Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Application & Calculation of Nutrient
& Sediment Loadings
Appendix B:
Phase IV
Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model
Water Quality
Calibration
Results
Prepared by the
Modeling Subcomittee
of the
Chesapeake Bay Program
EPA 903-R-98-003
CBP/TRS 196/98
February 1998
Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED MODEL
APPLICATION AND CALCULATION OF
NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT LOADINGS
Appendix B: Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Water Quality Results
A Report of the
Chesapeake Bay Program
Modeling Subcommittee
Annapolis, MD
X-SSS&k
'"'•.'Y'A " *''; V"",
Chesapeake Bay Program
May 1998
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Principal Authors
Lewis C. Linker
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Annapolis, MD
Gary W. Shenk
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Annapolis, MD
Dr. Ping Wang
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Annapolis, MD
Jennifer M. Storrick
Chesapeake Research Consortium
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Annapolis, MD
-------
Modeling Subcommittee Members
James R. Collier
Chairman, Modeling Subcommittee
Program Manager
Water Resources Management Division
Washington, DC
Dr. Joseph Bachman
US Geological Survey
Towson, MD
Mark Bennett
Department of Soil and Water Conservation
Richmond, VA
Dr. Peter Bergstrom
Chesapeake Bay Field Office
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Annapolis, MD
Dr. Arthur Butt
Chesapeake Bay Office
VA Department of Environmental Quality
Richmond, VA
Brian Hazelwood
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
Washington, DC
Dr. Albert Y. Kuo
VA Institute of Marine Science
Gloucester Point, VA
Lewis C. Linker
Coordinator, Modeling Subcommittee
US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Annapolis, MD
Dr. Robert Magnien
MD Department of Natural Resources
Assessment Administration
Annapolis, MD
Dr. Ross Mandel
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin
Rockville, MD
Dr. Bruce Parker
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/NOS/OES33
Coastal & Estuarine Oceanography
Silver Spring, MD
Kenn Pattison
PA Dept. of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Protection
Harrisburg, PA
Ron Santos
US Army Corps of Engineers
Baltimore, MD
Dr. Tom Stockton
MD Dept. of Environmental Resources
Watershed Modeling & Analysis
Annapolis, MD
Paul Welle
USDA Soil Conservation Service
Northeast National Technical Center
Chester, PA
Dr. Alan Lumb
Hydrologic Analysis Support Section
USGS National Center
Reston, VA
-------
Acknowledgments
The writers would like to acknowledge the efforts of several people who contributed
substantially to the compilation of this appendix. We would like to thank the United
States Geological Survey representatives from the states of West Virginia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania and Maryland for the timely processing of our data requests. Finally, the
authors would like to express their appreciation to the scientists and engineers of the
Modeling Subcommittee and the Model Evaluation Group for their guidance and review
of this document. This document and other Chesapeake Bay Program modeling
documents can be found on the Modeling Subcommittee web page:
http://wwwxhesapeakebay.net^ayprogram/committ/nidsc/model.htrn
-------
Appendix Summary
Appendix B documents the water quality calibration of the Phase IV Watershed
Model. Simulated and observed concentrations are compared for 8 years of calibration
(1984-1991) at 15 water quality stations. Calibration data is shown for temperature,
dissolved oxygen, total suspended sediment, total phosphorus, organic and paniculate
phosphorus, phosphate, total nitrogen, nitrate, total ammonia, and organic nitrogen.
The following plots are completed for each constituent: (1) observed and simulated
concentrations; (2) observed and simulated loads (temperature loads are not
calculated); (3) scatter plot and regression of simulated versus observed
concentrations; (4) observed and simulated actual error of paired data (simulated
concentration - observed concentration); (5) frequency distribution of paired simulated
and observed data, i.e. coincident observed and simulated concentrations, and; (6)
frequency distribution of all simulated and observed data.
The daily observed and simulated concentration plots generally show good to excellent
agreement between the model and data for temperature, dissolved oxygen, and total
suspended sediment and fair to good agreement on other water quality constituents.
Generally, as the number of water quality observations at a station increases the
calibration improves.
The simulated and observed load plots are developed from the observed mean daily
flow and concentration compared to model estimated loads. Overall the load
comparisons range from fair to excellent depending in different cases on the
simulation of flow or the simulation of concentration.
Scatter plots of observed and simulated concentrations are shown with the ideal line
(slope of 1, intercept of zero) drawn to assist interpretation of the plots with changing
x and y axis scales. The actual regression line slope, intercept, correlation coefficient,
standard error of the slope, standard error of the intercept, and the number of
observations are shown in the plot legend.
The actual error plot is calculated as the difference of the simulated and observed
concentrations plotted against time and is useful for indicating calibration bias and the
actual magnitude of errors. The two frequency distribution plots are useful for
examining the differences between the observed and simulated concentrations with
respect to concentration magnitude and frequency of occurrence. Generally,
calibration is best in the central area of the data and calibration performance is least in
the tails, particularly the 10th and 90th percentiles.
-------
List of Phase IV Watershed Model Reference Appendices
Appendix A Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Hydrology Calibration
Results
Appendix B Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Water Quality Calibration
Appendix C Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Nonpoint Source Simulation
Appendix D Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Precipitation and
Meteorological Data Development and Atmospheric Nutrient Deposition
Appendix E Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Land Use & Model Linkages to the
Airshed & Estuarine Models
Appendix F Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Point Source Loads and
Water Supply Diversions
Appendix G Observed Water Quality Data Used for Calibration, A Simulation of
Regression Loads, and a Confirmation Scenario of the Phase IV
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Appendix H Development of BMP Input Parameters to Track Nutrient Reduction
Goals with the Phase IV Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
-------
Table of Contents
Principal Authors w
Modeling Subcommittee Members Hi
Acknowledgments . iv
Appendix Summary v
List of Phase IV Watershed Model Reference Appendices vi
Table of Contents vii
List of Figures ix
List of Tables x
B.1.0 Susquehanna River. I
B. 1.1 East Branch Susquehanna River near Danville, PA at Segment 40 (Monitoring
Station: 1540500) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 10, 20,700, 30, and 40) 3
B. 1.2 West Branch Susquehanna River near Lewisburg, PA at Segment 70 (Monitoring
Station: 1553500) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 50, 60, and 70) 45
B. 1.3 Juniata River at Newport, PA near Segment 100 (Monitoring Station: 1567000)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 90 and 100) 87
B. 1.4 Lower Susquehanna River at Harrisburg, PA Segment 110 (Monitoring Station:
1576000) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 700
and 710) 129
B. 1.5 Susquehanna River near Conowingo, MD At Segment 140 (Monitoring Station:
1578310) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 120,140, and 720) 167
5.2.0 Patuxent River 209
B.2.1 Patuxent River near Bowie, MD at Segment 340 (Monitoring Station: 1594440)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 330,340,500, and 900) 211
B.3.0 Potomac River. 253
B.3.1 Mid Potomac River near Shepardstown, WV at Segment 740 (Monitoring Station:
1613000) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 160,170,175,730, and 740) 255
B.3.2 Shenandoah River near Millville, WV at Segment 200 (Monitoring Station: 1636500)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 190 and 200) 297
B.3.3 Lower Potomac River at Chain Bridge near Washington, DC at Segment 220
(Monitoring Station: 1646580) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 160,170, 175, 180, 190,
200,210, 220,730, 740, and 750) 339
B.4.0 Rappahannock River Basin 381
vii
-------
B.4.1 Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg, VA at Segment 230 (Monitoring Station:
1668000) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 230) 383
B.5.0 York River Basin 425
B.5.1 Mattaponi River near Beulahville, VA at Segment 240 (Monitoring Station: 1674500)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 235 and 240) 427
B.5.2 Pamunkey River near Hanover, VA at Segment 260 (Monitoring Station: 1673000)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 250 and 260) 469
B.6.0 James River Basin 577
B.6.1 James River at Gartersville, VA at Segment 280 (Monitoring Station: 2035000)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 265,270, 280, and 290) 513
B.6.2 Appomattox River at Matoaca, VA at Segment 310 (Monitoring Station: 2041650)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 300 and 310) 555
B.7.0 Choptank River Basin 597
B.7.1 Choptank River near Greensboro, MD at Segment 770 (Monitoring Station: 1491000)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 770) , 599
viii
-------
List of Figures
Figure Page
B.O Major Basins of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed xi
B. 1 Monitoring Stations in the Susquehanna River Basin 2
B.2 Monitoring Stations in the Patuxent River Basin 210
B.3 Monitoring Stations in the Potomac River Basin 254
B.4 Monitoring Stations in the Rappahannock River Basin 382
B.5 Monitoring Stations in the York River Basin 426
B.6 Monitoring Stations in the James River Basin 512
B.7 Monitoring Stations hi the Choptank River Basin 598
ix
-------
List of Tables
Table
ze
B .0 Table of Phase IV Watershed Model Segments by Basin xii
B. 1 Characteristics of Stations used in Hydrology Calibration xiii
-------
Major Basins of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
LOCATION MAP
OF THE
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
NY,PA,MD,D.C,DE,
WVANDVA
Susquehanna River Basin
[ Potomac River Basin
Western Shore Maryland
Patuxent River Basin
Western Shore Virginia
{Rappahannock River Basin
York River Basin
Eastern Shore Maryland
Eastern Shore Virginia
James River Basin
Source: U.S. E.P.A. Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
Table B.O
PHASE IV CHESAPEAKE BAY MODEL
SEGMENTS BY BASIN
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN:
AFL--10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 140, 700, 720
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN:
AFL- 160, 170, 175, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220, 730, 740, 750
BFL - 540, 550, 890, 900, 910, 920, 970, 980
JAMES RIVER BASIN:
AFL - 265, 270, 280, 290, 300, 310
BFL-600, 610, 620, 630
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER BASIN:
AFL-230
BFL-560
PATUXENT RIVER BASIN:
AFL - 330, 340
BFL - 500, 990
YORK RIVER BASIN:
AFL-235, 240,250, 260
BFL-590
WESTERN SHORE MARYLAND:
AFL - 650, 760
BFL - 470, 480, 490, 510, 850, 860. 870, 880
EASTERN SHORE MARYLAND:
BFL - 370, 380, 390, 400, 410, 420, 430, 450, 770, 780, 800, 820, 830, 840
WESTERN SHORE VIRGINIA:
BFL - 580, 930, 940, 950, 960
EASTERN SHORE VIRGINIA:
BFL-440
xii
-------
Table B.I
Characteristics of Stations Used in Hydrology Calibration
Phase IV
Model
Segment
40
70
100
710
Station
No.
1540500
1553500
1567000
1576000
Location
Montour County, PA, on right bank 200 ft
upstream from Mill Street bridge on State
Highway 54 at Danville and 0.8 mi
upstream from Mahoning Creak.
Northumberland County, PA, at down-
stream side of left abutment of Market
Street bridge on State Highway 45 at
Lewisburg, 0.2 mi downstream from
Buffalo Creek and 7.4 mi upstream from
mouth.
Perry County, PA, on right bank at
downstream side of bridge on State
Highway 34 at Newport and 1 ,000 ft
upstream from Little Buffalo Creek.
Dauphin County, PA, on east bank of City
Island, 60 ft downstream from Market
Street bridge in Harrisburg, 3,670 ft
upstream from sanitary dam, and 1 .7 mi
upstream from Paxton Creek.
Latitude
40°57'29"
40058'05"
40°28'42"
40°15'17"
Longitude
76°37'10"
76°52'25"
77°07'46"
76°53'11"
Drainage
Area
(mi2)
11220
6847
3354
24100
Gauge
(ft. above
NGVD)
431.29
428.20.
10/20/87 -
9/30/88,
nonrecord-
ing gauge
at same
site and
datum.
363.93
290.01
Average
Discharge
89 years,
1 5,270 cfs,
18.48 in/yr
as 1988.*
62 years,
757 cfs,
23.21 in/yr
as 1991.*
89 years,
4,280 cfs,
17.37 in/yr
as 1988.
98 years,
34,220 cfs,
19.28 in/yr
as 1988.
H-
H-
H-
-------
Phase IV
» mr -\ K
Model
Segment
175
140
220
200
780
Station
No.
1613000
1578310
1646580
1636500
1487000
Location
Washington County, MD, on left bank,
0.2 mi downstream from Little
Tonoloway Creek, 0.5 mi downstream
from bridge on US Highway 522 at
Hancock, 1 . 1 mi upstream from
Tonoloway Creek (formerly called Great
or Big Tonoloway Creek), and at mile
239.
Harford County, MD, on downstream side
of Conowingo Dam, 1.0 mi southwest of
Conowingo, and 9.9 mi upstream from
mouth.
Arlington County, DC, under right
downstream side of bridge on Virginia
State Highway 123, and at river mile
115.9.
Jefferson County, WV, on left bank 0.4
mi downstream from Cattail Run, 1 .0 mi
upstream from Millville, 5.0 mi upstream
from Harpers Ferry, and at mile 5.0.
Bridgeville, DE, on left bank at
downstream side of highway bridge, 800
ft downstream from Gum Branch, 2.5 mi
southeast of Bridgeville, and 50.5 mi
upstream from mouth.
