4.731
2.630
3.285
.927
1.336
3.301
5.098
2.509
3.109
1.700
1.567
1.554
1.205
1.223
1.150
.607
.881
1.342
.658
1.865
1 . 304
1.630
.54<+
.598
.818
.565
.800
.580
.551
.86^
1.173
.271
3.356
4.241
1.527
1.687
3.373
1.489
2.221
.413
.603
1.991
3.597
1.328
1.820
.736
.713
.811
.676
.779
.786
.103
.485
.527
.241
.461
.448
.483
.124
.096
.337
.224
.218
.193
.177
.195
.239
. 142
24.2
11.9
21.5
16.4
53.6
40.0
9.9
8.8
23.8
22.8
31.9
45.7
24.9
21.6
18.0
8.9
10.5
8.4
9.0
3.8
8.7
6.2
7.9
59.2
11.4
5.9
18.8
3.9
4. 1
4.5
9.0
8.7
8.2
5.5
10.5
3.7
15.6
6.4
5.9
4.3
28.0
12.0
4.3
3.7
11.0
5.9
12.9
29.8
8.9
2.6
4.5
3.4
5.9
3.8
4.7
2.9
4.7
2.8
4.6
17.0
5.9
13.7
4.0
2.9
2.8
2.7
3.1
3.7
4. 1
3.2
<4.6
2.8
1394.3
1397.7
819.1
891.4
1557.4
808.5
933.0
263.2
397.9
966.5
1563.4
712.6
890.7
495.9
542.9
656.9
505.3
512.8
493.7
254.5
513.2
759.8
432.2
855.2
593.2
745.8
243.5
292.7
376.2
255.3
358.6
2b6.2
251.1
397.2
534.8
125.0
1161.4
1174.2
449.7
513.6
1110.4
457.7
630.8
U7 -a
' . J
179.6
582.9
1103.1
337.2
521.4
214.7
247.0
342.8
283.5
326.7
337.4
43.2
282.5
298.4
158.3
211.4
203.8
221.0
55.5
47.0
155.0
101.2
97.7
88.6
80.7
89. 1
109.0
65.5
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBORAINAGE AREAS
SU8URAINAGE AREAS
STORE! NO.
MAINE
MATTAWAMKEAG LAKE
2308B1
2308C3
MOOSEHEAD LAKE
23Q9K1
RANGELEY LAKE
2310B1
SEBASTICOOK LAKE
2312F1
MARYLAND
DEEP CREEK LAKE
340281
2402C1
2402D1
2402E1
LIBERTY RESERVOIR
240361
2403C1
g 240301
2403E1
LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR
2408B1
2408C1
240801
2408E1
2408F1
2408G1
2408H1
2408J1
MICHIGAN
LAKE CHARLEVOIX
261781
261701
2617E1
MACATAWA LAKE
2648A3
2648B1
IGION
10
10
10
10
10
30
30
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
20
12
12
20
20
1 AREA
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
MAINE
MATTAWAMKEAG LAKE
2308B1
2308C3
MOOSEHEAD LAKE
2309K1
RANGELEY LAKE
231081
SE8ASTICOOK LAKE
2312F1
MARYLAND
DEEP CREEK LAKE
2402B1
2402C1
2402D1
2402E1
LIBERTY RESERVOIR
2403B1
2403C1
240301
2403E1
LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR
2408B1
2408C1
240801
2408E1
2408F1
240801
2408H1
2408J1
MICHIGAN
LAKE CHARLEVOIX
2617B1
261701
2617E1
MACATAWA LAKE
2648A3
2648B1
FLAG
ANIMAL DENSITY
7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
oo
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
4
1
3
SED/MET
SED/MET
MET
SEO/MET
SED
SEO
SED
SEO
SEO
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
SED
SED
SED
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
1.5
21.5
0
0
36.4
19.0
6.1
70.2
55.2
52.3
54.6
64. 0
54.8
18.1
36.8
26.7
10.4
25.5
36.2
0
0
25.8
33.6
8.7
66.6
45.0
1.5
22.9
0
0
38.8
19.1
6.1
70.6
55.5
51.2
53.5
62.7
53.6
17.9
36.5
26.5
10.3
25.3
35.9
0
0
25.7
33.5
8.5
64.3
43.3
.010
.012
.008
.010
.017
.012
.014
.031
.048
.026
.017
.020
.024
.016
.040
.018
.019
.092
.062
.027
.020
.009
.012
.014
.167
.076
.005
.005
.006
.005
.006
.006
.007
.009
.018
.009
.007
.008
.008
.010
.020
.013
.011
.044
.012
.017
.015
.005
.006
.006
.052
.029
.803
.624
.325
.590
.966
.559
.764
1.414
1.984
2.551
2.463
2.765
2.908
2.115
2.214
2.349
1.424
3.175
2.385
2.342
1.981
1.947
1.436
1.199
4.845
2.534
.267
.173
.112
.172
.227
.314
.300
1.036
1.588
2.235
2.193
2.406
2.609
1.700
1.927
1.742
1.106
2.630
2.190
2.022
1.662
1.266
.372
.722
2.808
1.295
EXPORT
(KG/SQ KM)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N
5.3 2.7
6.4 2.6
5.0 3.7
5.6 2.8
10.6 3.7
INORG N
5.8
10.4
12.5
43.2
9.5
5.8
7.8
8.6
6.1
13.4
7.5
3.5
47.2
32.9
9.5
5.0
5.1
4.4
11.6
44.6
20.4
2.9
5.2
3.6
16.2
3.3
2.4
3.1
2.9
3.8
6.7
5.4
2.0
22.6
6.4
6.0
3.8
2.9
2.2
5.0
13.9
7.8
426.0
330.2
201.1
331.4
599.9
269.0
565.6
570.9
1784.2
928.1
841.2
1079.7
1046.1
799.8
741.1
975.6
259.6
1627.9
1264.5
825.1
495.6
1112.3
531.7
993.1
1294.8
680.0
141.7
91.6
69.3
96.6
141.0
151.1
222.1
418.3
1428.1
813.1
749.0
939.5
938.6
642.8
645.0
723.5
201.6
1348.5
1161.1
712.4
415.8
723.2
137.7
59d.O
750.4
347.5
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS 8V SUBDRA1NA6E AREAS
SOILS
MEAN AVE ANN
5
MIHORAINAGE AREAS
SlORh T NO.
MICHIGAN
PORTAGE LAKE
265961
2669H1
THORNAPPLE LAKE
26B3B1
CRYSTAL LAKE
2694B]
MINNESOTA
BIG STONE LAKE
370901
2709E1
2709F1
BUFFALO LAKE
2713C1
COKATO LAKE
2719B2
2719C1
HERON LAKE
2739H1
oo MASHKENODE LAKE
1X3 2756B1
UPPER SAKATAH LAKE
2777B1
LAKE PEPIN
27A4H1
27A4J1
27A4K1
ZUMBRO LAKE
27A5F1
27A5G1
LAKE ST. CROIX
27A7C1
MISSISSIPPI
ARKABUTLA RESERVOIR
2801G1
ENID LAKE
2802B1
2802D1
REGION AREA
(SQ KM)
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
40
40
40
42.97
57.55
144.83
7.49
35.02
15.07
62.19
6.19
51.90
9.82
6.24
17.28
88.34
176.79
64.39
44.91
.49
78.30
15.07
83.14
32.14
34.60
FOR
58. b
61.8
19.2
26.4
2.6
3.9
1.8
9.4
4.8
5.1
1.0
41.4
6.2
19.1
26.8
19.9
0
7.7
13.4
20.2
58.1
55.3
2
CL AG
2.4
6.9
1.0
14.1
2.3
1.6
2.0
0
.1
0
1.1
14.7
1.1
1.2
4.5
4.2
0
0
4.8
5.4
1.3
1.2
38.9
27.9
77.2
58.5
95.0
94.5
96.2
74.1
75.0
89.8
97.8
1.2
79.9
79.6
68.7
73.8
76.2
92.3
81.5
70.9
40.1
43.5
UR6
0
2.6
.3
1.0
0
0
0
15.2
2.3
0
0
27.8
.7
0
0
2.0
23.8
0
0
2.9
0
0
4ET
0
.1
1.6
0
0
0
0
1.3
15.2
5.1
0
1.1
11.5
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER
.1
.7
.7
0
.1
0
0
0
2.6
0
.1
13.8
.6
0
0
.1
0
0
.3
.6
.5
0
LAND USE
CATEGORY
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
MIXED
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
3 4
MAP UNIT PH
S04-04
S04-04
A07-04
A07-04
M05-04
M05-04
M05-04
M05-01
A07-06
A07-06
M07-06
A04-01
A07-06
A07-17
A07-17
A07-17
M06-07
MQ6-07
M05-01
A07-09
A07-09
A07-09
4.5
4.5
6.3
6.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
6.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
5.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
SLOPE
(*)
4. 7
5.9
1.9
3.1
2.0
2.0
1.3
1.5
3.1
4.0
1.2
4.5
5.2
9.3
12.0
12.4
6.7
5.9
6.9
5.5
9.8
11.8
PRECIP
(CM)
91
91
76
76
53
53
53
74
69
69
64
71
76
74
74
76
74
74
74
132
132
132
FLOW
(CMS/SO
.0130
.0130
.0079
.0083
.0011
.0012
.0012
.0063
.0041
.0036
.0020
.0056
.0031
.0046
.0050
.0046
.0041
.0036
.0074
.0166
.0145
.0153
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBORAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
FLAG GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SO. KM)
OHTHO P TOT N
INORG N
MICHIGAN
PORTAGE LAKE
2669G1
2669H1
THORNAPPLE LAKE
268361
CRYSTAL LAKE
269461
MINNESOTA
BIG STONE LAKE
270901
2709E1
2709F1
BUFFALO LAKE
2713C1
COKATO LAKE
2719B2
2719C1
HERON LAKE
2739H1
2 MASHKENOOE LAKE
2756B1
UPPER SAKATAH LAKE
2777B1
LAKE PEPIN
27A4H1
27A4J1
27A4K1
ZUMBRO LAKE
27A5F1
27A5G1
LAKE ST. CROIX
27A7C1
MISSISSIPPI
ARKABUTLA RESERVOIR
2801G1
ENID LAKE
2802B1
2802D1
1 SED W/0 L
3 SWOL/IG-V
1 SED
1 SEO
1 SED W/0 L
1 SED W/0 L
1 SED W/0 L
3 SED W/0 L
1 SED W/0 L
1 SED W/0 L
1 SED W/0 L
2 MET/SED
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
1 SED
15.3
11.0
42.7
19.8
29.0
28.8
29.4
59.3
60.0
71.8
52.0
.6
40.3
62.2
63.5
73.5
66.8
75.6
60.5
52.0
31.1
26.6
15.3
10.9
43.1
19.8
29.0
28.0
29.3
58.9
59.6
71.4
51.9
.6
39.5
61.6
63.5
73.7
65.9
74.9
60.4
51.9
31.1
26.6
.056
.041
.077
.038
.089
.052
.073
.240
.326
.202
.099
.036
.233
.231
.224
.161
.121
.147
.053
.093
.086
.101
.024
.024
.043
.017
.031
.030
.035
.158
.165
.087
.045
.008
.134
.072
.073
.064
.062
.109
.031
.030
.014
.023
1.437
1.056
1.863
1.382
1.159
3.106
1.431
2.119
3.033
4.626
4.676
1.313
5.320
2.586
2.059
2.391
2.219
3.651
1.812
.794
1.478
1.235
.282
.435
1.017
.257
.460
2.589
.504
.731
1.275
2.312
3.059
.823
3.080
1.329
1.044
1.584
1.007
2.646
1.341
.232
.245
.270
24.1
17.2
19.7
9.5
3.2
2.2
2.9
48.6
41.4
25.8
5.0
6.3
30.6
34.0
34.9
23.6
15.5
15.9
12.1
48.4
39.4
48.5
10.3
10.1
11.0
4.3
1.1
1.2
1.4
32.0
20.9
11.1
2.3
1.4
17.6
10.6
11.4
9.4
7.9
11.8
7.1
15.6
6.4
11.0
618.7
443.0
475.9
347.1
41.5
129.3
57.7
429.4
384.8
590.8
235.0
230.6
698.7
380.7
320.9
350.6
284.0
394.8
414.7
413.2
677.7
593.2
121.4
182.5
259.8
64.6
16.5
107.7
20.3
148.1
161.8
295.3
153.7
144.5
404.5
195.6
162.7
232.2
128.9
286.1
306.9
120.7
112.3
129.7
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBQRAINAGE AREAS
SUdDRAINAGE AREAS
bTOHLT NO.
