EPA-600/3-77-105
September 1977
Ecological Research Series
NONPOINT SOURCE - STREAM NUTRIENT LEVEL
RELATIONSHIPS: A Nationwide Study

% PRO^
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Corvallis, Oregon 97330

-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into 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-600/3-77-105
September 1977
NONPOINT SOURCE—STREAM NUTRIENT LEVEL
RELATIONSHIPS: A NATIONWIDE STUDY
By
James M. Omernik
Special Studies Branch
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97330

-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publi-
cation. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
i i

-------
Effective regulatory and enforcement actions by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency would be virtually impossible without sound scientific data
on pollutants and their impact on environmental stability and human health.
Responsibility for building this data base has been assigned to EPA's Office
of Research and Development and its 15 major field installations, one of
which is the Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory (CERL).
The primary mission of the Corvallis Laboratory is research on the
effects of environmental pollutants on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine
ecosystems; the behavior, effects and control of pollutants in lake systems;
and the development of predictive models on the movement of pollutants in
the biosphere.
This report relates phosphorus and nitrogen levels in streams to the
nonpoint source influences which are present in their drainage areas and
also demonstrates the geographic trends in stream nutrient levels in the
contiguous United States. As such, the information provided herein should
be of interest and utility to water quality managers.
A. F. Bartsch
Director, CERL

-------
ABSTRACT
National Eutrophication Survey (NES) data collected from a nationwide
network of 928 nonpoint-source watersheds were studied for relationships
between macro-drainage area characteristics (particularly land use) and
nutrient levels in streams. Both the total and inorganic forms of phos-
phorus and nitrogen concentrations and loads in streams were considered.
For both nationwide and regional data sets, good correlations were
found between general land use and nutrient concentrations in streams. Mean
concentrations were considerably higher in streams draining agricultural
watersheds than in streams draining forested watersheds. The overall
relationships and regionalizes of the relationships and interrelationships
with other characteristics are illustrated cartographically and by regres-
sion techniques.
Two methods are provided for predicting nonpoint source nutrient levels
in streams; one utilizing mapped interpretations of NES nonpoint source data
and the other, regional regression equations and mapped residuals of these
regressions. Both methods afford a limited accountability for regional
characteri sties.
This report covers a period from June, 1972 to December, 1975; work was
completed as of September, 1977.
iv

-------
CONTENTS
Pac[e
Foreword	iii
Abstract		iv
List of Figures	vii
List of Tables		x
Attachments	xi
Acknowledgements	xi i
Sections
I Conclusions		1
II Introduction 		4
III Applications 		6
IV Background	11
History and Objectives	11
Literature	12
Selection of Study Watersheds 		14
Data Collection Methods 		15
Drainage Area Measurement and Land Use Identification. . .	15
Land Use Percentage Computation	17
Animal Unit Density Computations 		17
Geology Identification 		18
Slope and Drainage Density Computations	22
Soil pH Calculations	22
Precipitation	22
Nutrient Concentration and Export Estimates. 		23
V Results and Discussion 		24
Areal Distributions of Data	24
Overall Land Use--Nutrient Runoff Relationships 		25
Category Definitions 		25
General Analysis 		27
Regional ity	37
Regression Analyses and Predictive Capability 		50
Contributing Land Use Types		50
Contributing Land Use--Nutrient Concentration
Relationships	52
Contributing and Forest Land Use—Nutrient
Concentration Relationships	61
Mapped Interpretations	71
Individual Relationships	73
Nutrient Runoff--Soi1s Relationships 		73
Nutrient Runoff—Geology Relationships	74
Nutrient Runoff—Drainage Density Relationships	77
v

-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Anomalies	78
Follow-up Studies 	 80
VI References	82
VII Appendix	87
vi

-------
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Page
9
13
28
29
32
33
35
36
38
39
42
43
45
46
LIST OF FIGURES
An application of NES mapped nonpoint source stream nutrient
concentration interpretations	
Distribution of individual NES nonpoint source study watersheds.
Relationships between general land use and total phosphorus
and orthophosphorus concentrations in streams	
Relationships between general land use and total nitrogen and
inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams 	
Relationships between general land use and stream exports of
total phosphorus and orthophosphorus 	
Relationships between general land use and stream exports of
total nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen	
Frequency polygons of mean total phosphorus and mean orthophos-
phorus concentrations in streams by overall land use category. .
Frequency polygons of mean total nitrogen and mean inorganic
nitrogen concentrations in streams by overall land use category.
Regional relationships between general land use and total
phosphorus and orthophosphorus concentrations in streams . . . .
Regional relationships between general land use and total
nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams. . . .
Regionalities of total phosphorus concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining forested watersheds 	
Regionalities of total phosphorus concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining agricultural watersheds 	
Regionalities of orthophosphorus concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining forested watersheds 	
Regionalities of orthophosphorus concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining agricultural watersheds 	
vii