Latitude
39°41'49"
39039'3r'
38°55'46"
39°16'55"
38°43'42"
Longitude
78°10'39"
76°10'28"
77°07'02"
77°47'22"
75°33'44"
Drainage
Area
(mi2)
4073
27100
11570
3040
75
Gauge
(ft. above
NGVD)
383.68
5.00
N/A
293.00
13.64
Average
Discharge
56 years,
4,154cfs,
13.85 in/yr
as 1988.
19 years,
41,870cfs,
20.98 in/yr
as 1986.
N/A
71 years,
2699 cfs,
12.06 in/yr
as 1986.
45 years,
89.8 cfs,
16. 17 in/yr
as of 1988.
-------
Phase IV
Model
Segment
280
760
310
230
240
Station
No.
2035000
1589000
2041650
1668000
1674500
Location
Goochland County, VA, on left bank, 200
ft downstream from bridge at State
Highway 45 between Pemberton and
Cartersville, 1.8 mi downstream from
Willis River and at mile 156.4.
Baltimore County, on left bank at
downstream side of highway bridge at
Hollofield, 0.3 mi downstream from
Dogwood Run, 3.0 mi north of Ellicott
City and 28 mi upstream from mouth.
Chesterfield County, VA, on left bank at
upstream side of bridge on State Highway
600, 0.2 mi south of Matoaca, 2.0 mi
upstream from Rohoic Creek, 2.8 mi
downstream from Lake Chesdin, 3.5 mi
west of Petersburg, and at mile 15.9.
Spotsylvania County, VA, on right bank
1.6 mi upstream from dam of Virginia
Power, 2.2 mi downstream from Motts
Run, and 3.8 mi upstream from
Fredericksburg.
King and Queen County, VA, on left bank
0.4 mi upstream from bridge on State
Highway 628, 2.4 mi north of Beulahville,
and 2.7 mi downstream from Maracossic
Creek.
Latitude
37°40'15"
39°18'36"
37°13'28"
38°19'20"
37°53'16"
Longitude
78005'10"
76°47'34"
77°28'32"
77°31'05"
77°09'48"
Drainage
Area
(mi2)
6257
285
1344
1596
601
Gauge
(ft. above
NGVD)
163.90
187.70
68.30
55.18
12.43
Average
Discharge
89 years,
7,087 cfs,
15.38 in/yr
as 1988.
N/A
18 years,
1,476 cfs,
14.91 in/yr
as 1987.
(minimum,
41 cfs, Oct.
4, 1981.)
80 years,
1,660 cfs,
14. 12 in/yr
as 1988.
46 years,
591 cfs,
13.35 in/yr
as 1987.
-------
Phase IV
Model
Segment
260
340
770
Station
No.
1673000
1594440
1491000
Location
Hanover County, VA, on right bank 100 ft
downstream from bridge on State
Highway 614, 0.3 mi upstream from
Mechumps Creek, 2.0 mi east of Hanover,
and 7.0 mi upstream from Millpond
Creek.
Anne Arundel County, MD, on left bank
45 ft upstream from bridge on U.S.
Highway 50, 3.0 mi west of Bowie City
Hall, 3.1 mi downstream from mouth of
Little Patuxent River, 4.2 mi northwest of
Davidsonville, and 60 mi upstream from
mouth.
Caroline County, MD, on left bank at
highway bridge, 0. 1 mi upstream from
Gravelly Branch, 2.0 mi northeast of
Greensboro, and 60 mi upstream from
mouth-
Latitude
37°46'03M
38°57'21"
38°59'50"
Longitude
77019'57"
76°41'36"
75047-09..
Drainage
Area
(mi2)
1081
348
113
Gauge
(ft. above
NGVD)
14.72
13.10
3.51
Average
Discharge
46 years,
l,006cfs,
12.64 in/yr
as 1988.
1 1 years,
362 cfs,
14.13 in/yr
as 1988.
41 years,
130 cfs,
15.62 in/yr
as 1989.
*: Datum of gauge, above National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; Water-stage recorder, if not otherwise indicated.
-------
B.1.0 Susquehanna River
Basin Segments:
Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 10, 20,30,40, 50, 60, 70, 80,90, 100,
110, 110, 120, 140, 700, 710, and 720
Section Contents:
B. 1.0 Monitoring Stations in the Susquehanna River Basin (Figure B.1.0)
B.I.I East Branch Susquehanna River (Monitoring Station: 1540500)
B.1.2 West Branch Susquehanna River (Monitoring Station: 1553500)
B.I.3 JuniataRiver (Monitoring Station: 1567000)
B.1.4 Lower Susquehanna River (Monitoring Station: 1576000)
B.1.5 Susquehanna River at Conowingo Dam (Monitoring Station: 1578310)
-------
Figure B.1
Monitoring Stations
in the
Susquehanna River Basin
Susquehanna River Basin in
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Calibration Stations
• 1540500
m 1553500
A 1567000
^ 1576000
m 1578310
/V Streams
|"l Model Segments
* Bar Program
Map Date: Apnl 1998
Source: USGS and USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program
KJH
-------
B.LI East Branch Susquehanna River near Danville, PA at Segment 40 (Monitoring
Station: 1540500) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 10, 20, 700, 30, and 40)
Section Summary;
The East Branch Susquehanna basin is largely rural in character and influenced by
agricultural loads as well as loads from several cities including Binghamton, Scranton,
and Wilkes Barre. An unusual feature of the East Branch Susquehanna is the decreasing
population in the basin over the 1984-1995 simulation period. This is the only
Chesapeake Bay basin with a decreasing population.
The East Branch Susquehanna basin above the gaged site covers an area of 11,522 square
miles. At the midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed
of 59% forest land, 7% cropland, 27% other agricultural areas, 6% urban areas, and 1%
water (river and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario, estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 47.9 million pounds in 1985 to 46.7 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus
loads over the same time period decreased from 2.1 million pounds to 1.6 million pounds.
In general, point source loads above the gage site are low. In 1996, the total nitrogen
point source load was 12% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load
was 29% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 6%,
from 1.35 million pounds in 1985 to 1.44 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 7%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 7%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
10% and 24% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 5% for total nitrogen and 5% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date — Temperature
-------
Ut
o-t
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SioiuUttd-Tcmp-C
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Actual Error versus Time
Temperarure-C
1 •
•s
3 "'
" -S
-7-
•11 ;
'
IT
l<
j
•
i
ft i
1
T
1
f
•
j,
11
"tl
1
I,
'J
i
il«
F
T
11
•
Iji
1
•
': . .; J , i
Jr
,
Date
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
2
j 1.000
o
30 Percent ofPoptiktion *°
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Pwcwit of Population
-------
00
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
-------
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
4000000
3000000 -
vo
t
2000000-
1000000 -
Date
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
f,
S 7
3
SunuUted-mgfl
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
11
10
9
S
t
5
3-
t •
1 •
3-
ll I I
Jj
1
. 1 i if I il ,
Ml * A 1
XXX
10
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 tectnto/iPopiiUlion TO
90
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulatedand Observed Data
Porontol Population
11
-------
soo -:
700
ro
East Branch Susquehanna Kiver at Segment 40
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
1.50E+08
1.40E+08
1.30E+08
1.20E+08
1.10E+08
l.OOE+08
Date
.
*V2«JANM IS
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-mgfl
-wo
.100
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
.L-L
DaU
14
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Percent on*ojniUtion
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
15
-------
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Qife
-------
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
60000 -:
Date
6r2l JWI.MI duulon2
..d» 2UAN9*
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
ssssassss...
SimuUted-mgfl
0.11
O.H
0.14
0.12
0.10
O.M
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
*0.
4.14
-O.U
•0.11
•0.22-
•OJ4 •
-u«-
-»J»-
•OJO-
,ll
.
TTfl
i i
ll,
T ll
1
i
1
r^l'
%
t Tr
1
^Tt.TT.1
11. if
1
rri
L kfl
,* u, r
X X
Dite
18
-------
1.00
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
19
-------
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
60000-:
Date
»-•<*• 2«J*NW
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Scatter Plot ana Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated, ngfl
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
0.12
0.10
04)8
O.M
044
002
0.00
•a -OJS
£ -OJH
O 4.0*
1 4.01 *
3 4.10'
(«•
I *;;;
-».!••
4J2-
•0.14 •
4-Zf
-OJO-
Tf
X /
111
f
lit
1
1
•
fl TT
T
i
n
^ «i»
i.
r1,
.
* TT 1
1-1
1 '
1
,
/ /
Date
I T
1
T
,
-
i
Hi i|
.'!
•
s /
i
•
f, f 1 1 rli
f '"•§ T * i ll^*i * '
•
/• /•
22
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Organic and Farticulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data ,
0.00001-
30 Penxnt depopulation *°
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Organic and Farticulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
PwMnt o( Population
23
-------
N)
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Dile
-------
to
Ul
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
19000
18000
17000
16000
15000
14000 -
13000'
12000
«"
11000
.£
•o
10000
9000 -
8000-
7000
6000-
5000-
4000-
3000-
2000-
1000
Date
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-mg/I
0.0*
0.05
0.04
tJO
4JO
' 4*7
JIM
•CM
•4.10
•4.11
•O.U
-O.U
-0.14-
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
TT
VT^I
I
TI
4
^k
Jut
1
26
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
0.010"
Percent
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
0.17
o.it
o.is
O.M
0.13 •
0.12 •
- 0.11 •
0.10 •
0.07-
0.06'
0.05-
o.o« •
am-
O.OZ-
o.oo
* «? #
Pwcmt of Population
27
-------
7- :
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
N)
00
• *-. 3<--:
-ulc * • *
0-Li
Date
* *;
* * * * :
...**.*....*....
* * •
I
-------
500000
400000
10
VO
>, 300000 1
CO
.c
TJ
200000 -
100000
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
_..
(•butt.ddnt 04FCBM Otllfnc i»».mod«l y.i)
«B*MlM
i»».mod«l y
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
* t
Simubud-m(/I
tsssx
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
I. IljlftlltlH j{.l.frl
X X
J
30
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 hnxnt o%>puUlioii
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
PmwitofPopuMion
31
-------
OJ
N>
3-:
oi
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
eer.
-------
180000
170000
160000
150000 -
140000
130000'
120000
110000 '
w 100000-
s.
s
o
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
34
-------
I C 0.10 •
Bsssssrar1
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
N03
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
10.00 •
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
N03
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Pwctnt of Popuwlwn
assess"
35
-------
0.9- :
CO
0.1 -
0.0
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
80000
70000- :
60000-
50000 -
u>
•o
I
£
I
40000 -
30000
20000
10000
Date
.
Klrv 2U«NM 1>:
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Scatter Plot aim Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
OJl
OJO
OJ9
(US
0.27
0.26
0.2S
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.20
O.J9
5, 1-U
E 0.17
i O.M
| 0.15
i 0.14
0 0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
o.o»
0.08
0.07'
0.06-
0.05'
0.04-
0.03-
0.02-
0.01-
0.00-
SimuUUd-ntgfl
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
o.u
0.14
0.11
0.10
0.0»
0.0*
0.04
0.02
0.00 '
4.02"
-o.io-
JIM-
-d.il-
-010
•002
»T. . I
irj
-OJ8 j
JIM -
il
II
Dam
38
-------
I
s
1
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
ofpoptiUtiai
0.1 -:
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
scrsssw
39
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
400000
300000-
I
I
200000-
100000-
(ySI Jlo* ui maWMfewra d| MU.)
vl 23FEBM OMl«f« r.g.m<
Date
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Scatter Plot ana Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
of Row
Simulated-mg/1
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
r
fr-
™
Miki
Jtl
lfl
essssav—
42
-------
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
East Branch Susquehanna at Segment 40
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulatedand Observed Data
43
-------
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Percent of Population
East Branch Susquehanna River at Segment 40
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Percent of Population
44
-------
B.1.2 West Branch Susquehanna River near Lewisburg, PA at Segment 70
(Monitoring Station: 1553500) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: SO, 60, and 70)
Section Summary;
The West Branch Susquehanna basin is dominated by the large areas of forest. Total
nitrogen and total phosphorus loads are generally low.
The West Branch Susquehanna basin above the gaged site covers an area of 7,014 square
miles. At the midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed
of 80% forest land, 6% cropland, 11% other agricultural areas, 2% urban areas, and 1%
water (river and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 26.1 million pounds in 1985 to 22.2 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus
loads over the same time period decreased from 0.8 million pounds to 0.5 million pounds.
In general, point source loads above the gage site are low. In 1996, the total nitrogen
point source load was 7% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load was
23% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 9%, from
0.50 million pounds in 1985 to 0.55 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 3%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 10%. Total phosphorus increased for cropland by 1% and
decreased for other agricultural loads by 19%. Urban loads were estimated to have
increased over the 1985 to 1996 period by 7% for total nitrogen and 9% for total
phosphorus due to increases in population and urban land use area.
-------
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date — Temperature
46
-------
40 :
30-
20 -
10
0-tl
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
(»2I j*» t«i
M ptotoiM • on*™)
-------
West Branch Susguehanna at Segment 70
Scatter Plot andllegression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-T«np-C
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
r
i*
thte
48
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 Percent J^opiUtion T0
BSSsssssr
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
49
-------
West Branch Susauehanna at Segment 70
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
is-:
15-
14
13 -
12
I
11-
10-
9-
7-
5-L
Date
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Seement 70
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
1800000
1700000
1600000-
1500000
1400000
1300000
1200000-
1100000
s-
w 1000000-
8.