MISSISSIPPI
ROSS bARNETT RESERVOIR
2804C1
SARDIb LAKE
2805C1
2805E1
2805F1
2805H1
2805J1
GRENADA LAKE
2806F1
NEW HAMPSHIRE
LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE
330341
330301
330 3E1
3303F1
3303J1
33U3K1
3303L1
*> 330 3N1
330 3U1
3303V1
3303X1
3303Y1
NEW JERSEY
SPRUCE RUN RESERVOIR
3420A2
3420bl
3420C1
342001
3420E1
UNION LAKE
3422B1
NEW YORK
CANADIAGUA LAKE
3604A3
3604C1
360401
3604E1
3604H1
1
REGION AREA
(SO KM)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
40
40
40
40
40
40
20
21
20
20
10
183.79
8.91
69.00
31.31
27.38
23.98
56.62
17.09
.73
6.14
3.06
7.02
18.36
40.51
8.65
23.00
8.96
7.56
9.84
40.32
30.35
7.38
6.37
4.61
38.95
14.56
12.07
3.34
16.24
114.48
FOR
59.8
62.7
50.7
56.8
45.8
51.8
49.0
87.3
74.2
77.1
80.0
82.8
93.5
91.5
79.4
95.0
94.9
96.3
91.3
48.2
46.2
46.7
57.9
69.2
49.5
22.0
56.4
40.0
50.0
68.9
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
CL AG URB WET
.7
10.5
11.6
6.7
5.0
1.7
.9
2.3
3.2
4.9
5.0
4.4
1.0
1.6
7.2
.2
1.1
.7
2.9
8.9
6.0
5.1
10.6
2.7
1.5
3.3
13.7
28.5
19.8
9.6
39.5
26.1
37.7
35.5
48.8
45.3
50.0
7.5
16.1
7.8
15.0
12.4
4.8
2.5
8.3
.9
2.3
3.0
5.8
40.4
46.5
48.2
30.3
28.1
45.1
73.4
29.9
31.5
29.0
18.2
0
0
0
.4
0
0
0
.1
6.5
.8
0
.4
0
1.6
1.8
.1
0
0
0
2.2
.5
0
1.2
0
3.4
0
0
0
1.2
1.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
2.5
0
7.4
0
0
0
2.1
3.3
2.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
1.3
0
0
0
1.8
OTHER
0
.7
0
.6
.4
1.2
0
.3
0
2.0
0
0
.7
.7
0
1.3
1.7
0
0
.3
.8
0
0
0
.4
0
0
0
0
.3
OVERALL
LANO USE
CATEGORY
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
MIXED
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
FOREST
FOREST
M. FOR.
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
MIXED
M. AGHIC
M. FOR.
MIXED
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
SOILS
3 4
MAP UNIT PH
A07-09
A07-09
A07-09
A07-09
A07-09
A07-09
A07-06
S04-04
S04-04
S04-05
S04-04
S04-04
S04-04
504-04
S04-04
S04-04
S04-04
S04-05
S04-04
U05-05
U05-05
U05-05
U05-05
U05-05
U05-11
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
110-04
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
5.0
MEAN AVE ANN
SLOPE PRECIP
(%) (CM)
2.3
6.6
8.4
6.6
10.4
10.4
3.6
8.4
15.1
11.7
11.4
12.4
18.1
12.6
5.7
14.9
12.7
16.5
17.4
5.6
11.2
12.9
14.8
15.4
1.5
3.6
12.8
15.3
13.4
17.1
127
132
132
132
132
132
132
109
114
114
114
114
114
112
109
107
107
109
107
122
122
122
122
122
112
84
84
84
84
81
FLOW
(CMS/SO
.0134
.0055
.0140
.0122
.0146
.0072
.0152
.0193
.0192
.0193
.0193
.0193
.0193
.0193
.0193
.0193
.0193
.0193
.0193
.0142
.0137
.0151
.0141
.0151
.0123
.0064
.0063
.0059
.0064
.0113
KM)
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUdORAINAGE AREAS
SU6DRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
MISSISSIPPI
ROSS BARNETT RESERVOIR
2804C1
SAROIS LAKE
2805C1
2805E1
2805F1
2805H1
2805J1
GRENADA LAKE
2806F1
NEW HAMPSHIRE
LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE
330341
3303U1
3303E1
3303K1
3303J1
3303K1
33U3L1
% 3303N1
3303U1
3303V1
3303X1
3303Y1
NEW JERSEY
SPRUCE RUN RESERVOIR
3420A2
3420B1
3420C1
342001
3420E1
UNION LAKE
3422B1
NEW YORK
CANADIAGUA LAKE
3604A3
3604C1
3604D1
3604E1
3604H1
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUriORAINAGE AREAS
1
SUBDKAINAGE AREAS REGION
STUKt[ NO.
NEW YORK
CANNONSVILLE RESERVOIR
3605B1 10
36U5U1 10
3605E1 10
3605F1 10
CARRY FALLS RESERVOIR
360681 10
CASSAOAGA LAKE
360781 10
3607C1 10
CAYUGA LAKE
3608G2 21
3608H1 20
3608M1 20
3608P2 20
3608G1 20
CHAUTAUQUA
3610B1 12
D 3610C1 10
71 3610D1 10
3610E1 10
3610F1 10
3610H1 10
3610J1 10
3610K1 10
GOODYEAR LAKE
3613B1 10
3613C1 10
361301 10
3613E1 10
LAKE HUNTINGTON
3615A1 10
KEUKA LAKE
3617B1 10
3617C1 10
361701 21
3617F1 21
3617H1 10
AREA
(SO KM)
11.29
32.01
51.52
3.11
4.92
.75
1.27
6.81
22.02
6.16
6.29
37.30
27.97
60.66
24.94
75.73
4.12
15.44
31.73
35.77
29.50
5.67
10.23
32.58
.44
3.37
5.96
89.72
8.21
4.12
FOR
88.6
77.6
66.2
100.0
41.3
62.8
76.4
20.6
27.9
21.1
11.9
22.9
47.7
66.8
45.9
56.8
35.9
53.5
62.9
57.4
51.9
41.3
74.4
58.3
77.4
39.9
28.7
41.2
27.3
26.0
LAND
2
CL
5.3
3.1
15.5
0
0
3.9
18.6
27.8
23.1
6.3
7.0
4.0
6.4
14.7
4.4
6.6
10.0
11.6
13.5
5.0
1.6
1.5
5.9
5.0
6.4
13.6
8.3
20.4
22.6
26.1
USE PERCENTAGES
AG
6.1
18.8
17.8
0
0
33.3
5.0
51.6
45.8
72.1
80.6
71.0
38.2
14.6
45.8
31.6
6.3
34.4
19.9
35.8
40.4
56.4
17.6
32.4
0
38.1
62.4
35.3
48.4
47.8
URB
0
.5
.3
0
0
0
0
0
.5
0
.5
.3
1.2
.2
.2
2.7
47.8
.5
.8
.3
1.1
0
0
1.1
12.9
8.4
0
.2
.8
0
WET
0
0
.2
0
56.6
0
0
0
2.7
.5
0
1.8
6.4
3.4
3.5
2.1
0
0
2.7
1.5
5.0
.8
2.1
3.1
3.3
0
.6
2.1
.9
.1
OTHER
0
0
0
0
2.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
.3
.2
.2
0
0
.2
0
0
0
0
.1
0
0
0
.8
0
0
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
FOREST
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
FOREST
FOREST
M. FOR.
FOREST
M. AGRIC
MIXED
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
MIXED
M. FOR.
MIXED
M. FOR.
M. URBAN
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
MIXED
M. AGRIC
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED
SOILS
MEAN AVE AN
3 4
MAP UNIT
110-01
110-01
110-01
110-01
S04-05
110-03
A07-15
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-15
110-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
10-03
110-03
110-04
110-04
110-04
110-04
110-01
110-04
110-04
A07-01
A07-01
110-04
PH
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
4.5
5.0
6.0
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.0
5.0
6.3
6.3
5.0
SLOPE
(*)
20.7
14.9
16.0
26.0
4.5
10.8
14.6
4.0
3.1
2.9
5.5
3.2
6.6
8.9
7.9
6.9
5.8
8.3
8.3
7.4
11.4
8.9
11.4
11.3
6.4
10.5
6.7
9.0
4.7
7.5
PKECI
(CM)
109
109
109
109
97
97
97
86
86
66
89
89
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
102
102
102
102
114
86
86
86
86
86
FLOW b
(CMS/SU KM)
.0162
.0162
.0182
.0191
.0190
.0177
.0176
.0117
.0135
.0049
.0119
.0116
.0184
.0188
.0091
.0185
.0084
.0190
.0188
.0181
.0161
.0163
.0162
.0160
.0153
.0082
.0081
.0080
.0081
.0083
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUdDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORE! NO.
