EPA-600/3-77-065
June 1977
Ecological Research Series
SIMULATION OF NUTRIENT LOADINGS
IN SURFACE RUNOFF WITH THE NFS
MODEL
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, Georgia 30601
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal spe-
cies, and materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term influ-
ences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to deter-
mine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical basis
for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms in the
aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/3-77-065
June 1977
SIMULATION OF NUTRIENT LOADINGS IN
SURFACE RUNOFF WITH THE NFS MODEL
by
Anthony S. Donlgian, Jr.
Norman H. Crawford
Hydrocomp, Inc.
Palo Alto, California 94304
Research Grant No. R803315-01-2
Project Officer
Lee A. Mulkey
Technology Development and Applications Branch
Environmental Research Laboratory
Athens, Georgia 30605
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATHENS, GEORGIA 30605
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Athens Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
As environmental controls become more costly to implement and the penalties of
judgment errors become more severe, environmental quality management requires
more efficient analytical tools based on greater knowledge of the environ-
mental phenomena to be managed. As part of this Laboratory's research on the
occurrence, movement, transformation, impact, and control of environmental
contaminants, the Technology Development and Applications Branch develops
management or engineering tools to help pollution control officials achieve
water quality goals through watershed management.
Techniques for estimating the contribution of various land use activities to
nonpoint source pollution are essential to the development of water quality
management plans for specific areas. The Nonpoint Source Model, which was
developed to simulate pollutant contributions to stream channels for nonpoint
sources, was expanded to include nutrients. This report documents the
expanded effort and illustrates the additional testing given the model.
David W. Duttweiler
Director
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, Georgia
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading (NFS) Model was applied to one urban
and two small agricultural watersheds to simulate nutrient loadings in
surface runoff. Since the NFS Model simulates all nonpoint pollutants as a
function of sediment loss, the key question was whether sediment is a
reliable indicator of nutrients in surface runoff. Both the literature
surveyed and the results of this work indicate Total nitrogen (N) and Total
phosphorus (P) can be reasonably simulated in this manner. Also, organic
components of N and P can be simulated since they are generally associated
with sediment and comprise a major portion of the total nutrients in
surface runoff.
Nitrate N (NOa-N) and phosphate P (P(K-P) are almost entirely contained in
the soluble fraction of surface runoff and are not adequately simulated
with the NFS Model. Ammonia N (NHa-N) appears to be transported in
significant amounts both in solution and attached to sediment; thus, the
simulation results were inconclusive. Total Kjeldahl N (TKN) was simulated
on the urban watershed which was large enough to provide a continuous
baseflow. The simulated TKN values agreed reasonably well with recorded
values except when baseflow TKN concentrations were high. Over 50% of the
annual TKN loading was estimated to originate from the baseflow.
Therefore, the NFS Model can simulate total nutrient loadings only in areas
where subsurface contributions are minimal. This report was submitted in
fulfillment of Grant No. R803315-01-2 by Hydrocomp Inc. under the
sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency. The work was completed
as of October 1976.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tabl es vi 1 i
Symbols and Abbreviations ix
Acknowledgments x
1.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 1
2.0 Introduction 3
3.0 Test Watersheds 6
4.0 Nutrient Simulation Results 11
5.0 Estimation of Nutrient Potency Factors 49
References 53
Appendices
A. Modifications to the NPS. Model , 56
B. Corrections and Adjustments to the NPS Model Input
Description 58
C. NPS Model Source Listing 62
v
-------
FIGURES
Number
Page
1 Third Fork Creek, Durham, North Carolina ............................... 7
2 P2 Watershed, Watkinsville, Georgia .................................... 8
3 P6 Watershed, East Lansing, Michigan ................................... 9
4 Simulated monthly sediment and nutrient loss from Third Fork Creek ..... 12
5 Runoff and sediment loss for Third Fork Creek for the storm of
January 10, 1972 [[[ 15
6 TKN, Total P, and Fe concentrations from Third Fork Creek for the
storm of January 10, 1972 ............................................ 16
7 Runoff and sediment loss for Third Fork Creek for the storm of
February 1, 1972 [[[ 17
8 TKN, Total P, and Fe concentrations for Third Fork Creek for the
storm of February 1 , 1972 ............................................ 18
9 Runoff and sediment loss for Third Fork Creek for the storm of
February 12, 1972 ................................................. ... 19
10 TKN, Total P, and Fe concentrations for Third Fork Creek for the
storm of February 12, 1972 ............. ....... , ...................... 20
11 Runoff and sediment loss for Third Fork Creek for the storm of
June 20, 1972 ................ ........................................ 21
12 TKN, Total P, and Fe concentrations for Third Fork Creek for the
storm of June 20, 1972 ............................................ ... 22
13 Runoff and sediment loss for Third Fork Creek for the storm of
October 5, 1972 [[[ 23
14 TKN and Total P concentrations for Third Fork Creek for the storm
of October 5, 1972 .......................................... . ........ 24
15 Monthly runoff, sediment, and Total P loss from the P2 watershed
(May - September 1974) ............................................... 26
16 Monthly Total N, NH3-N, N03-N, and POit-P loss from the P2 watershed
o , 3-, 3-, it-
(May - September 1974) ........................... . ................... 27
17 Runoff, sediment loss, and Total P concentration for the P2
watershed for the storm of May 23, 1974 .............................. 30
-------
Number
19 Runoff, sediment loss, and Total P concentration for the P2
watershed for the storm of June 27, 1974 32
20 Total N, NH3-N, N03-N, and P04-P concentrations for the P2
watershed for the storm of June 27, 1974 33
21 Runoff, sediment loss, and Total P concentration for the P2
watershed for the storm of July 27, 1974 34
22 Total N, NH3-N, N03-N, and PO^-P concentrations for the P2
watershed for the storm of July 27, 1974 35
23 Runoff, sediment loss, and Total P concentrations for the P2
watershed for the storm of August 16, 1974 36
24 Total N, NH3-N, N03-N, and PO^-P concentrations for the P2
watershed for the storm of August 16, 1974 37
25 Monthly runoff, sediment, and Total P loss from the P6
watershed (May - September 1974) 39
26 Monthly Total N, NH3-N, N03-N, and PO^-P loss from the P6
watershed (May - September 1974) 40
27 Runoff, sediment loss, and Total P concentration for the P6
watershed for the storm of August 13, 1974 42
28 Total N, NH3-N, N03-N, and PO^-P concentrations for the P6
watershed for the storm of August 13, 1974 43
29 Runoff, sediment loss, and Total P concentration for the P6
watershed for the storm of August 27, 1974 44
30 Total N, NH3-N, N03-N, and PO^-P concentrations for the P6
watershed for the storm of August 27, 1974 45
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Fertilizer Applications on the P2 and P6 Watersheds in 1974 10
2 Simulated Monthly Sediment and Nutrient Loss from Third Fork
Creek 13
3 1972 Pollutant Loadings in Urban Runoff from Third Fork Creek .. 14
4 Monthly Simulation Results and Recorded Data for the P2
Watershed (May - September 1974) 28
5 Monthly Simulation Results and Recorded Data for the P6
Watershed (May - September 1974) 41
6 Nutrient Potency Factors for the Test Watersheds 50
7 Nutrient Potency Factors for Urban and Agricultural Watersheds
Derived from the Literature 51
8 Adjustments to Table 36 of the NPS Model Report: NPS Model
Parameter Input Sequence and Attri butes 59
Vlll
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
SYMBOLS
Fe -- iron
N — nitrogen
NH3 -- ammonia
NH3-N — nitrogen in the ammonia form
N03 — nitrate
N03-N — nitrogen in the nitrate form
p — phosphorus
POi, — phosphate or orthophosphorus
PO^-p — phosphorus in the phosphate form
TKN ~ total Kjeldahl nitrogen, i.e. organic nitrogen
and ammonia nitrogen
ABBREVIATIONS
cm ~ centimeters
cms — cubic meters per second
gm/ha — grams per hectare
ha —< hectare
kg/ha — kilograms per hectare
m — meters
mg/1 — milligrams per liter
mm — millimeters
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance and coordination
provided by Mr. Lee A. Mulkey, Project Officer, of the EPA Environmental
Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia. Mr. David M. Cline and Mr.
Charlie Smith of the Athens Laboratory were instrumental in supplying the
needed data for testing purposes. Their assistance is sincerely appreciated.
At Hydrocomp, Dr. Norman H. Crawford was the principal investigator and
Mr. Anthony S. Donigian, Jr. was the project manager. Mr. Harley H. Davis
assisted in the literature search and analysis, nutrient data analysis, and
model application. Drafting duties were ably performed by Mr. Guy Funabiki
and the report was edited and typed by Ms. Donna D'Onofrio.
-------
SECTION 1.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading (NFS) Model can be used to estimate
total nutrient loadings from the land surface of urban and agricultural
areas. Test results on a 433-hectare (ha) urban watershed (Third Fork
Creek) in Durham N.C. show that simulated Total phosphorus (P) and iron
(Fe) concentrations during a storm compare well with recorded values.
Total annual loadings for 1972 were within 20% of the values estimated from
regression analysis of the data. Simulated Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)
concentrations and loadings were less accurate due to TKN concentrations in
baseflow. Since in-stream processes and subsurface pollutant contributions
occur in Third Fork Creek and are not simulated in the NFS Model, the size
of the watershed approaches the upper limit of applicability of the model.
Where subsurface contributions are significant, the NFS Model should be
modified to allow specification of average monthly pollutant concentrations
in subsurface flow. If in-stream processes are major, the NFS Model should
be interfaced with a stream water quality model. Both of these procedures
would be required to simulate nonpoint pollution in large watersheds.
Nutrient concentrations and loadings were also simulated from two small
agricultural watersheds (1.3 and 0.8 ha) in Watkinsville, Georgia and East
Lansing, Michigan for the 1974 growing season. Total P and Total nitrogen
(N) concentrations and loadings were adequately simulated because these
nutrient forms are largely associated with the sediment fraction of surface
runoff. Ammonia nitrogen (NHa-N) values were not simulated as well as
Total P and Total N since NHa-N transport in solution was found to be
significant. Nitrate nitrogen (N03-N) and phosphate phosphorus (POit-P)
values were not adequately represented because they are transported almost
entirely in solution form. Accordingly, the NFS Model should not be used
to estimate loadings for these nutrient forms.
Just as Third Fork Creek approaches the upper size limit for the NFS Model,
the agricultural watersheds were too small for accurate representation of
the hydrologic and sediment characteristics. The NFS Model should only be
applied to watersheds for which the 15-minute simulation interval is
reasonable. The range of watershed sizes simulated in this study (0.8 to
433 hectares) provides estimates of the upper and lower bounds of
applicability.
The nutrient simulation results were obtained by estimating the nutrient
potency factors (i.e. nutrient loss/sediment loss x 100%) from observed
-------
data and then calibrating the values by comparing simulated and recorded
concentrations. The goal was to evaluate the use of sediment loss, as
simulated in the NFS Model, as an indicator of nutrient loadings in surface
runoff. Further testing and verification should be conducted to see if the
potency factors can be estimated, without calibration, as a function of
fertilizer applications, management practices, soil characteristics, crop
behavior, etc. Only in this way can the NFS Model be effectively applied
in areas where little data is available.
The conclusions presented in this report do not mean that soluble nutrient
forms are unimportant. In areas where subsurface flow is a major portion
of total runoff, soluble nutrient forms may comprise much of the nutrient
loading. The literature and results of this work indicate that total
nutrient loads in surface runoff are associated largely with sediment.
Until research can accurately represent the complex reactions and
transformations of nutrient forms in all flow components, the NPS Model can
be used to estimate total nutrient loads in surface runoff as a function of
sediment loss.
-------
SECTION 2.0 .
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of further testing of the NPS Model to
specifically evaluate its applicability for simulating nutrient loadings
from urban and agricultural watersheds. The NPS Model has been described
in a previous EPA report (1). The reader is referred to the original
report on the development and testing of the model which also provides
guidelines for its use and application.
The NPS Model was developed to provide a tool to regional, state, and local
planning agencies for the evaluation and analysis of nonpoint pollution
problems. The model continuously simulates hydrologic processes, including
snow accumulation and melt, pollutant accumulation, generation, and washoff
from the land surface. Sediment and sediment-like material is used as the
basic indicator of nonpoint pollutants. These erosion processes are
simulated on both pervious and impervious areas. Pollutant loadings are
determined by multiplying the resulting sediment discharge by "potency
factors" i.e. pollutant mass/sediment mass x 100 percent, representing the
pollutant strength of the sediment. The potency factors are specified for
each pollutant by the user as single average values or 12 monthly values;
the same potency factors are used throughout the simulation period.
The NPS Model is called a "pollutant loading" model because it simulates
the total input or pollutant loading from the land surface to a stream
channel or waterbody. Although the hydrologic algorithms simulate all
runoff components (surface runoff, interflow, groundwater flow), the
present version of the model evaluates only surface pollutant
contributions. Subsurface, groundwater pollutants, and channel processes
are not considered. For water quality simulation in watersheds where
in-stream processes are significant, the NPS Model must be interfaced with
a stream water quality model.
Since the NPS Model simulates all pollutants as a function of sediment
washoff, the goal of this work was to evaluate how well this assumption
works for various compounds of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). A review
of-the literature has shown the majority of the Total N and Total P in
surface runoff from agricultural lands is associated with the sediment
fraction. Burwell, et al (2) estimate more than 96% of Total N and 95% of
Total P losses in surface runoff from experimental plots [4.05 meters (m) x
22.13 m] in Minnesota were transported by sediment. These values pertain
to plots managed as continuous fallow, continuous corn, and rotation corn.
Plots managed as rotation hay produced little sediment loss with all of the
-------
runoff nutrients occurring in soluble form. However, the absolute value of
soluble nutrient losses were low for all the experimental plots. Organic N
on sediment was the predominant nitrogen form, except during snowmelt
periods when nitrate nitrogen (N03-N) was prevalent. Ammonia nitrogen
(NH3-N) losses occurred both on sediment and in solution in almost equal
proportions. Phosphorus losses were measured largely as Total P on
sediment except for some Ortho-P (PO^-P) and Total P in solution during
snowmelt. In general, soluble nutrient losses occurred during the snowmelt
period which produces most of the annual runoff.
Kissel, et al (3) noted similar results for nitrogen losses from duplicate
4-hectare (ha) watersheds in Texas. Runoff samples collected over a 4-year
period indicate 85% and 77% of Total N was transported by sediment from the
two watersheds planted on a rotation of grain sorghum, cotton, and oats.
Johnson, et al (4) found that 80% of the Total P losses from a 330 km rural
watershed in central New York were attached to the suspended solids
measured in the stream. Most of the solid phase P was insoluble phosphate
compounds and organic P. Using simulated rainfall on plots in Indiana,
Romkens, et al (5) found high percentages of total nutrients in surface
runoff were components of sediment under five different tillage systems.
However, tillage practices that reduced sediment loss would also reduce
sediment associated nutrient losses, but would increase the soluble
nutrients in the surface runoff. An almost linear relationship (referred
as "curvilinear") was established between sediment loss and
sediment-associated N and P losses. On four watersheds (30 to 60.8 ha) in
Southwestern Iowa, Schuman, et al (6) observed the percent of Total N
losses associated with sediment was 92% for contour-planted corn watersheds
and 51% for pasture watersheds. However, Total N losses from the pasture
watershed was only 7.6% of the contour-planted watershed. Annual soluble N
losses were low from all four watersheds during the 3-year study.
Urban watersheds have not been as extensively monitored for the transport
mechanisms of nutrient losses as have agricultural areas. In a study on
nutrient loadings to a lake from urban residential land, Kluesener (7) and
Kluesener and Lee (8) noted a striking similarity between the measured
Total Solids concentrations and the Organic N and Total P concentrations
during storm events. Sediment appeared to be the major transport mode for
these constituents. Organic N was responsible for 77% of the Total N
loading. Data presented by Cowen et al (9) for the same area showed
Organic N was commonly associated with particulate matter. In a major
study in Durham, N.C., Colston (10) extensively sampled solids, nutrients,
organics, and metals from a mixed land-use urban watershed for an 18-month
period. Colston's data showed a close correlation between Total Kjeldahl N
(TKN), Total P, and the solids concentration. The more soluble nutrient
forms (e.g. NO3, POit, NHs) were not analyzed so no indication of their
relative importance was possible.
In summary, the literature appears to indicate sediment can be used as a
reasonable indicator of nutrient loadings by surface runoff from
agricultural and urban lands. However, soluble nutrient losses can be
significant in watersheds where subsurface discharge is a major component
of the runoff. Burwell, et al (11) found subsurface transport of soluble N
-------
accounted for 80% of the Total N loss from level-terraced and pasture
watersheds. But looking only at the surface runoff from those same
watersheds, 75-80% of the surface N losses occurred on the sediment. The
intent of this investigation was to evaluate the use of sediment as an
indicator of nutrient loadings in surface runoff as formulated in the NPS
Model. Section 3.0 describes the three test watersheds and Section 4.0
presents the simulation results. Estimating nutrient potency factors is
discussed in Section 6.0 and general value ranges are included. The
appendices provide a description of the minor modifications to the NPS
Model performed during this study, correction of errors noted in the NPS
Model report, and a new listing of the NPS Model.
-------
SECTION 3.0
TEST WATERSHEDS
Simulation of nutrient loadings with the NPS Model was performed on one
urban watershed and two small agricultural watersheds. The urban watershed
is the Third Fork Creek in Durham, N.C. and the agricultural watersheds are
the P2 watershed in Watkinsville, Georgia and the P6 watershed in East
Lansing, Michigan. These watersheds were chosen because of data
availability and previous simulation work. Third Fork Creek was one of the
test areas for the NPS Model development work and the P2 and P6 watersheds
are test sites for continuing research work on the simulation of pesticides
and nutrients on agricultural lands (12).
Third Fork Creek represents a typical urbanized area in the Piedmont region
of the Southeastern United States. The basin encompasses a variety of land
uses in the general categories of residential (60%), commercial (17%),
industrial (13%), and open land (10%). Upper Third Fork Creek, simulated
in this study, drains an area of 433 ha located within the city limits of
Durham, North Carolina (Figure 1). The watershed contains approximately
30% impervious land and has been the subject of urban runoff studies by
Colston (10) and Bryan (13). The NPS Model report (1) provides a complete
description of Third Fork Creek and the data used in simulation.
P2 and P6 are small experimental agricultural watersheds on which recent
data collection and analysis programs have been sponsored by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. .. In cooperative agreements with the USDA
Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center (Watkinsville, Georgia) and
Michigan State University's Department of Crop and Soil Science and
Department of Entomology, the Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens,
Georgia directed these programs. Instrumentation was established for
continuous monitoring of meteorologic conditions and continuous sampling of
runoff and sediment from the experimental watersheds. The collected
samples and periodic soil cores were analyzed for both pesticide and
nutrient content. Field operations, chemical applications, and crop growth
were monitored on four watersheds in Georgia and two watersheds in
Michigan. The general goal is to provide extensive data for the
development of simulation models for evaluating nonpoint pollution from
agricultural lands and the impact of land management practices. These
programs and model development are described in a report by Donigian and
Crawford (12).
P2 (Figure 2) and P6 (Figure 3) are small natural watersheds draining 1.3
and 0.8 ha respectively. Both watersheds were planted to corn in 1974 with
-------
DURHAM, N.C.
CITY LIMITS
MAIN GAGING STATION
PPT. GAGE NO.1 O
PPT. GAGE NO.2 •
BASIN BOUNDARY —
SUB-BASIN BOUNDARY
Figure!. Third Fork Creek, Durham, North Carolina
-------
230.5
230
0 10 20 METERS
232.0
232.5
DRAINAGE PATTERN
CONTOUR LINES
I METERS ABOVE M.S.L.
SAMPLING STATION
Figure 2. P2 Watershed, Watkinsville, Georgia (1.3 ha)
8
-------
•
270.0
0 10 20 METERS
.5
DRAINAGE PATTERN
CONTOUR LINES
[METERS ABOVE M.S.I.]
SAMPLING STATION
Figures. P6 Watershed, East Lansing, Michigan (0.8ha)
-------
fertilizer applications prior to planting and six weeks following. Table
lists the fertilizer application dates and amounts. The P2 watershed has
an average slope of 2.5% and is comprised of Cecil sandy loam. The P6
watershed has a 6% slope with a variety of soil types including Spinks
sandy loam and Travers, Hillsday, and Tuscola loam. Minimum tillage
practices were followed on both watersheds with tillage operations
performed only prior to planting.
TABLE 1. FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS ON THE P2 AND P6 WATERSHEDS IN 1974
Watershed
P2 Watershed
P6 Watershed
Date
4/29/74 (planting)
6/11/74
5/2p/74 (planting)
7/8/74
N
(kg/ha)
38
112
68
130
P
(kg/ha)
33
93
10
-------
SECTION 4.0
NUTRIENT SIMULATION RESULTS
The NFS Model was applied to each of the watersheds described in Section
3.0 for the period of available nutrient data. Monthly potency factors for
various nutrient forms were calculated from the observed data. These
initial values for the potency factors were adjusted slightly to improve
agreement between simulated and observed nutrient washoff. The simulation
results are discussed below for each watershed.
THIRD FORK CREEK, DURHAM, N.C.
Runoff, sediment, and nutrient loadings for Third Fork Creek were simulated
for an 18-month period from October 1971 through March 1973. Simulated
loadings of sediment (measured as Total Solids), TKN, Total P, and Fe are
shown in Figure 4 and listed in Table 2. The hydrologic .and sediment
calibration was discussed in the NFS Model report and will not be repeated
here. The variation in sediment and nutrient loadings shown in Figure 4
reflects the use of sediment as a pollutant indicator in the NPS Model.
Since only selected storms were sampled on Third Fork Creek during the
18-month period, observed monthly loading values were not available for
comparison with the simulation results. However, Colston (10) did estimate
the 1972 pollutant loadings from regression equations developed from data
on the 36 sampled storm events and extended to all 66 events that occurred
on Third Fork Creek in 1972. The predicted loadings were then adjusted to
correct a bias in the automatic'sampling technique due to location of the
equipment at the streambed. Because Third Fork Creek experiences a
groundwater contribution, the pollutant loadings of the baseflow were
estimated from analysis of periodic grab samples. Table 3 compares the NPS
Model simulated pollutant loadings for 1972 with Colston's estimates.
Since the NPS Model simulates only surface pollutant contributions, the
simulated values should be compared with the storm runoff estimates.
Except for TKN the simulated loadings are within 20% of Colston's
estimates. This agreement is reasonably good considering the bias in the
sampling technique, the regression method of estimation used by Colston,
and the effects of in-stream processes and groundwater contributions
neglected in the NPS Model. The over-simulated TKN loading is partially a
result of calibrating the NPS Model potency factors with the storm-event
data (discussed below). Over 50% of the total annual TKN loading
originates from baseflow, according to Colston's estimates. Consequently,
potency factors calibrated on storm events which include both surface
runoff and groundwater would over-estimate the surface runoff contribution.
Subsurface and groundwater flow paths appear to be significant for TKN
11
-------
* 2000
b*
% 1500
> 1000
UJ
S 500
0.8
^ 0.6
j*
= 0.4
0.2
i—i—i—i—I-TTT
i—rTT
i 1 i i i ""rT-r-r—TTT-ri
m
'^ g i % mmm
mm
0.8
0.6
0.
0.2
r-rTT
^n?
i •--
mmftmsm
J
tfefc
20
15
10
5
-r-r~r"T-r-r
T—T-T-TT
i^ii
:*•••'••! * i —i- illl
ONDJ FMAMJ JASONDJ FM
1971 1972 1973
Figure 4. Simulated monthly sediment and nutrient
loss from Third Fork Creek.
12
-------
TABLE 2. SIMULATED MONTHLY SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT
LOSS FROM THIRD FORK CREEK
Month
1971
October
November
December
1972
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1973
January
February
March
Total
Total for 1972
Sediment
kg/ha
473
352
105
133
513
353
154
597
1326
861
90
686
858
1002
860
314
1730
439
10846
7433
TKN
kg/ha
0.28
0.21
0.07
0.12
0.28
0.21
0.09
0.33
0.73
0.47
0.05
0.41
0.51
0.60
0.60
0.28
0.95
0.26
6.45
4.40
Total P
kg/ha
0.28
0.25
0.08
0.11
0.33
0.25
0.11
0.42
0.80
0.52
0.05
0.41
0.52
0.70
0.65
0.25
1.12
0.31
7.16
4.87
Fe
kg/ha
6.15
4.58
1.36
1.73
6.15
4.23
1.85
7.16
15.91
10.33
1.09
8.91
11.15
13.02
11.18
4.08
20.76
5.26
134.90
92.71
13
-------
loadings in Third Fork Creek; these contributions are not evaluated in the
NFS Model.
TABLE 3. 1972 ANNUAL POLLUTANT LOADINGS IN URBAN RUNOFF
FROM THIRD FORK CREEK (kg/ha)
Sediment
TKN
Total P
Fe
Estimated by Colston (10)
Total Base
Flow
8624 672
6.8 3.7
5.3 1.0
114.5 2.5
Storm
Runoff
7952
3.1
4.3
112
NPS Model Simulation
Surface Runoff
7433
4.4
4.9
92.7
% Difference3
-6.5
+41.9
+14.0
-17.2
'% Difference = NPS Model Simulation -Storm Runoff from Colston
Storm Runoff from Colston
x 100%
Figures 5 through 14 present simulated and recorded data for five of the
storms used in calibrating the nutrient potency factors on Third Fork
Creek. Runoff and sediment loss for each storm are included in Figures 5,
7, 9, 11, and 13 to provide a basis for evaluating the nutrient simulation
results. TKN, Total P, and Fe simulation results are shown in Figures 6,
8, 10, 12, and 14, except Fe was not measured in the storm of October 5,
1972 (Figure 14). Although the NPS Model simulates all streamflow
components (surface runoff, interflow, groundwater), only surface pollutant
loadings are evaluated. Also, in-stream processes are not considered in
the model although such processes do occur in the Third Fork Creek
watershed. (The possible impact of in-stream processes was discussed in
the NPS Model report). These factors should be kept in mind when reviewing
the simulation results.
Analysis of the results for Third Fork Creek indicate the following points:
(1) Total P and Fe concentrations are relatively close to recorded values
for the majority of the storms. Also, the shape of the Total P and Fe
curves is similar to the sediment curve indicating sediment as the
significant transport medium.
(2) TKN concentrations show considerable variation from storm to storm.