**>.*** mo*U*(p«Mng.dl| MM)
i.d.cfcvl 30FESM 0*4e,proc i*9,mod«t y-i)
Date
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Scatter Plot and Degression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
±1
,
i_L
52
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
r
1
M
O
30
ofFopuli
Pciccnt ofropulation
90
•ssas"
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Fttctnt of Population
53
-------
600
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, —Simulated)
D»te
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
JL /« • • 1 4 •• ^-^ 1 J V
(line = simulated, O = observed)
60000000
50000000
40000000-
I
30000000
20000000
10000000
Iy2l j** JM moiM3
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Scatter Plot and Kegression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
100
100
-j 1 i>t**\r***^1" **
LJ
Ditt
56
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
PeKtnt on*opuUtion
70
90
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
sssssssar-
57
-------
oo
West Branch Susguehanna at Segment 70
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Total Phosphorus Observed and SimulatedLoad vs Time
30000- :•
20000-
Ui
10000-
(line = simulated, O = observed)
O
O
Date
: O
l_pUt>»l
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
A & i* <» i*
& & <& «" y
Simulated-mg/1
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
016
024
020
0.11
0.1*
0.14
0.11
0.10
•0.02-
•0.10
•0.12
•0.14
-0.lt
-a if
* A i
T
'I
T» CT * .
IT '
1
i*
i
ll
,1
'1
!
.'
i
T 1
Jl'
:J
r T/Tw.
,
1A
X X
60
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
TotalPhosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
61
-------
cr>
West Branch Susguehanna at Segment 70
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
30000-
20000
to
I
I
s
10000-
: O
O
i O
!l J4o* u. mod*Wlpw«>g dl| Mb.)
• • I 20FEBW otMjxoc ngjmxW yn)
Date
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Scatter Plot andTRegression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Participate Phosphorus; 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
0.17
O.M
0.11
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
O.M
0.07
0.0t
0.05
0.01
-0.01
-0.02
•0.09-
•0.10-
-0.11-
-0.12-
•O.M-
•O.W-
•O.K-
-0.17-
iL
iLi,
JU
1
TO
J
Tu.
Tjr
JJJL
X /
XX
64
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Percent of Population
eassiaaua*
65
-------
CT>
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
Date
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
4000-
3000
2000
c
•o
1000
Date
Ml JMUM m
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
0.03
0.01"
'*•? ••••*:
[g;£f >.-"„ :="•>. * f\
.ofPoi I
SimuUlnl-ini/1
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
0.11
0.10
0.09
(UM
0.07
0.0*
0.05
0.04-
0.03-
0.02'
0.01-
0.00-
-O.OT
•0.02 •
41.01-
-0.04 *
-4.0S
•QM '
•am-
" -ir1
'
i
mj,'%i 11 I'TI i"iff*t?'*iTi i iJWti^r«-fT t-t
"^|J| i^Ij^'TJ
.
i
!
ff
11
,
J
'; . tJ.J. I - T
\lF - * *i "M4 * ill
68
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Ol
lated and Observed Data
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
*
-------
West Branch Susauehanna at Segment 70
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed/ -^Simulated)
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
400000
Date
fell j** ... mo
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
.of F>oio
•v •»
SimuUI«l - mg/1
-I"
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
n
72
-------
SSZSSISSI*
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
10
30 Percent ofPopuUtran TO
90
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Percent of Population
73
-------
4-
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
120000-
110000-
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
Ar2l_pk
-
I 20FEBM OtMfiK ragjnxM y«|
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-mg/1
sssaaiK
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
fl.
Ubfl
rVTj
4
T It'll Tr»
j
DM*
76
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
N03
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
NO3
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
PMcmtofPapulltiim
77
-------
0.7-:
0.6
00
0.01
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
50000-
40000
30000
: O
20000-
10000-
Date
.
20FEBH Oi:Wjme rigjIKxM r->)
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Scatter Plot and regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulittd-ntfl
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
IP
+-•}
T
•*•. T •Li*"".
80
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 SO 70
Percent ofPopuUtion
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Percent of PopuUKon
ssxts
81
-------
oo
S3
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
oo
170000
160000
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
;anic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated]
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Load vs Time
Date
(«k.u«_cl drvl 20FEBM H
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Sinuhttd-mt/l
VN #
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
i-
IT
J i
*T
11
i'
•IJ:
l mfu-fl
Jit.
[1
[1,
i
i
inn.
•
JJH
II lit
'I
Li
[ r
|nf|
1
f,Tt,t,,lT
1
s /
s s
Dak
ssrsassr-
84
-------
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
of^PopuUt
PcnxntofopuUtum
West Branch Susquehanna at Segment 70
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Ft rent of Population
85
-------
86
-------
B.1.3 Juniata River at Newport, PA near Segment 100 (Monitoring Station: 1567000)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 90 and 100)
Section Summary;
The Juniata basin is primarily rural and forested. The Raystown Reservoir, which
intercepts drainage of 28% of the basin, has long hydrologic residence times which result
in decreased total nitrogen and total phosphorus loads for this portion of the basin.
The Juniata basin above the gaged site covers an area of 3,355 square miles. At the
midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed of 69% forest
land, 10% cropland, 18% other agricultural areas, 3% urban areas, and 1% water (river
and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage increased from
11.2 million pounds in 1985 to 11.3 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads over
the same time period decreased from 0.5 million pounds to 0.4 million pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site are low. In 1996, the total nitrogen point
source load was 7% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load was 12%
of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 14%, from 0.32
million pounds in 1985 to 0.37 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 9%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 2%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by 4%
and 9% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985 to
1996 period by 11% for total nitrogen and 8% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
87
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date - Temperature
88
-------
00
VO
Juniata River at Segment 100
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperarure-C: 01JAN84 - 01J AN92
Simulated-T«mp*C
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
D.lt
90
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
98
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
PtlrortafPopublfon
91
-------
vo
Juniata River at Segment 100
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
VD
CO
Juniata River at Segment 100
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
1000000
900000
800000
700000
>, 600000
td
•a
500000-
400000 -
300000
200000 ~
100000 -
Date
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
•J-t
ir
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
94
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Ferant ofPopulttion
70
90
w
I -I
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Pnctnl of Population
SfSZmJmi*,' •••*••
95
-------
VO
700-:
600
Juniata River at Segment 100
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
^___ Uine = simulated, O = observed)
50000000
40000000
>, 30000000
CO
•o
Q.
3
I
20000000
: O
: : O
O
10000000
.
(»«<*.. dry MSEM7U 17jHoc..,/««l.iK.'l
Date
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-mg/l
IN
•100
-200-
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
TV +..4. ifi - If J
i *
98
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Percent
MO:
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
P«rceiito< Population
99
-------
o
o
0.8
0.7-
Juniata River at Segment 100
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
18000-
17000
16000-
15000-
14000
13000
12000
11000
f
r loooo
01
o.
3
.E
i
9000
8000
Jvmiata River at Segment 100
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
tr*IJ*>«.««
0«S£P»7 1«lt.pfoc
Date
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
StauUfed-mg/l
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
D
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 PHtwitofPopuUHoB
98
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
F«iw»t
-------
o
*-
Juniata River at Segment 100
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
17000
16000
15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
£
•o
I
10000
9000
Date
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
of Pot I
J **
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
1
1
o.ooo«-L
30
90
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
107
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
o
00
Date
-------
O
VO
Juniata River at Segment 100
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
1300
1200
1100
.E
Date
nFtBM »Mjme
>IIIMJM)
ratine*) y.
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
i*.
of Point
^> <&
Simulated - a^n
• 14
0.15
o.u
a.]]
o.u
0.11
o.u
O.M
0.00
0.07
O.M
0.05
0.02 •
0.01-
0.00
-0.01-
•O.R-
jua-
-O.M-
•O.OS-
-o.i*-
-0417-
-OJ16-
•0.00-
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
11
J]
Ff
1
i
T T . .
f'llf
v
I
f
IJ
"II1 1
I
i
.1
:&.. *
pry
110
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
ofPopuUHon
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
PncentofPopulMio.
Ill
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
("^Observed, -=Simulated)
s-;
to
1
1-
o-ti
I
Date
tfe^l UPEBM 11MI
-------
200000
190000
180000
170000 -
160000
150000-
140000-
130000 -
>, 120000
«
fc 110000
Q.
2> 100000
Juniata River at Segment 100
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated/ O = observed)
Date
Ml JMIJM MailonlJ'Vtpa JMMI.IM) UtMj
jrta.tdnrl MFEBM aMfUX ngjnoM ».«!
-------
easwasfisssau
Juniata River at Segment 100
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
1 Tt.t
Dak
114
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 Percent J¥opuUtion 7°
90
sasssrsr"
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
PcirattofroptiUtioci
115
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Observed and Simulated versus Tim
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
frtitt.tt)
-------
60000
50000
40000
I
I
30000-
•3
Q
20000
10000
Juniata River at Segment 100
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Dale
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUttd-mg/l
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual Error versus Time
l!
J 111
l
Dak
118
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
NO3
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
PcntnlofhpuUtion
99
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
NO3
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
119
-------
0.01
Juniata River at Segment 100
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Dare
-------
19000
18000
17000
Juniata River at Segment 100
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
O.U
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
fu.
1-
o «•""
0.06
0.05
0.04
O.W
0.02
0.01
0.00 •
Simulated-ni(fl
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
OJC
US
024
023
022
Oil
tM
0.1*
O.U
0.17
0.1*
0.15
0.14-
O.U-
o.u-
Ml-
o.w •
o.o»-
0.01 '
M>-
o.o* -
045-
044 '
O.OJ-
042-
041-
•041-
•042-
-0.03-
444"
•O.W-
-OJ7-
•041-
•0.10-
*
I '
|[
'
.1
1
•
f,
1
,
'
1
ft
'll
1
TT»'
.
II
j
*
1
11'
1
ft III '
T
*"' i
/ X
122
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 PwttBl ofRtpuUtion
StTMBW"
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
stsz.
123
-------
N>
01
Juniata River at Segment 100
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
BOX
Date
-------
KJ
130000
120000
Juniata River at Segment 100
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
MUM I ui dMMouIfrtM (.3
(•noh.l *v MSEP*7 U: 17j»oe
-------
Juniata River at Segment 100
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
1
Ot
r- *•**
,<*Poil)
Simulated -mg/I
I i
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
J.
,1
Drt.
126
-------
ifl
1
Juniata River at Segment 100
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
99
Juniata River at Segment 100
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
127
-------
128
-------
B.1.4 Lower Susquehanna River at Marietta, PA Segment 110 (Monitoring Station:
1576000) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 10,20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90,100,110,
700, and 710)
Section Summary;
Water quality at the Lower Susquehanna water quality gaging station reflects the water
quality of the upstream basins of the East Branch Susquehanna, West Branch
Susquehanna, and the Juniata as well as changes in land use, point source loads, and
nonpoint source management practices of the Lower Susquehanna basin. The Lower
Susquehanna basin is largely rural, and influenced by the upstream agricultural loads and
forest loads, as well as lower basin agricultural loads and point sources from the cities of
Harrisburg, York, and Hershey.
The Lower Susquehanna basin above the gaged site covers an area of 26,184 square
miles. At the midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed
of 64% forest land, 10% cropland, 20% other agricultural areas, 5% urban areas, and 1%
water (river and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 122 million pounds in 1985 to 115 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads
over the same time period decreased from 4.8 million pounds to 3.9 million pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site are low. In 1996, the total nitrogen point
source load was 11% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load was
22% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 9%, from
3.5 million pounds in 1985 to 3.8 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 9%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 10%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
5% and 22% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 7% for total nitrogen and 9% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
129
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date - Temperature
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date - Dissolved Oxygen
130
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
40-:
30-
V
a,
20-
10
tft\jta**l* m«W3dlp<»iii|
}o«»_d.*vl 23FE8M 1*13)
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated -Tcotp-C
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
r
132
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
1
£
30 Ptnw.1 copulation ^
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Percent of Population
133
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
16-:
is -
14
13-
12-
u>
•3,
11-
10-
6
Date
-------
OJ
800
700
600-
500-
400-
300-
200-
100
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
Date
''-!**••••»!*'**
l_d*vl 13FEIM 13:31)
-------
CO
ON
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
1.60E+08 -
1.50E+08 -
1.40E+08 -
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
too-
.Of Poll!
sxszssxsxx,
Simul.fcd.mgfl
200
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
r^
tr
. M«
f
X /
LJL
»p
137
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 so
Percent efPopulation
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
138
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
0.9
CO
VO
0.8-
0.7
0.6-
0.5-
I
0.4-
0.3-
0.2
0.1
0.0
§
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
I
2
.£
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000-
40000
30000
20000
10000
Date
-MM**.