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
FLAG GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
tXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
NEW YORK
CANNONSVILLE RESERVOIR
3605B1
3605D1
360 5E1
3605F1
CARRY FALLS RESERVOIR
3606bl
CASSADAGA LAKE
3607B1
3607C1
CAYUGA LAKE
3608G2
3608H1
3608M1
3608P2
3608U1
CHAUTAUQUA
3 3610B1
3610C1
361001
3610E1
3610F1
3610H1
3610J1
3610K1
GOODYEAR LAKE
3613B1
3613C1
361301
3613E1
LAKE HUNTINGTON
36I5A1
KEUKA LAKE
361761
3617C1
361701
3617F1
3617H1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
3
3
1
1
1
1
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
MET/SWOL
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SEO W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED w/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED
SED
SED
SED
SEO
6.2
19.2
18.2
0
0
3.3
15.9
25.0
16.4
55.9
48.1
42.4
32.8
12.5
39.3
27.1
5.4
29.5
17.1
30.7
37.5
52.3
16.3
30.0
0
21.2
31.1
14.4
19.8
26. b
6.2
19.2
18.2
0
0
3.3
15.9
31.8
16.4
55.2
47.5
41.8
32.7
12.5
39.2
27.0
5.4
29.4
17.0
30.6
37.2
51.9
16.2
29.8
0
21.4
31.3
14.4
19. a
26.9
.016
.021
.018
.014
.018
.029
.010
.021
.022
.027
.051
.031
.032
.034
.027
.031
.094
.031
.011
.023
.025
.026
.018
.035
.038
.045
.017
.033
.027
.03^
.009
.010
.009
.007
.006
.007
.005
.008
.006
.012
.028
.010
.013
.012
.008
.010
.032
.009
.006
.006
.008
.008
.006
.009
.022
.029
.008
.008
.0 14
.018
.492
.899
1.216
.803
1.171
.856
.799
1.428
1.039
2.579
1.745
1.943
1.006
.853
.816
.607
1.340
.878
.706
1. 180
1.191
.982
.960
1.058
1.178
1. 108
1.551
1.058
1.939
2.044
.181
.515
.759
.378
.260
.457
.458
1.017
.635
1.765
1.101
1.512
.390
.460
.384
.330
.399
.365
.366
.751
.715
.427
.482
.5^2
.416
.905
.851
.715
1.345
1.338
B.O
10.7
10.3
8.5
10.3
24.2
4.9
7.7
9.4
4.1
17.8
11.7
18.3
19.9
7.5
19.4
21.5
19.5
6.4
11.9
12.5
12.9
9.4
17.5
27.1
12.6
4.5
8.6
7.2
10.4
4.5
5.1
'5.1
4.2
3.4
5.9
2.5
2.9
2.6
1.8
9.8
3.8
7.4
7.0
2.2
6.3
7.3
5.7
3.5
3.1
4.0
4.0
3.1
4.5
15.7
8.1
2.1
2.1
3.7
5.5
246.0
457.9
695.7
485.8
671.7
715.8
394.5
526.0
443.9
393.8
608.9
735.0
575.2
498.2
225.7
504.5
305.9
552.8
411.6
610.3
595.0
488.8
500.2
529.5
839.5
309.3
408.0
277.3
518.4
622.2
90 ^
7 V . J
262,3
A 4A Q
H J*T 9 C.
P?A 7
CCO • r
1 6.Q 1
1 **7 • i
382, 1
??h ?
C.C.Q , C.
374.6
271 .3
269.5
384.2
^7? n
^J 1 C. . \J
223.0
268.7
106.2
206.3
91.1
229.8
214.4
388.4
357.2
212.5
251.2
271.3
296. b
252.6
223.9
187.4
359.6
407.3
-------
SUMMARY OF LANO USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAbE AREAS
1
bUBOKAINAGE AREAS REGION
STORET NO.
NE»J YORK
OTTER LAKE
J625B1 30
ROUND LAKE
3630A1 10
3630bl 10
3630C1 10
SCHROON LAKE
J634D1 10
363402 10
3634E1 10
3634F1 10
3634G1 10
SENECA LAKE
3635U1 10
3635F2 10
3635G1 10
3635H1 20
g 3635L1 20
3635M1 10
SWAN LAKE
3636A1 10
SWINGING BRIDGE RES.
3637H1 10
CONESUS LAKE
3639A1 20
363981 20
3639C1 20
363902 20
3639F1 20
3639H1 20
LOWER ST. REGIS
3640A1 10
ALLEGHENY RES (PENN)
3641C1 30
3641H1 30
3641J1 30
3641K1 30
3641L1 30
3641M1 30
3641N1 30
AREA
(SO KM)
1.06
7.54
2.28
44.60
25.07
21.57
5.70
5.98
61.77
37.87
64.59
13.52
14.27
24.50
33.05
17.02
27.35
4.84
6.76
6.11
.78
7.61
18.08
1.71
73.53
10.93
53.51
30.23
51.67
55.40
115.41
FOR
18.9
87.8
44.5
34.5
89.1
93.7
94.0
92.3
88.8
43.0
42.5
55.7
40.6
20.3
58.8
60.5
51.0
25.0
25.2
23.8
6.7
15.4
39.6
92.7
50.0
93.0
96.0
99.1
98.3
95.1
93.8
LAND
2
CL
13.5
3.8
3.7
25.3
1.6
0
2.4
0
1.1
22.1
34.2
24.5
32.6
50.8
13.0
8.7
25.1
9.6
25.2
6.5
3.3
9.5
10.4
0
1.8
2.7
1.2
.9
1.7
4.6
3.8
USE PERCENTAGES
AG
62.2
1.8
51.8
26.9
0
0
0
0
0
32.9
21.6
19.0
22.5
24.7
22.0
21.6
7.4
65.4
47.5
69.7
43.3
71.4
48.4
0
47.4
4.3
2.3
0
0
0
1.3
URB
0
5.9
0
5.8
4.6
.7
.8
2.8
.2
.6
.1
.4
2.5
4.2
1.7
4.9
15.6
0
2.1
0
46.7
.3
1.1
1.8
.3
0
.5
0
0
.3
1.1
WET
5.4
.7
0
5.0
2.4
2.8
0
3.7
6.6
.9
1.5
0
1.2
0
4.0
4.0
.5
0
0
0
0
3.4
.4
5.5
.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER
0
0
0
2.5
2.3
2.8
2.8
1.2
3.3
.5
.1
.4
.6
0
.5
.3
.4
0
0
0
0
0
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OVERALL
LANO USE
CATEGORY
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
MIXED
M. FOR.
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
MIXED
MIXED
M. FOR.
MIXED
MIXED
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
MIXED
M. AGRIC
M. URBAN
M. AGRIC
MIXED
FOREST
M. FOR.
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
SOILS
MEAN AVE AN
3 4
MAP UNIT
110-02
110-02
110-02
110-02
S04-05
S04-05
S04-05
S04-05
S04-05
110-04
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
110-01
110-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
A07-01
504-05
110-04
110-04
108-02
108-02
108-02
108-02
108-02
PH
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
5.5
5.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
SLOPE
(*>)
7.9
7.6
4.7
4.6
12.9
13.9
12.2
17.6
11.4
16.4
9. 1
6.3
4.4
2.4
12.2
12.6
12.2
4.3
6.2
6.0
5.0
3.1
9.3
5.8
10.6
17.4
18.8
18.5
16.8
14.1
17.6
PRECI
(CM)
91
104
104
104
97
97
97
99
99
81
84
81
84
81
81
114
114
79
79
79
79
79
79
97
112
114
114
114
117
117
117
FLOW 5
(CMS/SO KM)
.0137
.0158
.0158
.0158
.0163
.0163
.0163
.0163
.0163
.0148
.0147
.0042
.0157
.0049
.0148
.0214
.0154
.0120
.0120
.0121
.0122
.0120
.0122
.0182
.0181
.0248
.0293
.0147
.0122
.0105
.0173
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
NEW YORK
OTTER LAKE
3625B1
ROUND LAKE
3630A1
363081
3630C1
SCHROON LAKE
363401
3634D2
3634E1
3634F1
3634G1
SENECA LAKE
3635D1
3635F2
3635G1
3635H1
3635L1
3635M1
SWAN LAKE
co 3636A1
10 SWINGING BRIDGE RES.
3637H1
CONESUS LAKE
3639A1
363981
3639C1
36390?