For the January 10 storm (Figure 6), the shape of the TKN curve is
similar to the sediment curve (Figure 5) but the recorded values are
twice the simulated TKN values. Since the same potency factor is used
for all storms that occur in the same month* the remaining data for
January did not warrant increasing the potency factor. Baseflow
samples on January 5, January 19, .and January 26 contained TKN
concentrations of 1.2, 2.9, and 2.9 mg/1 respectively. Also similar
measurements during November and December 1971 produced TKN .
concentrations of up to 9.0 mg/1. These values are generally much
higher than ones observed during storm events. Colston noted that the
high TKN concentrations in two December 1971 storms were believed to
14
-------
o
o
M^,
ce.
GO
8
a
LU
to
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
2000
1500
1000
500
I I I I I T I I T
I I I I I I
I I I I
r L
i i i I i i i i i i i I i r
-»- RECORDED
SIMULATED
i I i I i I i
I l 1
i i i
1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
TIME, hours
Figure 5. Runoff and sediment loss for Third Fork Creek for the
storm of January 10, 1972.
15
-------
CD
E
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
01
E
O)
20
15
10
5
I
RECORDED
SIMULATED
J_
1100
Figure 6.
1300 1500
TIME, hours
1700
1900
TKN, Total P, and Fe concentrations for Third Fork
Creek for the storm of January 10, 1972.
16
-------
to
o
o>
LU
2 1000
RECORDED
SIMULATED
2500 -
2000-
1500 -
2100
2300
0100 0300
TIME, hours
0500
0700
Figure 7. Runoff and sediment loss for Third Fork Creek for the storm
of February 1, 1972.
17
-------
1.8
1.2
0.6
1.8
en
E 1.2
p 0.6
24
18
en
E
O>
12
I I
I I I
I I I I
t_
1 I i
I I I I I ^J ^
I I I
I I I I I I
• RECORDED
SIMULATED
2100 2300 0100 0300 0500 0700
TIME, hours
Figure 8. TKN, Total P, and Fe concentrations for Third Fork
Creek for the storm of February 1, 1972.
18
-------
in
u
t\
u_
u_
o
cc
CO
o
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
I I
A
l\
X'
w
J I I ' I I ' I
T—r—i—i—i—r
i—r
• • •• RECORDED
SIMULATED
I I
1800 2000 2200 2400 0200 0400 0600
TIME, hours
Figure 9. Runoff and sediment loss for Third Fork Creek for the storm
of February 12, 1972.
19
-------
2.0
- 1.5
1.0
0.5
I i i I i r
i i i i i r
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
25
20
15
10
5
/\
I- I I
'"X,
I I
RECORDED
SIMULATED
l\
/ \
1800
2000
2200 2400
0200
0400
0600
TIME, hours
Figure 10. TKN, Total P, and Fe concentrations for Third Fork Creek
for the storm of February 12, 1972.
20
-------
T 1 1 1—T
CO
A
Lu
U.
O
CO
CO
O
O
LU
CO
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
.5
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
1 1 1 1
RECORDED
SIMULATED
J 1 1 1 I I i I I
0630 0700 0730 0800 0830 0900 0930 1000
TIME, hours
Figure 11. Runoff and sediment loss from Third Fork Creek for
the storm of June 20, 1972.
21
-------
en
1.5
1.0
0.5
3.0
2.0
1.0
25
20
15
10 _
T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T
1 T
T I
I I
I I
1 \
RECORDED
SIMULATED
i r TI
\ \
i r
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
0630
0700
0900
0930 1000
0730 0800 0830
TIME, hours
Figure 12. TKN, Total P, and Fe concentrations for Third Fork Creek
for the storm of June 20, 1972.
22
-------
CO
u
cc.
15
12
9
6
3
3000
2500
]? 2000
co
CO
o
1500
LU
1000
LU
CO
500
T
RECORDED
SIMULATED
J_
J.
0830
0900
0930 1000
TIME, hours
1030
Figure 13. Runoff and sediment loss for Third Fork Creek for the
storm of October 5, 1972.
23
-------
1.5
i i.o
0.5
1.5
A
A
A
\
v
• RECORDED
SIMULATED
E
oT 1.0
0.5
0830
Figure 14.
f I
0930
1030
1130
TIME, hours
TKN and Total P concentrations for Third Fork Creek for
the storm of October 5, 1972.
24
-------
be erroneous. Thus, the high recorded values for January 10 could be
due to unusual conditions and/or sampling/analysis errors.
(3) The TKN concentrations during February storms (Figures 8 and 10) are
well represented by the simulation. Since the storms occur in the
same month, the same potency factor for TKN was used. On the other
hand, the October 5 storm (Figure 14) produced TKN concentrations
reminiscent of baseflow; very little variation was recorded throughout
the storm. Consequently, the simulated and recorded TKN
concentrations for the October storm differ considerably with no
apparent explanation.
(4) The February 1 storm (Figure 8) shows the impact of baseflow pollutant
contributions. High TKN concentrations occurred at the beginning and
end of the storm when flow was minimal and likely originating from
subsurface and groundwater sources. Since baseflow TKN concentrations
were high during this period (1.0 to 3.0 mg/1), the effect of the
storm runoff was to dilute the baseflow contribution.
(5) The simulation results for the June 20 storm (Figures 11 and 12)
demonstrate a number of problems that should be noted when comparing
simulated and observed values. The runoff volume and peak flow are
reasonably close except for a 1% hour discrepancy in the timing of the
peak. Unless such differences occur consistently throughout the
simulation period, they can usually be assigned to errors in the
recorded time of either the input precipitation or the observed
streamflow. Although the recorded sediment data does not closely
correspond to the simulated values, the major reason for this is the
lack of observed data points between 7:30 and 8:30 when the peak flow
occurred. Total P, Fe, and suspended solids (not shown) had peak
concentrations at 8:00; therefore, one would expect the sediment to
behave in a similar fashion. A peak sediment concentration at 8:00
would have improved agreement between simulated and recorded values,
although the timing error remains.
The nutrient simulation results for June 20 are similar to the results
for the other storms except for greater differences between simulated
and recorded values. Total P and Fe closely correspond to the
"expected" sediment curves. The unusually high Total P concentrations
are not substantiated in other summer storms; thus, the simulated
values are low. The TKN concentrations show little variation with
flow or sediment resulting in differences between the simulated and
recorded values.
The simulation results for Third Fork Creek indicate the NPS Model, using
sediment as a pollutant indicator, can reasonably.represent Total P and Fe
loadings from the land surface. Other constituents (e.g. micronutrients,
heavy metals) behaving in a similar fashion would likely show similar
accuracy. The TKN concentrations were not represented as well as Total P
and.Fe due in part to TKN concentrations in baseflow. Since pollutant
concentrations in baseflow are less variable than in surface runoff, the
NPS Model could be modified to allow input of monthly values for pollutant
concentrations occurring in the baseflow. Such a modification would likely
improve simulation results in watersheds where a groundwater flow component
is present.
25
-------
*/»
400
300
200
100
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
1.2 h-
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
MAY
RECORDED
SIMULATED
JUN
JUL
AUG
T
SEP
Figure 15. Monthly runoff, sediment and Total P loss
from the P2 watershed (May-September 1974).
26
-------
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.4
m
*» 0.3
U 0.2
0.1
0.10
« 0.08
M
Z 0.06
I
£ 0.04 -
0.02 -
MAY
RECORDED
SIMULATED
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
Figure 16. Monthly Total N, NH3-N, N03-N and P04-P loss
from the P2 watershed (May-September 1974).
27
-------
P2 WATERSHED, WATKINSVILLE, GEORGIA
Nutrient loadings from the P2 watershed were simulated with the NPS Model
for the 1974 growing season (May through September). Simulated and
recorded monthly runoff, sediment, and nutrient loadings are shown in
Figures 15 and 16, and listed in Table 4. The initial runoff and sediment
parameters were obtained from modeling work on nearby watersheds (12) and
slightly adjusted to better represent the recorded runoff and sediment
TABLE 4. SIMULATION RESULTS AND RECORDED DATA FOR THE P2 WATERSHED
(May - September 1974)
Month
May
June
July
August
September
Total
Runoff
mm
Rec.
Sim.
Rec.
Sim.
Rec.
Sim.
Rec.
Sim.
Rec.
Sim.
Rec.
Sim.
77.
118.
418.
307.
470.
420.
122.
142.
6.
0.
1093.
987.
Sediment
kg/ha
103.
235.
972.
742.
687.
734.
105.
186.
1.
0.
1867.
1898.
Total P
kg/ha
0.16
0.35
1.26
0.97
0.40
0.44
0.07
0.11
0.01
0.
1.90
1.87
Total N
kg/ha
0.31
0.52
4.24
2.97
3.27
3.30
0.53
0.71
0.02
0,
8.36
7.50
NHrN
kg/ha
0.06
0.12
1.23
0.89
0.46
0.59
0.34
0.56
0.01
0.
2.09 .
2.15
NOg-N
kg/ha
0.06
0.14
0.49
0.37
0.12
0.11
0.08
0.15
0.01
0.
0.76
0.77
POn-P
kg/ha
.002
.004
.072
.052
.027
.037
.010
.009
.001
0.
0.112
0.101
during the summer period. The simulated nutrient values result from
monthly potency factors derived from the recorded data. The potency
factors were also modified slightly in calibration by comparing simulated
and observed nutrient concentrations. The results indicate Total P and
Total N loadings are more closely associated with the sediment fraction of
surface runoff than the other nutrient forms. Improving the sediment
simulation would improve both the Total P and Total N results. The
simulated NH3-N loadings would also improve with a more accurate sediment
simulation, but the discrepancies between simulated and recorded loadings
are somewhat greater than for Total P and Total N. These results are
28
-------
verified by the recorded data which indicates 79% of Total P, 64% of Total
N, and 32% of NH3-N in surface runoff during the 1974 growing season was
associated with sediment.
The recorded NOs-N and POit-P values were measured only in the water portion
of surface runoff because the fraction of these nutrient forms attached to
sediment is usually small. Thus one would not expect accurate simulation
of NOs-N and POi*-P loadings using sediment as an indicator. Any agreement
in Figure 16 reflects the dependence of sediment loss on runoff which is
the transporting mechanism for these nutrient forms. However, the recorded
values indicate NOs-N and PO^-P loadings are a small portion of the Total N
and Total P losses from the P2 watershed.
Analysis of the simulation results for individual storm events was the
basis for calibration of the nutrient potency factors. Unfortunately the
short period of available nutrient data provided few storms with detailed
data for calibration. However, sufficient results were obtained to provide
another evaluation of the NPS Model and the use of sediment as a nutrient
runoff indicator. Figures 17 through 24 present the simulated and recorded
values for four storm events on the P2 watershed during the 1974 growing
season. The runoff, sediment loss, and Total P concentrations are included
in Figures 17, 19, 21, and 23, while the Total N, NH3-N, N03-N, and P04-P
concentrations are shown in Figures 18, 20, 22, and 24. Analysis of these
results yields the following points:
(1) One problem in simulating the P2 watershed was the small size of the
watershed in relation to the 15-minute simulation interval of the NPS
Model. The steep rising limb of the recorded* hydrographs could not be
accurately represented in many cases where the short summer
thunderstorms occurred in less than three or four simulation time
intervals. However, except for some timing problems, the runoff
volumes and peak flows are simulated reasonably well for the four
storms.
(2) The sediment parameters were calibrated to improve agreement between
simulated and recorded sedimerjt concentrations. The results indicate
the NPS Model can be calibrated to approximate sediment loss from
agricultural watersheds. Although research is needed to more
accurately represent the erosion process, sediment simulation with the
NPS Model, as indicated by the results on the P2 watershed, is
adequate for planning purposes.
(3) As noted above for the monthly loading values, Total P concentrations
closely follow the sediment values. Better simulation of sediment
would improve the Total P simulation. Thus the use of monthly potency
factors in the NPS Model is a good assumption for simulating Total P
loadings.
(4) Total N concentrations demonstrate some correlation to sediment but
deviations do exist. The sediment and Total N curves for the storm of
July 27 (Figures 21 and 22), are considerably different while the
values for .remaining storms show greater correspondence. For the
latter events, an improved sediment simulation would improve the Total
N simulation. Consequently, sediment is also a reasonable indicator
for Total N loadings from'the P2 watershed.
29
-------
to
o
LU
*
D.
«!
.08
.06
.04
.02
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.5
3.0
2.0
1.0
T
y i
T
RECORDED
SIMULATED
I
0300
Figure 17.
0400 0500 0600
TIME, hours
0700 0800
Runoff, sediment loss and Total P concen-
trations for the P2 watershed for the storm
of May 23, 1974.
30
-------
O)
O
CL.
'J-
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.5
1.0
0.5
II i i i i
i i
.06
.04 -
.02 -
\A
1 / 1
1 1
i / t I ii i
\i
1 1 1 1
I / I
i i
1 1
1 1
i i
1 !
RECORDED
SIMULATED
0300 0400 0500 0600 0700 0800
TIME, hours
Figure 18. Total N, NH3-N, N03-N and PO^-P
concentrations for the P2 watershed
for the storm of May 23, 1974.
31
-------
to
o
U.
O
~>
cm
C71
CO
CO
O
UJ
UJ
CO
3.0
2.0
1.0
RECORDED
SIMULATED
1730
Figure 19,
1830 1930
TIME, hours
2030
Runoff, sediment loss and Total P concen-
trations for the P2 watershed for the
storm of June 27, 1974.
32
-------
CO
CO
C7>
12
10
8
4
2
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
Z730
I-
1830 1930
TIME, hours
2030
I
CO
O
1.5
1.0
0.5
.25
_ .20
u>
E..15
Q.
J-
o
D-
0 .10
.05 -
1730
RECORDED •
SIMULATED
1830 1930
TIME, hours
2030
Figure 20. Total N, NH3-N, N03-N and PO^-P concentrations for the P2
watershed for the storm of June 27, 1974.
-------
CO
CJ
en
to
O
o
CT>
.3
.2
.1
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
RECORDED
SIMULATED
1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430
TIME, hours
Figure 21. Runoff, sediment loss and Total P concen-
trations for the P2 watershed for the storm
of July 27, 1974.
34
-------
D1
I
en
O
J-
O
Q.
12
10
8
6
4
2.0 -
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
.15
.10
.05
T
—1
RECORDED
SIMULATED
1130 1200 1230 1300 1330 1400 1430
TIME, hours
Figure 22. Total N, NH3-N, N03-N and P04-P concentrations
for the P2 watershed for the storm of July 27,
1974. '
35
-------
in
u
.08 .
.06
.04
.02
2.5
en *--u
*
uo
P 1.5
£ 1.0
>—i
LU
0.5
1.6
1.2
.8
.4
RECORDED
SIMULATED
0230
Figure 23.
0330 0430
TIME, hours
0530
Runoff, sediment loss and Total P concentrations
for the P2 watershed for the storm of August 16,
1974.
36
-------
D>
I
m
O
Q.
J-
10
8
6
4
2
8
6
4
2
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
.12
.10
.08
.06
.04
..02
0230
Figure 24.
/^N
-M.
A
IV
\i
RECORDED
SIMULATED
0330 0430
TIME, hours
0530
Total N, NH3-N, N03-N and POifP concentra-
tions for the P2 watershed for the storm
of August 16, 1974.
37
-------
(5) For NH3-N, the results are inconclusive. For some storm events, the
NH,-N concentrations are obviously influenced by the sediment values
(Figures 21, 22, 23, and 24). In other cases, the NH3-N
concentrations are almost constant showing little variation with
either flow or sediment loss. The recorded data on P2 demonstrates NHs
is transported both on sediment and in solution.
(6) The variations in N03-N and PO/+-P concentrations during storm events
demonstrate little or no relationship to'sediment concentration. In
some cases, there appears to be an inverse relation to the flow rate.
The extreme variations, especially for POi+-P, are basically
unexplained. They are likely due to instantaneous variations in
sediment characteristics, areal variations in soil P concentrations,
and relative amounts of surface and subsurface flow. In any case,
high concentrations at low flow rates have little impact on the total
storm nutrient load. Burwell, et al (14) found that neglecting such
high concentrations had no significant impact on the calculated storm
nutrient load when compared to an integrated method over the entire
event. Thus, high .concentrations occurring at low flow rates can be
effectively neglected in the calibration process. This is
demonstrated in Figure 18 where a concentration value is recorded two
hours after the major portion of the storm event. Such concentrations
are highly suspect because the value is an average concentration since
the previous sample. With zero flow occurring between the samples,
the last recorded value is not meaningful. Ideally, nonpoint
pollutants from the land surface should be analyzed in terms of mass
loading rates in order to mask irrelevant concentration variations (1,
12). The simulation results are presented in concentrations because
few NPS Model users will have sufficient data to calculate mass
loading rates during storm events; hence, comparing simulated and
recorded concentrations will be the most common method of calibration.
Although the P2 watershed was simulated for only one summer growing season,
the nutrient runoff data appears to corroborate other studies on
agricultural runoff discussed in Section 3.0. The NPS Model simulation
results indicate sediment is a reasonable indicator for total nutrient
loads (e.g. Total P, Total N) from the P2 watershed, but not for individual
constituents such as N03-N and POk-P found in the solution phase of surface
runoff.
P6 WATERSHED, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN
The P6 watershed was also simulated for nutrient loadings during the 1974
growing season. The monthly values shown in Figures 25 and 26, and listed
in Table 5, indicate substantial differences between the monthly simulated
and recorded runoff, sediment loss, and nutrient values. The discrepancies
in the nutrient loadings are a direct result of problems with the
hydrologic simulation. The large over-estimate of runoff in May is due to
the inability to represent the hydrologic impact of tillage operations. On
May 13 and 14, the P6 watershed was plowed to a depth of 25 cm. During
the following three days, up to 60 mm of rainfall soaked into the fallow
ground with negligible runoff produced. The NPS Model simulated the period
as if plowing had not occurred* resulting in high simulated runoff and
38
-------
00
OO
00
RECORDED
SIMULATED
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
Figure 25. Monthly runoff, sediment and Total P loss
from the P6 watershed (May-September 1974).
39
-------
4000
ra
1 3000
M
| 2000
i—
1000
400
300
200
100
5434
E
to
I
534
400
300
200
100
400
300
200
100h
2137
855
MAY
RECORDED
SIMULATED
JUN
JUL
AU6
SEP
Figure 26. Monthly Total N, NH3-N, N03-N and P04-P loss
from the P6 watershed (May-September 1974).
40
-------
TABLE 5. MONTHLY SIMULATION RESULTS AND RECORDED DATA FOR THE P6 WATERSHED
(May - September 1974)
Month
May
June
July
August
September
Rec.
Sim.
Rec.
Sim.
Rec.
Sim.
Rec.
Sim.
Rec.
Sim.
Runoff
mm
3
472
0
35
30
27
310
249
8
102
Sediment
kg/ha
15.
1069.
0
55.
390.
38.
796.
921.
35.
211.
Total P
gm/ha
2.
1603.
0
66.
395.
38.
347.
405.
0
43.
Total N
gm/ha
59.
5343.
0
220.
1401.
231.
3215.
3683.
0
737.
NH3-N
gm/ha
0
534.
0
6.
34.
19.
187.
212.
0
21.
N03-N
gm/ha
3.
2137.
0
27.
112.
77.
196.
277.
0
21.
POi,-P
gm/ha
0
855.
0
38.
256.
26.
117.
138.
0
17.
sediment loss. Since monthly potency factors were used in this simulation,
the over-simulated sediment loss also caused high, estimates of nutrient
loss in May although fertilizer applications occurred after the major
events.
The other discrepancies in Figures 25 and 26 exist because the P6 watershed
is too small (0.8 ha) for an accurate simulation with the 15-minute
simulation time step used in thfe NPS Model. This is also true for the P2
watershed although the impact was not as dramatic as on P6. The entire
sediment and nutrient losses for P6 in July occurred in one summer
thunderstorm (7/02/76) that lasted less than 15 minutes. Although the
storm was only moderate (peak flow of 0.04 cms), it was the first
significant summer event and occurred with little crop canopy, resulting in
high sediment and nutrient losses. Because of its short duration, the
storm could not be accurately represented by the NPS Model. Except for
this July storm, the only other significant storm events during the 1974
growing season occurred in August. Fortunately, these events were of
sufficient duration for a reasonable simulation. Figures 27 and 29 show
the runoff, sediment, and Total P concentration, and Figures 28 and 30
provide the Total N, NH3-N, NOs-N, and POtt-P concentrations for each
event. The problems with the hydro!ogic simulation are evident. For the
August 13 storm (Figure 27), the two recorded flow peaks are simulated as a
single peak; the first flow peak, which occurs within seven minutes from
41
-------
o
o:
CO
o
_l
H-
UJ
z:
i—i
o
n
Qu
.08
.06
.04
.02
4
3
2
1
2.0
1.6
1.2
_j
o 0.8
0.4
0530
Figure 27,
RECORDED
SIMULATED
0630 0730
TIME, hours
0830
Runoff, sediment loss and Total P concentration
for the P6 watershed for the storm of August 13,
1974.
42
-------
O)
="*
CO
CL
«a
o
16
12
1.2
0.8
0.4
1.6
1.2
.8
.4
.8
.4 .
.2 .
0530
Figure 28.
-..
,'
. .
T 1 r
RECORDED
SIMULATED
0630 0730
TIME, hours
0830
total N, NH3-N, N03-N and PQ^-P concentra-
tions for the P6 watershed for the storm
of August 13, 1974.
43
-------
1/1
u
o
5
o:
£
CD
CO
CO
o
CO
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
6
5
4
3
2
1
2.4
2.0
^ 1.6
rt
i l-2
I .s
.4
RECORDED
SIMULATED
0600 0630 0700 0730 0800
TIME, hours
Figure 29. Runoff, sediment loss ana Total P
concentrations for the P6 watershed for
the storm of August 27, 1974.
44
-------
CT
*
'oo
a:
sc
z
o
O
CL
«
O
a.
16
12
8
4
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
.8
.6
.4
.2
i i
RECORDED
SIMULATED
I
I
0600 0630 0700 0730 0800
TIME, hours
Figure 30. Total N, NH3-N, N03-N and PO^-P
concentrations for the P6 water-
shed for the storm of August
27, 1974.
45
-------
the beginning of the storm, is not represented. For the August 27 storm,
the three recorded flow peaks are simulated as two. Since only one
precipitation gage recorded rainfall for P6, the discrepancies between the
simulated and recorded runoff are likely due to both the gross simulation
interval and the areal variability in rainfall prevalent for thunderstorms
in the region.
Despite these discrepancies, the runoff simulation for the August storm
events is adequate for evaluating the sediment and nutrient simulation
results. The conclusions stated for the P2 watershed apply also to the P6
watershed. The double-peak behavior of the recorded sediment for both
storm events is reflected by the Total P and Total N concentrations. The
NH3-N, N03-N, and PO^-P concentrations do not follow this pattern, except
for the NH3-N values on August 27 (Figure 32). The concentration variation
in that storm would appear to indicate sediment is a significant transport
medium for NH3-N. As on the P2 watershed, high concentrations occurring at
minor runoff rates at the end of the storm event are considered unreliable
and are not connected to the other data points.
The simulated sediment and nutrient concentrations were adjusted by
calibration of the potency factors. Since both storms occurred in August,
the same potency factor was utilized verifying the use of average monthly
values. Considering the discrepancies in the runoff simulation, the
agreement between the simulated and recorded sediment, Total P, and Total N
values is reasonable. Improving the runoff and sediment simulation would
obviously improve the Total P and Total N simulation results. The same is
true for NHa-N for the August 27 storm, but the results are inconclusive
for the August 13 storm. As for the P2 watershed, the N03-N and PO^-P were
measured only in solution; thus sediment is not a reliable indicator for
these constituents. The agreement between the simulated and recorded PCK-P
concentrations is likely coincidental, especially for the August 13 storm
where the sediment variations are not well represented.
In general, simulation of the P6 watershed has dramatized considerations
important in calibrating the NPS Model to agricultural watersheds. The
watershed should be large enough to allow a 15-minute simulation interval.
Intense thunderstorms that begin and end in less than two or three
intervals may not be adequately simulated. The hydro!ogic impact of
tillage operations is not represented in the NPS Model; this topic is an
area of continuing research. The monthly potency factors apply to all
events in the same month; thus, events that precede and follow fertilizer
applications may need to be calibrated separately. Because the day of
planting and fertilizing will vary from year to year, the use of monthly
potency factors should be sufficient for estimating average monthly
nutrient loadings. The user needs to be aware of these considerations when
calibrating the NPS Model.
Although differences exist between the simulated and recorded monthly
values for P6, the storm simulation results indicate total nutrient loads
can be reasonably simulated with the NPS Model using sediment as an
indicator. These results confirm the findings from the P2 simulation.
46
-------
SUMMARY
The NFS Model can be used to estimate total nutrient loadings from the land
surface of urban and agricultural areas. Test results on a 433-ha urban
watershed (Third Fork Creek) in Durham N.C. show that simulated Total P and
Fe concentrations during a storm compare well with recorded values. Total
annual loadings for 1972 were within 20% of the values estimated from
regression analysis of the data. Simulated TKN concentrations and loadings
were less accurate due to TKN concentrations in baseflow. Since in-stream
processes and subsurface pollutant contributions occur in Third Fork Creek
and are not simulated in the NFS Model, the size of the watershed
approaches the upper limit of applicability of the model.
Where subsurface contributions are significant, the NFS Model should be
modified to allow specification of average monthly pollutant concentrations
in subsurface flow. If in-stream processes are major, the NFS Model should
be interfaced with a stream water quality model. Both of these procedures
would be required to simulate nonpoint pollution in large watersheds.
Nutrient concentrations and loadings were also simulated from two small
agricultural watersheds (1.3 and 0.8 hectares) in Watkinsville, Georgia and
East Lansing, Michigan for the 1974 growing season. Total P and Total N
concentrations and loading were adequately simulated because these nutrient
forms are largely associated with the sediment fraction of surface runoff
NH3-N values were not simulated as well as Total P and Total N since NHa-N
transport in solution was found to be significant. NOa-N and POi»-P values
were not adequately represented because they are transported almost
entirely in solution form. Accordingly, the NFS Model should not be used
to estimate loadings for these nutrient forms.
Just as Third Fork Creek approach.es the upper size limit for the NFS Model,
the agricultural watersheds were too small for accurate representation of
the hydrologic and sediment characteristics. The NFS Model should only be
applied to watersheds for which the 15-minute simulation interval is
reasonable. The range of watershed sizes simulated in this study (0.8 to
433 hectares) provides estimates of the upper and lower bounds of
applicability.