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SfSS
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
w
• JT/
LTlTlTl
DUt
X X
141
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Total Phosphorus
ribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Frequency Distribution •
30 Pmcnlo^opublkm
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
+
#
Percent 0c ropitutian
142
-------
U)
0.0 i
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Organic and Particufate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
80000
70000-
Date
-------
(US
94t
044
042
040
OJ8
OJ<
OJ4
0.32
OJO
C
i 024
I 0.22
1 OJO
o.is-
0.1C
o.u-
0.12
O.M-
O.DI-
o.ot-
O.M-
0.02'
0.00 '
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
0*Po(lt
*> #
Simulated-
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Viiifr
IT . rTr
"-rtr
Data
*«aj«w< uWnfr**
145
-------
1.00000
S ojnom
0.00100
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
^•^ • -3 T^ • • 1 • W^l ^^ 1
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
requency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Da
Frequency 1
Data
30 Promt o&tpubtion
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
essr
146
-------
0.16-
0.15
0.14
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
12000
CO
Date
ftniS*v*i*i*t
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated • mgfl
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
Dale
149
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Ol
lated and Observed Data
C 0.100
E
0001-
10
Pncmt
70
90
essssssnr*
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Fttcrat of Population
150
-------
•3,,-
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
M1 J**.HI nodil3dlp««g *| plolKM - oo*m.)
|bw.d.
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
1000000
900000-
800000
700000-
600000
cn
I
I
& 500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
Date
-------
|
1-
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUttd-mgrt
!•
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
1
U i.
n
IT
UT
1
l!
i
;
It
T
|ii<
lit
11
M
"
s s
Da*
153
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Total Nitrogen
Uion - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Frequency Distributio
Fnttnt
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
-------
01
Lrt
•s,,.
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
Date
\ 13FEBW1JSJ)
-------
400000
300000
t
r I
Ul
200000
100000
Susguehanna River at Segment 110
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01J AN92
2.1
2.0
19
IS
1.7
U
l.S
1.4
1.1
10
0.9
OJ
0.7-
0.6-
OJ-
.olPeii)
Simulated-ng/I
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
2
1
O
i .-
3
1
j
•i •
•i-
1
J
!
fl
Pi
1,
1
|]
! I.T
1 1
1
"
fill
}
II
*
I? IT IT TTTt
t
r
'
1
•
X X
sas
157
-------
Bssrssstsr1
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
N03
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Percent ofpopwktion
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
NO3
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Percent o< Population
158
-------
0.8 -:
Ul
VO
0.01
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
140000
130000
120000-
110000
100000
90000
&
•8 80000
I
& 70000
c
1
q 60000
50000
Date
l»»imM m)
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-mg/1
002
OJl
(L20
o.w
0.1S
0.17
O.M
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.00
4.01
4.02
4.03
-0.04
•0.05-
4.M
4.07
•OM
449
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
B
i,
/ /
161
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
1.000
0.001-
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
162
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
1 :
1
4c : 1 ;
f : :
ij* i||i
i \: * i F H 1 •'
i "*T^" ~^< •
: # **:
-••>(< •-
i i i1 1
^ T-«f ' >|C
•Xiy'' "^t^" '*¥'' ^li*
sf^j T?1> *tTr . ^sL-
" *>T< -----
C^l
S
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
500000-
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
2
1
1.-
! !
w
1
-1-
•a •
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
t
1
f
i
ifli
HIM
"
,,,
T.1
Ij
•
|
I
'
iLill
165
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Susquehanna River at Segment 110
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
166
-------
B.I.5 Susquehanna River near Conowingo, MD At Segment 140 (Monitoring Station:
1578310) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 120,140, and 720)
Section Summary:
Water quality at the Conowingo water quality gaging station reflects water quality of the
upstream basins of the East Branch Susquehanna, West Branch Susquehanna, Juniata,
and the Lower Susquehanna basins as well as local changes in land use, point source
loads, and nonpoint source management practices. The Conowingo gage station is the
largest basin in the Chesapeake watershed. The Conowingo basin is largely rural, with
particularly high agricultural loads from areas in the basin like the Conestoga watershed.
Water quality at the Conowingo gage station is influenced by three reservoirs on the
Conowingo mainstem, the Holtwood, Safe Harbor, and Conowingo reservoirs.
The Conowingo basin above the gaged site covers an area of 27,155 square miles. At the
midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed of 47% forest
land, 23% cropland, 22% other agricultural areas, 8% urban areas, and 2% water (river
and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 134 million pounds in 1985 to 130 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads
over the same time period decreased from 5.5 million pounds to 4.5 million pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site are low. In 1996, the total nitrogen point
source load was 11% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load was
20% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 13%, from
3.8 million pounds in 1985 to 4.3 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 9%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 11%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
5% and 23% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 9% for total nitrogen and 10% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
167
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date — Temperature
168
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
Ml J*» u>
(•no.*. MFEBM
-------
40
V
1
7 M
10-
:
<
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
: ; ! * * ',
: : ; - jr*2*
: : « „» ~ Bi/liiTii i'i;ZL : :
• »« « *ysfZ»^m**«* * : ;
'''...*"!>Z'--m'rr-J'-i'r-- «•
•All • MWMVMMMMIi * * ! [ ;
* i i nil rjiii^iii <•»*«»> ^ . . Unjui^M^rui«iHi bl PCM
mmZtlilmSmi^''*** '
> 4 4 * *
Simulated -Temp-C
1
1
1
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
DIM
170
-------
100
1
1
1
i 10"
I
i
£
\
\
1-
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
X
J
A
S
****-
O.1 1 10 3Q fip 70 90 99 90
a
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
171
-------
K)
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
S usque harm a River at Segment 140
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
7000000-
6000000-
5000000
Sr
•8 4000000
<5
Q.
3000000
2000000
1000000
Date
.
24FEBM »:47jnoe ragjnoW ».«)
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
D.1.
174
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
assess-"—•
175
-------
400-
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
<*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
1.40E+08
1.30E+08
1.20E+08
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
Dale
178
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
0.1
400
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
tyrant of rof«l>ti€«t
179
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
120000
noooo-
100000
#
&
ll:47«ne nfjnoiM y.t)
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
Date
182
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
P«c*nt of Population
183
-------
00
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
00
Susguehanna River at Segment 140
Organic and Participate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
120000
110000
Date
MfCMI i*47tm i^m«M y.»
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Participate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUtad-mg/I
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
0.1.
assess—•
186
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
i.ooo-
30 Ptranto&piiUtioti n
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
187
-------
0.09-:
0.08
0.07
0.06
oo
00
0.05
I
0.04^
0.03 J
0.02 H
0.01
0.00 i
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
<*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
jtanutv,
HftBHtlUT)
-------
oo
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
9000-
Date
Wl>
(conow.
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
190
-------
i
1
i
o.ooio-
sstssrar-
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Percent arPopulltion
80
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
191
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
\O
NJ
1 -
oi:
Date
-------
\o
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
1300000
1200000
Date
.
.*, 24FEBM I3J7jxoe nftno
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUl.d-mg/1
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
esssswr-1—••
194
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
195
-------
5-
VO
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
500000
400000
300000
VO
Q.
C
200000
100000
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
I
Simulated-mgfl
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
Date
198
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
N03
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Percent ofTofwUtian
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
N03
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Ptnxntirf Population
eesssaar
199
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
0.8 -:
0.7
0.6-
0.5
O
o
•5,
0.4
0.3
Date
-------
ISJ
O
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
noooo-
100000
I
i
90000
80000-
70000-
60000 -:
50000-
40000 -
30000
20000-
10000-
;O
: O
HI jHkttt H«»UU1f*~V<» MUl)
v 23FEBM 12:l4
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
f
, of Point
Simulated- o>|/l
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
Data
202
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
-s>
•*>
*
Ptmat«f Population
203
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
f
1 1
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
800000
700000
N)
O
Date
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-m«/l
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
5KSS
206
-------
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Susquehanna River at Segment 140
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
207
-------
208
-------
B.2.0 Patuxent River
Basin Segments:
Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 330, and 340
Below Fall Line Basin Segments: 500, and 990
Section Contents:
B.2.0 Monitoring Stations in the Patuxent River Basin (Figure B.2.0)
B.2.1 Patuxent River, near Bowie, MD (Monitoring Station: 1594440)
209
-------
Rgure B.2
Monitoring Stations
in the
Patuxent River Basin
Patuxent River Basin in
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Chesapeake Bay Program
Map Date: April 1998
Calibration Stations
% 1594440
/V Streams
fi Model Segments
Source: USGS and USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program
210
N
-------
B.2.1 Patuxent River near Bowie, MD at Segment 340 (Monitoring Station: 1594440)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 330, 340, 500, and 990)
Section Summary;
The Patuxent basin is the most urbanized of the major Chesapeake Bay Program basins.
The water quality time series reflects the urban, hydrologically "flashy" character of the
basin. Basin water quality is dominated by point source discharges. Changes in point
source discharges over the simulation period including the phosphorus detergent ban in
January, 1984, and Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) treatment in the 1990s have
resulted in large step-wise changes in water quality in both the observed and simulated
water quality data.
The Patuxent basin above the gaged site covers an area of 902 square miles. At the
midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed of 45% forest
land, 19% cropland, 11% other agricultural areas, 24% urban areas, and 2% water (river
and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 5.7 million pounds in 1985 to 5.1 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads
over the same time period decreased from 0.53 million pounds to 0.35 million pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site decreased. In 1996, the total nitrogen
point source load was 22% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load
was 28% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 30%,
from 0.31 million pounds in 1985 to 0.41 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 15%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 34%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
16% and 44% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 22% for total nitrogen and 23% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
211
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date - Temperature
212
-------
CO
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
20
s
t
ofPoir:
Siaiulltad-Tonp-C
—r
•f
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
214
-------
looi-
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual error versus PercentUe Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
FucntofFopiiklian
215
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
40000-
Date
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
etPw:
SimuUrtd-mg/l
••—r
•9
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
218
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
ssszssssr--•
219
-------
3000-
2000
NJ
to
O
1000
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
ro
(0
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line =B simulated, O = observed)
19000000-
18000000
17000000
16000000-
15000000-
14000000
13000000
12000000-
.g iioooooo-
w
§• 10000000
s
.£ 90000001
80000001
7000000
6000000-
5000000-
4000000
3000000
2000000-
1000000
Date
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SinuUM-ing/l
3000
T, . - T
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
/ /
222
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Penpal of Population
SKSW
J
o
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
» <> & 4>
#
-------
to
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
11000
10000-
9000
8000-
7000-
ro
&
£
6000
5000
4000-
3000-
2000
1000
.O.
MIX*
HMUX340
Date
-------
1"
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
99
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
PtKtnt of Population
227
-------
3--:
N>
N>
00
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
(»=Observed, -=Simulated)
Dile
-------
NJ
N>
vo
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
11000
10000
9000
8000
*
7000-
60001
50001
4000-
3000-
2000
1000-
Date
-------
Fatuxent River at Segment 340
Scatter Plot and Regression or Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
'•f *
Simulated-ing/I
Ml.*** «•••*•*•>,
LI
1.0
M
OJ
0.7
04
OS
04
°-3
03
0.1-
-OJ
-04-
•OJ-
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
'f JT^f" "T'J>t''1
T
Date
230
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
1.0000
Percent o^opulibon ™
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Percent of Potation
231
-------
0.9-
0.8-
0.7-
0.6-
0.5-
1
0.4
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
0.0-L.
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
400
300
w a
w & 200
c
100-
Date
al MM)
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-nf/1
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
Dale
234
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Ol
Dated and Observed Data
Percent oTPopuUliait
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
fmf-jam.jp
235
-------
14-
ro
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
KJ
10
•vl
70000-
60000
50000-
•3 40000:
s.
s
30000
20000:
10000-
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
.
20TEBM WMnae r»j,mo
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
238
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
PtrttntofPopuUtian
BSSSSSSS"
239
-------
10
-p>
o
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Dale
-------
8000
7000
6000
5000-
I
4000-
I
3000-
2000-
1000
Patuxent River at Segment 340
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Scatter Plot and Regression or Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SSKtm
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
D.H
242
-------
rssasr-
Patuxent River at Segment 340
N03
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Percent ofPopulttton
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
NO3
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
PtrctntofPopuktioti
SBssssstsr-
243
-------
3-:
ro
-e-
I
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
800
700
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
dry 20FEBH 0*44*rac ragjno
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
o-t
SunuUtcd - mgfl
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
03
OX
0.1
OJ)
-0.1
-0.2
-OJ
-Oi
-0.7
•14-
-is-
Date
246
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Percent orropuUtion
90
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Peicoil of Population
247
-------
13-:
to
•C-
00
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=Simula ted)
Date
-------
to
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
60000-
50000-
40000
30000-
20000
10000-
M1 jMb.M> m14«.dr> MFCMi WMfms
MFCMi WMfms Ittmaitl yd
Date
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Scatter Plot and Regression or Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
<• A *
SimuUM-ng/l
.olPoii:
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
250
-------
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Ptnxnt ofPopuUHon
sssssssssr*
Patuxent River at Segment 340
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Percent o< Population
251
-------
252
-------
B.3.0 Potomac River
Basin Segments:
Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 160,170, 175, 180,190, 200, 210, 220, 730,
740, and 750
Below Fall Line Basin Segments: 540,550, 890, 900, 910, 920, 970, and 980
Section Contents:
B.3.0 Monitoring Stations in the Potomac River Basin (Figure B.3.0)
B.3.1 Mid Potomac River (Monitoring Station: 1613000)
B.3.2 Shenandoah River (Monitoring Station: 1636500)
B.3.3 Lower Potomac River (Monitoring Station: 1646500)
253
-------
Monitoring Stations
in the
Potomac River Basin
Figure B.3
Calibration Stations
0 1613000
m 1636500
1646500
/V Streams
I i Model Segments
Chesapeake Bay Program
Ma? Date: April 1998
Potomac River Basin in
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
N
Source: USGS and USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program
254
KJH
-------
B.3.1 Mid Potomac River near Shepardstown, WV at Segment 740 (Monitoring
Station: 1613000) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 160,170,175, 730, and 740)
Section Summary;
The mid-Potomac gage at Shepardstown, WV, is downstream of a largely forested basin
which is rural in nature and is dominated by agricultural loads. The mid-Potomac basin
above the gage covers an area of 5,961 square miles. At the midpoint of the simulation
period, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed of 67% forest land, 7% cropland,
23% other agricultural areas, 3% urban areas, and 1% water (river and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage increased from
18.8 million pounds in 1985 to 19.3 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads over
the same time period decreased from 2.0 million pounds to 1.9 million pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site decreased. In 1996, the total nitrogen
point source load was 8% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load was
21% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 19%, from
0.5 million pounds in 1985 to 0.7 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation increased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 2%, and decreased other agricultural loads
(primarily pasture and manure loads) by 10%. Total phosphorus increased for cropland
by 9% and decreased for other agricultural loads by 6%. Urban loads were estimated to
have increased over the 1985 to 1996 period by 12% for total nitrogen and 13% for total
phosphorus due to increases in population and urban land use area.