3639F1
3639H1
LOWER ST. REGIS
3640A1
ALLEGHENY RES (PENN)
3641C1
3641H1
364 Ul
3641K1
3641L1
3641M1
3641N1
FLAG
ANIMAL DENSITY
7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N
SED
37.1
36.6
TOT P
.023
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
.009
2.302
1.724
TOT P
6.8
EXPORT
(KG/bU KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
2.7
INORG N
681.0 510.0
3
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
MET/SWOL
MET
MET/SED
MET/SED
MET/SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED
SEO
SED
SED
SED
SED
MET
SED W/0 L
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
1.2
35.8
18.6
0
0
0
0
0
19.5
8.8
11.3
9.2
8.9
13.1
54.0
18.5
34.5
25.0
36.7
22.8
37.6
25.5
0
45.8
7.1
1.7
0
0
0
.9
1.2
35.6
18.5
0
0
0
0
0
19.8
8.8
11.4
9.2
8.8
13.2
46.6
16.0
35.0
25.4
37.3
23.1
38.2
25.9
0
45.8
7.1
1.7
0
0
0
1.0
.061
.097
.050
.019
.015
.012
.010
.013
.021
.024
.010
.017
.025
.021
.041
.033
.069
.050
.043
.078
.098
.022
.013
.033
.012
.015
.010
.011
.010
.014
.010
.023
.018
.006
.006
.006
.005
.005
.009
.011
.007
.009
.011
.008
.015
.01**
.039
.027
.018
.057
.058
.008
.007
.011
.006
.006
.006
.006
.005
.005
.963
1.111
.912
.890
1.110
.864
.832
1.293
1.106
.937
1.582
1.575
1.007
.837
1.183
1.044
2.349
1.554
1.827
1.588
2.448
1.153
.798
.531
1.303
.783
1.198
1.153
1.115
1.164
.275
.237
.266
.222
.157
.251
.159
.143
.593
.468
,923
1.069
.579
.347
.389
.452
1.487
.751
.956
1.077
1.205
.382
.315
.280
.628
.336
.437
.56*
.554
.341
30.4
53.4
25.7
9.7
7.6
5.9
5.2
6.9
10.3
11.1
1.4
8.6
3.8
9.8
27.2
15.9
26.8
18.6
17.7
31.4
32.3
8.4
7.2
18.^
10.0
13.8
4.7
4.3
3.3
7.6
5.0
12.7
9.2
30.8
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.6
4.4
5.1
1.0
4.5
1.7
3.7
9.9
6.7
15.2
10.0
7.4
22.9
19.1
3.1
3.9
6.1
5.0
5.5
2.8
2.4
1.7
2.7
480.6
611.2
468.1
456.4
564.8
427.8
436.3
682.6
540.3
432.1
220.1
796.0
154.7
389.1
784.6
502.7
913.1
576.7
750.1
638.4
806.9
439.9
439.0
296.6
1084.0
720.4
559.2
454.8
372.3
632.5
137.2
130.4
136.5
113.8
79.9
124.3
83.4
75.5
289.7
215.8
128.4
540.3
88.9
161.3
258.0
217.6
578.0
278.7
394.5
433.0
397.2
145.7
173.3
156.4
522.5
309.1
204.0
222.5
185.0
185.3
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUdURAINAGE AREAS
SUrtDRAINAGE AREAS
bTGRET NO.
NORTH CAROLINA
HADIN LAKE
37U1B1
HLEWETT FALL LAKE
3702B1
3702C1
3702G1
3702H1
FONTANA LAKE
3704C1
3704E1
3704F1
HIGH ROCK LAKE
3706B1
3706D1
3706G1
HIWASSEE LAKE
370781
3707C1
LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE
3710B1
§ RHOOHISS LAKE
3715G1
3715H1
SANTEETLAH LAKE
3716A2
3716B1
3716C1
371601
3716E1
3716F1
LAKE TILLERY
3717C1
OHIO
BEACH CITY RESERVOIR
3901C1
3901D1
3901E1
3901F1
390 1G1
3901H1
390 1K1
REGION
40
40
40
40
40
30
30
30
40
40
40
30
30
40
40
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
10
13
13
31
30
30
30
1
AREA
.0
12.7
2.1
2.2
.3
43.5
84.0
80.2
63.8
65.9
76.3
79.5
65.6
0
0
0
0
.5
0
0
0
1.1
.6
1.6
0
0
0
.8
1.7
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
.8
1.9
.4
0
.3
1.0
1.4
.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER
.7
.3
.1
.4
1.1
0
.4
0
.4
.5
1.2
0
.1
. 1
0
0
.1
.2
.1
0
0
0
.4
.1
1.3
3.1
2.9
3.0
.6
8.2
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
FOREST
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. AGKIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
M. FOR.
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
SOILS
3 4
MAP UNIT PH
U05-03
U05-01
U05-01
U05-01
U05-01
U05-06
U05-06
U05-06
U05-03
U06-05
U06-05
U05-13
U05-06
U05-03
U05-03
U05-03
U05-13
U05-13
U05-13
U05-13
U05-13
U05-13
U05-03
108-04
108-04
108-04
108-04
108-04
108-04
IOS-04
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
MEAN AVE ANN
SLOPE PRECIP
<*> (CM)
8.8
6.8
5.4
3.6
8.1
43.8
46.5
38.0
6.4
7.9
5.7
35.9
21.3
8.9
12.0
10.9
39.1
40.7
39.8
39.2
42.6
39.9
9.4
5.2
6.6
11.4
14.3
12.3
11.4
16.1
114
112
117
112
122
142
142
142
114
114
114
152
142
119
127
127
157
142
142
147
152
165
114
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
FLOW 5
(CMS/SO KM)
.0103
.0085
.0078
.0085
.0150
.0377
.0225
.0377
.0083
.0082
.0100
.0242
.0241
.0167
.0174
.0209
.0289
.0324
.0324
.0413
.0322
.0263
.0106
.0097
.0096
.0100
.0099
.0099
.0097
.0101
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBORAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
NORTH CAROLINA
BADIN LAKE
370181
BLEWETT FALL LAKE
370281
3702C1
3702G1
3702H1
FONTANA LAKE
3704C1
3704E1
3704F1
HIGH ROCK LAKE
370601
370601
3706G1
HIWASSEE LAKE
3707B1
3707C1
LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE
3710B1
RHODHISS LAKE
•2 3715G1
3715H1
SANTEETLAH LAKE
3716A2
3716B1
3716C1
3716D1
3716E1
3716F1
LAKE TILLERY
3717C1
OHIO
BEACH CITY RESERVOIR
3901C1
3901D1
3901E1
390 IF 1
3901G1
3901H1
390 IK 1
FLAG
ANIMAL DENSITY
7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
MET/IG-V
20.1
.034
.008
.830
.188
TOT P
11.1
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
2.6
MET/IG-V
SEO
SEO
SEO
SEO
SED
SED
SED
45.8
44.5
.050
.026
1.190
.487
17.0
a.8
271.0
404.8
INORG N
61.4
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SWOL/IG-P
SWOL/IG-P
SED W/0 L
SWOL/IG-P
SWOL/MET
SEO W/0 L
SED W/0 L
MET/IG-V
IGNEOUS-P
IGNEOUS-P
SED W/0 L
SEO W/0 L
MET
IG-P/MET
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SEO W/0 L
SEO W/0 L
20.1
21.2
68.8
32.4
13.1
1.0
8.6
24.6
41.6
39.8
30.7
16.0
52.4
54. B
35.2
11.2
19.4
9.5
1.6
1.6
.2
17.6
18.6
82.2
35.7
12.9
1.0
8.6
24.4
41.2
39.7
28.1
14.6
51.4
59.4
38.1
11.2
19.4
9.5
1.6
1.6
.2
.025
.032
.045
.025
.027
.015
.034
.027
.040
.038
.014
.048
.033
.054
.022
.029
.037
.024
.011
.010
.006
.013
.012
.016
.008
.006
.007
.011
.013
.017
.023
.005
.006
.014
.016
.012
.006
.008
.008
.007
.005
.005
.575
.803
1.048
.716
.612
.293
.893
.817
.844
.566
.316
.510
.824
1.294
.659
.490
.663
.452
.384
.469
.619
.108
.093
.230
.138
.202
.120
.283
.204
.408
.158
.070
.179
.376
.295
.230
.186
.187
.154
.083
.111
.177
6.6
8.9
12.2
11.9
31.5
10.5
40.4
6.9
10.4
11.9
10.9
36.5
17.8
30.0
14.3
26.0
37.0
24.7
14.0
10.1
5.0
3.4
3.4
4.3
3.8
7.0
4.9
13.1
3.3
4.4
7.2
3.9
4.6
7.5
33.3
7.8
5.4
8.0
8.2
8.9
5.1
4.1
152.4
224.3
283.3
341.7
714.8
205.7
1059.9
210.0
220.3
176.9
245.1
388.1
443.8
719.0
428.1
439.0
663.7
464.6
489.8
474.3
511.3
28.6
26.0
62.2
65.9
235.9
84.2
335.9
52.4
106.5
49.4
54.3
136.2
202. b
163.9
149.4
166.7
187.2
158.3
105.9
112.2
146.2
165.6
79.1
66.9
50.5
76.1
88.1
91.7
55.6
77.6
85.3
50.5
74.7
86.5
90.1
55.7
.165
.121
.032
.100
.145
.121
.197
.068
.019
.006
.022
.050
.034
.007
2.771
2.751
2.011
2.671
3.714
3.225
3.304
2.130
1.949
1.465
1.833
2.596
2.213
2.492
50.3
36.6
10.1
31.8
46.9
36.7
62.3
20.7
5.8
1.9
7.0
16.2
10.3
2.2
845.1
832.9
633.4
849.7
1201.4
977.7
1044.5
649.6
590.1
461.4
583.1
839.7
670.9
787.8
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SU80RAINAGE AREAS
SUBORAINAGE AREAS REGION
STORE! NO,
OHIO
CHARLES MILL RESERVOIR
3905B1
3905C1
DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
3906BI
3906C1
DILLON RESERVOIR
3908B1
3908C1
3908E1
3908F1
3908G1
LAKE GRANT
3912A1
3912B1
HOOVER RESERVOIR
3914C1
MOS9UITO CREEK RESERVOIR
; 3921A1
3921B1
PLEASANT HILL LAKE
3924B1
3924C1
392401
3924E1
GRAND LAKE OF ST. MARYS
3927B1
3927C1
392701
3927F1
3927G1
ATWOOO RESERVOIR
3928B1
3928C1
BERLIN RESERVOIR
3929B1
3929F1
HOLIDAY LAKE
3930C1
10
10
20
20
30
30
20
20
30
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
10
10
20
1
AREA
(SO KM)
19.76
42.17
31.57
15.41
11.86
9.14
12.71
50.30
40.46
52.89
5.00
32.30
47.63
9.17
28.36
31.03
16.08
21.52
18.60
45.84
47.22
8.62
12.10
15.20
20.98
47.14
18.93
6.55
FOR
18.4
16.6
3.0
2.3
35.9
46.6
38.3
33.0
50.9
15.9
11.2
11.3
30.9
25.9
29.0
35.4
29.8
28.0
6.0
5.5
6.7
15.2
4.4
38.7
38.5
25.8
39.1
11.7
LAND
2
CL
0
.9
.8
.6
13.3
14.1
8.4
9.5
10.5
1.9
.8
.9
5.4
5.8
6.0
12.6
8.9
5.6
.9
.4
.4
0
0
20.6
8.2
4.4
4.2
0
USE PERCENTAGES
AG URB WET
79.8
81.3
96.0
97.1
50.8
39.3
52.4
57.3
38.5
82.0
86.6
87.0
62.8
67.4
64.3
51.3
60.1
66.2
93.0
92.3
92.4
84.8
95.0
40.2
52.7
67.5
52.1
87.5
1.3
.7
0
0
0
0
.9
0
0
0
1.2
.4
0
0
.7
.7
1.2
.2
0
1.8
.2
0
.6
0
.3
0
.4
.4
0
.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2
.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.7
.1
0
OTHER
.5
.3
.2
0
0
0
0
.2
.1
.2
.2
.4
.7
.4
0
0
0
0
.1
0
.3
0
0
.5
.3
1.6
4.1
.4
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
MIXED
M. AGHIC
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
MIXED
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
SOILS
3 4
MAP UNIT PH
A06-09
A06-09
A07-04
A07-04
108-04
108-04
A07-04
A07-04
108-04
A06-03
A06-03
A07-04
A07-15
A07-15
A06-09
A06-09
108-04
108-04
A07-04
A07-04
A07-04
A07-04
A07-04
108-04
108-04
A06-09
A06-09
A07-04
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.3
5.5
5.5
6.3
6.3
5.5
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.0
6.0
5.5
5.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
5.5
5.5
6.0
6.0
6.3
MEAN AVE ANN
SLOPE PRECIP
(*) (CM)
b.3
2.9
1.3
.1
15.6
15.7
11.5
15.0
14.7
.8
1.4
.7
1.5
2.2
9.3
15.3
11.6
12.5
1.0
1.6
1.8
2.5
1.2
18.0
13.0
4.6
1.7
4.0
89
89
99
99
102
99
99
102
102
109
107
97
99
99
91
91
91
91
94
94
94
94
94
91
91
91
91
89
FLOW 5
(CMS/SQ KM)
.0095
.0094
.0100
.0100
.0107
.0105
.0106
.0104
.0104
.0108
.0110
.0099
.0102
.0102
.0101
.0102
.0103
.0105
.0096
.0096
.0096
.0097
.0097
.0105
.0104
.0096
.0100
.0097
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDHAINAGE AREAS
SU8DRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
FLAG
ANIMAL DENSITY
7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SU6DRAINAGE AREAS
SUbORAINAGE AREAS
bTORET NO.