The nutrient simulation results were obtained by estimating the nutrient
potency factors (i.e. nutrient loss/sediment loss x 100%) from observed
data and then calibrating the values by comparing simulated and recorded
concentrations. The goal was to evaluate the use of sediment loss, as
simulated.in the NFS Model, as an indicator of nutrient loadings in surface
runoff. Further testing and verification should be conducted to see if the
potency factors can be estimated, without calibration, as a function of
fertilizer applications, management practices, soil characteristics, crop
behavior, etc. Only in this-way can the NFS Model be effectively applied
in areas where little data is available.
47
-------
The conclusions presented in this report do not mean that soluble nutrient
forms are unimportant. In areas where subsurface flow is a major portion
of total runoff, soluble nutrient forms may comprise much of the nutrient
loading. The literature and results of this work indicate that total
nutrient loads in surface runoff are associated largely with sediment.
Until research can accurately represent the complex reactions and
transformations of nutrient forms in all flow components, the NFS Model can
be used to estimate total nutrient loads in surface runoff as a function of
sediment loss.
48
-------
SECTION 5.0
ESTIMATION OF NUTRIENT POTENCY FACTORS
Section 4.0 noted the nutrient potency factors for the test watersheds were
initially derived from the observed data and adjusted by calibration. This
is the most reliable means of determining potency factors for use with the
NPS Model. The factors for the three test watersheds are presented in
Table 6; except for the Third Fork Creek values, they compare well with
factors"developed from the literature (Table 7). Third Fork Creek had
unusually high sediment loss for an urban watershed, resulting in low
potency factors.
Considerable variation exists in the values shown in Table 7. Nutrient
potency factors are dependent upon soil characteristics, land use, climate,
hydrologic behavior, etc. Obviously fertilizer applications on
agricultural watersheds, lawns, and golf courses have a significant impact.
It is difficult to accurately predict nutrient potency factors without
calibration or observed data for the specific watershed. When
applying the NPS Model, data on the watershed or on nearby watersheds with
similar soils, land use, topography, etc. should be used to evaluate the
potency factors and the resulting simulated nutrient loadings. If no such
data is available, Tables 6 and 7 can provide a range of possible values
from which the potency factors can be estimated. However, simulated
nutrient loadings derived from such potency factors should be considered
only as gross estimates until data for calibration is available. In Table
7, the greatest confidence can b^ assigned to the Total P, Total N, and TKN
potency factors obtained from continuous data collection programs. The
remaining constituents are not as closely associated with the sediment
fraction of surface runoff; they are included for general information only.
Grab sample data collection programs cannot accurately represent the
variability of nonpoint pollutants in surface runoff. Table 7 is only a
sample of the data available on nutrient runoff. The user should consult
the references in Table 7 for a detailed description of the data collected,
and should investigate the general literature for additional sources.
49
-------
TABLE 6. NUTRIENT POTENCY FACTORS FOR THE TEST WATERSHEDS
Watershed
Third Fork Creek,
Durham, N.C.
TKN
Total P
Fe
P2 Watershed
Watkinsville, Ga.
Total N
Total P
NH--N
N03-N
PO N
Q
P6 Watershed
East Lansing, Mi.
Total N
Total P
NHj-N
N03-N
P04-P
Jan
.090
.080
1.3
Feb
.055
.065
1.2
Mar
.060
.070
1.2
Apr
.060
.070
1.2
May
.055
.070
1.2
0.22
0.15
0.05
0.06
.002
.500
.150
.050
.200
.080
June
.055
.060
1.2
0.40
0.13
0.12
0.05
.007
.400
.120
.010
.050
.070
July
.055
.060
1.2
0.45
0.06
0.08
0.015
.005
.600
.100
.050
.200
.066
Aug
.055
.060
1.2
0.38
0.06
0.30
0.08
.005
.400
.044
.023
.030
.015
Sept
,060
.060
1.3
.350
.020
.010
.010
.008
Oct Nov Dec
.060 .060 .070
.060 .070 .075
1.3 1.3 1.3
Ul
o
a
Third Fork Creek had unusually high sediment loss for an urban watershed, resulting in low potency
factors.
-------
TABLE 7. NUTRIENT POTENCY FACTORS FOR URBAN AND AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS DERIVED FROM THE LITERATURE3
Location
Urban
Lubbock, TX
Lubbock, TX
Lawrence, KS
Tulsa, OK
Tulsa, t)K
Tulsa, OK
1Z U.S. Cities
Madison, WI
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA .
Seattle, WA
Agricultural
Chickama, OK
Chickama, OK
Chickama, OK
Treynor, IA
Name
26th St. Storm Sewer
KN Clapp Basin
Nai smith Ditch
Crow Basin
New Block Basin
Indian Basin
Manitou Way
Storm Drain
Viewridge One & Two
Lake Hills
Highlands
Southcenter
Central Business Dist.
South Seattle
C-l, C-3, C-4
C-5, C-6, C-8
R-7, R-8
Size
(ha)
607
90
164
777
558
S3
60
297
60
34
10
11
11
7 to 20
5 to 11
8 to 11
32
Land Use
Residential &
commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential,
some commercial
Residential
Streets, com-
'mercial &
residential
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Single & mul-
tiple family
residential
Single family
residential
Low density
single family
residential
Commercial, new
shopping area
Commercial
downtown
Industrial
Cotton6
Wheat6
Pasture
Corn6
Soils
Silty loam,
silty clay
Sandstone &
shale geology
Sandstone &
shale geology
Sandstone &
shale geology
Silt & silt
clay
Silt & silt
clay
Silt
Fine silty
loess
Sampling
Program
Continuous
Continuous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Continuous,
street sur-
face runoff
Continuous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Potency Factors
Total N
2.39
3.14
2.33
1.10
2.54
1.02
2.30
.18
.32
.05
.10
TKN
.260b
.501b
.470b
.218
.163
.157
2.12
2.51
1.75
.72
1.83
.74
1.63
.14
.25
.04
.10
Fotal P
.474
.381d
.371d.
.280d
.205d
.303d
.227d
140
130
022
003
NH3-N
.196
.281
.202
.040
.339
.281
.252
.005
.024
.002
.001
N03-N
.321
.064
.37 rain
.52 snow
.006
.007
.060
.279
.479
.562
.370
.666
.214
.635
.043
.067
.009
.001
P04-P
.106
.031
.300
.909
.425
.113
.142
.103
.171C
.089
.123
.048
.044
.039
.059
.022f
.023f
.007f
.0002
Ref.
15
16
17
18
18
18
19
7
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
21
14
cn
-------
TABLE 7. (continued)
Location
Macedonia, 1A
Nampa, ID
Nampa, 10
Nampa, ID
Eastern, SO
Eastern, SD
Eastern, SD
Eastern, SD
Eastern, SD
Eastern, SD
Name
Size
(ha)
158
11
14
14
44
44
15
15
19
19
Land Use
Row crops,
hay, pasture
Sugar beets
Onions
Lima beans
Oats & corn
Oats & corn
Pasture
Pasture
Alfalfa &
brome grass
Alfalfa &
brome grass
Soils
Silt loam loess
Sandy clay loam
Sandy clay loam
Sandy clay loam
Sandy clay loam
Loam & sandy
clay loam
Loam & sandy
clay loam
Sampl i ng
Program
Continuous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Potency Factors
Total N
.56
1.70
.76
.31
1.66
.33
2.80
.95
2.69
.74
TKN
.45
1.27
.67
.17
1.13
.21
2.20
.77
2.09
.46
Total P
.041
.080
.120
.110
.240
.035
.450
.220
.320
.320
NH3-N
.090
.655
.260
-043
N03-N
.119
.431
.088
.140
.53 (snow)
.12 (rain)
.60 (snow)
.18 (rain)
.60 (snow)
.28 (rain)
•V
.022
.053
.043
.057
Ref.
22
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
Ul
ro
Notes:
a. These values are annual averages for all storm events and were obtained from storm-event data or annual loadings. These values are provided as
general information; the user should refer to the cited reference for greater detail.
b. Organic Nitrogen only
c. Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus
d. Ortho and hydroloyzable Phosphorus
e. Fertilizer was applied
f. Total Soluble Phosphorus
-------
REFERENCES
1. Donigian, A.S., Jr., and N.H. Crawford. Modeling Nonpoint Pollution
from the Land Surface. EPA-600/3-76-083. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Athens, Georgia. July 1976. 292p.
2. Burwell, R.E., D.R. Timmons, and R.F. Holt. Nutrient Transport in Surface
Runoff as Influenced by Soil Cover and Seasonal Periods. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 39(3):523-528, May-June 1975.
3. Kissel, D.E., C.W. Richardson, and E. Burnett. Losses of Nitrogen in
Surface Runoff in the Blackland Prairie of Texas. J. Environ. Qua!.,
5(3):288-292, July-September 1976.
4. Johnson, A.M., D.R. Bouldin, E.A. Gayette, and A.M. Hedges. Phosphorus
Loss by Stream Transport from a Rural Watershed: Quantities, Processes,
and Sources. J. Environ. Qual., 5(2):148-157, April-June 1976.
5. Romkens, M.J.M., D.W. Nelson, and J.V. Mannering. Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Composition of Surface Runoff as Affected by Tillage Method. J. Environ.
Qual., 2(2):292-295, April-June 1973.
6. Schumann, G.E., R.E. Burwell, R.F. Piest, and R.G. Spomer. Nitrogen
Losses in Surface Runoff from Agricultural Watersheds on Missouri Valley
Loess. J. Environ. Qual., 2(2):299-302, April-June 1973.
7. Kluesener, J.W. Nutrient Transport and Transformations in Lake Wingra,
Wisconsin. Dept. of Civil'and Environmental Engineering, University of
Wisconsin. Ph.D. Thesis. Madison, Wisconsin. 1972. 242p.
8. .Kluesener, J.W., and G.F. Lee. Nutrient Loading from a Separate Storm
Sewer in Madison, Wisconsin. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed.,46(5):920-936,
'May 1974.
9. Cowen, W.F., K. Sirisinha, and G.F. Lee. Nitrogen Availability in Urban
Runoff. J. Water Poll. Cont. Fed.,48(2):339-345, February 1976.
10. Colston, N.V., Jr. Characterization and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff.
EPA-670/2-74-096. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
December 1974. 170p.
11. Burwell, R.E., G.E. Schuman, K.E. Saxton, and H.G. Heinemen. Nitrogen in
Subsurface'Discharge from Agricultural Watersheds. J. Environ. Qual.,
5(3):325-329, July-September 1976.
53
-------
12. Donigian, A.S., Jr., and N.H. Crawford. Modeling Pesticides and Nutrients
on Agricultural Lands. EPA 600/2-76-043. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Athens, Georgia. February 1976. 317p.
13. Bryan, E.H. Quality of Stormwater Drainage from Urban Land Areas in
North Carolina. Water Resources Research Institute, University of North
Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina. Report No. 37. June 1970. 63p.
14. Bur-well, R.E., G.E. Schuman, R.F. Piest, W.E. Larson, and E.E. Alberts.
Sampling Procedures for Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Runoff. Trans. Amer.
Soc. Agric. Eng., 18(5):912-917, 1975.
15. Thompson, G.B., D.M. Wells, R.M. Sweazy, and B.J. Claborn. Variation of
Urban Runoff Quality and Quantity with Duration and Intensity of Storms —
Phase III. Water Resources Center, Texas Tech University. Lubbock, Texas.
WRC-74-2. August 1974. 56p.
16. Wells, D.M., J.F. Anderson, R.M. Sweazy, and B.J. Claborn. Variation of
Urban Runoff Quality with Duration and Intensity of Storms — Phase II.
Water Resources Center, Texas Tech University. Lubbock, Texas. WRC-73-2.
August 1973. 87p.
17. Angino, E.E., L.M. Magnuson, and G.F. Stewart. Effects of Urbanization on
Storm Water Runoff Quality: A Limited Experiment, Naismith Ditch, Lawrence»
Kansas. Water Resour. Res., 8(1):135-140, February 1972.
18. Cleveland, J.G., G.W. Reid, and J.F. Harp. Evaluation of Dispersed
Pollutional Loads from Urban Areas. University of Oklahoma. Norman, Ok.
April 1970. 213p.
19. Sartor, J.D., and 6.B. Boyd. Water Pollution Aspects of Street Surface
Contaminants. Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington D.C. EPA-R2-72-081. November 1972. 236p.
20. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Environmental Management for the
Metropolitan Area, Part II. Urban Drainage. Appendix C. Storm Water
Monitoring Program. Seattle, Washington. October 1974. 97p.
21. Olness, A., S.J. Smith, E.D. Rhoades, and R.G. Menzel. Nutrient and
Sediment Discharge for Watersheds in Oklahoma. J. Environ. Qua!.,
4(3):331-336, July-September 1975.
22. Burwell, R.E., et al. Quality of Water Discharged from Two Agricultural
Watersheds in Southwestern Iowa. Water Resour. Res., 10{2):359-365,
April 1974.
23. Fitzsimmons, D.W., J.R. Busch, G.C. Lewis, and D.V. Naylor. Establishing
Water, Nutrient and Total Solids Mass Budgets for a Gravity-Irrigated Farm-:
University of Idaho. (Presented at the Winter Meeting, American Society
of Agricultural Engineers. Chicago, Illinois. December 15-18, 1975.
Paper No. 75-2544.) 15p.
54
-------
Harms, L.L., J.N. Dornbush, and J.R. Andersen. Physical and Chemical Quality
of Agricultural Land Runoff. J. Water Poll. Control Fed., 46(11):2460-2470,
November 1969.
55
-------
APPENDIX A
MODIFICATIONS TO THE NFS MODEL
Modifications to the NPS Model performed during this study were kept to a
minimum so as not to require major changes in the input sequence described
in the original report. Only changes required to better represent physical
processes and maintain consistency of units were included. The
modifications are as follows:
(1) The units of SRERI and-TSI, the initial sediment desposits on pervious
and impervious areas, were changed from kg/ha (Ib./ac) to tonne/ha
(tons/ac) in order to coincide with the units of "accumulated
sediments" output before each storm event and in the monthly summary.
(2) EPXM, the interception storage parameter, was changed from a single
average annual value to 12 monthly values corresponding to the first
day of each month. The interception storage on any day is calculated.
from linear interpolation between the monthly values. This
modification was included to better represent changes in rainfall
interception with crop growth on agricultural watersheds. Although
EPXM is not usually a critical parameter, it can be important on
extremely small watersheds highly responsive to rainfall. To
accommodate this change, the input namelist, LND3, has been modified
to accept 12 values for EPXM. So, LND3 may appear as
&LND3 Kl=1.0, PETMUL=1.0, K3=0.30, EPXM=5*0.0,.01,.03,.06,
.10,.1,2*0.0, K24L=1.0, KK24=0.0 SEND
If less than 12 values are input for EPXM, the remaining ones are
defaulted to 0.0 mm (in).
(3) A major impact of tillage operations is to increase the amount of fine
sediment material available for transport. In an attempt to
accommodate this effect, the NPS Model was modified to accept the
dates of tillage operations and a new value of the sediment fines
storage resulting from the operation.
Two new Input parameters, TIMTIL and SRERTL have been added to the
WSCH namelist. TIMTIL specifies the Julian day of the operation while
SRERTL indicates the corresponding new value of the sediment fines
storage. Up to 12 values can be specified for each parameter; i.e. up
to 12 separate tillage operations can be specified. Whenever the day
of simulation corresponds to a value in TIMTIL, the fines storage is
56
-------
reset to the corresponding SRERTL value. Thus, the 1st value of
TIMTIL is Jhe day when the fines storage is reset to the 1st value of
SRERTL, the 2nd TIMTIL value corresponds to the 2nd value of SRERTL,
etc.
The input namelist, WSCH, would appear as follows for only one tillage
operation.
&WSCH ARFRAC=1.00, IMPKQ=0.0, COVVEC=5*Q.O,.05,.2,.75,.85,
.80,2*0.0, TIMTIL=142, SRERTL=0.5 &END
When day number 142 is simulated the following message is printed on
the first simulation interval of day number 142:
*** May 22 - LAND SURFACE DISTURBANCE OCCURS ON CROPLAND
SEDIMENT DEPOSITS ON PERVIOUS AREAS RESET
TO 0.500 TONS/ACRE
Therefore, the operation is assumed to occur at the beginning of the
day. TIMTIL and SRERTL do not have to be specified if tillage is not
considered in a particular land use.
This procedure was developed and initially tested on small
agricultural watersheds in Georgia (12). Although this does not
account for all the complex impacts resulting from tillage operations,
it appears to be the only method available for continuous simulation
of erosion processes. Calibrated values of SRERTL range from 1.0 to
4.5 tonnes/hectare (0.5 to 2.0 tons/ac) on the limited number of
watersheds tested. SRERTL is a function of soil properties, depth,
and type of tillage operations, but at the present time must be
determined by calibration. The effect of construction activity could
also be approximated with this method although no testing on
construction areas has been performed.
The user should refer to the NPS Model report for a full description
of the parameters, the input formats, and the calibration process of
applying the NPS Model.
57
-------
APPENDIX B
CORRECTION AND ADJUSTMENTS TO THE NPS MODEL INPUT DESCRIPTION
Table 8 is an updated version of Table 36 from the NPS Model Report (1)
which described the input sequences and attributes of the model parameters.
Errors in the original Table 36 are noted by slashes (/) in Table 8 with
the corrections inserted. Modifications performed during this study are
included in the NPS Model version dated 11/15/76 and are noted by asterisks
(*) in Table 8.
Also, Table 24 of the NPS Model Report incorrectly indicates that daily
potential evapotranspiration (PET) is input in English units of "inches x
100"; this should be corrected to "inches x 1000".
58
-------
TABLE 8. ADJUSTMENTS TO TABLE 36 OF THE NPS MODEL REPORT:
PARAMETER INPUT SEQUENCE AND ATTRIBUTES
NPS MODEL
Namelist
Name
ROPT
DTYP
STRT
ENDtl
LND1
LUD2
LND3
Parameter
Name
Uatershed Name
Computer Hun
Information
HYCAL
HYHIN
NLAIJD
I-IQUAL
SNOW
UNIT
PINT
MNVAR
BGNDAY
BGNMON
BGNYR
EIIDDAY
EN IMM
ENDYR
UZSN
LZSil
INFIL
INTER
IRC
AREA
NN
L
SS
HNI
LI
SSI
Kl
PETMUL
K3
EXPM
K24L
KK24
Type
character
character
integer
real
integer
integer
integer
integer
integer
integer
integer
integer
integer
integer
integer
integer
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
English
Units
ft /sec
inches
inches
in/hr •
acres ,•
feet
feet
inches
Metric
Units
m /sec
millimeters
millimeters
mm/hr
hectares
meters
meters
millimeters
Comment
up to ^characters
24'
up tb^characters
1 2 3 OR 4
WMMVMVMWW/.
up to 5 land uses
up to 5 pollutants
0 or 1
flfcorl
0 or 1
0 or 1
(12 MONTHLY VALUES)
Added to NPS Model version dated 11/15/76
59
-------
TABLE 8. (continued)
Namelist
ilame
LND4
SN01
SI102
SIJ03
SN04
SN05
WASH
Parameter
Name
UZS
LZS
SGW
RADCON
CCFAC
EVAPSN
flELEV
ELDIF
TSNOW
1-iPACK
DGH
we
IONS
SCF
WMUL
RMUL
F
KUGI
PACK
DEPTH
JRER
KRER
JSER
KSER
JEIH
KEIM
TCF
Pollutant name
Type
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
integer
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
character
Engl ish
Units
inches
inches
inches
feet
1000 feet
degrees F
inches
in/ day
inches
inches
Metric
Units
millimeters
millimeters
millimeters
meters
kilometers
degrees C
mill i nie ters
mm/day
millimeters
millimeters
Comment
12 values
12
up to % characters
repeat for each
pollutant
REPEAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR EACH LAND USE
WSCI!
Land Use Type
ARFRAC
IMPKO
COVVEC
TIMTIL
SRERTL
character
real
real
real
real
real
ton/ac
tonne /ha
up to 12 characters
12 values .
(12 VALUES, OPTIONAL)*
(12 VALUES. OPTIONAL)*
Each pollutant name is followed by the concentration units to be used,
either 'MG/L1 or 'GM/L', beginning in column no. 15 (see Appendix D).
'GM/L1 is the default value.
Added to NPS Model version dated 11/15/76
60
-------
TABLE 8. (continued)
Namelist
Uame
YPTM
flPTM
YACR
IIACR
YRMR
MRMR
I MAC
Parameter
Name
PMPVEC
PMIVEC
PMPMAT
PMIMAT
ACUP
ACUI
ACUPV
REFER
REIHP
REPERV
REIMPV
SRERI
TSI
Type
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
real
English
Units
percent
percent
percent
percent
Ib/ac/day
Ib/ac/day
Ib/ac/day
Ib/ac/day
day
day
day
day
Ib/ac
Ib/ac
Metric
Units
percent
percent
percent
percent
km/ha/day
km/ha/day
km/ha/day
km/ha/day
day
day
day
day
kg/ha
kg/ha
Comment
1 value per pollutant
include 1f MHVAR=0
12 values per pollutant
include if WVAR-1
i value w/mmm>.
include if M1VAR-0
12 values 0wvftffH0w£
include is MNVAR=1
include if MNVAR-0
include if MNVAR=1
(UNITS CHANGED TO *
ton/ac, tonne/ ha)
Added to NPS Model version dated 11/15/76
61
-------
APPENDIX C
NPS MODEL SOURCE LISTING
1. //A20NPS JOD (A20$X2,510,0.5,25),'TONY.T7508.NES',HEGICK=330K
2. /*JOL'PARM COPIES=1
3. //STFP1 EXEC FORTCL,PARH.FORT='OPT=1,MAP,XREF'
U. //FORT.SYSIN DD *
5. C
6, C
7. C
8. C
9. c **.M**^****>t^******* ******************************************
10. C * *
11. C * NONPOIHT SOURCE POLLUTANT LOADING (NFS) MODEE *
12. C * *
13. c ***********************************************+***********»*.«!*
1-3.1 C
13.2 C VERSION DATED: NOV. 15, 1976
14. C
IS. C DEVELOPED BY: HYDBOCOMP, INCORPORATED
16. C 1502 PAGE HILL GOAD
17. C PALO ALTO, CA. 94304
18. C 415-4S3-5522
19. C
20. c FOR: u.s. ENVIRONMENTAL
21. C PROTECTION AGENCY
22. C OFFICE OF RESEARCH
23. C AND DEVELOPNESI
24. C ENVIRONMENTAL
25. C RESEARCH LABORATORY
26. C ATHENS, GA. 30601
27. C 404-51(6-3581
28. C
29. C
30. C NPS - MAIN PROCRAN
31. C
32. IMPLICIT REAL(L)
33. C
34. DIMENSION HNAM( 24) , RAD(24) ,TE!IPX <24) , WINDX (24) ,RAIN(96) ,
35. 1 IRAIM(96) ,IBAD(12,31) , IEV AP (12, 31) , IVINC (12,31) ,
36. 2 ITEMP(12,31,2) ,GRAD(24) , HACDIS(24) ,HINDIS(24),
37. 3 AR10UT(28),AR2OUT(29),COVVEC(12),REPEHH(5,12),TCP(12),
38. 4 TOTAL(24),VHIN(24) ,VNAX(24) ,S£(24) ,RANG£(24) ,AVEB(24) r
39. 5 REIMPM(5,12),ACUIM(5,12) , PMPtAB (5, 5, 12) , PMITAB (5,5, 12> ,
40. 6 ACUPM(5,12)
41. C
42. COMMON /ALL/ RU,HYniN,HYCAL,DPST,UNIT,T1HiAC,LZ3,AREA,RESB,SFLAG,
43. 1 RESBl,ROSB,SRGX,INTF,RGX,RUZB,UZSB,PERCB,BIB,P3,lFr
44. 2 KGPL3,LAST,FREV,TEHPX,IHR,IHRR,PB,RUI,A,PA,GHF,NCSY,
45. 3 SREa<5),TS<5) ,LNDUSE<3, 5) , AR (5) ,QUALIN (3,5) , »OS1,»OS,
46. 4 NOSIH,tJFL,UTMP, ONT1(2,2) ,UNT2(2,2) ,UNT3(2,2) ,HH01y
47. 5 WHT,DEP«,ROSBI, RRSBI, PESBI1, AnUN,LaTS(5) ,IMPK(5) ,
48. 6 NLAND,NOUAL,STUCK (200,24) ,RECOOT(S) ,TLOUT,SCALBF (5),
49. 7 SNOW,PACK,IPACK
50. C
51. CONNON /LAND/DAY,PRTH,IHIN,IX,T«BAL,SGM,GHS,KV,LIBC4,LKK4,»tTH(9),
52. 1 U7S,IZ,UZSH,LZSN,INPIL,INTER ,SGH1,DEC,DECI,TIT (13) ,
53. 2 K24L,KK24,K24EL,EP,IFS,K3,EPXMI,RESS1,RESS,SCEP,I8C,
54. 3 SHGXT1,nnPIN,KGPHA,NETOPT,CCfAC,SCEPl,SRGXT,6AIN,SBC/
55. 4 SCF,IDNS,F,DGM,HC,HPACK,EVAPSN,NELEV,TSNOH,PETHI1,
56. 5 DEWX,DEPTH, (10NTH,T«1IN,PETnAX,ILDIF,SDBN,WINDX,INPT08,
57. 6 TSHnAL,RODTOM,RODTOT,RXB,HOIIOM,BOITOT,YEAB,CUHH<7) ,
5fi. 7 INPTOT,MNAM,RAD,SRCI,FORM(42)
62
-------
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
6'4.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
7U.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
81.1
81.2
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
89.1
90.
91.
92.
93.
95."
96.
97.
98.
99.
IOC.
1C1.
102.
103.
105.'
106.
1C7.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
113.
111.
115.