255
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date - Temperature
256
-------
Isi
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simakted-Tatp-C
of Pa* I
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
5
4
3
2
1
r
i;
p "^
.3 •
i
1 4'
-5-
-«•
-7-
4-
T
>
L
1 i
«
•
/
^
J
1
1
'
,
II
m
*
! i ll , 1 1 ,
J1 111 1 ' ' 'I'll'
*
A A
1 1 *
A
////// X
Dit*
SttSSWT— '
258
-------
* 1.000
o
1
1
X
^
I!
I
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
10
30
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
•e
*
KMSS!
259
-------
16-:
15-
14
13
12 -
11 -
10
9
8
7
6-
5-
4-
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
I
3-L
Date
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
3000000
2000000
I
to
1000000
Date
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SHT
j.
\
I
sasssx
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
D.t.
262
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
10
30
90
I1
•i-
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
263
-------
5000-
4000
10
3000-
2000
1000
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
ro
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
7.00E+08 - :
6.00E+08
5.00E+08
•8 4.00E+08
I
2
.£
| 3.00E+08-
2.00E+08 -
l.OOE+08 :
O.OOE+00 -ttl
e
& ^ A* A^
/ / / /
Date
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SSSSBTB
Simulated-ng/l
TOO
«M
500
400
300
ZOO
100
-MO
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
IJLL
266
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution • PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual error versus Fercentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
TOO:
soo-
soo:
400-
300'
100-
o-
-100-
-MO-
-300-
PemntofrcpuUtion
267
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
10
<^
oo
1-
fcttjfcfciiMififlMfriPiMltliHiiil.
Date
-------
VO
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
500000
400000
t 300000
^
.5
200000
100000
X X
^^
/ X
X
Date
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
o
-2-
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
- * *
* * .. • «
'- I .r
X S
Data
270
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
I-;-
Pmtnlo< Population
271
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
to
«»j
10
•5,
2-
Dtte
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
500000 -p ~
400000
>, 300000
5 &
_c
J 200000-
100000
o p> o
fp
-------
1
r
o
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
-* « I » *
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
»*-•* «-
. . T »
Da*
sax
tJL.
274
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
I
I •
I-.-
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution -All Simulated and Observed Data
PncnvtcrfPopuUlion
ssssrr
275
-------
0.7 -:
0.6
to
0.01
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
vu&ss
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
5000
4000
3000
10
2
c
2000-
1000
Date
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
O.ff
i OA>
t ••"
1
i
0.01
i
i
fl.7-
tf
•5-
10J-
W
1
0.1-
•
-0.1 -r
X
111 [ ! i ; ;
I / 1 ! 1 i i
ij i i i | | p-
, ,..,,. 1 1 I I 1
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
T T * T T. . T T ft T.I TT t T.
1 j, I'll "1* * " * ** * •*»"' ' ' • j • ' -' * '
Date
sgftk ^
w :
•* :
1 ' ' • i r
f
i
1
278
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
SSCWSB
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
srwr
279
-------
11
10-
8-:
7-:
K>
00
O
I
1-
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
<*=Observed, -=Simulated)
\ '
Dtte
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
700000
600000
500000
to
00
<5
o.
400000
.5
300000-
200000-
100000
Date
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
5
4
3
2'
»'
-2'
•3-
III
1 |' I'll
•
H'l
1
,
1
T T
h i i
r 11 Jjiiir '
/ X X /
282
-------
10.0
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated i
I and Observed Data
PercMitofPopuUKon
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
283
-------
10-:
9 -1
ro
oo
•5,
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
00
in
130000
120000
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Ml EM.** IKNM
(rmiSi2f EMTn
Date
-------
2-0
1.9
U
17
1.6
IS
1A
U
i
: u
>
u
u>
«.»•
flj-
4.7 •
04-
as-
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
.
Simulated-
tSgtOmlfJt "-
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
Dtt>
286
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
NO3
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
N03
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
P.™* .< Population
287
-------
0.9 -:
0.8 -
0.7-:
0.6
N>
OO „_ .
oo 0.5 -
•s,
g
0.4
0.3
0.2-
0.1 -
0.0 i
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
00
SO
120000
110000
100000
90000
80000
70000-
J? 60000
.5
50000
40000
30000
20000-
10000
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
O'f
Date
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-m|fl
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
* - f in m»^
OJ-
0.1
on-
•o.i-
o
I*3'
| -04-
I
•oj-
44 "
•°-7"
-OJ-
1 IT*
1 U ' A
.
Actual error versus 1 ime
Total Ammonia
1
1
IMllli*** -1 *'|ii|A * \i
*
i
XXX
Dttt
290
-------
1
£ 0.010-
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
eaawsr-
291
-------
to
vo
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
<*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
v^ ^^ /•* • • i * i ^^ •• •• \
500000
400000
300000
NJ
VO
U>
-------
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Scatter Plot and Regression of Stimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-m|fl
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
1 1 *
IT-
Dili
294
-------
•Jii
££•£••* LU "•*
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution • PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Mid Potomac River at Segment 740
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
295
-------
296
-------
B.3.2 Shenandoah River near Millville, WV at Segment 200 (Monitoring Station:
1636500) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 190 and 200)
Section Summary:
The Shenandoah basin is largely rural and is dominated by agricultural loads of the
Shenandoah Valley. The Shenandoah basin above the gaged site covers an area of 3,033
square miles. At the midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was
composed of 51% forest land, 6% cropland, 34% other agricultural areas, 8% urban
areas, and 1% water (river and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 9.1 million pounds in 1985 to 8.4 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads
over the same time period decreased from 1.5 million pounds to 1.2 million pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site decreased. In 1996, the total nitrogen
point source load was 16% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load
was 32% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 28%,
from 0.30 million pounds in 1985 to 0.38 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 32%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 11 %. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
23% and 25% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 35% for total nitrogen and 30% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
297
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date ~ Temperature
298
-------
N)
VO
VO
40 j
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Scatter Plot and Regression ofbimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01J AN92
SimuUM-Tcmp-C
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
uu
J-TT^
X X
DMt
300
-------
SSSSf
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
offopuktion
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
301
-------
OJ
o
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
I
2
c
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
Date
(111 jM\ in dMMonl (r»«»I IHIKI utl MiM)
(»<(«_. dn »AUOt7 17:<0j>..|
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
.olPoii
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
D.I.
304
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
5
I »
i
iZ
10
30
70
90
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
•5>
•f
PnemlofPqnhlM.
305
-------
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
1900
Date
-------
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
3.00E+081:
2.00E+08
O
T3
I
2
.£
l.OOE+08 -
O.OOE+00 -
i ' '
f1^ r>^>^^ f^ ^^ ^^ ^"^ <^~
o<
Date
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
soo
o
T- pr
. T I.
308
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
500-
400-
MO-
200-
100;
•'
-loo :
-200-
-300 1:
ssessas
309
-------
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
-------
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
3000001
200000
u>
I
a
s
100000
o-tia
X X
O
-B$ ft) H)O (^-Q£V-
/.<$>
/
X X
Date
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Scatter Plot and Regression otSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
• -u-
1
1-o.M
Si
-04'
FTT
"T
IT
iL
^
iL
312
-------
10.00-
I
0.10
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
KOSS
313
-------
1.8-
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
..ir*^.Trr.*.* *.r...***.**:..*.* *^.*.*.*^0'^^^^r*^^.^.,-
Date
-------
Ui
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
300000
200000
.
Q)
a
100000
oi
O
o-no ^onnr^ooon
'<
.
Ituph.lHrv 2UUO>7 l
Date
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Participate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulittd - mg/1
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
0.1
-OJ-
-04-
IT tit 1. ItT llllIlT T^ T, ,T_l,t
Oil*
316
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 P«rc«T,lo$opuUtion ^
!«•
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
#
Nrcn.tofPop.WHm
317
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
00
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
12000
11000
I
Date
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Scatter Plot and Regression orSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUttd • mg/1
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
0.07
0.04
0.05
O.M
OJ13
0.02
i 0.01
j O.M
| -0.02
[ -0.03
i -0.05-
-0.07
•0.08
•0.09
•0.10
-0.11
•0.12
•0.13
•0.14
T
Y
/" J f
& V &
320
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Sire
321
-------
ts>
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
eooooo
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
500000
o ••
Ul
400000-
t
300000
200000
100000
Date
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Scatter Plot and Regression orSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-m(/l
1-
I
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
L
T T
JL
/ X
D.I.
324
-------
S2SSS
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
325
-------
u>
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
-------
CO
ho
100000-
90000
80000
70000
60000
c
50000-
40000-
30000-
20000
10000
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Scatter Plot and Regression otSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-mg/1
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
1 ll
r i
D.I.
328
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
NO3
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
N03
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
SrtSKS"
Ptrcmtot Population
329
-------
U)
o
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
OJ
00
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000-
10000-
Oi
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
o;
A*
ODD
no
00 no-*
Date
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
- -T L T III.
n
TT T,
X X
Due
332
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
333
-------
to
to
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
<*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
KtSffi
-------
Shenandoah River at Segment 200
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
400000
300000
10
I
I
5? 200000
100000
b2ljW1.MKWnloiOtvtf3
jgnph.» in lfMXM717i4ejw
O •
Q.
£L
/
Date
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 • 01JAN92
Simulated-mg/1
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
!l.... I
11
X X X
D.I.
336
-------
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution1- PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Shenadoah River at Segment 200
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
*
337
i
-------
338
-------
B.3.3 Lower Potomac River at Chain Bridge near Washington, DC at Segment 220
(Monitoring Station: 1646580) (Above Fatt Line Basin Segments: 160,170,175,180,
190,200,210,220, 730, 740, and 750)
Section Summary:
The Potomac River at the fall line is primarily rural, with the lowest portions of the basin
changing to the urban character of the Washington Metropolitan region. Land use
upstream is predominantly forest with agricultural loads from the Piedmont and the Great
Valley the primary influence on water quality. The upstream basins of the upper
Potomac and Shenandoah contribute to the water quality characteristics at the Potomac
fall line. Nitrate comprises the greatest part of total nitrogen and is highly seasonal with
nitrate concentrations highest in winter and lowest in summer. An unusual feature of the
water quality time series at the Potomac is a 100-year storm in November, 1985. Total
suspended sediment increased to about 4,500 mg/1 at the Shepardstown gage, the highest
observed total suspended sediment concentrations recorded in the Chesapeake watershed.
The Potomac basin above the gaged site covers an area of 8,744 square miles. At the
midpoint of the simulation period, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed of 36%
forest land, 22% cropland, 30% other agricultural areas, 11 % urban areas, and 1 % water
(river and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used hi a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 42.8 million pounds in 1985 to 41.1 million pounds hi 1996. Total phosphorus
loads over the same tune period decreased from 5.0 million pounds to 4.3 million pounds.
In general, point source loads above the gage site decreased. In 1996, the total nitrogen
point source load was 11% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load
was 25% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 28%,
from 1.5 million pounds hi 1985 to 1.9 million pounds hi 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 18%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 12%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
10% and 17% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 24% for total nitrogen and 26% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
339
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date ~ Temperature
340
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed/ -^Simulated)
o l
Date
(til jktt ut nuuaiafrr, p3 |»m«t.i.t| note*
(»«(«|,.
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
BBSBS
Simulated-T«mp-C
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
DOt
ex
342
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 Percent o^opuUtkm 70
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
343
-------
OJ
*-
.C-
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Dtte
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
3000000
2000000
L/l
s
C
(0
O
1000000
Date
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
Da,
346
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
10.000
E
3 0.100
10
30
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
347
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
3000
2000
oo
1
1000
Date
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
9.00E+08 1.
8.00E+08 -
Date
-------
o
1000-
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-ngfl
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
Dite
350
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
99.9
1000-
1000
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
351
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
i :
Date
-------
Ln
OJ
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
700000 -fT
••• ; °:
600000:
SODOM-
'S 400000:
I '•
c
I 300000:
200000 :
::O
looooo:
Date
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUMd-mg/I
eesasssfsgszff
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
354
-------
KSST3S*—'•
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Pnctnt
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
*
assay
355
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
CO
C/i
I
o -tl
Date
-------
u>
01
vj
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
700000
O
600000
500000
SI-
'S 400000
CD
Q.