OHIO
REGION
1
AREA
(SO KM)
FOR
LAND
2
CL
USE PERCENTAGES
AG URB *ET
OTHER
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
SOILS
3 4
MAP UNIT PH
MEAN
SLOPE
(%)
AVE ANN
PRECIP
(CM)
FLOW 5
(CMS/SO KM)
0"SHAUGHNESSY RESERVOIR
3931C1
ROCKY FORK CREEK
3932B1
3932C1
LAKE SHAWNEE
3933A2
TAPPAN RESERVOIR
3934A1
3934B1
3934D1
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
27.40
86.14
15.15
21.24
53.82
23.13
8.96
10.0
19.2
11.8
2.4
35.5
30.9
47.3
0
5.4
1.7
.3
8.9
9.2
5.4
89.2
73.6
86.0
94.6
30.7
30.4
47.3
.3
1.8
.5
2.6
.2
.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5
0
0
.1
24.7
28.8
0
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED
A07-04
A06-03
A06-03
A07-04
108-04
108-04
108-04
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.3
5.5
5.5
5.5
1.3
8.3
4.0
1.4
24.3
19.5
22.8
94
112
107
94
99
99
99
.0097
.0116
.0115
.0105
.0107
.0107
.0107
PENNSYLVANIA
BLANCHARD RESERVOIR
4201B1
4201C1
420101
CONNEAUT LAKE
420401
PYMATUNING RESERVOIR
g 4213B1
4213C1
4213F1
4213H1
SHENANGO RESERVOIR
4216F1
4216G1
4216H1
BEAVER RUN RESERVOIR
4219B1
LAKE CANADOTHA
4221B1
4221C1
INDIAN LAKE
4223C1
422301
CONEWAGO LAKE (PINCHOT)
4226A1
4226B1
4226C1
40
40
30
10
29.79 51.2
42.79 40.1
12.90 82.1
.2 46.6
1.0 57.6
0 17.7
2.25 42.3 3.0 54.0
.2 0 1.8 M. FOR.
.4 0 .9 M. AGRIC
0 0 .2 M. FOR.
.4 0 .3 M. AGRIC
108-05
A08-01
108-05
5.0 21.6
5.3 15.0
5.0 23.7
110-03 5.0
6.1
102
102
102
102
30
7.10 48.3 2.3 48.0
1.4
MIXED
U05-02 4.5
9.9
102
.0057
.0023
.0038
.0232
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
14.71
9.89
39.70
17.33
7.67
22.79
9.48
32.3
50.0
42.1
38.6
33.1
30.4
26.7
1.8
3.8
1.1
3.0
5.2
9.7
13.6
65.2
43.5
56.4
57.6
61.7
57.5
58.1
.4
1.1
0
.4
0
2.2
1.6
0
.7
.1
0
0
0
0
.3
.9
.3
.4
0
.2
0
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
M.
AGRIC
FOR.
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
110-03
110-03
110-03
110-03
110-03
110-03
110-03
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.7
2.0
2.4
2.7
7.2
5.7
4.2
94
94
97
97
102
99
97
.0087
.0044
.0147
.0123
.0073
.0054
.0049
.0569
10
10
30
30
40
40
40
8.03
7.28
8.73
19.30
21.21
3.55
6.55
48.6
43.3
92.3
88.1
64.5
51.5
56.7
12.0
9.5
0
0
1.9
3.3
5.4
36.6
47.2
1.4
3.4
33.0
45.2
37.9
0
0
3.0
3.8
.5
0
0
2.8
0
2.1
3.4
0
0
0
0
0
1.2
1.3
.1
0
0
MIXED
MIXED
FOREST
FOREST
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
110-03
110-03
108-05
108-05
U05-05
U05-05
U05-05
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
7.5
4.9
8.8
8.3
12.3
7.9
13.0
107
107
112
112
99
99
97
.0159
.0207
.0137
.0111
.0272
.0067
.0140
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDWAINAGE AREAS
iUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
OHIO
0"SHAUGHNESSY RESERVOIR
3931C1
ROCKY FORK CREEK
3932B1
3932C1
LAKE SHAWNEE
3933A2
TAPPAN RESERVOIR
3934A1
393481
3934DJ
PENNSYLVANIA
BLANCHARD RESERVOIR
4201B1
4201C1
420101
CONNEAUT LAKE
420401
PYMATUNING RESERVOIR
<+213bl
S 4213C1
4213F1
4213H1
SHENANGO RESERVOIR
4216F1
4216G1
4216H1
BEAVER RUN RESERVOIR
421961
LAKE CANAOOTHA
4221B1
4221C1
INDIAN LAKE
4223C1
4223D1
CONJEWAGO LAKE (PINCHOT)
4226A1
4226bl
4226C1
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
FLAG GEOLOGY TOT H TOT N TOT P
SED
37.9
38.9
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
.063
.028
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEO
SED
SEO
SEO
SED
SED
SEO
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
IG-P/SwdL
IG-P/SWOL
IG-P/SWOL
49.3
57.6
71.7
23.0
22.8
35.4
34. b
42.6
13.1
47.5
42.8
28.6
49.6
50.7
50. U
46.6
47.0
36.4
28. b
38.6
1.2
2.8
25.0
3H.2
28.7
48.8
57.0
71.3
24.9
24.6
36.3
34.4
42.5
13.1
47.4
42.8
28.6
49.6
50.6
50.0
46.6
47. U
36.5
28.8
38.5
1 .2
2.8
24.5
33.6
26.2
.039
.099
.044
.034
.059
.041
.028
.026
.016
.052
.047
.086
.039
.030
.041
.030
.037
.123
.038
.024
.012
.021
.022
.028
.022
2.331
1.513
TOT P
19.5
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
8.7
.023
.029
.016
.008
.022
.011
.014
.008
.008
.014
.018
.028
.014
.014
.020
.011
.016
.060
.013
.007
.006
.006
.008
.007
.006
2.080
2.500
4.292
1.134
1.143
1.273
2.605
2.501
.776
1.115
1.872
1.558
1.302
1.798
2.092
1.619
1.S59
1 .644
1.416
1.443
1 .460
1.705
1.238
1.006
.881
.756
1.388
3.540
.540
.502
.633
1.895
1.946
.166
.553
1.239
.660
.681
1.272
1.143
.568
.696
.664
.336
.492
.370
.810
.299
.442
.<+53
14.2
34.8
14.3
11.7
20.0
14.3
5.0
1.9
1.9
36.2
13.0
10.9
17.9
11. H
10.1
5.<+
6.1
217.3
19.3
16.5
5.2
7.2
la. 9
4.9
9.5
8.4
10.2
5.2
2.7
7.5
3.8
2.5
.6
1.0
9.8
5.0
3.6
6.4
5.3
4.9
2.0
2.6
106.0
6.6
4.8
2.6
2.0
6.9
1.2
2.6
720.2 467.S
757.1
879.6
389.8
387.4
445.5
466. 1
183.3
94.3
518.7
197.6
596.f
683.2
513.1
289.6
257.8
718.8
994.4
629.3
581.7
1061.5
177. 7
379.6
275.2
488.4
1394.0 1149.7
185.6
170.1
221.5
339.1
142.6
20.2
776.9 385.3
343.3
83.7
312.0
483.3
280.4
101.6
115.1
2904.2 1526.3
17U.6
339. 1
159.5
276.4
256.4
78. 1
195.2
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
PENNSYLVANIA
LAKE WALLENPAUPACK
4229C1
422901
SOUTH CAROLINA
HARTWELL RES
4505B1
450 5F1
MARION LAKE
450 6F1
4506J1
MURRAY LAKE
4507B1
4507C1
ROBINSON LAKE
4508C1
450801
4508F1
KEOWEE LAKE
° 4513E1
4513F1
4513G1
SECESSION LAKE
4514E1
n/ILLIAM C. BOWEN LAKE
4516B1
4516C1
TENNESSEE
BARKLEY LAKE
4701F1
4701G1
4701J1
4701N1
4701P1
4701R1
4701S1
4701T1
4701U1
1
REGION AREA
(SO KM)