116.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
COMMON /QLS/ WSNA«E(6) , KHEIt, J HER, KSER, JSBR.TEMPCF ,COVNAT (5, 12) ,'
1 KEIM,JEIM, NDSR,ARt><5) ,ARIC:) ,ACCP{5) ,ACCI (5) ,RPER(5)
2 PMP{5,5) , PHI (5, 5) ,QSNOW, SNOWY, SEDTM,SEDTY , SEDTCA,
3 ACPOLP{5.5) ,ACSHSN{5) ,APOLP(5,5) ,AERSN(S) ,COVEB(5),,
4 APOI.I<5,5) , ACEIM{5) ,AEIH(5) ,POITM(5) ,POLTY (5) ,
5 TEflPA,DOA,POLTCA(5),AERSNY (5) ,AEIMY(5) ,APOLPY(5,5) t
6 APOLIY(5,5) , POLTC(5),PLTCAY<5) ,ACPOLI<5,5) ,
, , , ,
COMflON /LNDOUT/ HOSTOM, 3INTOM, RITOH, 8UTOM ,BASTOM, BCHTOH, PBTOM,
SUMSN,1,PXSNH,flELIiA«,RADBE«,COKMEM,CDnMEM,
CRAINH, SOHK,SNKC;«M,PACKOT,SBVAPM,EPTO«,NEETO«,
(IZSOT.LZSOT, SG«OTf SCEPOT-, BESSOT,SRGXTO,TWBA 10 ,
TSNBOI., RCSTOT,RIHTOT,RIT01,RUTOT,DASTOT,RCHTOT>
PRTOT,SUM5Ny,PXSMY,nELRAY,RADMEY,CONHEY,CDRMEY,
CRAINY,SGHY,SNEGMY,PACK 1, SEVAPY,EFTOT, NEPTOT,
UZSdT.LZSHTfSGWMTjSCEPTfRESSTjSBGXTIfTHBLaT
2
3
U
5
6
7
COMMON /INTH/ RTYPE(U,J*) /UTYPE{2) , GR AD, BACEIS ,MIN DIS, XCS,OFS,
1 TEMPAY,DOAY, NOSIY, INTR VL, HMDL,HN ,L, S3, HNI, LI, SSI,
2 RMUL,KtIGI,SELTCY,REPEaV.(12) ,REIMPV (12) ,ACUPV(12) ,
3 ACWIV(12) ,PMP?tAT(12, 5) ,PBJMAT(12,5) ,PMPVEC(5) ,
(t PHIVFC(5) ,fiCUI,ACUP,PEI«J?,BEPKn,PKINIH,
5 EPXH(12),TIMTIL(12),SRE9TL(12) ,TILDAY (5, 12) ,
6 TILSED{5,12) ,DPM(12),TCP
EQUIVALENCE (HOSTOM, AR1 OUT ( 1) ) , (TSNBOL, AR20UT (1) )
LOGICAL LAST, PBEV
INTEGER BGNDAY, BGMMCN, DGMYR, EMDDAY, ENDHON, ENDXR,
1 DYSTHT, DYSND, YEAR, -DAY, H, HYCAL, TIME, PINT, EHIM
2 Y3, CN, TP, DA, DY, UNIT, SNOW, LMTS, BBCOUT, SPIAG,
3 TI.MTIL, TILDAY, DP!1
REAL IRC, HN, HNI. KV, K2HL',1 KK2», INFIL, INTER,
1 IPS, ICS, X2HEL, K3, NEPTOH, NEPTOT, IDNS, SPACK,
2 JR?H, KRER, JSER, KS EP, KEIH, J EIH , MUEV, KUGI,
3 K1, KKU, IRCU, DELRAM, MELRAY, IPACK, IBPKO,
li IHFTOH, INFTOT, IWEK, MMPIN, 1ETOPT,
5 ' KGPID,KGPHA
REAL*8 MSNA?1E,PTYPE,UTTPE
NAMELIST INPUT VARIABLES
NAMELIST
HAHELIST
NAKELTST
NAHEMST
NAMELIST
NAMELIST
HAKELIST
SAWELIST
NAKELIST
NAMELIST
NAWBLIST
UAMELIST
NAMELIST
NAMEL&ST
NASELIST
/SOPT/
/STRT/
/B!iDD/
/LND2/
/LSD3/
/LJJD4/
/SN01/
/SN02/
/SN03/
KK24
/SH05/
/WSCH/
/YPTM/
HYCAL, HYNIN, NLAND, NCUAL, SNO«
UNIT, PINT, MNVAB
BGSDJY, BGNMON, BGNYR
ENDDAY, ENDHON, ENDYR
UZSH, LZSN, INFlL, INTER ,IRC,
NN, L, SS, NNI, LI, SSI
K1, PETMUL, K3 ,EPXM, K21L, KK
UZS, LZS, SGW
RADCOH, CCPAC, EVAPSS
MELEV, ELDIF, TSNOW
WPACK, CGH, WC, IDNS
SCP, WHUL, RMUL, P, K06I
PACK, DEPTH
ABPRAC ,IMPKO, COVVEC, TIHTIL,
PMPVEC, PHIVEC
AREA
SHEHTL
63
-------
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
12*.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
13*.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
1*0.
1*1.
1*2.
1*3.
1**.
1*5.
1*6.
1*7.
1*8.
150.
151.
152.
153.
15*.
155.
155.1
156.
157.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
16*.
165.
166.
167.
168.
169.
170.
171.
.172.
173.
17*.
175.
176.
NAMELIST /NPTM/
NANSLIST /WASH/
NAMELIST /YACR/
BARELIST /MAC!?/
NAMELIST /YRMR/
NAMELIST /.1RMR/
NAMELIST /ItlAC/
PHPMAT, FfllMAT
JRER, KRER, JSER ,KSEH, JEIM, KEIH, TCP
ACUP,ACUI
ACUPV,ACUIV
RFPEB, FEIMP
REPERV,PEIMPV
SRERI, TSI
C
C NAMELIST INPUT PARAMETER DESCRIPTION
C HYCAL INDICATES TYPE OF SIMULATION RUM
C 1 HYDROLOO.IC CALIBRATION
C 2 SEDIMENTS AND QUALITY CALIBRATION
C 3 PRODUCTION RUN (PRINTER OUTPUT)
C U PPOPUCTION KUN (PRINTER 6 H/0 HEADINGS OUTPUT OH UNI! *)
C HYMIN MINIMUM FLOW FOR OUTPUT DURING A TIME INTERVAL (CPS, CMS)
C UNIT EKGLISH(-I), HETRIC(1)
C NLAND NUMBE3 OF LAND TYPE USES IN THE WA1ERSHED
C NQUAL NUMBER OF QUALITY CONSTITUENTS SIMULATED
C SNOW (0) SSOWBELT NOT TRFFORMED, (1) SNOWHELT CALC'S PERFORMED
C MKVAR MONTHLY VARIATION IN ACCUMULATION HATES, REMOVAL RATES,
C AND POTENCY FACTCRS USED (1), 08 NOT USED (0)
C PINT INPUT PRECIPITATION IN INTERVALS OF 15 MIN;(C), OR HOORLX (1)
C BGNDAY BGNMON, BGNYS : DATE SIMULATION BEGINS
C RNDDAY ENDNON, ENDYR : EATE SIMULATION ENDS
C UZSN KOMtMAL UPPER ZONK STORAGE {IN, MM)
C LZSN NOMINAL LOWER ZONE STORAGE (IN, MM)-
C INFIL INFILTRATION RATE (IN/HR, MM/H8)
C IVTSR INTERFLOW PARAMETER, ALTERS RDNOFP TIMING
C I EC INTERFLOW RECESSION RATE
C AREA WATERSHED AREA IN ACHES
C NN MANNING'S N FOR CVEEL AND PERVIOUS BLOW
C NSI MANNING*S N FOR OVERLAND IMPERVIOUS ELOH
C L LENGTH OF OVERLAND EEFVIOUS FLOW TO CHANNEL (FT, M)
C LI LENGTH OF OVERLAND IMPERVIOUS FLOW TO CHANNEL (FT, H)
C SS AVERAGE OVERLAND PEFVIOUS FLOW SLOPE
C SSI AVERAGE OVERLAND IMPERVIOUS FLOW SLOPE
C K1 RATIO OF SPATIAL AVERAGE RAINFALL TO GAGE RAINFALL
C K3 INDEX TO ACTUAL EVAPORATION
C PETMDL POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION MULTIPLICATION FACTOR
C EPXM INTERCEPTION STORAGE, 12 MONTHLY VALUES (IN,BM)
C K2*L FRACTION OF GRCUNDWATER HECHAHGE PERCOLATING TO DEEP
C GFOUNDWATER
C KK2* GROUNDHATER RECESSION RATE
C UZS INITIAL UPPER ZONE STORAGE (IN, MM):
C LZS INITIAL LOWRR ZONE STORAGE (IN, MM),
C SGW INITIAL r.ROUNCWATE.1 STORAGE (IN, UN)
C RADCON CORRECTION FACTOF FOR RADIATION
C CCFAC CORRECTION FACTOR FOR CONDENSATION AND CONVECTION
C SCF SNOW CORRECTION FACTOfl FOP HAINGAGI CATCH DEFICIENCY
C ELDIF ELEVATION DIFFERENCE FROM TEBP. STATION TO MEAN SEGMENT EtBVA
C (1000 FT, KM)
C IDNS DENSITY OF NEW SNOW AT 0 DEGREES F.
C F FRACTION OF SEGMENT WITH COMPLETE EOBEST COVEB
C DGM DAILY GROUNDMELT (IN/UAY, 8M/DAY)
C WC MAXIMUM MATES CONTENT OF SNOWPACK EY WEIGHT
C MPACK ESTIMATED WATER EQUIVALENT OF SNOWPACK FOB COMPLETE CO?EBAGE
C EVAPSN CORRECTION FACTCF FOS SNOW EVAPORATION
C HELEV MEAN ELEVATION OF WATERSHED (FT, M)
C TSNOH TEMPERATURE BELCH WHICH SNOW FALLS (*, C)
C PACK INITIAL WATER EQUIVALENT OF SHOWPACK (IN, UK)
C DEPTH INITIAL.DEPTH OF SNOHPACK (IN, MM)
64
-------
177.
178.
179.
180.
180.1
180.2
181.
181.1
181.2
162.
183.
184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
189.
19C.
190.1
191.
191.1
192.
192.1
193.
193.1
194.
195.
196.
197.
198.
199.
200.
201.
202.
203.
20'l.
205.
206.
207.
2C8.
209.
210.
211.
212.
213.
214.
215.
216.
217.
218.
219.
220.
221.
222.
222.1
222.2
222.3
222.4
222.5
223.
224.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
ARFRAC
IMPKO
COVVEC
PMPVEC
PMPMAT
PFIVEC
P1IMAT
TCP
JRER
KRER
JSER
KSER
JEIS
KEIM
AC11I
ACUIV
ACUP
ACTJPV
REIMP
REIMPV
REPER
RSPERV
SREP.I
TSI
PERCEMT OF A GIVEN LAND TYPE USE
PERCENTAGE OP IHFEHVIOtlS AREA FOR A GIVEN LAND TYPE USE
MONTHLY COVER COIFF. FOR A GIVEN LANC TYPE USE
POTENCY FACTORS FOR A GIVEN LAND TYPE - PERVIOUS AREAS
MATRIX OF POTENCY FACTORS FOR MONTHLY VARIATIONS
- PERVIOUtIS AREAS, 12 VALUES PER CONSTITUENT
POTKNCY FACTORS FOR A GIVEN LAND TYP£ - IHPEBVIOUS AREAS
MATRIX OF POTENCY FACTORS FOR MONTHLY VARIATIONS
- IMPKrVIOUS AREAS, 12 VALUES PER CONSTITUENT
TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTOR RELATING RUNOFF AMD
AIR TEMPERATURES
EXPONENT IN RAINDROP SOIL SPLASH EQUATION
COEP. IN RAINDROP SOIL SPLASH EQUA1ICN
EXPONENT IN WASH OFF FUNCTION FOR PERVIOUS AREAS
COEF. IN WASH OFF FUNCTION FOR PERVIOUS AREAS
EXPONENT IN WASH OFF FUNCTION FOR IMPERVIOUS ABBAS
COEF. IN WASH OFF FUNCTION FOR IMPERVIOUS AREAS
ACCUMULATION RATES - IMPERVIOUS ARIAS
MONTHLY ACCUMULATION RATES - IMPERVIOUS AREAS, 12 VABUES
ACCUMULATION RATES - PERVIOUS AREAS
MONTHLY ACCULUMATION BATES - PERVIODS AREAS, 12 VALUES
REMOVAL COEF. -IMPEFVIOUS APEAS
MONTHLY REMOVAL COEF.- IMPERVIOUS AREAS, 12 VALUES
REMOVAL COEF. - EEBVIOUS AREAS
MONTHLY REMOVAL COEF.- PERVIOUS ABEAS, 12 VALUES
INITIAL AMOUNT OF PIKES AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORT
INITIAL AMOUNT OF SOLIDS AVAILABLE FC8 TBANSPOBT
READ (5,4520) (WSNAME (I) ,I»1 ,6)
READ (5,ROPT)
READ (5,DTYP)
READ (5,STRT)
READ (5,ENDD)
BEAD (5,LND1)
READ (5,LSD2)
READ (5,LSD3)
READ (5,LNDU)
IF (SHOW .LT. 1) GC TO 20
QSHOW=SNOH¥
READ (5,SN01)
RKAD (5,SN02)
READ (5,SN03)
HEAD (5,SH04)
PEAD (5,SN05)
20 READ (5, WASH)
DO 30 J=1,NQITAL
30 PEAD (5,4060) (OUALIN ( I, J) , 1= 1 , 3) , CUHIT (J)>
DO 100 II=1,NLAND
READ (5,4060) (LNDUSE (K, II) ,K= 1, 3)
READ (5,WSCH)
AR (II) =ARFRAC
TMPK(II)=IHPKO
DO 4C IJ31,12
40 COVMATdl.UJ^COVVECdJ)
DO 42 JJ=1,12
IILDAY (II, JJ) = TIMTIL(JJ)
42 TII.SED(II,JJ) ~ SPERTL(JJ)
IF (BNVAR.EQ.1) GO TO 60
*/
65
-------
225. C READ INPUT DATA CF ACCUMULATION BATHS, REMOVAL RATES, AND
226. C POTENCY MATRICES WITHOUT MONTHLY VARIATION
227. C
229. HEAD (5,YPTN)
229. READ (5,YACR)
230. READ (5,YRMR)
231. DO 50 IJ=1,NQUAl
232. PMFTAB(IJ,IT,B",NPON) = PHPVEC(IJ)
233. 50 PMITAB(IJrII,BGNMON)=EMIVEC(IJ)
234. ACUPK (II,BGNHON) = ACUP
235. ACUTM(II,BGHMON)=ACUI
236. RKPEPM (I I , BGNMON) = BEPER
237. REIKPM(II,BGN«ON)=HEIMP
238, GO TO 90
239. C
240. C READ INPUT DATA OP ACCUMULATION HATES, REMOVAL RATES, AND
241. C POTENCY MATRICES WITH MONTHLY VARIATION
242. C
213. 60 HERD (5,MPTM)
244. fEAD (5,!1ACR)
245. PEAD (5,MRM8)
2I»6. DO 73 IJ = 1,NQOAL
247. DO 70 MN=1,12
248. PKFTAB (IJ,II,MN) = PMPMAT(MN,IJ)
2U9. 70 PMITA3(IJ,II,MN) = PHIMAT(MN,IJ)
250. DO HO KN=1 , 12
251. ACUPM(IIfMN)=ACUPV(MN)
252. ACUI1(II,MN)=ACUIV(HN)
251. PEPEPM(II,HH)=REPEHV(MN)
25U. 80 REIMPil (II.MN) =HEIMPV(MN)
255. 90 CONTINUE
256. READ (5,INAC)
257. SRHR(IIJ = SREai
25fl. TS(II)=TSI
259. 100 CONTINUE
260. IF (UNIT .EQ. -1) GO TO 120
261. DEPH=UNT1(2,1)
262. HHOT=UMT1(1,1)
263. «H1=UN72(1,1)
2614. UFl=TU'T2(2,1)
265. OTHP=UNT3(1,1)
266. ARUS=UNT3(2,1)
267. KUNT=1
268. GO TO 130
265. 120 DEPH=UNT1(2,2)
270. WHGT=UNT1(1,2)
271. KHT=UNT2(1,2)
272. UFL=UNT2(2,2)
273. UTMP=UNT3(1',2)
274. ARUN=WNT3(2,2)
275. KUNT=2
276. C
277. C PRINTING OF TITLE PAGE ANC INPUT PARAMETERS
278. C
279. 130 WRITS (6,«070)
280. WHITS (6,4083) (HSNANE(I) ,1=1,6),APUN,AREA
281. WRITE (6,4090) AglJ N, A BU N, A EUN
282. ARFT=0.0
283. AI?IT=0.0
28U. DO 140 I=1,NLAND
285. TEM=AREA*AR{I)
66
-------
286.
287.
288.
269.
290.
291.
292.
293.
29 U.
295.
296.
297.
298.
299.
3CO.
30-1.
302.
303.
304.
305.
306.
307.
308.
309.
310.
311.
312.
313.
314.
315.
316.
317.
318.
318.1
318.2
31 fl. 3
319.1
319.
320.
321.
322.
323.
323.5
324.
325.
326.
327.
328.
329.
330.
331.
332.
333.
334.
335.
336.
337.
33S.
339.
339.1
340.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
ARF(I)=TRM*(1.-IMPK(I))
ARPT=ARPT+ARP(I)
AFI (I)=TEM*IHPK(I)
ARIT=ARIT+ARI(I)
AR (I)=AR(I)*100 .
PER=IMPK(I)*100.
WRITE (6,4100) (LNDUSE(KK,I),KK=1,3) , AH (I) .TEN, ARP (I) ,ARI(I).PEH
AR (I)=TEM
140 CONTINUE
A=APIT/AREA
WRITE (6,4110) A
IF (ABS((ABIT+ABPT-AREA)/AREA) .LE.0.001) GO TO 150
WRITE (6,4120)
GO TO 1600
PRINTING OF SIMULATION CHARACTERISTICS
150 IZ=BGNMOH*2-1
IX=IZ+1
IP-=END«ON*2-1
IQ=IP*1
NQI=NQtJAL+3
IF (PINT.EQ.1) PRINTR=60
WRITE (6,«13C) (RTYPE(HYCAL,I) ,1=1,4) ,MHAM (IZ) ,MNAM(IX) ,BGNDAY,
* EGNYR,MNAM(IP) ,C,NAM(IQ) , EN EDAY , END YR, PRINTS, INTHVL ,
* QSMCW,UTYFE(KaNT),UTYPE (KUNT) ,UFL,
* HYMIN,NQI,((QtIALIN(I,J) , 1= 1, 3) , J = 1 ,NQUAL)
WRITE (6,4140) INTER,IRC,INFIL,NN,L,S3,NNI,LI,SSI,K1,
* PETMUL,K3,K24L,KK24,UZSN,LZSN
IF (SNOil.EQ.1) WRITE (6,4150) RADCON , CCIAC, EVAPSN ,MELEV,
* . ELDIF,TSNOH,MPACK,DGM,HC,IDNS,SCF,
* W«UL,R!inL,F,KUGI
WRITE (6,4160) JRER,KR£R,JSER,KSER,JEIM,KEIH
WRITE (6,4162)
DO 158 I=1,NLAND ^
158 WRITE (6,4165) (LNDUSE(K,I),K=1,3) ,(TILCAY (I,J) ,J=1,12),
* IfILSED(I,J),J=1,12)
IF (MNVAR.EQ.1) GO TO 20C
PRINTING OF ACCUMULATION RATES,REMOVAL RATES,
*ND POTENCY FACTORS WITHOUT MONTHLY VARIATION
WRITE (6,4010)
PO 160 I=1,NLAND
160 WRITE (6,4230) (LNDUSE(K,I),K=1,3) ,ACUPR (I,BGNMON) ,ACUIM(I,BGHMON)
WRITE (6,4010)
PO 170 T=1,NLAHD
170 WRITE (6,4240) (LNDUSE( KK, I) ,KK= 1, 3) , REPERn (I,BGNHON) ,
* REIMPMd, BGNMON)
WRITK (6,4250) ( ( LNDU SE (KK , I) , KK = .1 , 3) , 1= 1 ,NLAND)
DO 180 I=1,NOHAt
190 WRITS (6,4260) (QUAIIN(J,I) , J=1, 3) , (PMPTAE{I,K,BGNHON) ,K*1,HLAND)
WRITE (6,4270) ( (LNDUSE(KK,I),KK=1,3) ,1=1,NLAND)
DO 190 I=1,NQUAl
190 WRITE (6,4260) (QUALIN(J,I),J=1,3) ,(PMITAB (I,K,BGNMON) ,K=1,NLAND)
PRINTING OF MONTHLY COVER FUNCTION, EPXM ANC TEMP CORRECTION FACTORS
20C WRITE (6,4170) (MNAM (I) , 1= 1, 24, 2) , (TCP (I) ,1 = 1, 12) ,
* "' (EPXM(II) ,11 = 1,12),
* (LNDUSE(KK,1),KK=1,3) , (COVM AT ( 1, KK) ,KK = 1,12)
67
-------
341. IP (NLAUD.EQ,1) GO TO 220
342. DO 210 I=2,NLAHfl
343. 210 WRIT3 (6,4180) (LNDUSEJKK, I) ,KK=l', 3) , (COVH AT (I, KK) ,KK=1,12)
344. 220 IF (UNVAR.EQ.O) GO TO 290
145. C
346. C PRINTING OF ACCUMULATION RATES,HEHOVAL RATES,
317. C A.'JD POTENCY FACTORS WITH MONTHLY VARIATION
348. C
349. KRITE (6,4190)
350. DO 230 I=1,NLAND
351. 230 WRITE (6,4180) ( LNDUSE(KK, I) , KK= 1, 3) , (ACUPM ( I , J) , J=1, 12)
352. WRITE (6,4200)
353. DO 240 I=1,NLAND
354. 240 WRITS (6,4180) (LNDUSE(KK,I),KK=1, 3) ,(REPERN(I,J) ,J*1,12)
355. DO 250 J=1,NQUAl
356. WRITE (6,4210) (QHALIN (KK, J) , KK= 1, 3)
357. DO 250 I=1\NLAND
358. 250 WRITE (6,4180) (I.NDUSE(KK, I) , KK= 1, 3) , (PflPTAB (J, I, K) ,K=1, 12)
359. WRITE (6,4220)
360. WPITE (6,4190)
361. DO 260 1=1, IILAN.D
362. 260 WRITE (6,4180) (LNDUSS( KK, I) , KK= 1, 3) , (ACO IH (I , J) , J*1, 12)
363. WRITE (6,4200)
364. DO 270 I=1,NLAND
365. 270 WSITF (6,4180) ( LNDUSE (KK, I) , KK= 1, 3) , (B£I«P« (I, J) , 0=1, 12)
366. DO 230 J=1,NQUAL
367. WRITE (6,4210') (QU ALI N(KK, J) ,KK= 1, 3)
368. DO 280 I=1,NLAND
369. 280 WRITS (6,418C) (LNDUSE(KK/I) ,KK*1, 3) r (PNITAB (J, I, K> ,K=1, 12)
370. C
371, C PBISTING OF INITIAL CONDITIONS
372. C
373. 290 WPITE (6,4280) UZS,LZS,SGW
374. TF (SNCW.BQ.1) WRITE (6,4290) PACK,DEPTH
375. HRITK (6,4300) ( LSDUSE {KK, 1) ,KK=1, 3) ,TS (1) ,SHER ( 1)
376. IF (NLAND.EQ.1) GO TO 310
377. DO 300 I=2,NLAND
378. 300 WRITS (6,4310) (LNDUSE (KK, I) ,SK= 1, 3) ,TS (I) ,SBEB (I)
379. 310 IF ((JNIT.EQ.-1) GO TO 350
380. C
381. C CONVERSION OF METRIC INPUT DATA TO ENGLISH QUITS
382. C
383. HYHI>I= HY«IN*35.3
384. WZSN = U7.SN/HHPIN
365. LZSN = LZSN/MMPIN
386. IKFIL= INFIL/nnPIN
387. L = L*3.281
388. LI = LI*3.281
389. OZS = UZS/HKPIN
39C. LZS = LZS/MfJPIN
391. SGK = SGW/HMPIN
392. ICS = ICS/NMPIN
393. OFS = OFS/MMPTH
394. IFS = IFS/M.MPIN
395.1 DO 315 1=1,12
395.2 315 EPXM(I) = EPXM {IJ/MHPIN
396. AREA = AREA*2.471
397. DO 340 I=1,NLAND
398. AR(I)=AR(I)*2.471
399. ARP(I)=ARP(I)*2.471
400. API(I) = ARI(I)*2.471
68
-------
401. SPEF(I)=SR2R(I)/2.24
402. TS(I) = TS(I)/2.24
402.1 DO 313 JJ=1 ,12
102.2 31R TILSED(I,JJ) = TILSED(I,JJ)/2.24
'•''a. IF (KKVAR.GT.O) GO TO 120
404. flCUP«(I,BGNHON)=aCUPM(I,nGNHON)*KGPHA
405. ACUIM(I,BGHKON) =ACUIM (I, BGNMON) *KGPHA
4C6. GO TO 340
407. 320 DO 330 J=1,12
4oe. ACUPM(r,j) = ftcupN(i,j> *KGPHA
409. 33C ACtJIM{I,J)=ACUIM(I,J)*KGPHA
410. 3UO CONTINUE
411. DO 345 1 = 7,37,6-
412. . 3K5 FORM{I)=ALTP(2)
t13. IF (SNOW.LT.1) GO TO 350
Uia. FLDIF = ELDIF/0.3018
'»15. OGH = PGJ1/MHPIM
116. MELEV = HBLEV/O.-lOaa
417. XSNOW = 1.3*TSNOtf * 32.0
<*18. PACK = PACK/MBPIN
119. DEPTH = DEPTH/.1HPIN
120. C
U21. C ADJUSTMENT OF CONSTANTS
422. C
<»23. 350 f! = 60/INTFVL
42U. TTMFAC = INTRVL
425. INTHVL = 24*H
426. APIT=0.0
427. KBER=KEBR*H»*(JRER-1.0)
428. KSEfl-KSER*H**(JSER-1.0)
429. KEIH=KEIM*H**(JEIM-1.0)
430, DO 355 I=1,NQUAI
431. IF (CUNIT(I) .SQ.TIT(D) CUNIT( I) =CUMIT (7)
432. 35S IF (CUMIT(I) .EQ.CUNIT(6) ) SCALEF (I) = 1000.