S
C
H
300000
200000-
O
100000
Date
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUted-mg/1
Kfl
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
j
JLr -LJ
TTFJf* 1"" 71""*"
358
-------
soars*
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
359
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
J&ttfltf
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
10000
Date
.
fodiv»>f EM
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
KiSSSS
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
362
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
363
-------
CO
CT>
•3,
o 1
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=SimuIated)
Date
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
3000000
f
o;
2000000
w
ON
.§»
1000000
Date
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated -mgfl
szstxssszssss?
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
x x
Oak
RflBWST"
366
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
casaui" " ' '
367
-------
U)
o>
00
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
300000
200000 -
i
$
100000
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUted • m|/l
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
X X
Dttt
XfSSX
370
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
N03
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
N03
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
371
-------
u>
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
•3.
0.5
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
300000-
O :
200000
OJ
-o
u>
0>
i
100000-
o-l
:O
Date
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
9.7
I
.ofPoit
f & «>" *>* ** >? & f J & J &
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
X X
374
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution • PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
1 -04-
3
r
•at
•OJ
-OJ
-LO
•f
catta
375
-------
u>
^J
Ox
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
<*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
taMocm Seat *'r
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
3000000
f
2000000
to
•vj
vj
*
I
8
c
1
1000000
o;
Date
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simvbted-nc/1
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
Drt.
ttfSSR
378
-------
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
j 0.1000
o
1
S 0.0100
10
oTPopaUtion
70
tasssss*
Lower Potomac River at Segment 220
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
379
-------
380
-------
B.4.0 Rappahannock River Basin
Basin Segments:
Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 230
Below Fall Line Basin Segments: 560
Section Contents:
B.4.0 Monitoring Stations in the Rappahannock River Basin (Figure B.4.0)
BA1 Rappahannock River (Monitoring Station: 1668000)
381
-------
Figure R4
Monitoring Stations
in the
Rappahannock River Basin
Chesapeake Bay Program
Map Date: April 1998
Rappahannock River Basin in
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Calibration Stations
1668000
A/ Streams
C_J Model Segments
Source: USGS and USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program
382
Ktf
-------
B.4.1 Rappahannock River near Fredericksburg, VA at Segment 230 (Monitoring
Station: 1668000) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 230)
Section Summary;
The Rappahannock basin is largely rural in character and is dominated by agricultural
loads. Concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids are
generally low. Water quality observations increased and were oriented toward storm
weighted sampling after 1989. Model calibration focused primarily on the refined, storm
weighted sampling after 1989.
The Rappahannock basin above the gaged site covers an area of 2,582 square miles. At
the midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed of 55%
forest land, 12% cropland, 26% other agricultural areas, 6% urban areas, and 1% water
(river and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 5.3 million pounds in 1985 to 5.0 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads
over the same time period decreased from 0.55 million pounds to 0.46 million pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site decreased. In 1996, the total nitrogen
point source load was 4% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load was
7% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 38%, from
0.13 million pounds in 1985 to 0.18 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes hi the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 18%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 5%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
25% and 2% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 23% for total nitrogen and 25% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
383
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date - Temperature
384
-------
00
Ul
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
sa-
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated .T«np-C
sssssx
I1
I-
i.
i
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
ILJ
1
Jj
X X
Djle
386
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
387
-------
CO
00
17-:
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
u>
oo
VO
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
600000
500000
400000
Q.
300000
200000
100000 -
Date
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUlcd-ni/l
.OfPoi
1:
1
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
11
r^l
TI
Date
390
-------
sstx
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - Ail Simulated and Observed Data
391
-------
CO
\o
ro
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
. (line = simulated, O = observed)
40000000
30000000
VO
U>
I
I
20000000
.£
1
10000000
o •*
C
jnnnnnnn rl
o
O
o
o
Date
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUltd-nf/l
S£i
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
wo
500
MO
200
!
« -200
-SOD'
Dirt
ssssstsr——•
394
-------
van-
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual error versus Fercentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
8HSKW—"
395
-------
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
/•*» • 1 • 1 >™v < ••v
(line = simulated, O = observed)
60000-:
u>
<£>
-J
Date
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-n(/l
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
OJ
02
0.1-
0.0
-0.1
•9X
4J
•QA-
•OJ
•04
t _ . T , t *. , T Ttr XT
.T.tf .IT
• i \i ' *
T-. ...
1
(Jfft^t. Jt 1
7
>
!
'^
i-
111
J- i
Dtte
esss
398
-------
W.OO- '
SffSSC
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
SOU
399
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
(*=Observed/ -^Simulated)
10
9- :
7 '•
o
o
4 :
3 :
2
•*-
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
40000
Date
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
10-:
I
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
402
-------
0.0001
SMWSSST
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
—r~
*
—r—
*
403
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simiflated)
0.26-
0.25-
0.24-
0.22-
Date
-------
4S
O
Oi
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
i4oo-
1300:
Date
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simul>tnl-mi/l
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.09
O.OS
tun-
I O.M-
° 0.04-
I »•«
f 0.01-
•0.01-
•ojn-
•0.04-
-0.05-
1
TT
qii
T tT
Date
ssts
406
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
3
2
0.001 -
SS3X.US "
90
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
407
-------
8-:
o
00
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=Simiflated)
Date
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
300000 -:
200000
t
i
2
s
100000-
Date
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
u
Data
410
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
411
-------
K3
0 1
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
17000
16000
15000
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
Ml J*t\
Irwk jf
*• twoaw ii »
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
E
I"
04-
innofPoio
SimulaM-oig/l
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
1.1
1JI
O.f
OJ
OJ
04
OJ
• M-
OJ-
i
! 02-
0.1
0.0-
-«.i-
•42-
-OJ-
n-rp
SCUS35T
414
-------
BSS—JS?"*"
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
N03
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Patent
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
NO3
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
SSSSB..J " ' '
415
-------
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
-------
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3
Date
MI »MI i«4 «iimi'«»
toWh.a^nr 91MM9J tr
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
0.1S
0.1C
0.14
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
4.02
-0.10
-0.12
•0.14
-O.
-O.H
•WO-
-O22-
TrT, t ,rr,TT
r
n
l
il
Dn>
418
-------
1.0000
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution • PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
0.11
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
419
-------
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
Rappahannock River at Segment 230
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
300000
200000
IS)
2
s
100000
Date
._• *v 17AUOI7 1I3I«M n»M*l r-4
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
!
i
,<***>
gaaasssaasa
1-
-21
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
T
J.
V
fa
Ji
f H
X X X X
Dak
422
-------
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Percent
STSi
Rappahannock River at Segement 230
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
grass?
423
-------
424
-------
B.5.0 York River Basin
Basin Segments:
Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 235, 240,250, and 260
Below Fall Line Basin Segments: 590
Section Contents:
B.5.0 Monitoring Stations in the York River Basin (Figure B.5.0)
B.5.1 Mattaponi River (Monitoring Station: 1674500)
B.5.2 Pamunkey River (Monitoring Station: 1673000)
425
-------
Figure B.5
Monitoring Stations
in the
York River Basin
York River Basin in
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Chetapeake Bay Program
Map Date: April 1998
Calibration Stations
9 1673000
H 1674500
/V Streams
f~l Model Segments
N
Source: USGS and USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program
KJH
-------
B.5.1 Mattaponi River near Beulahville, VA at Segment 240 (Monitoring Station:
1674500) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 235 and 240)
Section Summary;
The Mattaponi basin together with the Pamunkey form the above fall line portion of the
York River. The Mattaponi is similar to the Rappahannock in its rural character
dominated by agricultural loads. Concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and
total suspended sediment are generally low at the Mattaponi gage station. Water quality
observations increased and were oriented toward storm weighted sampling after 1989.
Model calibration focused primarily on the refined, storm-weighted sampling after 1989.
The Mattaponi basin above the gaged site covers an area of 594 square miles. At the
midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed of 72% forest
land, 11% cropland, 8% other agricultural areas, 7% urban areas, and 1% water (river and
lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage increased from
0.64 million pounds in 1985 to 0.67 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads over
the same time period decreased from 58 thousand pounds to 49 thousand pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site decreased. Estimated septic system total
nitrogen loads increased 39%, from 41 thousand pounds in 1985 to 58 thousand pounds
in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 2%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 28%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
22% and 54% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 32% for total nitrogen and 29% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area
427
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date — Temperature
428
-------
to
VO
-10 i
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
.ofPoiil
•f
SunuUled.
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
9
•
7
«
5
4
I '
0 I'
1 '•
a •*'
-i-
•3
•4'
•i-
•*•
•T
"
,
s
1,1
. T
IT
m
/
J
I*
S
till , I
1
11
1
• /
1, ,
r^
•
1
/
'hi
X
I1!
T
1
H
;J
1
.
IllJl
1
* .
1
h
i
1
/ / /
Date
430
-------
0.10:
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
431
-------
18-
17
OJ
N9
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
ZMOOf? I/
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
J ° (line = simulated, O = observed)
100000
90000
Date
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Scatter Plot and Regression orSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
O |.
1
I
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
TTTT
x x
X X
Data
434
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
w
1
30
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
435
-------
OJ
ON
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
u>
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
800000
700000
600000
500000
t
I
2 400000
300000
200000
looooo-
O
(fit jun u> dMMot.94nM pi (MM
llftHt.t *v >MUO«> 1J >»««*
Date
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimUt.d-mgfl
ssrs
100
•100-
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
* J'**r»4
X X
Date
438
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
300
KK
I
i
1
-100
•?
#
439
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
looo-'
900
Date
.
**» tuuon 17
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
021
020
O.U
O.U
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
o.w
0.08
5.07
7 O.OC
£ 0.05
* 0.04
O OJO
• 7 QJtt
•J OJM
£ OJ»
•0.08
-0.09
•0.10
-0.11
-0.12
-O.U
-0.lt
-0.1S
-a.i<
-0.17
•0.16
X>.»-
•4UO
-OJ1
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
1. -J
T.
I , . I 1
T T,
Date
442
-------
1.000
oooi-i
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated an
Simulated and Observed Data
ftacmtarKopdilmi
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
443
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Ui
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
9oo-:
800
Date
*y HAUMT 17
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Scatter Plot and Regression oFSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SunuUttd -
0.11
041
041
047
04t
O.OS
044
041
041
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
v
| -044
| -0.01
; 441
-0.07
441
441 •
4.10-
4.1J-
4.U-
4.14-
4.15-
T T
X X X
Oak
446
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
0.11
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
447
-------
00
0.18
0.17
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
(tr>l.«lglllM4
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line as simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
«+ ** ** +* «* ** »* +* »•
J J J
f s
J f
o.u
0.10
Mt
O.OJ
043
0.01
040
•041
441
••.If
•o.u-
•o.u-
•o.u-
-o.u-
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
TJ' T"
"FIT
x
xx
X X
450
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Ol
dated and Observed Data
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Date
451
-------
•P-
Wl
10
•5,,:
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
5000
in
Date
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Scatter Plot and Regression oFSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
itqnof P«o
Simukted - mg/1
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
rrn
i ii i—ii' '*
ssrsser"-1
HT
A
Due
454
-------
1
I
^
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 P«»nt.ffLp»U«i.n n
90
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
455
-------
3-:
Ui
I
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
3000
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
> *v ttFEBtt OM7«rae ngmxM y.i|
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Scatter Plot and Regression oFSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
M
0.0 t
ofPoio
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
T JT k 1 !
1
t. T.
M
I
. T T
I
J ' 11
If,
' ' }W* I
1 1
\
1
W|f " T
s /
Dak
458
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
N03
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
ofFopnUtion
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
N03
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
459
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
0.9 -:
0.8
0.7-
0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 1
Date
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
600-:
Date
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Scatter Plot and Regression oFSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
00
i f
*« t .
X X
Data
462
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
nssr*u!Lu*"n
463
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
fmutu^r OfUtt tun
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
4000
in
Date
Ml _jto»*M
jm«M40.*>
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Scatter Plot and Regression oFSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
I
1
I
ofPoiM
' I ' ' ' ' I
A
SimuliMd - mg/l
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
T , T . , ,T
Dlte
466
-------
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 SO 70
PeitntofPopuUtioit
90
-I-
Mattaponi River at Segment 240
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
sssrasssr
467
-------
468
-------
£.5.2 Pamunkey River near Hanover, VA at Segment 260 (Monitoring Station:
1673000) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 250 and 260)
Section Summary:
The Pamunkey basin together with the Mattaponi form the above fall line portion of the
York River. The Pamunkey basin is largely rural. The Lake Anna Reservoir influences
water quality in this basin contributing to the low concentrations of total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, and total suspended sediment at the Pamunkey gage station. Water quality
observations increased and were oriented toward storm weighted sampling after 1989.
Model calibration focused primarily on the refined, storm-weighted sampling after 1989.
The Pamunkey basin above the gaged site covers an area of 1,070 square miles. At the
midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed of 67% forest
land, 8% cropland, 17% other agricultural areas, 6% urban areas, and 3% water (river and
lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage increased from
1.7 million pounds in 1985 to 1.9 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads over
the same time period did not change at 0.15 million pounds. In general, point source
loads above the gage site decreased. In 1996, the total nitrogen point source load was 9%
of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load was 11 % of the total load.
Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 36%, from 61 thousand pounds in
1985 to 83 thousand pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation resulted in no
change in the estimated cropland total nitrogen loads, and decreased other agricultural
loads (primarily pasture and manure loads) by 6%. Total phosphorus decreased for
cropland by 10% and increased for other agriculture by 2%. Urban loads were estimated
to have increased over the 1985 to 1996 period by 36% for total nitrogen and 44% for
total phosphorus due to increases in population and urban land use area
469
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date — Temperature
470
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
I
I
otPoir:
Simulated-Tcmp-C
—r
•f
sax
n
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
U I I I
Date
472
-------
1
3
saxssxsr
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30
80
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
473
-------
17
16
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
300000
200000-
ui ex
$
TJ
a
o
100000
Date
(y21 ploiV
(9«»ph_» *v 27AU097 1
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Scatter Plot and Regression otSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
m. ««JL*.B. «A A. K.A'm^v W A-*.* • ^A. •«*> kaT ^ fc
Actual Error versus 1
KA.&&^«.
rime
&«•
«H»^^^^
Dissolved Oxygen
s
4
3-
I"
! ^
I
-1"
r
IT
NTT
T
llllli
1
1
1
11
Jc
IT I IT
T
j
t
I,
I
I
1 1
1
"""^r —
,
•
1
1,
fl
i
I
Date
476
-------
100
3>
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
90
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Fount of PopiiUtioii
477
-------
1300-;
1200
1100
1000
00
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
17000000
16000000
15000000
14000000
13000000
12000000
11000000
t
^J Si
«> s.
10000000
9000000
5 8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000-
2000000 -
1000000
Date
(9f*ph_»*v2;AUG*7 I
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUted.ms/1
aagasessa.-
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
«00
100
100
*
-300
-400
-500
JU.
Ditc
480
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
1000
0
-100-
-MO
•300-
* * #
PtTcnlofPepuUtlan
CSSSSi
•a MO'
snsr
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
: ; ; i :.: ; : i } ; 1
i i i i j j I l i i ~'T\
\ i i i i ; : ; } T^T";
: ; : i i i::::i:::r::j^^::n
481
-------
0.6 - :
00
N>
o.o
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
-P-
oo
u>
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
9000
8000
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Scatter Plot and Regression otSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated-mgn
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
0.2*
1 0.24
0.22
OJO
0.18
O.U
0.14
0.12
0.10-
O.M-
OJK-
0.04-
0.02-
4.02-
-0.04-
_A A£ "
"OJI»
-o.o«-
-0.10-
•0.12-
-0.14-
-o.u-
•0.20 -
•OJ4-
. JT III
1, . .Tt
1
J
rK . tT *.
,
i A A
'
"IT
I
M
u
tj
i
r
'
1
'it
"
u
* J L * L jn
•
at " *
1* !
1
w
L
Dale
484
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated an
nutated and Observed Data
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
485
-------
00
ON
0.0
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observedand Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
8000
7000
6000
5000
oo
•3
I
2 4000
1
3000
2000
1000-
D
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
0.1
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.0!
O.M
osn
0.0*
O.OS
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.01
-0.01
-0.02 •
•90S-
^1.04 "
-OJB-
-O.M-
•907-
-0.08-
-009-
-o.io-
-0.11-
-0.1I-
•0.13-
•0.14-
-0.15-
-O.W
•O.U-
-«.l»-
•0.20-
•9M-
•o^z-
•93* -
.illl f
1
1LJ
IT , TTTl .? Ill .T Ti
. t,
i
*
'
|TJ
i
1
i
r
|
f
iif li MI
••••q^
•
* ^ *
1
, ,
i
Oat
488
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Dab
1.000
0.100
0.010
0001
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
489
-------
VD
O
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
1000
VO
Date
dn QVtVM 14 44ftae t
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Scatter Plot and Regression orSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simukml. mg/1
sassssxaszA~
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
o.io
em
OJS
0.04
1 IU2
Jr1
1 4.04-
-O.OJ-
4.09-
•o.io-
'l
' I
I1
. T
r
Data
492
-------
5
£
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
ofPopulition
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Front of ropuUli«.
493
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
40000
VO
Ol
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SimuUUd-ms/1
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
I I. IT. t T. Irl
jVi'i y'li "-]ij 'i "ill"
Date
496
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
PmmtofPtpiiUlimi
497
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
Date
-------
sooo-:
vo
VO
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SlmuUlcd.a«/I
10
o.«
04
0.7
M
OJ
-------
5
I
1
O.DOJ i
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
N03
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Fetccnl ofPopulition
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
NO3
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
501
-------
0.7 -:
0.6
0.5
Ui
O
0.4 -
1
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
0.0 i
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
- •'^ ^ ..i, *. *>
Date
-------
900-:
800
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated/ O = observed)
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Scatter Plot and Regression oraimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Mi
0.17
0.1*
0.15
0.14
M
0.12
0.11
0.10
tM
Ml
M7
**'
•tM-
•M7-
-0.10
*n
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
llljfl I
11
JIT' ' I'JM '
11
i
t
ill
'
IT
it »i
1*
/ /
504
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
ofKopiilaticii
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
505
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
r
f
i • ' •
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
40000
Date
-------
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Scatter Plot and Regression ofSimulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
.olPoifl
Sunuhtcd-mg/l
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
IL
r-r
508
-------
SXSSXZ"
Pamunkey River at Segment 260
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Famunkey River at Segment 260
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
509
-------
510
-------
B.6.0 James River Basin
Basin Segments:
Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 265, 270,280, 290,300, and 310
Below Fall Line Basin Segments: 600, 610,620, and 630
Section Contents:
B.6.0 Monitoring Stations in the James River Basin (Figure B.6.0)
B.6.1 James River (Monitoring Station: 2035000)
B.6.2 Appomattox River (Monitoring Station: 2041650)
511
-------
Monitoring Stations
in the
James River Basin
Calibration Stations
• 2035000
H 2041650
Streams
Model Segments
Chesapeake Bay PW""
Map Date: April1998
janes River Basin in
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
N
Source: USGSand USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program
512
-------
B.6.1 James River at Cartersvitte, VA at Segment 280 (Monitoring Station: 2035000)
(Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 265,270,280, and 290)
Section Summary:
The James basin water quality gage is at Cartersville, VA, about 40 miles above the fall
line at Richmond, VA. Above the gage at Cartersville, the James basin is largely rural
and forested. Water quality observations increased and were oriented toward storm
weighted sampling after 1989. Model calibration focused primarily on the refined, storm
weighted sampling after 1989.
The James basin above the gaged site covers an area of 6,810 square miles. At the
midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed of 75% forest
land, 2% cropland, 16% other agricultural areas, 6% urban areas, and 1% water (river and
lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 8.2 million pounds in 1985 to 7.9 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads
over the same time period decreased from 2.4 million pounds to 2.3 million pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site decreased. In 1996, the total nitrogen
point source load was 14% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load
was 20% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 13%,
from 0.41 million pounds in 1985 to 0.46 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 13%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 12%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
10% and 7% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 14% for total nitrogen and 11% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
513
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date — Temperature
514
-------
Ol
H-•
cn
James River at Segment 280
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Dale
.• *v tlMXMr )
-------
James River at Segment 280
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
olPoi
James River at Segment 280
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
rJ.J IllT.T
1
1
1 1
•
i,,f,
11
>
_
•
•
i
i
I
n1
1
T
' 1
P
i|i 1 1
DM*
516
-------
James River at Segment 280
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
SfSSS
James River at Segment 280
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
SfSSSS,
517
-------
oo
16
15
James River at Segment 280
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observcd/ -^Simulated)
Date
-------
James River at Segment 280
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
3000000
2000000
Cn
>—>
\o
I"
I
s
.5
I
1000000
Date
• |*» ft v~~ >M MM
-------
James River at Segment 280
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
.
-------
James River at Segment 280
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
POCTHI offof.il Miai TO
James River at Segment 280
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
521
-------
Oi
Isi
to
1800
1700
James River at Segment 280
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
James River at Segment 280
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
4.00E+08
3.00E+08
U>
I
S 2.00E+08
.5
l.OOE+08
O.OOE+00
O
n
/ y
Date
.••vn/tUOtl It
-------
James River at Segment 280
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
James River at Segment 280
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
-VXf
-foo-
\ T
I
1 ,1
• * • • "* •] — -•* * • • •* i • •» — n 1 • *- f-i
!
1
'nr-
/
524
-------
i
James River at Segment 280
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
sasssr
James River at Segment 280
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
525
-------
James River at Segment 280
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
James River at Segment 280
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
300000
200000
Ln
to
f
I
&
£
100000
•(J
Date
-------
I
•J
§,
LI
James River at Segment 280
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
James River at Segment 280
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
TIT
.. T
T .
s / s
s s s s
528
-------
lo.oo-
James River at Segment 280
Total Phosphorus
Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Frequency Distribution •
SSSBTS
James River at Segment 280
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
529
-------
James River at Segment 280
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
1.5-
1.4-
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9-
0.8
0.7-
to
O
Date
-------
James River at Segment 280
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
300000
200000
I
100000
'O'f
Date
rJ1J>k».«««mo*tWfc««ngdl|WU«|
&.*V2*EB»» 113- •• '
-------
James River at Segment 280
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
of POJI
James River at Segment 280
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
04
OJ
0.1
04
| -44-
I •"'
j«:
1
3j -tu-
tu -OS-
-0.4 '
•0.7'
-OJ
•o.*-
-IJ>-
1
T Tit t» t T» 1 _. » t. , TV
• t • ' ' '•«
«
•
Tlfl
T
i
i
T
l|*ttl»t ikwt'J* * t*..
•
1 |i*' |1" *|
i
1 i
532
-------
James River at Segment 280
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 p««.J¥^.«« n
SBSKSS*
James River at Segment 280
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
•»*
533
-------
0.44-
0.42-
0.40-
0.38-
James River at Segment 280
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
40000
James River at Segment 280
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
dine = simulated, O = observed) «««=
Oi
co
C/i
Date
-------
Tames River at Segment 280
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed wi"1 Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
James River at Segment 280
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
/
/•
Date
536
-------
James River at Segment 280
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Percent oTPoptiUtion TO
James River at Segment 280
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
537
-------
3-:
2
Oi
w
oo
I
Oil
James River at Segment 280
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
James River at Segment 280
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
600000
500000
400000
Ln
U>
vo
t
300000
200000
looooo-
(line = simulated, O = observed)
O :
Date
-------
James River at Segment 280
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SinuUM - mftl
James River at Segment 280
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
rrr1
il
540
-------
James River at Segment 280
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
P.rwntofi'opuUtioe.
James River at Segment 280
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
FMcoil of Imputation
eaex
541
-------
James River at Segment 280
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
-------
60000
50000-
In
*-
U)
40000
I
I
& 30000
.c
TJ
20000
10000
James River at Segment 280
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
James River at Segment 280
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
RRM7
•1.0-t
X
James River at Segment 280
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
X X X
stssa
544
-------
James River at Segment 280
N03
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
10.000
I
gasesr—"
James River at Segment 280
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
N03
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
SK3SW
545
-------
James River at Segment 280
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
JK*"*"»*»
-------
70000
60000
James River at Segment 280
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
O !
50000 -
•8 40000-
(1)
a.
_c
•o
30000-
20000-
10000
4*
&
^
(r?l J*»l ui
tl
-------
James River at Segment 280
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
James River at Segment 280
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
1.1
M!
0.01
M7
MJ
M]
MI-
MI-
MO-
•J -Ml-
i •*•*'
i -0.03-
0 -OJ4-
1 -tar
i 4M-
| -04* •
J -8-11'
-O.U-
•O.M-
-O.W
•0.17-
-t.lt
•fl.W
•OJ1-
-OJJ-
-OJJ-
X
KSSBSS*—
I—
,
•4
UT ITT 1 M T 1 ,. T.T _ _ T T
.
1 1 1 * M 11'
1 «
1
/ X X X X X X X
DMl
548
-------
James River at Segment 280
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
10
30
90
SW3SKS
James River at Segment 280
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
fffSSS,
549
-------
Ui
o
James River at Segment 280
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
-------
James River at Segment 280
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed) «-w*»w. v u M. IIAL^
500000-
400000
300000-
8.
_c
o
200000-
100000
O :
O
JJ
OOP
Date
-------
James River at Segment 280
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
James River at Segment 280
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
1
T T . t . T . IT 1 1. T It I , T I? L T
r
1 1J U
/ X
Drtt
X X
552
-------
James River at Segment 280
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
1
«E? ^*® '
|
^
^—S
___^ — •
x~~
r^
^-— ^-
y
»•»*
•
James River at Segment 280
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
P«rmitofPepuUli
-------
554
-------
B.6.2 Appomattox River at Matoaca, VA at Segment 310 (Monitoring Station:
2041650) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 300 and 310)
Section Summary:
The Appomattox basin water quality gage is below a series of reservoirs, which influence
water quality at the gage. As with other Virginia tributaries, water quality observations
increased and were oriented toward storm weighted sampling after 1989. Model
calibration focused primarily on the refined, storm weighted sampling after 1989.