10
10
40
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
30
34
30
40
40
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
10.08
3.65
76.82
26.21
25.15
55.24
18.44
46.10
16.71
21.19
25.18
77.78
19.99
30.64
8.39
11.50
9.12
44.68
105.44
49.68
28.13
431.03
29.09
30.04
23.41
25.95
FOR
90.0
63.8
59.0
45.1
40.3
47.0
51.3
57.9
30.3
31.8
41.0
94.6
90.0
95.1
39.3
49.5
40.2
78.3
54.4
48.9
53.8
58.0
87.0
82.2
90.5
79.4
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
CL AG URB MET
3.4
3.2
1.0
5.6
.6
2.3
3.0
.5
33.0
23.9
26.2
.6
.5
0
2.3
9.5
2.7
3.4
27.0
9.7
5.4
6.0
2.7
1.6
.7
.8
5.2
23.2
40.0
48.6
58.6
48.0
44.4
39.4
33.7
43.1
31.6
3.9
9.0
4.8
58.1
39.3
55.3
17.8
18.3
40.4
40.3
35.2
10.0
15.8
8.6
19.4
0
0
0
.7
0
2.0
.7
.7
0
0
0
.3
0
0
0
.7
1.5
0
.2
.8
.3
.3
.3
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2
.7
0
0
2.6
.6
1.0
0
.1
0
0
0
0
.2
0
0
0
.1
0
.2
0
0
OTHER
1.4
9.8
0
0
.3
0
.6
1.5
.4
.6
.2
.6
.4
.1
.3
1.0
.3
.3
.1
.2
.2
.4
0
.1
.2
.4
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
FOREST
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
MIXED
M. AGRIC
MIXED
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED
FOREST
M. FOR.
FOREST
M. AGRIC
MIXED
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
MIXED
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
SOILS
3 4
MAP UNIT PH
110-04
110-04
U05-03
U05-03
U01-02
U06-05
U06-10
U06-10
U06-10
U06-10
U06-10
U05-06
U05-06
U05-06
U05-03
U05-03
U05-03
U06-06
U06-06
U06-06
U06-06
U06-06
U06-06
U06-06
U06-06
U06-06
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
MEAN AVt AN
SLOPE PRECI
(*> (CM)
12.3
10.3
8.5
11.8
3.3
1.9
5.8
4.7
4.8
4.5
4.2
18.7
23.8
26.0
6.3
8.5
9.4
16.2
12.8
15.7
18.7
16.4
20.3
16.1
19.0
16.2
109
112
132
137
112
112
119
122
122
122
119
188
152
173
122
137
127
119
122
122
122
122
127
130
130
127
FLOK 5
(CMS/SQ KM)
.0162
.0169
.0139
.0168
.0086
.0108
.0142
.0142
.0105
.0104
.0103
.0245
.0242
.0244
.0125
.0110
.0099
.0145
.014b
.0140
.0140
.0140
.0140
.0140
.0140
.0140
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAG.E AREAS
SUBORAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
PENNSYLVANIA
LAKE WALLENPAUPACK
4229C1
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
FLAG GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INOHG N
SOUTH CAROLINA
HARTWELL RES
450581
4505F1
MARION LAKE
4506F1
4506J1
MURRAY LAKE
450781
4507C1
ROBINSON LAKE
4508C1
450801
4508F1
u3 KEOWEE LAKE
^ 45I3E1
4513F1
4513G1
SECESSION LAKE
4514E1
WILLIAM C. BOWEN LAKE
451681
4516C1
TENNESSEE
BARKLEY LAKE
4701F1
4701G1
4701J1
4701N1
4701P1
4701R1
4701S1
4701T1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
<*
I
1
1
1
1
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
MET
MET
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
MET/SWOL
MET/SWOL
SEO W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
SED
SEU
SEO
SEO
SED
SED
SEO
SEO
SED
5.7
25.4
30.4
52.5
15.0
17.0
36.7
32.6
26.5
33.8
24.8
4.1
9.7
5.2
44.2
25.6
36.2
11.7
11.8
24.8
32.3
30.1
6.1
9.7
5.3
11.9
5.5
24.5
30.1
51.0
14.4
16.2
38.7
34.4
21.8
27.9
20.5
4.0
9.5
5.0
43.8
25.6
36.0
1 1.6
11.6
24.4
32.0
29.9
6.1
9.6
5.2
11.7
.020
.023
.030
.028
.064
.084
.037
.063
.007
.014
.018
.024
.025
.019
.023
.020
.020
.017
.064
.016
.032
.059
.023
.024
.021
.010
.008
.009
.008
.009
.023
.029
.018
.024
.005
.006
.006
.007
.008
.006
.012
.007
.007
1.117
1.081
.933
.852
1.432
1.137
.733
.641
.537
.481
.688
.275
.312
.62H
1.104
.b35
.736
.184
.521
.290
.425
1.051
.344
.388
.200
.181
.101
.369
.058
.069
.098
.459
.220
.371
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INOrtG N
590.7 97.3
557.2 268.5
407.5 126.7
.501.1 237.9
392.8 288.3
387.2 117.2
324.1 171.5
274.7 85.7
181.4 61.1
163.7 34.4
222.8 119.5
211.7 44.7
234.9 52.0
488.4 76.2
412.6 171.5
11.7
11.8
24.8
32.3
30.1
6.1
9.7
5.3
11.9
1 1.6
11.6
24.4
32.0
29.9
6.1
9.6
5.2
11.7
.017
.064
.016
.032
.059
.023
.024
.021
.010
.010
.012
.008
.013
.023
.013
.014
.014
.018
.782
1.084
.837
.650
.725
.610
.598
.426
1.225
.433
.422
.464
.228
.285
.208
.291
.168
.576
7.9
29.3
7.2
13.9
26.1
10.2
10.5
9.3
4.3
4.6
5.5
3.6
5.7
10.2
5.7
6.1
6.2
7.8
362.2
496.4
375.1
282.6
320.1
269.6
262.2
188.3
532.3
200.6
193.3
208.0
99. 1
125.8
91.9
127.6
74.3
250.6
10.6
11.9
13.1
14.7
17.6
28.6
16.4
27.0
2.4
4.8
5.8
18.5
18.8
14.8
8.6
7.1
6.9
7.9
29.3
7.2
13.9
26.1
10.2
10.5
9.3
4.3
4.2
4.6
3.5
4.7
6.3
9.9
8.0
10.3
1.7
2.0
1.9
5.4
6.0
4.7
4.5
2.5
2.4
4.6
5.5
3.6
5.7
10.2
5.7
6.1
6.2
7.8
189.6
253.0
78.0
127.6
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
1
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS REGION
STORE.! NO,
TENNESSEE
BOONE RESERVOIR
4704B1 30
4704C1 30
4704GI 30
4704H1 30
4704J1 30
4704K1 30
4704L1 30
CHEROKEE LAKE
4707B1 30
4707C1 30
CHICKAMAU6A LAKE
4708D1 30
4708E1 30
4708K1 30
4708M1 30
4708R1 30
D DOUGLAS LAKE
° 4711B1 30
471101 30
4711K1 30
FT. LOUDOUN LAKE
4712C1 30
4712E1 30
4712F1 30
4712H1 30
4712J1 30
4712L1 30
4712P1 30
4712Q1 30
NICKAJACK RESERVOIR
4717E1 30
4717M1 30
4717N1 30
4717P1 30
4717Q1 30
4717R1 30
4717T1 30
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
AREA
(SO KM)