433. IF (NQUAL.fiQ.5) GO TO 357
434. II = 11fMQ'JAL*6
435. DO 356 1=11,40
436. 356 FORM(t) = ALTR(1)
437. 357 I=NCUAL*4
438. TTT(1)=ALTR (I)
439. J=0
440. DO 158 1=15,39,6
441. J=JM
442. IF (SCALEF(J).12.2.) GC TO 358
443. FOFM (I)=ALTR(3)
44U. 358 CONTINUE
445. C
446. C CONVERT ACOJ HOLATION FATES INTO TONS/ACHE/DAY
447. C
4U8. DO 380 I=1,NLAND
451. IF (MNVAR.GT.O) GO TO 360
452. ACUP1(I,BG^HON)=ACUPM(I,BGNMO;0/2000.
453. • AC(IIM(I,nGMMOtf). = ACUIM(I
454. GO TO 380
455. 360 DO 370 J=1,12
456. ACUIM(I,J) = ACUI«(I,J)/2000.
457. ACOP1(I,J)=ACUPa(I,0)/2000.
456. 370 CONTINtJE
459. 380 CONTINUE
460. .,- PA=1.0-A
461. IBC4 = ISC**(1.0/96.0)
69
-------
514. IP (SNOW .LT. 1) GO TO 450
515. DO 430 DA * 1,31
516. 4?0 RF.AD(5,<*050) (IWIND (MN,DA), MN=1,12)
517. C
518. DO 440 DA =1,31
519. 440 READ (5,4050) (IRAD (MN,D A) , MN*1,12)
520. C
521. 150 IF (UNIT .EQ. -1) GC TC 490
522. DO U80 DA*1,31
523. DO 470 MN=1,12
521. IEVAP{MN,DA) » IEVAP(BN,DA) *3.937
525. IF (SNOX.EQ.1) IWIND(«N,DA) « IHINC (NN,DA)*0. 6214
526. DO 460 IT=1,2
527. U60 ITEMP(KN,DA,IT) = 1.8*IT BMP (HH, CA, IT) » 32.5
528. i»7C CONTINUE
529. U80 CONTINUE
530. C SAT TNIM Ot JAN 1 ON 11/31
531. 490 ITEMP{11.31,2) =» ITE,1E( 1, 1, 2)
532. C
533. C
534. C
535. C BEGIN MONTHllf tCOP
536. SCO DO 1240 NONTH»MNSTRT,MNEND
537. C
538. C ASSIGN CURRENT MONTHLY VALUES OF ACCUMULATION RATES,
539. C REMOVAL RA1ES, AND POTENCY FACTORS
540. C
541. IP (HCCAL.RQ. 1) GO TO 530
542. IF (MNVAR.EQ.O.AND.MONTH.NE.BGNHON) GO TO 530
543. DO 520 I=1,NLAND
544. DO 510 J=1,NQOAL
545, PMP(J,I)=P1PTAB(J,I,MCHTH)
546. 510 PKT(J,I)=rMITAB(J,I,MONTH)
547. ACCP(I)=ACUPM(I,MONTH)
548. ACCI{I)=ACUIM(I, MONTH)
549. SP5.P(I) = REPERB(I, MCNTH)
550. 520 RI«P(I)=PEIKPM(I,MONTH)
551. 530 CONTINUE
552. TEHPCP=»TCP (MONTH)
553. C
554. C ZEROING OF VARIABLES
555. C
556. DO 540 1=1,28
557. C ZEROING OP THE PIRST 28 V AH TABLES CONTAINED IN COHJ10N/LNDOUT/
558. 540 AR10UT(I)=0.0
559. PR1M=0.
560. FOBTOM=0.
561. INFTOM=C.
562. DO 560 J=1,NOUAL
563. DO *>50 I»1,NLAND
564. APCLP(I,J)*0.0
565. APOI,I(I,J)=0.0
566. 550 CONTINUE
567. POLTCA(J)-0,0
568. 5^0 POtTC(J)=»0.0
569. DO 570 I»1,NLAMD
570. AEFSN(I)»0,0
571. ABIN(I)=0.0
572. 570 CONTINUE
573. NOSIM-0
574. HOS«0
70
-------
575. TEMPA=0.0
576. DOA=0.0
577. SEETCA=0.0
578. IX=2*MONTH
579. IZ=IX-1
580. RECOUT(1)=YEAH
561. DYSTRT = 1
582. IF (MOP(TEAR,1)) 590, 580, 590
583. 580 GO TO (630,6 1C,630,620,630,620,630,630,650,630,62C,630),
581, *MONTH
525. 590 GO TO (630,600,630, 620,630,620,630,630,620,63C.62C;630),
586. *CIONTH "
567. 600 DYEND » 28
588. GO TO 610
589. 610 DYEND = 2?
590. GO TO 610
591. 620 DYEND = 30
592. GO TO 610
593, 630 DYEND = 31
591. C
595. 610 IMDEMD=nYEND
596. IP (YEAH .NE. BCNYB) GO TO 650
597. IF (MONTH .ME. BGNMON) GO TO 650
598. DYSTHT = BGNDAY
599. C
600. 650 IF (TEAR .ME. ENDYR) RO TO 660
601. IF (MOSTH .NE. ENDMON) GO TO 660
602. DYEND = ENDDAY
603. C BEGIN DAILY LOOP
601. 660 DO 990 DAY=DYSTFT,DYESD
601.1 C
601.2 IF (HONTH.EQ.1 .AND. DAY.EQ.1) JCOONT » 0
6C1.3 JCOONT = JCOONT * 1
601.1 C
605. TIME « 0
606. HAINT - 0.0
607. EP = PETRUL*IEVAP (MONTH, DAYJ/1000.
608. DO 670 I=1,INTEVL
609. IRAIN(I) = 0
610. PAIN(I) » 0.0
611. 670 CONTINUE
611.01 C
611.02 BTX=MONTH
611.03 NTX=«ONTH*1
611.01 IF (UTX.GT.12) NTX*1
611.05 C
611.06 C CALCULATE EPXMI FOR EACH DAY AS LINEAR 'INTERPOLATIOH
611.07 C BETWEEN MONTHLY VALUES
611.08 C
611.09 EPXf1I = EPXM(«TX) * (F.PXM (NTX)-EPXM (HTX) ) « (FLOAT (DAY-1)/
611.1 * FLOAT(DYENDJ)
612. C
612.1 C
612.2 C CHECK FOP TILLAGE DATES AND RESET SBER
612.3 C
612.32 J=1
612.35 DO 676 I=1,NLAND
612.1 DO 674 11=1,12
612.5 v IF (JCOONT.NE.TILDAY (I, II)) GOTO 674
612.6 SREn(I) *TILSED.(I,II)
612.61 IP (J.GT.O) WHITE(6,1610)
71
-------
612.62
612.63
612.64
612.7
612.8
612. 85
612.9
613.
614.
615.
616.
617.
618.
619.
620.
621.
622.
623.
624.
625.
626.
627.
62B.
629.
630.
631.
632.
633.
634.
635.
636.
637.
638.
635.
640.
641.
642.
643.
644.
645.
646.
647.
648.
649.
650.
651.
652.
653.
654.
655.
656.
657.
659.
65?.
661.'
662.
663.
664.
665.
666.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
674
676
J=0
ADEP=SREP(I)
IF (UNIT.GT.O) ADEP=ADEP*2.24
WRITE (6,4600) HNA K(IZ) , DA Y, (LNDUS E ( IK , I) , IK= 1, 3) ,
* ADEP,WHT, ARUN
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
CHECK TO SEE IF SNOW MELT 'CALC1 S WILL DE DONE - IF YES
CALCULATE CONTINUOUS TEMP, WIND, RAC AND APPLY CORRES
FACTORS
IF (SNOW.LT.1) GO TO 790
KINF=(1.0-F) * F*(.35-.03*KtIGI)
HIHF REDUCES WIND FOR FORESTED
/* KUGI IS INDEX TO UNDERGROWTH ANC fOREST DENSITY,*/
/* WITH VALUES 0 TO 10 - WIND IN FOREST IS 35S OF */
/* WIND IN OPEN WHEN KUGI=0, AND 51 WHEN KUGI-10 - */
/* HIND IS ASSUMED MEASURED AT 1-5 fl ABOVE GROUND */
/* OR SNOH SURFACE */
HIND = IWIND(HONTH,DAY)
THIN = ITEMP(MONTH,DAY,2)
DEWX = THIN - 1 .0*ELDIF
RR = IRAD(MONTH,DAY)
THEN
MOLT
AREAS
DE»PT ASSUMED TO BE MIN TEMP AND USES
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
78C
790
800
LAPSE RATE OF 1 TEGREE/ICOO FT
CALCULATE CONTINUOUS TENE, HIND, AND BAC
CONTINUE
TGEAD = 0 .0
DO 780 1=1,24
IF (1-7) 74?, 690, 700
CHANGE = ITE*IF(MONTH, DAY,1) - TEMPI
IF (1-17) 740, 710, 740
IMPEND IS LAST DAY OF PRESENT HONTH
IF (DAY .ME. IMDE!!1>) CHANGE = ITEM P (MON1 H,DA Y *1 , 2) - TEMPI
IF (KOVTH-12) 730, 720, 730
IF (DAY .EC. IMDEND) CHANGE = ITEKP ( 1 1, 31, 2) - TEMPI
GO TO 740
IF (DAY .EQ. IMDEND) CHANGE = ITEMP (MONTH* 1, 1, 2) - TEMPI
IF (ABS(CHANGE) -0.001) 750, 750, 760
TCHAD =0.0
GO TO 770
TGPAD = GHAD(I)*CHANGE
TEMPX(I) = TEMPI * TGRAD
TEMPI = TEMPI * TGRAD
IF (SNOW.LT, 1) GO TC 780
HIHDX(I) = WHUL*HIND*WrNF*HINDIS(I)
RAD(I) = RMUL*RR*BADCON*HADDIS (I)
CONTINUE
IF (SNOW.LT.1) GO TO 950
1S-HIN PBECIP INPUT
IF (PINT. EC. 1) GO TO 850
J=0
J= ,H 1
JK = J* 12
aa = JK - 11
READ (5,4020) YR, MO, DY, CN, (IRAIN |I) , I-JJ,JK)
72
-------
667. IP (UKIT .EQ. -1) GO TO 820
668. DO 810 I=JJ,JK
669, IRAIN(I) = IRAIN(I) *3.937 •» 0.5
670. 810 CONTINUE
671. 820 IP (CN .EC. 9) J = 9
672. YR = YR * 1900
673. IT * (YEAR-YB) + (MONTH-MO) + (DAY-DY) + < J-C N)
674. IF (IT .EO. 0) GO TO 830
675. WHITE (6,4000) J, MONTH, DAY, YEAR, CN. MO, DY, YB
676. GO TO 1600
677. 830 IF (J.LT.8) GO TO 800
678. DO 840 I=1,INTRVL
679. BAIN(I) * IBAIN(I)*K1/100.
680. RAINT = RAINT » BAIN(I)
681. 340 CONTINUE
682. GO TO 920
68.1. C
684. C HOURLY PHECIP INPUT
685. 850 J»0
686. 860 J»J+1
687. JK » J*U8
688. JJ « JK - *7
689. READ (5,U020) TR, MO, DY, CN, (IRAIN(I), I»JJrJK.4>
690. IF (UNIT .EQ. -1) GO TO 880
691. DO 870 I = JJ,JK,'»
692. IRAIN(I) »IHAIN(I) *3. 937 * 0.5
693. 870 CONTINUE
694. 83C IF (CN .EQ. 9) J»9
695. YR *> YR + 1900
696. IT = (YEAH-YR) » (MONTH-NO) + (DAY-OY) * (J-CN)
697, IP (IT .EC-. 0) GO TO 890
698. WRITS (6,4000) ^, MONTH, DAY, YEAR, CN, MO, DI> IH
699. GO TO 1600
700. 890 IF(J.LT,2) GO TO 860
701. C *
702. DO 910 I*1,IHTRVL,4
703. TEH » IRAIN(I)*(K1/100.)/4.
704. DO 900 K=1,4
705. 900 PAIN(I+4-K)»TBM
706. RAINT = RAINT » RAIN(I)
707. 910 CONTINUE
708. C
709. 920 IP (RAINT) 930, 930, 940
710. C
711. C USE RAIN LOOP IF MOISTURE STOPAGES ARE NOT EMPTY
712. C
713. 930 IF ((RESS .LT. 0.001) . OB. (SRGXT .IT. 0.001)) GO TO 980
714. C
715. C RAIN LOCE
716. C
717. C CONDITIONAL BRANCHING TO CALCULATE HOURLY TEMPERATURES
718.. C
719. 940 JF (SNOW.LT.1) GO TC 680
720. 950 CONTINUE
721. C
722. C CALCULATE COVER FUNCTION FOR THE PERVIOUS
723. C AREAS HITHIN EACH LAND TYPE USE
724. C
725. .,. J1TX=HOHTH
726. NTX*MONTH*1
727, IP (NTX.GT.12) NTX*»1
73
-------
72B.
729.
7.1C.
731.
732.
73.3.
734.
735.
736.
737.
738.
739.
7<40.
741.
7142.
7143.
71*4.
745.
746,
747.
748.
749.
750.
751.
752.
753.
754.
755.
756.
757.
758.
759.
760.
761.
762.
763.
764.
765.
766.
767.
768.
769.
770.
771.
772.
773.
77-4.
775.
776.
777.
778.
779.
780.
781.
782.
783.
784.
785.
786.
787.
788.
DO 960 I=1,NLAND
COVE!?(I)=COV.1AT(r, fTX ) » (FLOAT (DAY- 1) /FLOAT (DifBND) )*
1 {CnVMAT(I,NTX)-COVHAT(I,.1TX) )
960 CONTINUE
DO 970 I=1,INTRVL
TlilE = TIME * 1
TF = 1
PB = RAIN(I)
IflIK = MOD(TINE,H)
IHR = (TIME - IHIN)/H
IHIN = TIHFAC*INIM
IX = 2*KOHTH
17. = IX - 1
CALL LANDS
IF (.HYCAL.EQ.1) GC TO 970
CALL QUAL
970 CONTINUE
NDSR=0
GO TO 990
C
C
C
980
NO RAIN LOOP
TF = INTRVL
pn = o.o
P3 = 0.0
RESB1 =° 0.0
IMIS = 00
IHP = 24
IX = 2*«ONTH
IZ = IX - 1
NDSB=ND3R«-1
CALL LANDS
IF (HYCAL.EQ.1) GO TO 990
CALL QUAl
ENC DAILY LOOP
990
CONTINUE
C
C
C
HONTHLY SUMMABlf
C
C
WRITE (6,4320) «NA « (IZ) , MN AM (IX) , I EAR
UZSOT=UZS
LZSOT=LZS
SGWOT=SGW
SCEPOT=SCEP
E?!SSOT=FKSS
SRGXTO=SSGXT
TWDALO=THBAL
TSKBOL=TSNBAL
PACKOT=PACK
IF (UNIT.EO.-1) GO TO 1010
DO 1000 1=1,28
CONVERSION TO METRIC UNITS OP THE FIBST 28 VAHIABLES
CONTAINED IN COMKON/LNDOUT/
1000 CONTINUE
1010 HSITE (5,4330) D^PH,BCSTCH,RINTOH,RITOM,BASrO»,HOTOH,RCHTCHrPHTOH
IF (SNOW.LT.1) GO TO 1030
COV3=100.
IF (PACK.LT.IPACK) COVF*(PACK/IPACK) * 100.
74
-------
789. IF (PACK. GT. 0.01) GO TO 1020
790, COVR=0.0
791. SDEN=0.0
792. 1020 WRITE (6,4340) SU1SMH ,PXSNM, MSLRAM, R ADH EM,CONNEM , CDRNEN.CRAINM
793. >n SGM«,SNEGMM, PACKOT, SDEN , CO VR , SEVAPM
794. 1030 WRITK (6,4353) EPTOM, NEPTOK.UZSOT, LZSOT ,S GWOT,SCSPOT,RESSOT,
795. + S!)GXTO,TWDALO
79f>. IF (SNOVI.GT.P) WRITS (6,4360) TSNBOL
797. IF (HYCAL.EQ.1) GO TO 1230
798. C
790. c OUTPUT OP SEDIMENTS DRPOSIT OH GROUNC AT MONTII*S END
800. C
9C1. WRITE (6,4170) WHT,ABUN
802. TEM1=0.0
803. TEM2=0.0
80.4. TE»I3=0.0
8C5. TE«4=0.0
806. DO 1050 I=1,MLAND
807. TEM=SRt;i»(I)*<1-IMPK(I)) *TS (I) *IHPK (I)
808. WHFUN1=(AH(I)/AR2A)*(1-lrtPK(I))
8C9. WHPtJN2= (AP. (D/ARSA) *IMPK (I)
810. TEMl=TK!11«-S8Ea
-------
850. TESTER*.9072
851. TH.11 = TEM1*1.12
852. 1090 WBITS (6,4410) (LHD1JSE (IK, I) ,IK= 1, 3) , TEH,,TEM 1 ,TEH2,TEM3
853. AERSrr=AERSNT«-AERSN(I)
8=5. 1100 CONTINUE
956. C
857. C OUTPUT MONTHLY SEDIHENTS LOSS FOR THE ENTIRE WATERSHED
858. C
360. IF (TEM.GT.0.0) GO TO 1110
861. TEM1=0.0
862. TEM2=0.0
863. TEM3=0.0
864. GO TO 1120
865. 1110 TE^1=TEM*2000./AREA
867. TEM3=1CC.*AEIMT/TEK
868. IF (UNIT.LT.1) GO TO 1120
869. TEf1=TEM*.9072
870. TEM1 = TE!11*1.12
871. 1120 WRITE (6,4470) TEM, TEM1, TEH2, TEM3
872. WRITE (6,4420) WHGT ,WHGT,ARUN
873. C
874. C OUTPUT MONTHLY WASHOFF FOR EACH Of THE ANALYZED POLLUTANTS
875. C
876. DO 1180 J=I,NCUAL
877. WRITE (6,4430) (QUALIN(I,J),1=1, 3)
878. APCLPT=0.0
879. APOLIT=0.0
880. 1)0 1150 I = 1,NLAND
981. C
882. C MONTHLY «ASHOFF OF A GIVEN POLLUTANT FROM EACH LAND TYPE OSE
883. C
881. TEH=APCLP{I,J)+APOLI(I,J)
885. IF (TF.M.GT.0.0) GO TO 1t30
886. TEH1=G.O
887. TEM2=C.O
988. TEtf3=0.0
889. GO 10 1140
890. 1130 TEi"1=TEVAR(I)
891. TEH2=1CO.*APOIP(I,J)/TEH
892. TEH3 = 100.*APOLJ (I,J)/TEM
8S.3. IF fOHIT.LT.1J GO TO 1140
891. TEK=TEK*.454
895. TS»11=TF.M.1/KGPHA
896. 11UO WRITE (6,4410) (LNDUSEfKK,I),KK=1, 3),TEH,TEH1,TEH2,TEH3
897. APOLPr=APOLPT+APOLF(I,J)
898. APCLIT=APOLIT+APOLI(I,J)
899. 1150 CONTINUE
900. C
901. C TOTAL MONTHLY WASHOFF OF A GIVEN POLLUTANT
902. C
9C3. TEM=APOLPT*APOLIT
904. IF (TEM.GT.0.0) GO TO 1160
9C5. TEM1=0.0
906. TEK2=0.0
907. TEM3=0.0
908. GO TO 1170
909. 1160 TEM1=TEM/AREA
910. TEM2=1CO.*AFOLPT/TEB
76
-------
911.
912.
913,
914.
915.
916.
917.
919.
919.
<>20.
921.
922.
923.
924.
925.
926.
927.
92fl.
929.
930.
931.
932.
933.
934.
935.
936.
937.
938,
939.
940.
TE«3= 10 0.* A PO LIT/TEN
IF (UNTT.LT.1) GO TO 1170
942.
943.
94U.
945.
946.
948.
949.
950.
951.
952.
953.
954,
955.
956.
957.
958.
959.
960.
961.
962.
963.
964.
965.
966.
967.
969.
969.
970.
971.
C
C
C
C
1170 WRITE (6,4440) TEM,TEH1,TEH2,TEH3
1180 CONTINUE
TEHPAY=TEHPAY+TEMPA
DOAY=DOAY*DOA
SECTCY=SEDTCY+SEDTCA
CALCULATE AMD PRINT MONTHLY AVERAGES OF TEMPERATURE,
DISSOLVED OXYGEN,AND EACH OP THE ANALYSED POLLUTANT
IP (NOSIM.LB.C) GO TO 1190
TEf1PA<=TE«PA/NOSIN
DOA'DOA/NOSJM
SECTCA=SED'rCA/NCSI«
IF (UNIT.EQ.1) T2MFO=(TEMPO-32.)*5/9
WRITE (6,4450) UTME,TEMPO,DOA,SEDTCA
DO 1210 J=1,NQCJAL
PLTCAY(J)=PLTCAY(J) *-POLTCA (J)
IF INOSIM.LE.O) GO TO 1200
POtTCA (J)=POLTCA(J)/NOSIM
WRITE (6,4460) (QUALIN(I,J),1 = 1,3) ,CONIT(0) ,POLTCA (J)
CONTINUE
1200
1210
C
C
C
FOR YEARLY SUHMAR1ES
1220
1230
DO 1220 I=1,NLAND
AERSVY(I) = AE?.SNY(I)+AERSH(I)
AEIMY(I)=AEI«Y(I) +AEIM(I)
DO 1220 J=1,NQUAL
APCLPY (1,0) =ADOLPY(I, J) +APOLP(I,JJ
APOLIY{r,J)=APOIIY(I,J)+APOLI(I,J)
CONTINOE '
CONTINUE
WRITE (6,4490) NOS
NOSIY=NOSIY+NOSIM
1240 CONTINUE
C
C
C
END MONTHLY LOOP
YEARLY SUMMARIES
WRITE (6,4480) YEAR
OZSMT=UZS
LZSMT=LZS
SCEPT=SCEP
BESST=RESS
SRGXTT=SRGX
TSNDOL=TSNBAL
IF (UHIT.EQ.-1) GO TO 1260
DO 1250 1=1,28
C CONVERSIOft TO METRIC UNITS OF THE LAST 28 VARIABLES
C CONTAINED IN CCNUON/LNDOUT/
1250 AR20UT(I)=AR20UT(I)*MHPIN
12GO ar?ITE (6,4330) DEPH, RCSTCT, BINTOT, KITOT , BASTOT,HUTOT,BCHTOT,PBTOT
IF (SNOW.LT.1) GO TO 1280
COVE=100,
77
-------
972. IP (PACK.LT.IPACX) C07H= (PACK/IPACK)* 100.
973. IF (PACK.GT.0.0 1) GO TO 1270
97U. COVR=0.0
975. 5DSM=0.0
976. 127C1 WRITE <6,U3l*0) SUMSNY , PKSN Y,M Et.RAY , R A DMEY,CONH EY, CDBMEY, GRAIN t,
977. * SGMY,SKEGMY, PACKOT,SDEN,COVR.SEVAPY
978. 1200 WRITE (6,'»350) EPTOT,NEPTOT.UZSMT,LZSMT,SC«ttT,SCEPT,8ESST.
979. * SRGXTT.TtfnLMT
980. IF (SMQtf.GT.O) WRITE (6,U360) 'fSSBQL
981. IP (HYCAL.EQ.1) GO TO 1U?.5
9fl2. WRITE (6,UUOO) V!HT,WHT, ARU N
063. C
9fll». C OUTPOT YEARLY SEDIMENTS LOSS FOB EACH LAND TYPE USE
965. C
986. AEBSNT=0.0
987. AEINT=C.O
988. DO 1310
989. TEK
990. IF (TEM.GT.O.OJ GO TO 1290
991. TEM1=0.0
992. TEM2=0.0
993. TRM3=0.0
99a. GO TO 1300
995. 1290 TEH1=TEM/A3(I)
996. T1=:«3 = 100.*AEIKr(I)/TEM
997. TEH2=100.*AFRSHY(I)/TEH
99fl. IF (OMIT.LT.1) GO TO 1300
999. TEH=TEK*.9072
1000. TE*1=TEM1/KGPHA
1001. 1300 WRITE <6,4t»10) (LNDUSE(KK, I) , KK=1, 3) ,T!M,TE« 1,1BM2,TEM3
1002. A2USNT=AEBSNT*AEBSNr{I)
1003. AEIMT=AEINT*AEII"Y(I)
1004. 1310 CONTINUE
IOCS. C
1006. C OUTPOT YEARLY SEDIMENTS LOSS FOB THE E1JTIHE HATERSHED
1007. C
10C8. TrM=AEnSNT+A3IMT
1009. IF (TEM.GT.C.O) GO TO 1320
1010. TE«1=0.0
1011. TEM2=0.0
1012. TE«3=0.0
1013. CO TO 1330
101U. 1320 TFM1=TEH/AKEA
1015. TFM2=1CG.*AERSNT/TEf1
1016. TEK.1 = 1CO.*AEIMT/TEM
1017. IF (IINIT.LT.1) GOTO 1330
1018. TEP=TEH*.9C72
1019. TBK1=TEH1*2.2«
1020. 1330 W1ITE (6rm*70) TEM,TEM1 ,
-------
1033.
1034.
1035.
1036.
1037.
1038.
1039.
1040.
1041.
1042.
1043.
1044.
10 U5.
1046.
1047.
1048.
1049.
1050.
1051.
1052.
1053.
1054.
1055.
1056.
1057.
1058.
1059.
1060.
1061.
1062.
1063.
1064.
1065.
1066.
1067.
1068.
1069.
1070.
1071.
1072.
1073.
1074.
1075.
1076.
1077.
1078.
1079.
1080.
1061.
1082.
1083.
1084.
1065.
1086.
1067.
1088.
1089.
1090.
1091.
1092.
1093.
1340
1350
1360
C
C
C
137C
1380
1390
C
C
C
C
1400
1410
1420
1425
C
C
C
C
1430
1440
1450
TEH=APOLPY(I, J) tAPCLIY(I.J)
IF (TEH. GT. 0.0) GO TO 1340
TE 112=0.0
TEN3=0.0
GO TO 1350
TE»11=TE«/AR(I)
TEM2=100,*APOLPY(I,J)/TEH
TEJn = 100.*APOLIY(I,J)/TEl1
IF (UNIT.LT.1) GO TO 1350
TEn=TEM*.454
TEM=TEM1/KGPHA
WRITE (6,4410) ( LHDOSE (KK, I) ,KK= 1, 3) ,TEH,
-------
1094.
1095.
1096.
1097.
1098.
1099.
1100.
1101.
1102.
1103.
1104.
1105.
1106.
1107.
1109.
11C9.
1110.
1111.
1112.
1113.
1114.
1115.
1116.
1117.