The Appomattox basin above the gaged site covers an area of 1,352 square miles. At the
midpoint of the simulation, 1990, the land use for the basin was composed of 70% forest
land, 8% cropland, 16% other agricultural areas, 6% urban areas, and 1% water (river and
lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 2.3 million pounds in 1985 to 2.1 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads
over the same time period decreased from 0.20 million pounds to 0.18 million pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site decreased. In 1996, the total nitrogen
point source load was 2% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load was
4% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 11%, from
0.10 million pounds in 1985 to 0.11 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 16%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 11%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
26% and 12% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 12% for total nitrogen and 14% for total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
555
-------
Graphs
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date - Temperature
556
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Dale
hit.**I u<*u>Hn!*v«rli
(»•(*.• *v ttMKMI II Ml
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: D1JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated- Temp-C
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
Oat
558
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
30 Ptrc.nl o^PopuUtion TO
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actualerror versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
559
-------
15
14
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed, -=Simula ted)
Date
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
200000
190000
180000
170000
160000
150000
140000
I
&
s
.5
Dale
Ml jte>lM«
Awl. . *» i
-------
Appomattox River at Sejgment 310
scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Simulated, ngfl
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual Error versus Tune
2
1
o-
•1-
,v
•
1
'
•1 TM T '
M1
,
1
•
J
-JO-
T T
ill
ill
f
I
•
f
I)
,
A
1
]
hi
i
•
ui
1 /
s /
D.I.
562
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
in
•o
i
10
30
n
90
99
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
563
-------
140
130
in
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Dale
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
3000000
2000000
in
I
J?
.£
1000000
Dale
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual Error versus Tune
Total Suspended Sediment
40
JO
a
10
1 *'
| -w
I*:
•30-
•40'
•50 •
•M-
T
• T
,' ' , , - IT T T t,I . T I I T .1
— I p * | * '[ ' ' ' ' ii ' j,*1 ^
(
I _; ••- ' •; • '• -• • ••
Jr jP5 jf ^r xr JT ^T j#* j«v
DlK
566
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
To^1 Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Appomattox River at Segment 310
ActuaTerror versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Observed Data
567
-------
Ln
CT>
00
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
5000
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual Error versus Tune
Total Phosphorus
i
i
;
i
«.n
«.u
«••
f If •
Ut'
tM-
r
! Ml'
•43 '
IB
Ml'
*tl-
•«Jl-
-M3
•oi-
^ n* •
Illll
1 1
•*J*^I t • '
X X
I
I
X
,
'1
T
1
,
1
I
/ X X
1
I
1
lid
i
,
1
•
i
r
X
nit
T
I,
I
i
X
T
1
i
1
ill
1
X
570
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actualerror versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
571
-------
10
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
(*=Observed/ -^Simulated)
Dale
-------
tn
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated,, O = observed)
4000
Data
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 • 01JAN92
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
/• /•
574
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actualerror versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Ob*err*d Data
575
-------
01
-J
ON
0.07 -:
0.06
0.05
0.04
I
0.03 -
0.02 -
0.01 -
0.00 i
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
600
Ul
N*|
-4
Date
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Sin.uUt.d-mj/1
MZ
I
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
11
Ml 1 111
11
/ /
578
-------
rsssw"
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Percent
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actualerror versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
J
•&A2" '.'
#
Percent of PopiUtion
579
-------
ADpomattox River at Segment 310
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed/ -^Simulated)
CO
o
oi
KXpk*.
Date
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
30000
20000
» 8.
s
.£
3
10000
Date
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
!
Sionil.rtd-mg/1
•I-
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
r^
i i
... t I I . i
Date
582
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actualerror versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
583
-------
00
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
in
00
Cn
6000
Appomattox River at Segment 310
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Dal*
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
0.1-
II
S S
/ s / / s
Dtu
586
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
N03
Frequency Distribution • PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actualerror versus Percentile Sample Population
N03
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
587
-------
Aopomattox River at Segment 310
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
00
00
Dale
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
woo-:
1200
1100
1000-
900-
oo
t
&
2
s
Dal*
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual Error versus Tune
Total Ammonia
tM
tM
0.01
J -0.01
o
•3
4.02
•OM
-o.ot-
-0.07-
/• /
s /
Da,
590
-------
0.04
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
0.010000
c
J 0.001000
o
S
I
£
£
5 o.oowoo-
I
£
o.ooooio-
1
0.000001 -
ss-ssssr"
10
•
/^^
ac
^
a
Fnccntofi
5="
If**. K
^^ ^=
K
=
)
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actualerror versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
30000-
20000
Ln
8.
2
s
10000
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
M
«J
i
: M
0.1
co
-0.1
•O2
-OJ
•04
-Of
•n*-
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
llLJI
x x x
594
-------
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
n
Appomattox River at Segment 310
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
595
-------
596
-------
B.7.0 Choptank River Basin
Basin Segments:
Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 770
Below Fall Line Basin Segments: 400
Section Contents:
B.7.0 Monitoring Stations in the Choptank River Basin (Figure B.7.0)
B.7.1 Choptank River (Monitoring Station: 1491000)
597
-------
Monitoring Stations
in the
Choptank River Basin
Figure B.7
Choptank River Basin in
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Chesapeake Bay Program
Map Date: April 1998
Calibration Stations
• 1491000
/\y Streams
fi Model Segments
Source: USGS and USEPA Chesapeake Bay Progran
598
N
KJH
-------
B. 7.1 Choptank River near Greensboro, MD at Segment 770 (Monitoring Station:
1491000) (Above Fall Line Basin Segments: 770)
Section Summary;
The Choptank basin water quality gage is in the upper reaches of the Choptank river in
land characterized as poorly drained and with less agriculture than in the downstream
areas of the Choptank. The Choptank basin above the gaged site covers an area of 582
square miles. At the midpoint of the simulation period, 1990, the land use for the basin
was composed of 31 % forest land, 54% cropland, 10% other agricultural areas, 4% urban
areas, and 1% water (river and lake) surface area.
Based on an average hydrology used in a 1985 Reference scenario and a 1996 Nutrient
Reduction Progress scenario estimated total nitrogen delivered to the gage decreased
from 4.0 million pounds in 1985 to 3.6 million pounds in 1996. Total phosphorus loads
over the same time period decreased from 0.36 million pounds to 0.28 million pounds. In
general, point source loads above the gage site decreased. In 1996, the total nitrogen
point source load was 5% of the total load and the total phosphorus point source load was
17% of the total load. Estimated septic system total nitrogen loads increased 16%, from
0.11 million pounds in 1985 to 0.12 million pounds in 1996.
Over the 1985 to 1996 period, changes in the land use and BMP simulation decreased
estimated cropland total nitrogen loads by 20%, and other agricultural loads (primarily
pasture and manure loads) by 32%. Total phosphorus decreased for these land uses by
21% and 43% respectively. Urban loads were estimated to have increased over the 1985
to 1996 period by 10% for both total nitrogen and total phosphorus due to increases in
population and urban land use area.
599
-------
Observed and Simulated Concentrations versus Date
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated versus Observed
Actual Error versus Date
Relative Error versus Percentile Sample Population
Actual Error versus Percentile
Parameters
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Total Suspended Sediment
Total Phosphorus
Organic and Paniculate Phosphorus
Phosphate
Total Nitrogen
Nitrate
Total Ammonia
Organic Nitrogen
Exceptions
Observed and Simulated Loads versus Date - Temperature
600
-------
CKoptank River at Segment 770
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Temperature-C
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
D«te
-' •«*—•-*••
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Temperature-C: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
ofPoirr
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual Error versus Time
Temperature-C
XXX
X
602
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated >
• Simulated and Observed Data
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Temperature-C
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
603
-------
Choptank River at Segment 770
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
(*=Observed/ -=Simulated)
Date
-------
30000 -f :•
^. , Choptank River at Segment 770
Dissolved Oxygen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed) «««-
2000
o>
a.
10000
Date
dr» MKBM 11 :»J»OC ,t,m
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Oxygen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
ff1 "".Ljagg^^'y^y |
Sun«Ut«|.m«fl
wn o( Poii t
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Oxygen
-T . . T
i
111
1
lilt
11
t
1
1 ^
J 'I
1
IJ
1
J
T
1,
'
1
i
I
i
t
1
1
li
1 1
if
IT
i
s
606
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
fsssssr
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Oxygen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
Potent of Popaltfioa
607
-------
ON
O
00
t^noptank River at Segment 770
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
-------
Choptank River at Segment 770
Total Suspended Sediment Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
3000000
2000000-
i
2
.£
1000000
oi
/
Dale
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Suspended Sediment: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual Error versus Time
Total Suspended Sediment
610
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Obser
I Observed Data
«ffi| ihlii
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual error versus Fercentile Sample Population
Total Suspended Sediment
Frequency Distribution • All Simulated and Obfcrred Data
611
-------
i.o-:
0.01
Choptank River at Segment 770
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
Choptank River at Segment 770
Total Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line =* simulated, O = observed)
3000
2000
»
3
i
2
.c
1000
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
u
• I
M-
•0.1
•OJ
X
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual Error versus Time
Total Phosphorus
T T J Tr
. .
X
X X
4
X
614
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed DaU
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - Ail Simulated and Obw
I Data
615
-------
ON
I—«
ON
•3,
0.9 -:
0.8 -:
0.7- •
0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
0.0-
-o.i i:
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
§
o
Date
-------
CHOPT ANK RIVER at Segment 770
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
3000
2000
I
Q)
a.
i? 1000
•1000
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.18
0.17
O.li
0.15
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.11
i o.io
= 0.09
\ 0.09
I 0.87
; 0.06
> 0.05
0.04-
0.03
0.02:
0.01-
0.00:
•0.01-
•0.02-
•0.03-
•0.04:
•0.05:
•O.M:
•0.0?:
-O.M:
Simulated. n(/l
3 «
i
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual Error versus Time
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
ir
.Trr I.
TjUi. »T Jljiwi
"1 1
Date
SSSSSSSf
618
-------
0.00001
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Organic and Participate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
Pcrc.nl
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic and Particulate Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
619
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
<*=Observed, -^Simulated)
ON
NJ
O
Date
*• ZVEM 0*12)
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Dissolved Phosphorus Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
* 100
90
O)
,c
TJ
5 8°
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ml Jtoft.u. modtUdtpwing «] Ddnu)
(chwUi* Orv 23FEBM Ol:32.p
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Dissolved Phosphorus: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
SJSSS
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual Error versus Time
Dissolved Phosphorus
Date
622
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
szszssxss
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Dissolved Phosphorus
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
623
-------
Choptank River at Segment 770
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Nitrogen
(*=Observed/ -^Simulated)
Date
-------
17000
16000
Choptank River at Segment 770
Total Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
otPoifl
Simul>tcd-mt/l
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual Error versus Time
Total Nitrogen
*
1
7
i
5
4'
2'
I-
•I-
2-
3-
I I ,„
1 1, HJ
111
Jl 1 W\rr
[III
Jr
ilJ '
11 ^
M
Tn
HJ
!
1 il
ill
my if iv
/•
Dili
626
-------
100.0
I
£ i-ol
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
saxssf
1
B-M
i
a 3
Percent o/
P^U^ *
0 9
0 9
9
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
627
-------
to
OO
12
11
Choptank River at Segment 770
Observed and Simulated versus Time
NO3
(*=Observed, -=Simulated)
Date
-------
5000
cr.
to
Choptank River at Segment 770
NO3 Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
. pi j»m.. ui| Ulu)
{c»Of>Ui*.div 04FEBM 1 l:23j»oc ni.nxxM »•»)
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
NO3:01JAN84 - 01JAN92
of foil
SinuUtad-ms/1
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual Error versus Time
NO3
ess
630
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
N03
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
N03
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
631
-------
u>
to
0.0 -t
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Total Ammonia
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Date
fWi^Bdu^f MF£0M VMB)
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
600
Oat*
-------
Choptank River at Segment 770
Total Ammonia Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
500
400-
U>
f
S 300
£
Date
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Total Ammonia: 01JAN84 - 01J AN92
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual Error versus Time
Total Ammonia
x x x x
635
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - PAIRED Simulated and Observed Data
o.wi-1
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Total Ammonia
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
636
-------
ON
U)
0 1
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Observed and Simulated versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
(*=Observed, -^Simulated)
Dale
•>
-------
oo
16000
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Organic Nitrogen Observed and Simulated Load vs Time
(line = simulated, O = observed)
Date
UFEM MatjMt MfxwM rul
-------
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Scatter Plot and Regression of Simulated
versus Observed with Ideal Line
Organic Nitrogen: 01JAN84 - 01JAN92
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual Error versus Time
Organic Nitrogen
1-
1
1.-
(11
-1-
'
X
T T
'|M
/
nfh
M
/
4il
I
41
1
,
/
liii
li
*
jJ L[ J
li tot
li
1
1
s /
f
r
11
i
y-r
•
/
VI -T !l
\
•
X /
639
-------
J 0.1000
o
S3SK5T
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - FAIRED Simulated an
I and Observed Data
10
Ftrecnl ofPopuUtion
70
90
CHOPTANK RIVER at Segment 770
Actual error versus Percentile Sample Population
Organic Nitrogen
Frequency Distribution - All Simulated and Observed Data
640
-------
641
------- |