33.54
7.49
8.60
5.70
42.14
17.90
31.00
49.91
13.13
72.21
35.04
41.70
57.16
44.96
78.50
44.50
3.94
48.90
42.71
24.97
29.14
26.44
49.11
7.54
6.63
59.03
10.49
4.69
3.39
3.89
2.38
42.37
FOR
18.2
18.5
18.5
17.7
56.4
79.9
78.8
49.4
65.7
49.9
51.5
43.8
61.3
55.4
30.0
50.8
25.6
15.1
16.8
11.3
35.4
30.7
57.1
29.2
27.2
92.1
99.8
99.8
10.0
99.2
99.9
97.2
2
CL
7.4
3.8
6.4
11.8
6.4
1.2
3.4
10.7
12.8
3.3
3.1
4.4
3.2
5.5
2.0
4.9
.5
11.2
20.4
33.2
4.0
5.8
5.2
13.8
11.5
.5
.2
.2
0
.7
.1
1.0
AG
72.7
68.6
73.7
63.0
36.3
18.9
17.8
38.8
21.5
46.7
45.4
51.2
33.8
38.7
64.6
43.6
66.7
16.3
6.5
0
58.5
61.2
35.0
0
0
4.7
0
0
0
0
0
.9
URB
1.4
8.8
1.4
7.5
.5
0
0
1.1
0
0
0
0
1.7
.2
.3
.2
6.7
57.0
56.3
55.3
1.8
1.9
2.4
56.4
60.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
:T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER
.3
.3
0
0
.4
0
0
0
0
.1
0
.6
0
.2
3.1
.4
.5
.4
0
.2
.3
.4
.3
.6
1.1
2.7
0
0
0
.1
0
.9
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
MIXED
M. FOR.
MIXED
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
M. URBAN
M. URBAN
M. URBAN
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. URBAN
M. URBAN
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
FOREST
SOILS
MEAN AVE AN
3 4
MAP UNIT
U05-12
U05-12
U05-12
U05-12
U05-12
U05-12
005-12
108-06
U05-13
U06-11
U06-11
U05-13
U06-11
108-06
U06-11
109-01
U06-11
108-06
108-06
108-06
U05-13
U05-13
U05-13
U05-13
U05-13
108-06
108-06
108-06
108-06
108-06
103-06
108-06
PH
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
4.5
7.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
SLOPE
(%)
15.5
10.2
15.3
14.4
34.9
45.2
41.7
29.2
42.6
12.2
12.4
13.4
15.0
16.2
16.4
30.0
15.1
10.3
10.2
10.3
12.3
9.9
18.0
13.1
13.8
19.6
25.4
23.7
28.5
24.3
25.8
19.3
PRECI
(CM)
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
114
122
142
142
132
132
122
112
112
112
137
142
142
127
127
122
132
132
132
127
124
124
124
124
124
FLOW 5
(CMS/SO KM)
.0112
.0112
.0112
.0112
.0158
.0158
.0158
.0134
.0130
.0166
.0171
.0176
.0177
.0234
.0097
.0184
.0100
.0166
.0166
.0166
.0211
.0157
.0214
.0166
.0166
.0252
.0257
.0253
.0253
.0252
.0271
.0315
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBORAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
TENNESSEE
BOONE RESERVOIR
4704B1
4704C1
4704G1
4704H1
4704J1
4704K1
4704L1
CHEROKEE LAKE
4707B1
4707C1
CHICKAMAUGA LAKE
4708D1
4708E1
4708K1
4708M1
4708R1
DOUGLAS LAKE
§ 471161
471101
4711K1
FT. LOUDOUN LAKE
4712C1
4712E1
4712F1
4712H1
4712J1
4712L1
4712P1
471201
NICKAJACK RESERVOIR
4717E1
4717M1
4717N1
4717P1
471701
4717K1
4717T1
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7 (AN UNITS/SU KM)
FLAG GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
bUflOKAINAGE AREAS REGION AREA
STORET NO.
TENNESSEE
DLL) HICKORY LAKE
4720C1
4720F1
PERCY PRIEST RESERVOIR
4723F 1
TIMS FORD RESERVOIR
4724E1
4724F1
REELFOOT LAKE
4727C!
VERMONT
ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN LAKE
501021
501031
rfATERBURY RESERVOIR
501131
^ 5011^1
5 501151
VIRGINIA
CLAYTOR LAKE
510381
5103E1
JOHN W FLANNAGAN RES.
510501
5105E1
5105F1
OCCO«UAN RESERVOIR
510801
SMITH MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR
5110E1
5110F1
5110G1
LAKE CHESDIN
5111B1
5111C1
5111E1
30
30
30
30
30
40
10
10
10
10
10
30
30
30
30
30
40
30
30
30
40
40
40
(SO KM)
36.88
79.41
28.59
8.55
21.37
21.86
22.07
236.21
5.41
23.05
66.59
48.02
43.80
20.95
8.83
7.25
13.91
27.07
68.58
11.73
25.87
152.32
52.97
FOR
28.5
20.3
35.4
48.7
67.5
63.8
37.1
53.3
79.5
84.6
81.3
97.8
3.9
66.7
83.6
83.3
69.5
69.8
57.6
50.2
63.2
70.4
83.5
2
CL
4.3
5.9
2.4
7.1
7.3
9.6
3.0
9.6
3.0
.7
3.5
.8
3.0
12.8
5.1
5.9
9.9
8.4
5.5
5.4
3.2
6.4
6.4
AG
65.6
73.2
59.4
44.2
24.8
24.8
59.1
32.8
17.5
13.0
13.5
.6
90.8
7.2
11.3
5.8
19.6
20.4
35.8
43.0
32.5
22.1
8.6
URB
.6
.5
.4
0
.3
0
.8
3.0
0
1.7
.7
.2
.4
1.4
0
0
.3
.7
.4
1.0
.1
.1
.5
WET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.3
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.4
.2
OTHER
1.0
.1
2.4
0
.1
1.8
0
0
0
0
0
.6
1.9
11.9
0
0
.7
.7
.7
.4
1.0
.6
.8
LAND USE
CATEGORY
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
MIXED
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
FOREST
AGRIC
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
FOREST
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
*J V A l_ J
3 4
MAP UNIT
A08-02
A08-02
A08-02
U05-10
U05-10
A07-09
S04-04
S04-04
S04-04
S04-04
S04-04
U05-12
U05-12
108-06
108-06
108-06
U05-03
U05-04
U05-03
U05-03
U05-03
U05-03
U05-03
PH
5.3
5.3
5.3
4.5
4.5
6.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
ill— r^( ^ r
SLOPE
<*)
13.9
5.4
7.9
10.6
11.0
22.7
7.6
16.7
18.9
23.3
18.1
31.9
17.7
36.7
34.8
31.5
9.7
24.1
20.8
16.4
5.4
5.3
6.0
PHECI
(CM)
124
124
119
137
137
122
84
84
99
99
99
102
102
117
117
117
102
109
109
109
112
112
112
FLOW 5
(CMS/SO KM)
.0185
.0185
.0141
.0163
.0170
.0113
.0190
.0190
.0220
.0220
.0220
.0087
.0082
.0128
.0124
.0126
.0086
.0111
.0110
.0114
.0096
.0097
.0093
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
iUBORAINAGE AREAS
iTORET NO.
'ENNESSEE
OLD HICKORY LAKE
4720C1
4720F1
PERCY PRIEST RESERVOIR
4723F1
TIMS FORD RESERVOIR
4724E1
4724F1
REELFOOT LAKE
4727C1
ERMONT
ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN LAKE
501021
501031
WATERBURY RESERVOIR
501131
501141
£ 501151
VIRGINIA
CLAYTOR LAKE
510381
5103E1
JOHN W FLANNAGAN RES.
510501
5105E1
5105F1
OCCO«UAN RESERVOIR
5108D1
SMITH MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR
5110E1
5110F1
5110G1
LAKE CHESDIN
5111B1
5111C1
5111E1
FLAG
ANIMAL DENSITY
7 (AN UNITS/SQ KM)
GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SQ KM)
ORTHO P TOT
INORG N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SEO
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED W/0 L
SWOL/MET
MET/SED
SED/MET
SEO/MET
SED/MET
SED
SEO
SED
SED
SED
IG-P/MET
MET
MET
MET
MET
MET/SWOL
MET/SWOL
63.5
70.9
65.7
53.1
29.8
12.8
61.0
35.3
17.9
13.3
13.8
.7
109.3
3.8
6.0
3.1
15.8
22.1
38.7
46.5
19.7
14.2
8.8
63.5
70.8
65.6
52.7
29.6
12.6
61.7
35.2
17.8
13.2
13.7
.7
113.2
3.8
6.0
3.1
15.8
22.0
38.6
46.4
19.2
14.0
8.7
.149
.166
.132
.035
.032
.127
.031
.036
.021
.013
.020
.022
.022
.023
.020
.022
.041
.075
.099
.036
.049
.037
.040
.007
.007
.007
.005
.006
.007
.010
.008
.010
.009
.028
.027
.024
.014
.022
.012
.013
1.029
1.034
.697
.745
,83b
.433
1.374
1.400
.917
.842
.924
.893
.990
.710
.889
.540
.640
.426
.499
.324
.373
.375
.131
.996
.450
.209
.152
.277
.336
.313
.339
.179
.057
.068
18.5
21.5
14.6
9.0
13.7
6.0
5.7
9.0
7.8
8.6
11.1
27.8
34.9
13.5
14.8
11.3
11.8
4.2
4.2
4.9
3.5
4.1
1.9
2.6
3.1
3.9
3.5
7.6
10.0
8.4
5.2
6.7
3.7
3.8
614.0
616.3
484.8
516.9
574.0
118.8
354.1
544.8
358.2
327.7
250.0
331.0
348.5
265.7
269.4
164.5
189.4
254.2
297.4
225.3
258.8
257.8
35.9
256.7
175.1
81.6
59.2
74.9
124.5
110.2
126.9
54.2
17.4
20.1
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUHDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBORAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
VIRGINIA
CHICKAHOMINY LAKE
511281
5112C1
5112D1
WEST VIRGINIA
BLUESTONE RESERVOIR
540IEI
5401F1
LAKE LYNN
5402C1
TYGART RESERVOIR
5404C1
540401
5404H1
WISCONSIN
BUTTERNUT LAKE
3 5509A3
J 5509B1
EAU CLAIRE LAKE
55I5C1
KEGONSA LAKE
5520C1
552001
SHAWANO LAKE
5539C1
TAINTER LAKE
5546B1
WAPOGASSET LAKE
5550C1
WAUSAU LAKE
5551C3
LAKE WINNEBAGO
5554B1
5554C1
WISCONSIN LAKE
555502
5555E2
REGION
40
40
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
10
10
12
20
20
20
20
10
10
20
20
10
2(
1
AREA
(SO KM)
4.77
17.53
14.66
45.95
31.83
6.03
1.50
9.04
23.23
57.73
20.54
76.12
15.05
6.55
38.85
45.92
8.91
34.19
44.34
51.02
25.72
87.31
FOR
86.0
81.9
65.6
66.2
61.1
72.0
52.2
26.9
48.4
46.7
35.3
59.1
6.3
8.5
9.4
36.3
16.5
20.5
7.5
5.4
9.7
15.0
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
CL AG URB WET
6.7
2.2
7.8
1.9
3.2
1.1
0
2.9
5.8
7.4
10.2
6.5
7.2
2.3
.8
2.8
6.0
4.6
2.6
3.4
.9
1.4
7.3
15.8
26.3
31.9
35.7
23.4
47.0
62.3
38.9
8.0
22.7
32.1
80.3
88.7
72.5
49.5
55.0
72.4
83.7
82.9
88.4
78.4
0
.1
0
0
0
3.4
0
7.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2
0
0
2.1
5.0
6.1
1.0
1.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9
37.2
31.8
2.3
6.0
0
14.0
10.9
22.5
0
1.2
1.1
0
3.5
OTHER
0
0
.3
0
0
.1
.8
.1
5.0
.7
0
0
.2
.5
3.1
.5
0
.4
0
1.1
0
0
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. FOR.