1113.
1119.
1120.
1121.
1122.
1123.
1124.
1125.
1126.
1127.
1128.
1129.
1130.
1131.
1132.
1133.
1134.
1135.
1136.
1137.
1138.
1139.
1140.
1141.
1142.
1143.
1144.
1145.
1146.
1147.
1148.
114S.
1150.
1151.
1152.
1153.
1154.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
DO 1460 1=1,5
AERSNY(I)=0.0
1460 AEIMY (I)=0.0
NOSIY=0
TEKPAY=0.0
DOAY=0.0
SUMMARY OF STORMS' CHARACTERISTICS
NV=(NQUAL-H)*4
IF (HYCAL.EQ.1) N7=2
IF (NOSY.LT.2.0B.NCSY.GT.200) GO TO 1560
CLEAR OUTPUT VECTOBS AND INITIALIZE VKIN AND VflAX
DO 1470 K=1,NV
TOTAL(K)*=0.0
SD(K)=0.0
V«IN(K)-1.0E75
1470 VMAX(K)=-1.0E75
CALCULATE BEANS, ST .DEV•S,MAXIMA, AME M1NIHA
DO 1520 I=1,NOSt
DO 1520 K=1,NV
TOTAL (K)-TOTAL(K)+STMCH(I,K)
IF (STKCII(I,K) -VHIN(K)) 1480,1490,1490
14HO VMIN{K) = ST1CH(I,K)
1490 IF
-------
1155.
1156.
1157.
1153.
1159.
1160.
1161.
1162.
1163.
116(4.
1165.
1166.
1167.
1168.
1169.
1170.
1171.
1172.
1173.
117
'TYPE OF RUN', 1CX ,4 A8,/,6X, 'DATE SIMULATION BEGINS1,
13X,2A«,2X,I2, ', ', ia,/,6X, 'DATE SIMULATION ENDS', 15X,
2AU,2X,I2,', 'jiaf/.ex, 'INPUT PRECIPITATION TIME INTERVAL1,
9X, 13, 1X, 'MINUTES', /,6X, 'SIMULATION TIME INTERVAL' , 1 9X,I2,
1X,' MINUTES', /,6X, 'IS SNOWBELT CONSIDERED ?',26X,AU,/,
6X, 'INPUT UNITS', 3t4X,lA8,/,6X, 'OUTPUT UNITS' , 33X,1 AS,/, 6X,
'MINIMUM FLOW FOR OUTPUT PER INTERVAL (• , AU, ' ) • , 1 X,F9. H,
/,6X, 'NUMBER OF QUALITY INDICATORS ANALYZED1 , 1<4X, 12,
/,6X,'THE ANALYZED QUALITY IN DICATCRS* , 4X,
'SEDIMENTS, DO, TEMF, ',/, 5 (46X, 3*4 ,' ,',/))
(5{/),2X, 'SUMMARY OF INPUT PARAMETERS :',//X,6X,
'LANDS', 13X, 'INTER =',F7. 3, ax,' IRC =',F7.3,«X,
'INFIL =',F7.3,/,2i»X,»NN =• , F7.3,UX,' L =»,
F7.3,I4X,'SS =»,F7.3,/,2«X,'NNI =»,F7.3,HXr
'LI =' ,F7.3,UX, 'SSI a«,F7.3,/,2ttX,'K1 =',P7.3,
UX,'PSTKUL=',F7.3,I4X,'K3 =' , 17. 3,/, 21X , 1<«X,
4X,'K2«L =',F7.3,'4X,'KK24 *' , F7. 3,/, 2«X ,
'UZSS =',F7.3,UX, 'LZSH »',F7.3)
(/,6X,'SHOW«,H4X, 'RADCON=«S F7. 3, IX, 'CCFAC '• ,F7.3,I»X;
'EYAPSN='fF7.3,/2UX, 'MELSV =• , F7. 3, 14X, ' ELDIF =»,F7,3,«X,
'TSNOW =',F7.3,/,2«X,'MPACK »• , T7. 3,i»X, « DGM =«,F7.3,
(IX, 'WC =',F7.3,/,2<»X,'IDHS =' ,F7. 3,«X ,'SCP
I4X,'WMUL =',F7.3,/,214X,'RMUL =" , F7. 3 ,UX ,« F
F7.3,UX,'KUGI *',F7.3,/)
-------
1216. 2 2UX,'JEIM = •,F7 .3,4X,•KEIM =•,FT.3,/)
1216.1 U162 FORMAT (/,24X, • TIMTIL AND SRERTL-1}
1216.2 4165 FOFMAT (/,24X,3A4,12(5X,13),/,36X,12(3X,P5.2))
1217. 417C FORMAT (//,6X,'MONTHLY DISTPIBUTION',7X, 1 1 (A4,IK) ,A4,//,6X,
1218. 1 'TEMP CORRECTION FACTOR',1X,12(2X,H6.2) ,
1218.1 2 /,6X,'EPXf1',19X, 12(2X,F6.2) ,///,7X,
1219. 3 '- PKRVIOIIS LAN'DS -',///, 6X, • LAND COVER-',3A4,IX,12(IX,F7. 3) )
1220. 1180 FORMAT (17X ,3A4 , 1X,12(1X,F7.3) )
1221. 4190 FOBMAT (/,6X,'ACCUMULATION BATES')
1222. 1200 FORMAT (/,6X,'REMOVAL RATES')
1223. 4210 FORMAT (/,6X,•POTFNCY FACTORS FOR',1X,3»4)
1224. 1220 FORMAT (// ,6X , ' -I MPERVIOtIS LANDS-1,/)
1225. 4230 FOBMAT (2U X,3 A4 ,6X, ' ACUP = •,F7.3,4X,•ACUI = ',F7.3)
1226. 4240 FORMAT (24X ,3 A'4 ,GX , • KFER =', F7 .3, IX , ' RINP =',F7.3)
1227. 4250 FOPJIAT (//,6X,«POTENCY FACTORS FOR PERVIOUS AREAS',5X,5 (3A4,31},/)
1228. 4260 FORMAT (24X ,3 A4 ,rtX, 5 ( F8 . 3, 7X) )
1229. 427C FORMAT (//,6X,'POTENCY FACTORS FOR IMPERVIOUS ABEAS' ,5(3X,3A4),/)
1230. U280 FORMAT (S (/) ,2X ,'INIT IAI, CONDITION S. :', 3 (/) ,6X ,'LANDS', 13X,
1231. 1 'tJZS =',F7.3,4X,'LZS * •, F7. 3,4X,' SGW «',F7.3,/)
1232. 1290 FORMAT (6 X, 'SNOW , 1UX ,' PACK = ' , F7 . 3 , 4X ,' t EPTH -• ,P7. 3,/)
1233. 1*300 FORMAT <6X , ' QU AL' , UX ,3 AU, 6X , 'TSI =• , F9. 3, «X, ' SREHI *«,F9.3>
1234. 4310 FORKAT (24X ,3HH ,6X,'TSI =',F9.3,«X,'SREBI »•,P9.3)
1235. 4320 FORMAT ('1',25X,'SUMMARY FOB MONTH OF •,2A1,1X,IU,/f
1236. 1 25X,35('=«),//,35X,'TOTAL')
1237. 4330 FORMAT ('0',8X,'WATER, ',A4,//,11X,'RUNOFF',/,14X^
1238. 1 'OVERLAND FlOW , 5X, F9 . 3,/, 1 4X,' INTIRFLOVJ' , 9X,F9.'3,
1239. 2 /,14X,'IMPERVIOUS',8X,F9.3,/,14X,'EASE FLOH',9X,
1210. 3 F<>.3,/,14X, 'TCTAL',13X,F9.3,//,11X,
1241. 4 'uRDMATER RECHARGE1, 4X, F9. 3, //, 11X, ' PREC'IPITATIOH* ,
1242. 5 8X,F9.3)
1243. 4340 FORMAT (' ' ,1 3X ,'SNOW , 14X ,F9. 3,/, 14X, • RAIN OM SNOH1 ,6X,
1244. 1 F9.3,/,14X,'BELT fi BAIN•,7X,F9.3,//,1IX,•MBIT',
1245. 2 /,14X,«RADIATION',9X,F9.3,/,14X,•COKVECTION',8X,
1246. 3 F'^.S,/,!^,'CONDENSATION',6X,F9.3,/,14X,'RAIN - MELT1,
1247. 4 7X,F9.3,/,14X,'GKOUND-MELT',7X,F9. 3,/, 14X,
1248. 5 'Cn.1-HEG-HEAT',6X,F9.3,//, 11X, ' SNOH-PACK', 12X ,F9. 3,
1249. 6 /,11X,'SNOW DENSITY',9X,P9.3,/,11X,'X SNOW COVER1,
1250. 7 9X,F9.3,//,11X,'SNO» EVAP',12X,F9.3)
1251. 4350 FORMAT ('0•,1IX,'EVAPCTHANSPIRATION',/,14X,'POTENIAL',10X,
1252. 1 F9.3,/,14X,'NET',15X,F9.3,//,11X,'STOBAGES'./,
125.1. 2 UX, 'UPPER ZONE', 8X,F9.3,/, 14X, 'LOSER ZONE', 8X,F9. 3,
1254. 3 /,14X,'GROUKDHATEF',7X,F9.3,/, 14X,'INTERCEPTION1,6X,
1255. 4 F9. 3, /,1<4X, 'OVERLAND FLOW, 5X, F9. 3 ,/, 14X, ' INTEBFL01I',
1256. 5 9X,P3. 3,//,11X,'MATER B AL AN CE» , 8X, 19. 3)
1257. 4360 FORMAT- (' ' ,10X,« SNOH D ALANCE', 9X, F9. 3)
1258. 4370 FORMAT {'0' ,8X,'SEDIMENTS ACCUMULATION ,' ,A4,•/',A«.9X,
1259, 1 'WEIGHTED MEAN',7X,'PERVIOUS',11X,"IMPERVIOUS',/)
1260. 4380 FORMAT (11X ,'WEIGHTED M3AN',27X,F10.3,3{10X,F10.3))
1261. 4390 FOFMAT (• • ,8X ,3A4 ,29X, F11 .3, 3 (9X, F 11. 3) )
1262, 4400 FORMAT («0' ,8X,'SEDIMENTS LOSS, ',11X,•TOTAL (',A4,') •,3X,
1263. 1 'TOTAL (' ,A4,V'»M,') ' , 3X , 'PERVIOUS JX) • ,7X, • IHPBRVIOUg <*)')
1264. 4410 FORMAT (' • ,8X , 3A4 ,9X , F 11. 3, 3 (5X, F15 . 3) )
1265. 4420 FORMAT (' 0" ,8X , 'POLLUTANT WASHOFF, ' , 8X , 'TOTAL <• , »4, ') • , 3X t
1266. 1 'TOTAL (',A4,'/',A4,')',3X,'PERVIOUS (X)',7X,'IHPEBVIOUS <*)•)
1267. 4430 FOF?1AT ('0', 9X,'»ASHOFF OF «,3A4)
1266. 4440 FOBMAT (' ' ,10X ,'TCTA L W ASHOFF ' , 6X , F11. 3, 3 (9X,F 11. 3) )
1269. 4450 FORMAT ('0•,8X,'STORM HATER QUALITY - AVERAGES',//,
1270. 1 11X,'TEMPERATURE ', A4, 6X,F7 . 2,//, 1 IX,
1271. 2 'DISSOLVED OXYGEN (PPM)•,1X,F7.3,//,12X,
1272. 3 'SEDIMENTS (GM/L) ', F11.3)
1273, 4460 FOCMAT (' •',! 1X ,3 A4 , • ( ' , A4 , «) • , F 11. 3)
82
-------
1274.
1275.
1276.
1277.
1278.
1279.
12BC.
1281.
1282.
1283,
1284.
1285.
1286.
1287.
1288.
1289-.
1290.
1291.
1292.
1293.
1294.
1295.
1295.1
1295.2
1295.3
1295.4
1256.
1297.
1298.
2000.
20C1.
2002.
2003.
2001.
20C5.
2006.
20C7.
20C3.
2009.
2010.
2011.
2012.
2013.
20114.
2015.
2016.
2017.
2018.
2019.
2020.
2021.
2022.
2023.
2024.
2025.
2026.
2027.
2028.
2029.
2030.
2031.
-------
2032.
2013.
20314,
2035.
2036.
2037.
203fl.
2039.
20<40.
2041.
20«2.
20 HI.
20141.
2045.
20«4fi,
20U7.
2048,
20149.
2050.
2051.
2052.
2053.
205(4,
20S'4.1
20514.2
2055.
2056.
2056.1
2057.
2058.
2059.
2060.
2061.
2062.
2063.
206U.
2065,
2066.
2067.
2068.
2069.
207C.
2071.
2072.
2073.
207M.
2075.
2076.
2077.
2078.
2079.
208C,
2081.
2081.1
2081.2
2081.3
2081. U
2091.5
2082.
2083.
2C8«4.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
2
3
4
5
6
PKP(5,5),PBI(5,5),QSNOW,SNOHY,SBDTN,SEDTY,SECTCA,
ACPOLP(%5) , ACEPSN(5) , APOLP(5,5) ,AERSN(5) ,COVBB(5) ;
APOLI(5,5) , ACEIK(5),AEIM(5) ,FOLTM(5) ,POLTY(5) ,
TEBPA,DCA,FCLTCA(5) , AFSSNYJS) ,AEIMY(E) , APOLPY (5, 5) ,
APOLIY(5,5) ,POLTC(5),PLTCAY(S) ,ACPOL1 (5,5) ,BIMP(5)
COMMON /LHDOOT/ ROSTOH,P INTOH,RITOM,RUTOM,BASTOH,flCHTOH,PHTOH,
1 SUCSNM. FXSNM, HELIUM, RACflEI1,CON«EM,CDR«EH,
2 CHAINM.SGMM, SNEr,MM,PACKOt,SEVAPN,EPTOM,NEETOHf
3 UZSOT,LZSOT,SGWOTrSCEP01,*ESSOTrSRGXTO,TWBAlO,
14 TSNDOL,DOSTOT, P.INTOT, RI101, RUTOT, EASTOT,RCH101>
5 PRTOT>SU.>1SNY,PXSMY,nEI.BAY,RADnEY,CONn£Y,CDRnBf>
6 GRAINY,SGKY,SNEGNY,PACK1,SEVAPY,EPTOT,»EP101,
7 UZSHT,LZSMT,SGBHT,SC£PT,BESST,SRGX1T,TMBL«T
COMMON /STS/ ACPOLT(5),PLT«X(5),POLTSC(5) ,PLTHXC(5),
1 ACSKDi:,SED11X, SEDTSC, SEDMXC,TOTRON ,PE AKRU
COHMON /IHTM/ RTYPE(H,U) ,OTYPE(2),GRAD,BACDIS,HIM CIS,JCS,OFS,
1 TEMPAY,DOAY,NOSIY,INTRVL,HMUL,NH,L,SS,NNI,LI,SSI,
2 RMUL.KUGI/SECTCY, REPEHV(12) ,BEIMPV (12) ,ACUPV(12),
3 ACUIV(12) , EMPMAT(12,5) ,PM IMAT (12, 5) ,PNPVEC{5) ,
« PMIVEC(5),ACUIrACOPrEEIMF,EEPER,PRIHTH,
5 EPXM(12),TIMTIL(12) , SREHTI.(12) ,TILD A* (5, 12) ,
6 TMSED(5,12) ,DPM(12),TCP(12)
INTEGEB UHIT , LNTS, RSCOUT, SPLAG, PRIHtTB
INTEGER TIHTI1, TILDAY, DPN
LOGICAL LAST, PBE7
REAL*8 HSNAME,RTYPE,OTYEB
REAL JHHR, KEEP, JSER, KSER,KEIH,JBIM
REAL LZSN, IRC, NN, L, IZ S, KV, K24L, KK2U, 1KFII, OTEB
REAL IPS, K2UEL, K3, NEPTOM, MEPTOT, ICS, NMI, KUGI
REAL INPTOB, INFTCT, INTF
HEAL MMPIN, HETOPT, KGPLB, KGPHA
REAL STU, STI ,IMEK
HEAL NELRAN, MELRA*
DATA LAST/.FALSE./, PREV/.FALSE./
DATA PRTOT/0.0/
DATA PRTON,PBTM/2*0.0/
DATA RUTOfl, ROSTOfl, FITCN, BINTOM, N EPTOH/5*0.0/
BATA RIITOT, ROSTOT, BITCT, RINTOT, NEPTOV5*O.C/
DATA ROBTOd, RCBTCT, INFTOH, INFTOT, ROITOM, ROITOT/6*0.C/
DATA THDAL, RFSB, BESEI, ROSBI, RES3I1.SPGX, INTP/7*0.0/
DATA RESB1, BASTOR, FCHTOM, BASTOT, 8C fc.TOX/5*0.0/
DATA EFTOn, SPTOT/2*0.0/
DATA PR, P3, RXB, RGX, FUZB, OZSB, PERCB, DPST/8*0.0/
DATA TIMFAC, UZSN, LZSN, INFIL, INTEB, IRC/6*C.O/
DATA A, UZS, LZS, SOU, GHS, KV, K24L, K24EL, KK2V9*0.0/
DATA IFS, K3/2*0.0/
DA'TA EPX1, EPXni/13*0.0/
DATA DPM/31,28,31,30,31,30,31,31,30,31,3C,31/
DATA TIMTIL, TILDAY/72*0/
DATA SSERTL, TILSED/72*0.O/
DATA TCF/12*1.0/
DATA PETBIN,PETNAX/35.,«»0./
DATA TOTRU5f,PEAKRO,ACSEDT,SEDnX,SEDTSC,SEDKXC/6*0.0/
DATA ACPOLT,PLTMX,POLTSC,PLTMXC/20*0..0/
84
-------
2065.
2086.
2087.
2088.
2089.
2090.
2091.
2092.
2093.
2094.
2095.
2096.
2097.
2098.
2099.
2100.
2101.
2102.
2103.
2104.
2105.
2106.
2107.
2108.
2109.
2110.
2111.
2112.
2113.
2114.
2115.
2116.
2117.
2118.
DATA MtfAtl/' JAN', 'UAFY', • FEBH', • 11 AR Y« ,» MAR','CH
* 'IL ',» MAY',' ',» JtJN«,«B V* JUL','Y
* «UST I,«SEPT','MBEEI, • OCT' , «0 BEE* ,' NOVE1 ,« HUEH • ', «DECE« ',
2120.
2121.
2122.
2123.
2124.
2125.
2126.
2127.
2128.
2129.
2130.
2131,
2132.
2133.
213<».
2135.
2136.
213.7.
2138.
2139.
2141.
2142.
2143.
2144.
2145.
4H,A4, , «H4X,A , 4H4,7
4H,2X, ,4H« (GM „ 4H/L)
4H,2X, ,4H' (GM , 4H/L)
4H,2X, ,UH'(^1 r 4H/L)
4H,2X, ,4H' (GM , 4H/L)
4H,2X, ,4H« (G» , 4H/L)
4H,2X, ,4H' (GH , 4H/L)
4HKG) ',
X , 4H ,1
4H ,4
4H ,4
4H ,4
4H ,4
4H ,4
4H ,2(
* , 4HI
4HX,
4HX,
4HX,
4HX,
4HX,
r 4M/) )
t,
/
',• AOG',
DATA MMPIN/25.4/, HETOPT/0.9072/, K GPLE/C. U536/, KGPHA/0.892/
DATA StltlSNM, PXSNM, HELIUM, RADMEfl, CDRNEM, CHAINH.PACK,DEPTH,
* CONMEH, SGMH, SNEGMtt, SEVAPH, SUflSNY, PXSNY, HELRAY,
* RADNEY, CDRMEY, CONMEY, CEUINY, SGBY, SNEGMY, SEVAPY,
* TSNBAL/23*0.0/
DATA IMTBVL,PRINTB/15,15/, WM&L,RMUL,KUGI,SFLAG/1.0,1.0,0.0,0/
DATA ICS, OFS/2*0.0/
DATA GRAD/0.04,0.04,0.03,0.02,
*0.02,C.?2,0.02,0.06,0.14,0.18, 0.20,0.17,0.13,0.06,0. 03,0. C1,0.05,
*0.07,0.10,0.13,0.15,0 .13,0.12,0.OS/
DATA RADDI3/6*0.0,0.019,
*O.CU1,0.067,0.083,0.102,0.110,0,110,0.110,C.105,O.C95,0.081,0.055,
*0.017,5*0.0/
DATA WINDIS/7*0 .034,0.035,
*0.037,O.CU1,0.046,0.050,0.053,0.054,0.058,0.057,0.056,0.050,0.043,
*O.C40,0.03*,0.036,'0.036,0.035/
DATA NN,MNI/.2,.1/, L,LI/2*1CO./, SS,SSI/2*.01/
DATA TEHPAY,DOAY,SEDTCA,SECTCY/4*0.0/, NOSIY,NOSY/2*0/
DATA CUNIT/5*4HGM/l,UHMG/L,4HGN/L/
DATA FGRM/UH(17X
4HLB)•
4HLB) '
4HLB)»
4FILE) '
4HLB) •
4HLB) '
DATA ALTR/4H
* HH' (KG, 4H(. 21, <*H( 27, 4H( 41, 4H( 54, 4H ( 63, 4H { 74 /
DATA TIT/4H , «UX,«Q, UH 0 A, 4H L I, 4H T Y, 4H C,
* 4H 0 N, 4H S T, 4H I T, 4H 0 E, 4H N T, 4H S', ,4H / )/
DATA FTYPE/BH ,«SEDIMENT',•PROCUCT3',• PRODU1,1 HYDBOL',
*' AMD QUA1,'ON (PR1N • , ' CTICN {0«,'OGIC CAL','LITY CALS'TEH OU1P» ,
*'UTPUT ON','IBPATICN1,'IBRATION«,•UT ONLY)1,1 UNIT 4)'/
DATA UTYP2/' METRIC',' ENGLISH'/
DATA COVfAl/60*0.0/, COVK5/5*0.O/
DATA IMPK,SCALEF/5*0.,5*1./,' NDSR,IHBR/2*0/
DATA PMP/25*0.0/, PMI/25*0.0/
DATA QUALIV1 BOP',2*4H ,' TDS«,11*4H /
DATA OSNOW/' NO •/, SNOHY/«YES «/
DATA JBEVO.O/, KBIR/0.0/
DATA JSEP/0.0/, KSER/0.0/
DATA. JEIM/0.0/, KEIM/0 .O/
DATA UNT1/' KG ',« HM «,« LB ',« IK '/
DATA STMCH/4800+0.0/
DATA UNT2/' T ',«CMS ','TONS','CFS •/
DATA CJNT3/' (C) •,' HA *,'(F) '^ACHE1/
DATA AERSM/5*0.0/, AEIM/5*0.0/, APOLP/25*0.0/, APOU/25*0. C/
DATA AERSNY/5*C .O/, AEIMY/5*0.O/, •APOLPY/25*0.C/, APOLIY/25*0.0/
DATA ^EMPA,DOA/2*0.0/ ,NCSI, MOSIM,NOS/3*0/
DATA POLTC'A/5*0 ,0/, PLTCAY/5*0 . C/
DATA ACPOLP/25*0.0/, AC POL 1/25*0.O/
DATA ACEIH,ACERSN/10*0.0/
DATA ACCP/5*0./, ACCI/5*0./, R1MP/5*0./, BPEB/5*0./
DATA SREP/5*0./, TS/5*0./, LHTS/5*0/
DATA PMPYBC,PKIVEC,PMPMAT,PHIMAT/5*0.,5*0.,60*0.,60*0.7
DATA ACHP,ACUI,ACUPV,ACUIV/0.,0., 12*0. ,12*0./
DATA BEPER,REIMP,FEPERV,REIMPV/0.,0.,12*0., 12*0./
85
-------
2116.
2117.
30CO.
30C1.
30C2.
3003.
300U.
3005.
3006.
30C7.
3008.
3009.
3010.
3011.
3012.
3013.
301U.
3015.
3016.
3017.
3018,
301°,
3020.
3021.
3022.
3023.
302'!,
3025.
3026.
3027.
3028.
3029.
3030.
3031.
3C32.
3033.
303«.
3035.
3036.
3037.
303B.
3039.
30UO.
30U1.
30H2.
301H.
30H5.'
30(|6.
3047.
30U3.
30H9,
3050.
3051.
3052.
3053.
3051.
3055.
3056.
3057.
3058.
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
ENH
SUBROUTINE LANDS
HSP LANDS
IMPLICIT REAL(l,K)
DIMENSION EVDrST<2«) , LAPSE (2tt)' , SVP (i*C) , 3NOUT (2«, 1 6) .STRBGN (*l) ,
1 M NAM (24) , RAD(2<0,TEKPX<2«) ,«INDX(2«») ,flft IN (96) ,D UH1 (5) /
2 DUN2(5>
COMMON /ALL/ RUrHYMI8,HYCAL,D?ST/UNIT,TIi1FAC,LZS,ABEA,RESB,Si'UC,
1 HFSBl,ROSB,SRGX,INTF,RaX,RUZE,UZSB,PEBCB,BIB,P3,TF,
2 KGPLa,LAST,PnEV,TE«PX, IHR, IHFB, PB, BU I ,A, PA,GHP ,NOSTt,
3 SPEF(5),TS{5) ,LNDUSE(3,5) , JE (S) ,QOALIN(3,£) ,K
'4 MOSIM,UP1,UTMP,UHT1(2,2) ,UNT2(2,2> ,UNT3(2,2) ,
5 »HT,DEPH,P.OSBI, RES BI. R ESC1 1 , AliUN ,L!ITS (5) fI«PK(5) ,
6 MLAND,NQUAL,S1HCH(20C,2t») ,BECOUT(5J , f LOUT,SCALEP (5) ,
7 SNOW, PACK, IFACK
COMflOV /LAND/DAy,PBlfl,I«IN,rX,TWBAL,SGW,GI.S,KV,LIBC'<,tKKl>,ALT5(9) ,
1 UZ5,IZ,UZSN,I.ZSN,IMFILf INTER, SGK1, DEC, DECI,TI1(13) ,
2 K2UL,KK2«,K24EL, EP,IFS,K3, IPXM I^ESS 1 ,RESS,SCE P,IBC,
3 SnGXT1,«MPIN,KGPHA,METOPT,CCf AC,SCEP 1 ,SRGXT, RAIN ,SBC ,
H SCF, IDNS,F., DGH,WC,(1PACK, EVRPSN ,MELEV ,TSNOW, PET WIN,
5 DFWX, DEPTH, MONTH, TSIN t PETH AX , ELDIF, SEEN, WIND X, IN F1OS,
6 TS;iDAl,RCBTCM,BOB70T,aXE,K0110H,ROITCT,YEAB,COHIT(7) ,
7
COHMON /LHDOUT/ ROSTOH.RINTOH', BITOH, RtITOK,BASTOH, BCHTOft,PRTCM,
1 SUMS MB, FKSNH,i1ELRAfI,RACf!E«,CONMiifi,CDRf1EH,
2 CHAIN«,SG«ff,SNEGH,1,PACKOT,SEVAP«rfPTOM,NEEIOH,
3 UZSOT,L2SOT,SGWOT,SCHPOT,RESSOT,SBGXTO,T»BALO,
H TSHBOL,HOSTOT, PINTOT, RIT01,BUTOT, EASTOT,RCH101,
5 Pr
-------
3059.
1060.
3061.
3062.
1061.
3064.
3065.
3066.
3067.
1068.
3069.
3070.
3071.
3072.
3071.
3074.
307-5.
3076.
3077.
3078.
3079.
3080.
3081.
3082.
308,1.
3084.
3065.
3086.
3067.
3083.
3089.
3090.
3091.
3092.
1093.
3094.
30 55.
3096.
3097.
3098.
30«9.
3100.
3101.
3102.
3103.
3104.
3105.
3106.
1107.
3108.
3109.
1110.
3111.
3112.
3113.
311H.
3115.
3116.
3117.
3118.
311S.
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
DATA EVDtST/6*0,0,0.019,0.041,0.067,0.088,0. 102,3*0. 11,0.105,
C 0. 09r>,0.001,0.055,0.0 17, 5*0. O/
DATA i>VP/ia*1,OG'5,1.01, 1 .01, 1.015, 1,0.2,
* 1.01,1. 04,1 .06,1.08,1 .1,1.29,1.66,2. 13, 2. 74,3. 49, 4.40, 5.55, 6.'87,
*8.36,10.09,12.19,14.63, 17.51,20.86,24.79,29.32,34.61,40.67,47.68,
*r)5.71,64.8I3/ .
DATA LAPSE/6*1.5,3.7,4.0,4.1,
*4. 3, 4. 6, •'». 7, 4. a, U. 9, 5.0,5. 0,4.8, 4. 6, 4. 4, 4.2, 4*0, 3. 8, 3. 7, 3. 6/
DATA APR, AEPIN/2*O.C/
DATA AHOSB, AIN'CF, ABOSIT/3*0.O/
DATA AHU, A3UI, ABOS, AFGXT, ASNET, ASPAS, ASRCH/7*0.0/
DATA 5UKSN, INDT, KCLD, PXONSN, SEVAPT, fiADME, CDHMF., LIQ81,
* CONHE, GRAIN, NEGMLT, SNEGM, NEG.Itt, LIQS, LIQV, XICB,
* XLSILTjSGM, 3PX, WEAL, SEVAP/21*0.O/
DATA SNOUT/384*0.0/
DATA CLDF/-1.0/
ZEROING OP VARIABLES
IZS1 - LZS
UZS1 = U2S
NUWI = 0
DPST =0.0
PACK1 » PACK
LIQW1 a LIQM
PHE a PR
LNEAT=I.ZS/I,ZSN
D3FV=(2.0*INPIL)/(INBAT*LNBAT)
D4P= (TIMPAC/60.)*C3FV
IP (SHO» ,LT. 1) CO TO 20
D4FX = (1.0 -XICE)
IP (HUP* ,LT. 0.1)" D4PX * 0.1
D4F = D4P*D4FX
20 BATIOs INTER*EXP(0.693147*LNRAT)
IF ((RA7IO).LT.(1.0)) FATIO=1.0
D4RA= D4P*RATIO
H = TF/24
REDUCE INFILTRATION IF ICS EXISTS
AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PACK -
ATTEMPT TO CORRECT FOB FROZEN LAND
TP IS 1 FOR RAIN DAYS, AND 96
OR 288 FOR KON-RAIN DAYS
IF (TF .ST. 2) IHBR»C
DO 1480 111*1,TF
LNRAT » LZS/LZSH
IF (TF .LT. 2) GO TO 40
WOMI =NOMI * 1
IF (NUHI .EQ. H) GO TO 30
GO TO 40
30 HUMI » 0
4
-------
3120.
3121.
3122.
3123.
3124.
3125.
3126.
3127.
3120.
3129,
3130.
3131.
3132.
3133.
313U.
3135.
3136.
3137.
3138.
3139.
31«0.
3141.
31«2.
31K3.
314U.
31U5.
31H6.
31i»7.
31H8.
31«»9.
3150.
3151.
3152.
3153.
315«.
3155.
3156.
3157.
3158.
3159.
3160.
3161.
3162.
3163.
3161.
3165.
3166.
3167.
3168.
316S..
3170.
3171.
3172.
3173.
317«.
3175.
3176.
3177.
317fl.
3179.
3180.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
GKF =0.0
RGXT = 0.0
TEBC = 0.0
INfLT = 0.0
FESS =0.0
TIMFAC - TIME INTERVAL IN MINUTES
L - LBMGTH OF OV'ERLAND SLOPE
NN - MANNING'S N FOE OVEBLANC SLOPE
A - IMPERVIOUS AREA
FA - PEHVIOUS AREA
PR IS INCOMING RAIMFALl
P3 IS BAIN BEACHING SURFACE(.00'S INCHES)
PU IS TOTAL HOISTUPK AVAILABLE ( IS.)
"RT.SS IS OVERLAND FLOW STOPAGE( IN.)
DUF IS «B' IN OP. MANUAL
3ATIO IS 'C« IM OP. MANUAL
EP - CAILY EVAP ( IN.)
EPHR - HOURLY EVAP
EPIN - INTERVAL EVAP
EPXX - FACTOR FOR REDUCING EVAP FOR SHOW AND TEMP
DETERMINE IF SNOMMELT IS TO BE DONE
50 HFFLAG=0
TEST = IMIN/TIMFAC
IF (NUfll .EQ. 1) HRFLAG = 1
IF ({TEST .LE. 1.001) .AND.(TEST ,GE. O.S9S)) HBFLAG
HRFLAG*1 INDICATES BEGINNING OF THE HOOB
IF (HRFLAG) 770, 770, 60
60 IEND = 0
IF (IHR-2U) 70,flO,70
70 IHKR » IHR * 1
GO TO 90
flO IHRR =« IHRn * 1
90 EPHR * EVDIST(IHRF)*EP
IF (EPHS.LE.(0.0001)) EPHE'0.0
EEIN= EPHR
EPIN1=EPIN
IF (SNOW .EQ. 0) GO TO 770
IF ((PACK .LE. 0.0).AND.(THIN .GT. PHTMAX)) GO TO 770
TSNOW1 » TSNOW + 1.
SNTRHP « 32.
SEVAP = 0.0
SFIAG = 0
PRHR=0.0
EPXX = 1.0
IKEND * 60./(TII'FAC)
IPt = (IHRR-1)*IKE»D
88
-------
3181.
3182.
3183.
319U.
3135.
3186.
31P7.
3188.
3189.
3190.
3191,
3197.
31 S3.
319U.
3195.
3196.
31S7.
3198.
3199.
3200.
32C1.
3202.
32C3.
320 U.
3205.
3206.
32C7.
3208,
32C9.
3210.
3211.
3212.
3213.
3211.
3215.
3216.
3217.
3218.
3219.
3220.
3221.
3222.
3223.
322I4.
3225.
3226.
3227.
3228.
3229.
3230.
3231.
3232.
3233.
3234.
3235.
3236.
3237.
323fl.
3239.
3210.
3241.
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
C'
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
PX=0.0
DO 100 II = 1,1'KEND
100 PRHR = PRHH + RAIN(IPT+II)
SOU PRECIP FOB THK HOUR
CORRECT TIHP FOR ELEVATION DIPF
USING LAPSE RATE OF 3.5 DURING BAIN
PERIODS, ANC AN HOURLY VA8IATI08 IN
LAPSE RATE (LAPSE (I)) FOB OHY PEBIOD
LAES = LAPSE(IHRR)
IF (PRHR .GT. 0.05) LAPS * 3.5
TX = TEMPX(IHRR) - LAPS*ELDIF
REDOCS REG EVA? FOR SNQKMELT
CONDITIONS CASED ON PETMIN AND
PETHAX VALUES
IF (PACK-IP.tCK) 120,120,110
110 E1E=O.C
PACKRA = 1.0
GO TO 130
120 PACKRA » PACK/IPACK
E1E=1.0 - PACKPA
130 FPXX = (1.0-P)*E1E + F
IF (TX-PETMAX) 110,170,170
1HO IF (EPXX .GT. 0.5) EEXX=0.5
150 IF (TX-PETMIK) 160,170,170
160 EPXX=0.0
170 EPHR = EPHB*EPXX
REDUCE EVAP BY SOX IF TX IS BETBEBS
PETMIN AND PETMAX
I5ND=0
IF ((TX .GT. TSNOW) .AND. (TRHR .GT. .02)) 0EHX a TX
SET DEWPT TEMP EQUAL TO AIB TEMP WHEN RAINING
ON SNOB TO INCREASE SNOMOELT
IF (DEHX .GT. TX) DEWX = TX
SNTEMP = TSNOW + (TX-EEWX) * (0. 12 * O.OOS*TX)
RAIN/SNOW TEMP. DIVISION - SEE ANDERSON, WBH, VOL. 4f NO, 1.
FED. 1968, P. 27, EG. 28
IF (SNTEMP .GT. TSNOW 1) SNTEMP » TSNOW1
IF (TX -SNTEMP) 190, 180, 180
180 IF (PACK) 770, 77C, 200
190 SFLAG = 1
IF ({PACK. LE. 0. 0) .AND. (PBHE.LE. 0.0)) GO TO 770
SKIP SNOWHELT IF BOTH PACK AND PRECIP ARE ZERO
FOR THE HOUR
200 IEND = 1
SJJCMHELT CALCULATIONS ARE CONE IF IT IS SNOtfING, OB,
IF A SNOWPACK EXISTS
89
-------
32M2.
3243.
3244.
32 a 5.
3246.
3247.
3243.
3249.
3250.
3251.
3252.
3253.
325U.
325-5.
3256.
3257.
3258.
325?.
3260.
3261.
3262.
3263.
32614.
3265.
3266.
3267.
3268.
3269.
3270.
3271.
3272.
3273.
3274.
3275.
3276.
3277.
3270.
3279.
3280.
3281,
3282.
3283.
3284.
3285.
3286.
3287.
3288.
3289.
3290.
3291.
3292.
3293.
3294.
329?.
3296.
32 «7.
329R.
329S.
3300.
33C1.
3302.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
210
220
PX = PRHR
IF (PX) 250, 250, 210
KCLD = 35.
IP (SFLAG) 260, 260, 220
KCLD IS INDEX TO CLOUD COVER
SNOW IS FALLING
23C
240
250
260
PX = PX*SCF
APR = APR*(SCF-1.0)*PRHR
PPHS = PRHrc*SCF
SIJMSN = SUflSN + PX
DNS = IDMS
IF (TX .GT. 0.0) DNS = DNS * ( (TX/100. ) **2)
SNCW DENSITY WITH TEMP. - APPROX TO FIG. 4, PLATE B-1
SNOW HYDROLOGY SEE ALSO ANDERSON, TR 36, P. 21
PACK = PACK *• PX
IF (PACK-IPACK) 240,240,230
IPACK = PACK
IF (IPACK .GT. PPACK) IPACK = HPACK
DEPTH = DEPTH + (PX/DNS)
IF (DEPTH .GT. 0.0) SDKS = PACK/DEPTH
INCT = IJIDT - 1COO*FX
IF (INDI .LT. 0.0) INDT = 0.0
PX = 0.0
GO TO 260
KCLD = KCLD - 1.
IF (KCLD .LT. O.C) KCID = 0.0
PACKPA = PACK/IPACK
IF (PACK .GT. IPACK) PACKKA = 1.0
27C IF (PACK - O.OC5) 280, 300, 300
IPACK IS AM INDEX TO AREAL COVERAGE OP THE SNOHPACK
POT INITIAL STOPMS IFACK = .1*P.PACK SO IF AT COMPLETE
ARI'AL CCVSRA5E RESULTS. If £X 1ST ING PACK > .1 *HPACK THBH
IPACK IS SET 2QUAL TO HPACK -WHICH IS- THE HATER EQUI. FOB
COPPLSTE APEAL COVERAGE PACKRA IS THE FRACTION ABfAL COVEBAGE
AT ANY TIME.
280 IPACK = 0.1*HPACK
XICE = 0.0
XLNMLT =0.0
NEflHLT = 0.0
PX = PX «• PACK * LIQW
PACK = 0.0
Liga = o.o
ZE!?0 SNOWrELT OUTPUT ARRAY
DCJ 200 1=1,2U
DO 290 1M=1,16
290 SNOUT(I,f1H)=0.0
GO TO 760
300 PXCSSH = PXONSN * EX
IF (DRPTH .GT. 0.0) SDEN = PACK/DEPTH
IP (INDT .LT. 800.) INDT = INDT + 1.
INRT IS INDEX -TO ALBEDO
90
-------
33C3. MELT = 0.0
330«. I? (SDEN .LT. 0.55) DF,PTH= DEPTH* { 1, 0 - C,CC002* (DEPTH*(.55-SDEN)) )
33C5. C
3306. C EMPIRICAL RELATIONSHIP FOR SNOW COMPACTION
33 07. C
3308. IF (DSFTH ,G7. 0.0) SDEN = PACK/DEPTH
3309. WIN = HINDX(IHRR)
3310. C
3311. C HOURLY HIND VALUE
3312. C
3313. LREP = (TX + 100.)/5
331U. LREF = iriX(UREF)
3315. SVPP = SVP (LREF)
3316. ITX = IFIX(TX)
3317. SATVAP = SVPP *('10D(ITX,5)/5)*
-------
3361.
3365.
3366.
3367.
3368,
3369.
3370.
3371,
3372.
3.173.
3371.
3375.
3376.
3377.
3378.
3379.
3380.
3361.
3382.
3363.
3381.
3385.
3386.
3367.
3388.
3369.
3390.
33S1.
3392.
3393.
3391.
3395.
3396.
3397.
3398.
339S.
3100.
31C1.
3U02.
3103.
3101.
3105.
3106.
31C7.
3108.
3109.
3110.
3111.
3112.
3113.
3111.
3115.
3116.
3117.
3118.
3119.
312C.
3121.
3422.
3123.
3021.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
GO TO 100
390 IV = F*0.2*DEGHR * (1.0 - F) * (C , 17* QEGHR - 6.6)
UOO IF (LK ,LT. 0.0)
PAINM » 0.0
LH
LW IS A LINEAR APPROX. TO CURVES in
FIG. 6, PL 5-3, IN SNOW HYDROLOGY. 6*6
IS AVE BACK RADIATION LOST FROM THE SNOVPACK
IN OPEN AREAS, IN L/.NGLEYS/fcR,
CLOUD COVES CORRECTION
= LB*CLDF
RAIN MELT
HAINWELT IS OPERATIVE IF IT IS
RAINING AN£ TEHP IS ABOVE 32 P
IF ((SPLAG .LT. 1).AND.(TX .GT . 32.)) RMNH = D£GHB*PX/111,-
TOTAL BELT
RM = (Ltf + RAJ/203.2
203.2 LANGLEYS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE X INCH
RUKOFF FROM SNOV AT 32 DEGREES F
IF (PACK - IPACK ) 110, 130, 130
1TO PR * F.M*PACKBA
CONV = CO!fV*PACKRA
CONDS = CONDS*PACKBA
RAINM * BAINN*PACKBA
IF (IHRR - 6) 130, 120, 130
120 XLNEM » 0.01* (32.0 - TX)
IF. HLNEH .GT. XLNRLT) .XLNHLT - XLNEM
430 RADME = RADME + RH
CDRNE * CDHME » COKDS
CONME * COVHE * CONV
CRAIH » GRAIN > RAINM
MSLT * EH * CONV + CODDS + BAINH
I? (BELT) 110, 170, 170
110 NEGMM * 0.0
IP (TX .LT. 32.) HEGMB - 0 .00695*(PACK/2.0)*(32.0 - TX)
HALF 05 PACK IS USED TO CAICOLATB
MAXIMUM-NEGATIVE HILT
TP » 32.0 - (NEG»LT/(0.00695*PACK)>
TP IS TEMP OF THE SNOVPACK
0.00695 IS IN. BELT/IN* SNOW/DEGREE I
IF (TP - TX) 160, 160, 150
150 r,« = 0.0007*{TP - TX)
SEGflLT = NSGHLT * CM
3 NEC?) = SMBGM + GM
160 IF (NBG1LT .GT. NEGMM) NEGMLT * NEGNH
PELT » 0.0
MELTING PROCESS BALANCE
170 PXBY « (1.0 - PftCKBA)*PX
PX » PACKRA*PX
PXBY IS FRACTION OF PRECIP FALLING ON BAR! GBOUND
92
-------
3425.
3426.
3427.
3428.
3429.
3430.
34.11.
3432.
3433.
3434.
3435.
3436.
3437.
3438.
3439.
3440.
3441.
3442.
3443.
3444.
3445.
3446.
3447.
3448.
3445.
345^.
3451.
3452.
3453.
3454.
3455.
345(5.
3457.
345fl.
3459.
3460.
3461.
34€2.
3463.
3464.
3465.
3466.
3457.
3468.
3469.
3470.
3471.
3472.
3473.
3474.
3475.
3476.
3477.
3478.
3479.
3480.
3461.
3482.
3483.
3484.
3485.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
i
i
i
C
C
C
C
t
6
6
6
6
6
r
IF (MELT * PX) 650,650,480
SATISFY NEGMLT FRCK FBECIP(RAIN) AND SNOWMELT
480 IF (MELT - NEGMIT) 490, 500, 500
490 NSGMLT = NEGMLT - BELT
ilELT =0.0
GO TO 510
500 MELT = MULT - NEGMLT
NEGNLT =0.0
510 IF (PX-- N5GMLT) 520, 530, 530
520 NEGMLT = NEGMIT - EX
PACK » PUCK + PX
PX = 0.0
GO TO 540
530 PX = PX - NEGMIT
PACK = PACK * NEGKLT
NEGMLT =0.0
540 IP {(PX + MELT) .EC. 0.0) GO TO 660
COMPARE SNOWNELT TO EXISTING SNOWPACK ANC WATER CtJNTEHT OH
THE PACK
IF (MBIT - PACK) 560, 560, 550
550 MELT = PACK * LIQW
DETTH • 0.0
PACK =0.0
LICM * 0.0
INDT * 0.0
GO TO 590
560 PACK = PACK - HEtT
IF (SDEN ,GT. C.O) DEPTH « DEPTH - (MELT/SDEN)
IF {PACK ,GE. (/).9*DEETH)) DEPTH « 1.11*PACK
IF (PACK - O.CC1) 570, 580, 580
570 LICK = HO" * P*CK
PACK =0.0
580 LIQS = HC*PACK
IF (SDEN ,GT, 0.6) LIC.S = WC*(3.0 - (3.33) *SDBM) *PACK
IF (LIQS .IT. 0.0) LICS = 0.0
COMPARE AVAILABLE BCISTUFE SflTH AVAILABLE STORAGE IN SNOBFACK
-LIQS
590 IF {{LIQW «• MELT * PX) - LIQS) 610, 61C, 600
630 PX » 1ELT * PX + LIQW - 1ICS
MELT * PX
GO TO 620
610 LICW a LIQW
PX = 0.0
620 IF (PX - XLNMLT) 640, 640, 630
630 PX = PX - XLVBIT
TACK = PACK «• XLNMLT
KICK = XICE •• XIUM1T
XLNMLT » 0.0
GO TO 650
640 PACK = PACK » PX
XICE = XICE * PX
XLBBLT » XLNNLT - PX
PX » 0.0
93
-------
3186.
31P7.
3188.
3169.
3190.
3191.
3192.
3193,
3191.
3195,
3196.
3197.
.3198.
319°.
3500.
35M.
3502.
350.3,
3501,
35C5.
3506.
.35C7.
3508.
35C9.
3510.
3511.
3512.
3513.
351.K.
3515.
3516.
3517.
3518.
3519.
3520.
3521.
3522.
352?.
3521.
3525.
3526.
3527.
3528.
3529.
35?0.
3531.
3532.
3533.
3531.
3535.
3536.
3537.
3538.
353S.
35 1C.
3511.
3512.
3513.
3511.
3515.
3516.
650 IF (XICE .GT. PACK) XICE =
C
C
C END
C
660 IF (DEPTH .ST. 0.0) SDKN =
IF (SDEN ,LT. -"» .1) SDEN =
C
IF (IHP? - 12) 700, 670,
670 DG*!M = DGH
IF (TP .LT. 5.0) TP = 5.0
PACK
MELTING PROCESS BALANCE
PACK/DEPTH
0. 1
GiKMINDHELT
700
IF (TP .IT. 32.) DGflM = DGHM - DGH* .0 3* { 32. 0 - TP)
IF (PACK - DGNtl) 690, 690
680 PX = PX + DGMM
PACK = PACK - DGttM
DEPTH = DEPTH - (DGM/SOEN
SGK = SGtf * CGflfl
GO TO 7 DC
690 PX = PACK + PX <• LIQW
SGH = SG.1 + PACK
PACK = 0.0
DEPTH = 0.0
LICW = 0.0
NEGHLT =0.0
700 CONTINUE
PX = PX + PXBY
SPX = SPX +• PX
C
C
SUMSNH = SIJMSKM * SCJMSN
PXSNM = PXSNM * PXOHSN
MELRAM = «SI.PA« » SFX
PADCEM = RADKEM + EACME
CDRHEM = CDHMEM * CDRME
CONMRH = CON!1£« «• CONME
CRAIN'fl = CRAIUM * CRAIfl
SGf« = SGKM * SGH
SNEGKJ1 = SNEHP1M * SNEGM
SEVAPJ) = SEVAPH * SEVAPT
C
C
SUMSNY = SHHSNY + SOKSN
TXSNY = PXSHY * FXONSN
HELSAY = MEISAY •• SEX
RADMEY = PACIFY + RflDME
CDEMEY = CDRi'1F,Y + CDBHE
CONMEY = CONMEY * CONME
C3AIMY = C3AINY + CBAIH
SGMY = SGMY t SGK
SMEGXY = SHEGMY f SNBGH
SEVAPY = SEVAPY + SEVAPT
C
SUftSN = 0.0
PXON3N = 0.0
BADMR = 0.0
CDFTMS = C.O
CONM2 =0,0
CHAIN = 0.0
SGK = 0.0
SKEGH = 0.0
SEVAPT =0.0
, 630
)
MONTHLY SUMS
YEABLY SUNS
ZERO HOOPLY VALUES
94
-------
3547.
3548.
3549.
3550.
3551.
3552.
3553.
3550.
3555.
3556.
3557.
355fl.
3559.
3560.
3561.
3562.
3563.
3564.
3565.
3566.
3567.
3550.
356?.
3570.
3571.
3572.
3573.
357'J.
3575.
3576.
3577.
3578.
357<9.
3580.
3581.
3582.
3563.
3584.
3565.
3586.
3567.
3588.
3589.
3590.
3591.
3592.
3553.
3594.
3595.
3596.
3597.
159fl.
3599.
3600.
36C1.
3602.
3603.
3604.
3605.
3606.
36C7.
SPX = C.0
c
C
SNOHMELT OUTPUT
PACK
DEETH
SDEN
AL3EDC
CLDF
NEGIUT
T.IQW
TX
= LW
* PX
C
C
C
SNCUT(IHRff, 1)
SNOUT(Iff3K,2)
SNOIJT(II(RR,3)
3trcuT(iH3G,'»)
SVnt(T(IHRP,5)
SNOUT(II!3R,6)
SNCUT(IHR3,7)
SNOWT(IHRR,fl)
SNCnT(rHI?3,9)
SNOUT(IHRR,10)
SNCUT(IHRR,11)
SMOU'nACKtPACK1-LIQH*LIQfl1
IF ((SNBAL.LT.O.OC01) .AND. (SNBAL.GT.-C. COC 1) ) SNBAL=0.0
TSNBAL *.TSNBRL + SNBAL
95
-------
36C3.
36C9.
3613.
3611.
3612.
3613.
361U.
3615.
3616.
3617.
3618.
3619.
.1620.
3621.
3622.
3623.
362I4.
3625.
3626.
3627.
3628.
362S.
36?^.
3631.
3532.
3633.
3634.
3635.
3636.
3631.
3638.
363 «.
36 0 INDICATES SNOWMEL1
r. cuainc THE HOOB
* * *
INT3RC2PTION fUNC.
* * *
FOR THAT DAY
EPXMI - MAX. INTERCEPTION STORAGE
SCEF - EXISTING INTER. STORAGE
EPX - AVAILABLE INTER. STORAGE
ROI - IMPERVIOUS RUNOFF DOPING INTERVAL
FPX=EPXNI-SCEP
IF(EPX.LT.(O.C001)) EPX=0.0
IF (P?-EPX) 790,780,780
7RO F3 = PR-E?X
SCf.P = SCEP + EPX
GO TO flOO
790 SCKP = SC2P«-PR
RU=0.0
BUI=0.0
*** OVERLAND IMPERVIOUS FLOW ROUTING ***
RXBI = VOLU'lE OF IHPKRVICUS OVERLAND FLOW ON SURFACE
ROSBI = VOLIJ1E OF O'/SaLAND IMPER7IOUS FLOW TO STREAH
RESBI = VOLU12 OF OVERLAND IMPERVIOUS Q REMAINING ON SURFACE
800 IF (A) 810,810,820
810 RUI=0.0
GO TO 93T
820 RX3I=P3*-RES3I
IF (HXCI-0.001) 030,830,8UO
830 RUI=KXBI*A
PXBI=0.0
ROSBI=EUI
GO TO 930
3HQ F1= 9XBI-(RESBI)
F3= (P.F.3BI)* RXBl
IF (nXBI-(FESBI)) 860,86C,850
850 DE= DECI*((F1}**0.6)
GO TO 870
860 DF= (F3J/2.0
96
-------
366S.
3670.
3671.
3672.
3673.
367U.
3675,
3676.
3677.
3678.
3679.
3680.
3681.
3682.
3663.
36f!t.
3665.
3686.
36S7.
3688.
3669.
3690.
3691.
3692.
36S3,
369U.
3695.
3696.
36?7.