M. AGRIC
MIXED
MIXED
MIXED
M. FOR.
AGRIC
AGRIC
M. AGRIC
MIXED
M. AGkIC
M. AGKIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
AGRIC
SOILS
3 4
MAP UNIT PH
U06-05
U06-05
U06-05
U05-12
U05-12
108-04
106-04
108-04
108-04
504-04
504-04
A07-12
A07-11
A07-11
504-04
A07-02
A07-12
A07-12
A07-10
A07-10
£12-02
-A07-11
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
4.4
4.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
4.5
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.3
MEAN AVE ANN
SLOPE PRECIP
(%) (CM)
8.2
6.7
9.3
29.9
28.1
15.8
19.4
13.6
23.1
3.5
4.0
3.0
4.5
5.7
2.0
8.8
3.7
2.6
4.7
3.4
5.1
7.8
112
112
112
97
97
112
117
117
117
84
84
79
81
81
76
74
71
81
76
76
76
76
FLOW
(CMS/SO I
.0109
.0110
.0113
.0158
.0153
.0240
.0237
.0223
.0221
.0120
.0118
.0077
.0039
.0039
.0072
.0054
.0056
.0082
.0039
.0040
.0076
.0076
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
UBDRAINAGE AREAS
TORET NO.
IRGINIA
CHICKAHOMINY LAKE
5112B1
5112C1
5112D1
EST VIRGINIA
BLUESTONE RESERVOIR
5401E1
5401F1
LAKE LYNN
5402C1
TYGART RESERVOIR
5404C1
540401
5404H1
WISCONSIN
BUTTERNUT LAKE
5509A3
5 5509B1
" EAU CLAIRE LAKE
5515C1
KEGONSA LAKE
5520C1
552001
SHAWANO LAKE
5539C1
TAINTER LAKE
5546bl
WAPOGASSET LAKE
5550C1
WAUSAU LAKE
5551C3
LAKE WINNEBAGO
5554B1
5554C1
WISCONSIN LAKE
5555D2
5555E2
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7 (AN UNITS/SO KM)
FLAG GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
3
SED W/0 L
SEO W/0 L
SED W/0 L
SED
SED
SED
SED
SED
SEO
IGNEOUS-P
IGNEOUS-P
SWOL/IG-P
SED
SED
SED
SED W/0 L
SED W/0 L
IG-P/SWOL
SED
SED
SED
SED
2.0
4.3
9.0
27.7
30.2
18.4
43.9
58.2
27.3
5.5
15.6
26.4
81.6
90.2
70.5
43.5
58.9
73.3
13.4
13.2
82.9
77.9
2.0
4.2
8.7
28.0
30.3
19.0
44.5
59.0
27.5
5.5
15.6
26.5
80.8
89.2
70.3
43.4
57.0
73.1
13.1
13.0
82.9
7/.3
.064
.076
.115
.019
.015
.012
.056
.077
.027
.033
.041
.068
.235
.184
.050
.107
.111
.125
. 195
.179
.059
.131
.035
.039
.064
.007
.006
.006
.020
.019
.006
.015
.018
.029
.097
.092
.017
.058
.047
.071
.102
.098
.030
.056
.660
.730
.727
.589
.810
1.186
1.003
1.241
.774
.928
1.282
1.650
3.704
3.378
1.426
1.454
1.783
1.949
3.645
3.150
2.259
2.444
.049
.126
.101
.291
.389
.868
.557
.593
.301
.203
.274
.282
1.973
2.563
.194
.225
.684
.999
2.301
1.737
2.084
1.726
25.2
27.2
41.8
9.5
7.2
8.7
46.8
53.4
18.6
12.4
15.0
16.5
29.4
26.4
11.3
18.3
19.5
32.1
23.4
22.0
It. 4
31.1
13.8
14.0
23.3
3.5
2.9
4.4
16.7
13.2
4.1
5.6
6.6
7.0
12.1
13.2
3.8
9.9
8.3
18.2
12.3
12.0
7.3
13.3
260.3
261.2
264.3
293.4
391.0
863,4
838.7
860.9
532.8
347.8
4b9.7
401.0
463.0
485. 1
322.3
248.2
313.7
500.5
438.2
387.2
555.8
579.3
19.3
45.1
36.7
145.0
187.8
631.9
465.7
411.4
207.2
76.1
100.4
68.5
246.6
368.1
43.8
38.4
120.4
25b.5
276.6
213.5
508.1
409.1
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SOILS
SUBOKAINAGE AREAS
bTORET NO.
WISCONSIN
LAKt iVlSSOTA
555601
BIG EAU PLEINE RES
55&5B1
b565Cl
BEAVERDAM LAKE
5577C2
5577E2
MEAN AVE ANN
5
GION
10
10
10
20
20
AREA
(SO KM)
143.20
183.09
59.34
60.97
4.30
FOR
37.7
31.8
34.7
10.0
0
2
CL
4.5
4.4
4.7
6.1
0
AG
56.1
63.0
58.2
71.7
99.1
URB
0
.6
0
0
.9
WET
1.7
0
0
12.2
0
OTHER
0
.2
2.4
0
0
LAND USE
CATEGORY
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
M. AGRIC
AGRIC
3
MAP UNIT
A07-12
A07-12
A07-12
A07-11
A07-11
4
PH
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.3
SLOPE
(%)
3.4
2.8
4.0
2.8
1.4
PRECIP
(CM)
79
79
79
76
76
FLOW
(CMS/SO
.0070
.0073
.0072
.0064
.0069
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORE! NO.
WISCONSIN
LAKE WISSOTA
5556DI
BIG EAU PLEINE RES
556561
5565CI
BEAVERDAM LAKE
5577C2
5577E2
ANIMAL DENSITY
6 7 (AN UNITS/SU KM)
FLAG GEOLOGY TOT P TOT N TOT P
SEO W/0 L 52.5
52.4
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
.085
.050
1.872
.921
TOT P
18.6
EXPORT
(KG/SQ KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
10.9
INORG N
409.9 201.7
1
1
1
1
IGNEOUS-P
IGNEOUS-P
SED
SEO
63.8
58.9
67.5
100.0
63.6
58.8
67.5
99.1
.102
.066
.224
.136
.048
.036
.089
.094
1.866
2.453
2.723
7.449
.700
1.352
.735
6.510
23.5
15.0
44.9
29.8
11.0
8.2
17.9
20.6
429.5
557.4
546.2
1629.6
161.1
307.2
147.4
1424.1
1.
o
en
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
»»**» FOOTNOTES »***«*«»
REGION
10....N. AND N.E. FORAGE AND FOREST REGION
20....CORN BELT AND DAIRY REGION
30....E. AND CENTRAL GENERAL FARMING AND FOREST REGION
40....PIEDMONT AND COASTAL PLAIN MIXED FARMING AND FOREST REGION
NOTE WHERE DRAINAGE AREAS COVER PARTS OF TWO REGIONS, THE FIRST
NUMBER IDENTIFIES THE REGION HAVING THE MOST EXTENSIVE COVERAGE* AND THE SECOND
NUMBER IDENTIFIES TriE REGION WITH LEAST EXTENT
AFTER AUSTIN (1972)
CL CLEARED UNPRODUCTIVE
U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (1970)
FROM UNPUBLISHED ESTIMATES BY GUY 0. SMITH (1975)
CMS/SQ MI CUBIC METERS/SECOND/SQUARE KILOMETER
FLAG
1....NO PROBABLE POINT SOURCE EVIDENT
2....NO PROBABLE POINT SOURCE EVIDENT* BUT INFLUENCE FROM STRIP MINING
3....NO PROBABLE POINT SOURCE EVIDENT* BUT URBAN INFLUENCE
4....NO PROBABLE POINT SOURCE EVIDENT, BUT AGRICULTURAL CONCENTRATION NEAR SAMPLING SITE
GEOLOGY
SED....SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (OR DEEP ALLUVIUM) INCLUDING LIMESTONE
SED W/0 L OR SWOL....SEDIMENTARY ROCKS (OR DEEP ALLUVIUM) NOT INCLUDING LIMESTONE
IG-V....IGNEOUS ROCKS OF VOLCANIC ORIGIN
MET....METAMORPHIC ROCKS
IGNEOUS-P OR IG-P....IGNEOUS ROCKS OF PLUTONIC ORIGIN
NOTE WHERE COMBINATIONS EXIST THE PREDOMINANT TYPE IS SHOWN FIRST
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA .
i Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO 12.
EPA-600/3-76-014
(a. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
f The Influence of Land Use on Stream Nutrient Levels
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
i7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
James M. Omernik
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSI Of* NO.
5. REPORT DATE
i9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
| Eutrophication Survey Branch
| Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
;! Environmental Protection Agency
I 200 S, W. 35th St. ^^n
i Corvallis. Oregon 97330
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BA029
11. CUNTRACT/GRANT NO.
?:12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
\ Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
i Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
[ Washington, DC 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, 1972 - 1974
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD, CERL
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
National Eutrophication Survey (NES) data for 473 non-point type drainage areas
in the eastern United States were studied for relationships between drainage area
characteristics (particularly land use) and nutrient levels in streams. Both the
total and inorganic forms of phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations and loads in
streams were considered.
The objectives were to (1) investigate these relationships, as they were eviden-
ced by the NES data and (2) develop a means for estimating stream nutrient levels
from knowledge of "macro" drainage area characteristics.
Mean nutrient levels were considerably higher in streams draining agricultural
watersheds than in streams draining forested watersheds. The levels were generally
proportional to percentages of land in agriculture, or the combined percentages of
agricultural and urban land use. Variations in nutrient loads (exports) in streams
associated with differences in land use categories, were not as pronounced as the
variations in nutrient concentrations. This was apparently due, in large part, to
differences in area! stream flow from different land use types.
Regression analysis of the combined percentages of agricultural and urban land
uses against both the total and inorganic forms of phosphorus were performed. E
Equations for these analyses, together with maps illustrating the equations residuals
offer a limited predictive capability and some accountability for regional character-
T i> L 1 Ub .
17.
a.
Land Use*
Nutrients*
Watersheds*
Phosphorus*
Nitrogen*
Loadings
Concentrati
: RELEASE TO
- i- A Form ? ? 7 n . 1 f Q . 7
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Eutrophication
Stream Flow
Animal Unit Density
Soils
Geology
Eastern U.S.
ons
PUBLIC
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Non-Point source
Nutrients
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
c. COS AT I Field/Group
02A
02E
04A
04C
05A
05C
05G
21. NO. OF PAGES
112
22. PRICE
106
------- |