3698.
369S.
3700.
3701,
3702.
37C3.
370U.
37C5.
3706.
37C7.
3708.
3709.
3710.
3711.
3712.
3713.
371U.
3715.
3716.
3717.
371B.
3719.
3720.
,3721.
3722.
3723.
372«.
3725.
3726.
3727.
3728.
3729.
870 I
flOO D
890 I
900 ni
GI
910
I?i
I]
920 R:
PI
930 RI
C
c
c
c * *
c
c
910 1
C
C
950 I
960 3
970 E
£
S
c
980 S
990 S
E
C
C
c **
C P« IS
C SURD =
C PXX =
C RGXX =
C 8C3X =
C
C
1000 P«»
RE
IF
1010 SH
GO
1C2D SH
IF
1030 PX
GO
1040 PX
1050 RG:
c
c
c ***
c
C PRE -
C WZSB -
C 07. S -
C RUZB -
C
IF
' UZI
(F3-(2.0*DE) ) 890,290,830
DE=(F3)/2.0
((F3)-{.005» 900,900,910
HOSBI= O.o
TO 920
DUflV=(1 .0 + 0.6* (F-V(2.0*DE)) **3.) **1.67
KOSPI=(TIMFAC/60.)*SPCI*({F3/2.)**1.67)*DOMV
((ROS8I) .GT. f.95*RXBI)) FOSBI = .95*RXBI
RESBI= HXBI-ROS8I
ROS3I*A
INTERCEPTION EVAP
* * *
IF {{NU;1I ,EQ. 0).ANC,(IHIN . EQ. 0)) GO TO 950
GO TO 1000
IF (SCSP) 1000, 100C,960
IF (SC2P-EPIN) 970,980,980
EPIN = "PIN - SCEF
SNET = SNBT + SCEP
SCEP =0.0
GC TO 1000
SCEP=SCEP-EPIN
SNET=S»::T»EPIN
EPIN = 0.0
INFILTRATION FUNC. ***
P« IS TOTAL MOISTURE
SURFACE CETENTION AND INTERFLOW
PXX = SURFACE DETENTION
TNTERFLCH
8C3X = VOLUME 10 INTER. DETEN ST08.
P3 * 3ESB
RESB1 = 3ESB
IF (PU - DUF) 1010,1010,1020
SHHD= (PU**3)/(2.0*D'»F)
GO TO 1030
PU - 0.5*D1F
IF (PU - D'tEA) 1030,1030,1040
1030 PXX = (P4**2)/(2.0*D1EA)
GO TO 1C50
= SHHD-RXX
UPPER ZONE FUNCTION ***
% SURFACE DETENTION TO OVERLAND FLOW
UPPBE ZONE STORAGE
07.S - TOTAL I/PPES ZONE STORAGE
RUZB - ADDITION TO U.Z. STORAGE DURING INTERVAL
IF (UZSB.LT.0.0)
UZPA= OZSB/UZSN
UZSB=0,0
97
-------
3730.
3731.
373?.
373?.
3734.
3735,
3736.
3737.
3733.
3739.
37'lC.
37U1.
3742.
3743.
3744.
3745.
3746.
3747.
3748.
3749.
3750.
3751.
3752.
3753.
3754.
3755.
3756.
3757.
3758.
3759.
3760.
3761.
3762.
3763.
3764.
3765.
3766.
3767.
3766.
3769.
3770.
3771.
1772.
3773.
3774.
3775.
3776.
3777.
3778.
3779.
3780.
3781.
3782.
37*3.
3784.
37S5.
3786.
3767.
3780.
3789.
3790.
1060
1C70
1080
C
c
C
c
c *
c
c
c REP:
c
c
c
c
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
IF (HZHA.GT.6.0) GO TO 1060
IF (T1ZRA.GT.2.0) GC 1C 1070
nz:= 2.o*Aos((tiznA/2.0)-i.O) »1.0
PRE= (UZ8A/2.0)*((1.0/(1.0+UZI)) **UZI)
fiO TO 1030
PRE = 1.0
GO TO 1030
CZI= (2.0*ADS(HZRA-2.0» *1 ,0
FRH= 1 .?- ((1.0/(1
1080 P.XB= RXX* PRE
FGX=RGXX*PRE
RGXX=0.0
PHZB=SHRD-BGX-PXB
UZSB=HZSB*aUZB
RIB = P4 - RXB
UPPER ZONE EVAP
* * *
C RSEIN - ACCUH DAILY F.VAP POT, FOR L.Z. AND GfiCHATER, I.B
PORTION NOT SATISFIED FROH U.Z.
IF «MOKI .EQ. C).&ND.(iniN .EQ.
GO TO 1150
IT (EPIN.IE.(O.O)) GOTO 1150
EFFECT=1.0
TF(rJZPA-2.0) 1120,1120,1100
IF (OZSE-EPIN) 1140,1140,1110
0)) GC TO 1090
KUZB= RUZB-EPIN
SNET=SSET+PA*EPIN
GO TO 1150
FFI'ECT= 0.5*UZHA
IF {5KFECT.LT.(0;02)) EFFECTED.02
IF r;ZSB-EPIN*EFFECT) 1140,1140,1130
U7,S'l=U7.SB -
EDIFF= (1 ,C-EFEECT)*EPIN
REPIMsREPIU * EDIFP
EDIFF=0.0
SNET= SMFT <• (EA*EPIN*BFFECT)
GO TO 1150
2DIFF= EPId - UZSB
SFPTS= PEPIN + EDIFF
PA*UZSB
SNET= SNST
WZSD=0.0
RUZ3=0.0
* * * *
INTHHFLOM FUNCTION + * *
SRGX - INTERFLOW DETENTION STORAGE
IMF - INTERFLOW LEAVING STORAGE
SRGXT - TOTAL INTERFLOW STORAGE
RfiXT - TOTAL INTERFLOW LEAVING STORAGE CURING INTERVAL
98
-------
3791.
3792.
3793.
379U.
3795.
3796.
3797.
379".
3799.
3800.
3801.
3802.
3903.
38*1).
38C5.
3806.
3807.
3808.
38C9.
381?.
3811.
3812.
3813.
3814.
3815.
3316.
3817.
3818.
3819.
3820.
3821.
3822.
3823.
382U.
3825.
3826.
3F27.
3828.
?829.
3R?0.
1831.
3832.
3833.
381H.
3835.
3836.
3P37.
3838.
3839.
3840.
38U1.
3842,
38U3.
38UU.
30145.
3846.
1647.
33U8.
3850.
3651.
C
1150
C
C ***
C
C
C RXB
C ROS
C PES
C
C
1160
1170
1180
1190
1200
1210
1220
1230
C
C
C
C
C
C DEL'
C PHP
C PEP
C Iff?
C ROS
C
C
1240
125<1
C
C
1260
C
1270
,f
1280
INTF = LIRC't*SP.GX
OVEPLAtID PEPVIOUS FLOH BOIJTING ***
tu!=nu * IHTP
£KGXT= SRGXt *• ( RGX*PA-INTP)
T?GXT=PGXT * IHTF
.AMD PEPVIOU
'. TO OVERLAND SURFACE DETENTION
VOLtllS Of QVE3LANC FLCW TO STREAM
PESP = VOLU1E OF OVEHIAND Q HEMAINING ON SUP. JACE
F1= nXB-(RESB)
F3= (RFSB)+ SXB
IF (PXB-(RESB)) 1170,1170,1160
1160 CE= DEC*((F1)**0.6)
GO TO 1180
1170 DE= (F3)/2.0
1180 IF (F3-(2.0*DE)) 12CC , 1200 , 1190
1190 DS=(F3)/2.0
1200 IF ((F3)-(.CC5)) 1210 , 1210 ,1220
FOSB= 0.0
GO TO 1210
DUMV=(1.0»0.6*(F3/(2.0*DE))**3.)**1.67
BOSB=(TIMFAC/60.)*SPC*((F3/2.)**1. 67)*DUHV
IF ((ROSB).GT.(.95*BXB)) BOSB=0.95*RXB
1230 HES8= FXB-BOSD
RQSP = ROSB*PA
ECSIHT = ROSB »• INT I
* * *
WPPEH
DEPLETION * *.*
DEL'Pl - DIFFERENCE IN UPPER' AND LOWER ZONE RATIOS
PHPCB - flt'PES ZONE DEPLETION
- TOTAL U.Z. DEPLETION
IKFLT - TOTAL INPILTEATION
ROS - TOTAL OVEP.LASC FLOW TO THE STREAM
IF {(XUNI .FQ. C).AKD.(IMIN ,EQ. 0)) GOTO 1240
PE3CB = 0.0
GO TO 12flO
D3EPL= ((t;ZSD/07,SH)-(LZ£/LZSNJ)
IF (D2EPL-.01) 1280,1280,1250
IF
-------
1352.
385.1.
335U.
.1655.
3856.
1657.
3858,
3859.
.1360.
3361.
1862.
3363.
3864.
3865.
3866.
3867.
3863.
3869.
3870.
3371.
3872.
387.1.
387«.
3875.
3876.
3377.
3878.
3379.
3880.
3881.
3882.
3883.
388U.
3885.
3886.
3887.
3888.
.1889.
3890.
1891.
3892.
3893.
389U.
3895.
3896.
3P97.
3898,
3899.
3900.
39C1.
3902.
39C3.
39014.
3905.
3906.
3907.
3903.
39C9.
3910.
3911.
3912.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
INPLT=INFLT + INFL
BESS = RESS »• RESB
11%5= UZS > IHfZB
POS = BOS * HOSn
IF (UZS .IF.. 0.0001) UZ3=0.0
C END OF BLOCK LOOP
RfT=PU + ROS
IF ((RESS).IT.(0.0001)) GO TO 1290
00 TO 1300
1290 LZS = LZS * RESS
FESS = O.C
PESB =0.0
1300 IF (SRGXT.LT. (0 .0001) ) GOTO 1310
GO TO 1320
1310 LZS = LZS * SPGXT/PA
SPGXT = 0.0
SRGX = 0.0
* * * LOWER ZONE AND G5OUNDWATER
* * *
SEAS - BASE STREAPFLCW
SRCH - SUM OF CPCWATER FECfcAHGF.
C P?EL - f> OF INFILTRATICH AMD U .Z . DEPLETION ENTERING L.Z
F1A - GHCUHDWATEE RECHAFGS - IE. POBTION OF. INFIL.
AND U.S. DEPLETION ENTERING GRDWATEH
K21L - FRACTION OF F1A LOST TO DEEP GSDWATE-D
1320 L2I = 1 .5*AHS((LZS/L25M)-1.0) +1.0
PHEL= (1.0/(1.0*'L7.I))**LZI
IF (LIS.LT.LZSN) PRKL=1.0-P8EL*LNBAT
F3= PPEL*(INPLT)
Flft = (1 .0-PREI.) *IMFLT
IF (.(WfjMI ,EO. 0) , AN().(IMIN . EQ. 0 )•) GO TO 1330
GO TO 13UO
1330 F3 = F3 *• P8EL*PERC
F1A = FT A + (1.0-PRFL)*PERC
13UO LZS= LZS+F3
F1= FU* (1.0 - K2UL)*PA
GWF=SGM*LKK4*(1.C + KV*GWS)
SRAS= GHF
SI?CII= F1A*K24L*PA
SGW=SGW - GWF * F1
GWS=GWS * F1
+ * *
GEOUWDWATES EVAP
* * *
C LOS - EVAP LOST FROM GRCUNDWATER
NOTE: EVAP FROM GRCKATF.U AND LZ IS CALCULATED ONLX DAILY
IF ((HRFLAG.EO.1) .AND. (IHRF.EQ.21)) GO TO 1350
GO TO 1U30
1350 IF (GWS .GT. O.OC01) G»S = 0.97*GHS
L0£:= SGW*K2UEL*REPIN*PA
£G«=SGW - LOS
GWS=GWS - LOS
100
-------
3913,
3914,
3915.
3916.
3917.
3918.
3919.
3920.
3921.
3922.
3923.
392'».
3925.
3926.
3927.
3928.
3929.
3930.
3931.
3932.
3933.
1931.
3935.
3936.
3937.
3930.
3939.
34UO.
39H1.
39«2.
39U3.
39
-------
3974.
3975.
.1976.
3977.
3970.
3979.
39*0.
3981.
3982.
3983.
3984.
3985.
3986.
.3967.
3988.
3989.
3990.
3991.
3992.
3993.
3994.
3995.
3996.
3997.
3998.
3999.
40oc.
43C1.
0002.
(4003.
(4004.
14006.
40C7.
4008.
14 CO 9.
401C.
(4011.
14012.
£4013.
4014.
4015.
4016.
4017.
14018.
(401S.
4020.
4021.
4022.
4023.
4024.
4025.
402*.
4027.
4028.
4029.
4030.
4031.
4032.
403.1.
4034.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
AS MET = AS MET «• SNETI
1U7G AROSE = AROSIJ * SOSB
AIMTF = AINTF * INTF
AROSIT = AROSIT * EOSINT
1480 CONTINUE
CUMULATIVE RECORDS
PSTOtt = PRTOM * APR
EPTOW = EPTOB * AEFIN
RUTO:l = RIJTOK * ARU
ROSTOH = ROST01 + ARCS
RITOH = RITOK * ARUI
RINTOM = PISTOM t ARGXT
KEETOM = NEPTCM t ASNET
BASTCM = BASTOM * ASDAS
RCIiTOH = RCUTOH + ASRCH
1«90
HCBTOM
ROB'tOT
INFTOH
INFTOT
RCITOM
ROITOT
= ROBTOB
= PCilTCT
= IKFTOH
= INFTCT
= ROITOM
= RCITCT
AROSB
APOS8
AINTF
AINTP
APOSIT
AEOSIT
PPTOT =
KPTOT =
RUTOT =
ROSTOT =
51TOT =
RINTOT '
NEFT07 =
DA'STOT =
RCHTOT" =
PR TOT +
EPTOT +
RUTOT +
ROSTOT
PITOT *
RIM TOT <
HEPTOT
BASTOT
RCHTOT
APR
AEPIN
ARU
+ ARCS
ASUI
* ASNET
+ ASBAS
+ ASPCH
LOGICAL VAPIAELES LAST AND PREV AR f USED TO DETERMINE
BEGINNING AMD END OF EACH.STOEM. STOBM BEGINS IF RU
IE LESS THAN HYMIN TN ONE TIME INTiKVAL, AND G8EATEH IN
TZfK FOLLOWING ONE < P3 EV= . FALSE. , L AST = .THOE .) . STORH ENDS
IF THE OPPCSIT CCCUFS (PREV=.T8Uf. , LAST=. FALSE. )
RUTNCH=RU
3U = (RO*ASEA*'43560.)/(TIHFAC*720.)
IF ((RU.GE.HYHIH) .AND. (TF.I.E.2)) GO TO 1U90
LA ST=. FALSE.
GO TO 1570
LAST=.TUUE.
IF (PREV> GO TO 1550
COUNT NUMBER OF STORMS AND RECORD 1IMF OF STCRM UEGIDHING
IF (KOS.EQ.I) KRITFff^ttOUS)
ViRITF, (ft, 14050) NOS,MNAM(IZ) ,MHA1 (IX) .YEAR
STE3GM (1) =,1NA?1(IZ)
STRBGS (2)=DAlf
STERGM
1Q2
-------
4035.
4036.
4037.
4038.
4039.
4040.
4041.
4042.
4043.
4044.
4045.
4046.
4047.
4048.
4049.
4050.
4051.
4052.
4053.
4054.
4055.
4056.
4057.
4058.
4059.
4060.
4061.
4062.
4063.
4064.
4T65.
4066.
4067.
406fl.
4069.
4070.
4071.
4072.
4073.
4074.
4075.
U076.
4077.
4C78.
4079.
4080.
4061.
4082.
40R3.
4084.
4065.
U086.
4087.
4088.
4089.
4090.
4091.
4092.
4093.
4094.
4095.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
INITIALIZATION
NOSI=0
T01EUH=0.
PEAKRU=0.
AC£EDT=0.
OF VAFIABLES FOR STORM SUMMARY
SECTSC=0.
SKU«XC=0.
DO 1U95 1=1,5
ACEOLT (I)=0.
PLT.1X(I)=0.
P01TSC (I)=0.
PL1N:SRES(I) *HHFDN1
TE«2=TFS2*TS(I) *WHFUN2
TEH4=TEH4*WHFUN2
IF (UNIT.GT.-1) (JO TO 1500
WFIT5 (6,407C) (I.NDUSE(IK,I) ,IK=1,3) ,TEM,SREH (I) ,13(1)
00 TO 1510
1500 THM5=SPER(I)*2.24
TEM=TEM*2.24
WRITE (6,4370) (LNDUSK (IK, I) , IK= 1, 3) ,TEH,TENS,TEM6
IF (LHTS(I) .EQ.D WRITE (6,4040)
1510 CONT7NUS
(MLAND.30. 1) fiO TC 1530
(7EK3.GT.O.O) TFM1=T3M1/TEI13
(rrm.LB.o.O) TKMI=O.O
(TEMU.GT.O .0) TE12=TEM2/TEN4
(PEW4.LE.O.O) TEM2=0.0
TEf=TEM1* (1 -A) +T2K2*A
IF (UNIT.LT.1) GO TC 1520
TRK=TEr.*2.24
TEM1=THM1*2.?4
1520
1530
IF
IF
IF
IF
IF
WRIT?; (6,4080) IE M,T£H1 ,TEH2
CONTINUE
WRITE (6,4090)
IF (HYCAL.GT.1) GO TO 1540
WP.ITK (6,4110) UFL
103
-------
4096.
40S7.
4098.
4099.
110?.
4101.
4102.
41 03.
4104.
4105.
4106.
41C7.
4108.
4109,
4110.
4111.
4112,
411.1.
4114.
4115.
4116.
4117.
4118.
4119.
4120.
4121.
4122.
4127.
4124.
4125.
4126.
4127.
412ft.
4129.
4130.
4131.
41.12.
4133.
4134.
4135.
4136.
0137.
413fl.
4139.
4140,
4141.
4142.
4143.
4144.
4145.
4146.
4147.
4148.
4149.
4150.
4151.
4152.
4153.
4154.
4155.
4156.
1540
1545
1550
C
c
C
1560
1570
C
C
c
- 1580
1590
*
*
i
I
i
I
1600 1
I
1
1605 t
GO TO 1550
HRITR (6,TTT)
WRITE (6,4100) ((QDALIN P.1P(5 ,5) ,PMI(5, 5) , QSNOW, SNOW V,SEDTN, S tDTY ,SK DTCA ,
ACPOLP(5,5) ,ACEPSN (5) , ftPOLP (5,5) , AER SN ( 5) ,CO VEH (5) ,
APOLI (5,5) , ACEIH(5) ,AEIH (5) ,FOLTH (5) , POLT If (5) ,
TEMP A, DC A, PCLTCA(5) , A ERSN 1 (5) , AEIHY ( 5) , A POLP Y <5, 5) *
AfOLIY (5,5) ,POLTC(5) ,PLTCAY(5) ,ACPOLI (5, 5) , R IMP (5)
COMMON /STS/ ACPOLT(5),PLTMX
1 ACSSDT.SEDMX, SE
DIMENSION LIMP(5) ,LIMI(5)
BE1L JRE5, KRER, JSER, KSER,KEIM,JEIM
INTEGER HyCM,TF,U NIT,LHTS , RECOOT,S fLA G
LT(5) , PLTMX(5) ,POLTSC(5) ,PLTHXC(5) ,
DT.SEDMX,SEDTSC,3ED«XC,TOTRON,PEAKR
t T M T / C \
REAL*8 WSNAME
DO 10 1=1,5
LIMP(I)=.0
10 LIMI (I) =.0
IP (TF.GT.2) GO TO 250
CONVERT ROSB - VOLUME OF OVERLAND FLOW REACHING STRE&N -
IN INCHES PER VHOLE WATERSHED TO INCHES
PER PERVIOUS AREAS ONLY
IF ((1.-A) .GT.0.00001) GC TO 20
ROSBQ=0.0
GO TO 30
20 ROSBp=P03B/(1.-A)
30 CONTINUE
DO 90 I=1,NLAND
IF RAIN CN SNOW, INCREASE COVES BY % OF SNOW COVEB
IF (SMOW.EQ.O.OR.(PACK/I PACK) .LT.COVER ( 1)) GO TO 35
CR = COVER (I)-»-(1-COVER(I)') *( PACK/IP ACK)
IF (CP.LT.COVEH(T)) GC TO 35
IF (CR.IE.1.0) COVER(I)=CR
35 CONTINUE
WASKOFF FROB PERVIOUS AREAS
IF (SFLAG.EQ.1) GC TO t0
IF SNCWS, BEANCH OVER FINES GENERATION
106
-------
5063.
5064.
5065.
5066.
5067.
5068.
5069.
5070.
5071.
5072.
5073.
5074.
5075.
5076.
5077.
507.8.
5079.
5080.
5061.
5082.
5083.
5084.
50E5.
5086.
5087.
5088.
5069.
5 0 a 3 .
5091.
5092.
5094.
5095.
5096.
50S7.
5098.
510o!
51G1.
5102.
5101.
5104.
5105.
5106.
5107.
5108.
51C9.
5110.
5111.
5112.
511.3.
5114.
5115.
5116.
5117.
5118.
5119.
5120.
5121.
5122.
5123.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
V
HER (I) = (1-COVEP (I) ) *K FKB*PE**JRER
SREP. (I) =SBER(I) *RER(I)
40 IF (RU.LE.0.0) GO TO 270
IF ((POSBIHP.ESB) .GT.0.0) GO TO 60
ERSN (I) =0.0
DO 50 J=1,NCUAL
50 POLP{I,J)=0.0
GO TO 90
60 SES (I) =KSKB*(ROSnQ»RESB) **JSER
IF (SEP (T) .LE.SRER(I) ) GO TO 70
SEP (I) = SHER fl)
LI«P(I)=1
70 ERSN(I) = SEMI)*(ROSBC/(SOSBQ»RESB) )
SFEH(I) =SPSR(I) -ERSN(I)
ERSN(I) = ERSN(I) *ARE(I)
IF (SRER(I) .LT.0.0) SRER
-------
512(4.
5125.
5126.
5127.
512fl.
5129.
5130.
5131.
5132.
5133.
5134.
5135.
5136.
5137.
5138.
5139.
5140.
5141.
5142.
5143.
51UH.
5145.
51146.
5147.
51<48.
5149.
5150.
5151.
5152.
5152.5
5153.
5154.
5155.
5156.
5157.
5158.
5159.
5160.
5161.
5162.
5163.
516«4.
5165.
5166.
5167.
5169.
5169.
5170.
5171.
5172.
5173.
5174.
5175.
5176.
5177.
5178.
5179.
518?.
5181.
51 E2.
5183.
C
C
C
C
C
C
150
160
17C
00 150 I=1,NLANC
POLTLU(I,.T) = POLP(I,J) +PCLI (I,J)
POLTf,J)=PCLT(J) *POLTLO(I,J)
CONTINUE
ACFOLT (J) =ACPOLT( J) + PCI.T (J) /2000 .
IF (POLT(J) .GT. PLTfX ( J) ) PLTI"X (J) =POLT (J)
FOITC (J)=POLT (.])*15i4.*SCAI,£F
-------
51S4.
5185.
5186.
51R7.
5188.
5189.
5190.
5191.
5192.
5193.
5194.
5195.
5196.
5197.
5198.
5199.
52CC.
5201.
52C2.
5203.
520«4.
5205.
52 C6.
52C7.
5208.
5209.
5210.
5211.
5212.
5213.
521'4.
5215.
5216.
5217.
5218.
5219.
5220.
5221.
5222.
5223.
5224.
5225.
5226.
5227.
5228.
6000.
6001.
6002.
60C3.
6004.
60C5.
6006.
ERSN (I) ='':RSM(t) +0 .454
DO 22? J=1,NQHAI
FOLTI.U (I,t1) =POLTLU (I, J) *0.454
POLP(I,J) = POI.P(I, J)*0.1454
220 POLT (I,J)=PCLI(I,J)*0 .45<4
233 WHITE (6,4040) (LUDUSE(KK,I),KK=1,3),TEK,(FOLTLU (I , J) ,J = 1,NQUA1)
IF (LIHP(I) .KO.C)
* MRITE(6,14050) COVER (I) , ERSN (I) , (POLE (I, J) , J = 1 , NCOAL)
IP (LIHP(I) .EQ.1)
* WRITE(6,4060) COVER(I) ,ERS»f
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/3-77-065
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Simulation Of Nutrient Loadings in Surface Runoff
with the NPS Model
5. REPORT DATE
June 1977 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Anthony S. Donigian, Jr., and Norman H. Crawford
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Hydrocomp Inc.
1502 Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, Calif. 94304
1BA609
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R803315-01-2
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory - Athens, GA
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Athens, Georgia 30605
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
FINAI
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/01
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Nonpoint Source Pollutant Loading (NPS) Model was applied to one urban and two
small agricultural watersheds to simulate nutrient loadings in surface runoff. Since
the NPS Model simulates all nonpoint pollutants as a function of sediment loss, the
key question was whether sediment is a reliable indicator of nutrients in surface run
off. Both the literature surveyed and the results of this work indicate Total
nitrogen (N) and Total phosphorus (P) can be reasonably simulated in this manner.
Also, organic components of N and P can be simulated since they are generally asso-
ciated with sediment and comprise a major portion of the total nutrients in surface
runoff.
Nitrate N (N03-N) and phosphate P (PO^-P) are almost entirely contained in the soluble
fraction of surface runoff and are not adequately simulated with the NPS Model.
Ammonia N (NH3-N) appears to be transported in significant amounts both in solution
and attached to sediment; thus, the simulation results were inconclusive. Total
Kjeldahl N (TKN) was simulated on the urban watershed which was large enough to pro-
vide a continuous baseflow. The simulated TKN values agreed reasonably well with
recorded values except when baseflow TKN concentrations were high. Over 50% of the
annual TKN loading was estimated to originate from the baseflow. Therefore, the NPS
Model can simulate total nutrient loadings only in areas where subsurface contribu-
rfmri-
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
DESCRIPTORS
Simulation, Surface Water Runoff, Planning
Erosion, Nutrients, Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
Hydrology, Urban Areas
, NPS Model, Nonpoint
, pollution, Urban runoff,
Agricultural runoff
Agricultural watersheds,
Model studies
2A
2B
SH
8L
8M
13B
20D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE UNLIMITED
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
120
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
110
U. S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-757-056/61(22 Region No. 5-11
------- |