-------
No
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
47
48
49
51
53
56
58
60
64
65
66
68
69
70
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Regionalities of total nitrogen concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining forested watersheds 	
Regionalities of inorganic nitrogen concentrations in NES
sampled streams draining forested watersheds 	
Regionalities of total nitrogen concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining agricultural watersheds 	
Regionalities of inorganic nitrogen concentrations in NES
sampled streams draining agricultural watersheds 	
Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to total
phosphorus concentrations in streams 	
Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to
orthophosphorus concentrations in streams	
Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to total
nitrogen concentrations in streams 	
Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to
inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams 	 ,
Differences in predictive characteristics between regional
land use-phosphorus concentration models 	
Differences in predictive characteristics between regional
land use-nitrogen concentration models 	 ,
Areal distribution of residuals from regional predictive
models for total phosphorus concentrations in streams	
Areal distribution of residuals from regional predictive
models for orthophosphorus concentrations in streams 	
Areal distribution of residuals from regional predictive
models for total nitrogen concentrations in streams	
Areal distributions of residuals from regional predictive
models in inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams . . . .
Geologic classification and mean annual stream phosphorus
concentrations and exports from a nationwide set of 586
nonpoint source watersheds. Data grouped by overall land
use category (attachment included in back cover jacket)
viii

-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Geologic classification and mean annual stream nitrogen
concentrations and exports from a nationwide set of 586
nonpoint source watersheds. Data grouped by overall land
use category (attachment included in back cover jacket)
ix

-------
LIST OF TABLES
No.	Page
1	Computation of mean annual nonpoint' source total nitrogen
concentration in the Willamette River at Salem, Oregon	8
2	Animal nutrient production	17
3	Total phosphorus compositions of rock types 	 21
4	Percent of mean inorganic nitrogen to mean total nitrogen
concentrations in streams by region 	 40
5	Estimated mean total phosphorus concentrations	54
6	Estimated mean total phosphorus concentrations for nationwide
and regional models	55
7	Estimated mean total nitrogen concentrations	57
8	Estimated mean total nitrogen concentrations for nationwide
and regional models	59
9	Regional stream nutrient concentration predictive models	62
10 Mean annual phosphorus concentrations in streams vs. phosphorus
compositions of predominant rock types	76
x

-------
ATTACHMENTS
Total phosphorus concentrations in streams from nonpoint sources (map).
Total nitrogen concentrations in streams from nonpoint sources (map).
Inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams from nonpoint sources
(map).
Geologic classification and mean annual stream phosphorus concentrations
and exports from a nationwide set of 586 nonpoint source watersheds.
Data grouped by overall land use category (Figure 29).
Geologic classification and mean annual stream nitrogen concentrations
and exports from a nationwide set of 586 nonpoint source watersheds.
Data grouped by overall land use category (Figure 30).
xi

-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study would not have been possible without the volunteer manpower
supplied by the National Guard of each state. The Guardsmen were respon-
sible for collecting, preserving, and shipping the monthly samples from each
designated stream site. Their contribution is sincerely appreciated.
Also gratefully acknowledged are the efforts of Robert R. Payne (Coor-
dinator, National Eutrophication Survey, Washington, D.C.), who worked with
each State water pollution control agency in initiating the survey, and Lt.
Col. Louis R. Dworshak (Coordinator of Military Resources, Washington,
D.C.), who arranged for the participation of the National Guard in each
state.
Most of the data compilation (land use photo interpretation, drainage
area and slope measurement, etc.) was accomplished by the following persons:
June Fabryka, Madeline Hall, Thomas Jackson, Rose McCloud, Martha McCoy,
Theodore McDowell, Nola Murri, Michael Ness, James Sachet, Leta Gay Snyder
and Larry Warnick. Many of these individuals also assisted in graphics
compilation and various aspects of basic research. Particularly noteworthy
were Madeline Hall's research on phosphorus composition of rock types,
Theodore McDowell's work on the utility of other nonpoint source predictive
methods, and James Sachet's efforts on the graphics.
The negatives of the colored stream nutrient concentration maps were
prepared, under the direction of Dr. A. Jon Kimerling, by the Cartographic
Services of the Department of Geography, Oregon State University.
_Dr; Don A. Pierce was primarily responsible for the construction of the
prediction models. Dr. Pierce and Dr. Dale H. P. Boland, David Deckebach
and Donna West provided assistance with computer programming and statistical
data manipulation.
Many of the staff at the Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
contributed input to this study through logistic and analytical support,
constructive suggestions, and technical editing. A special appreciation is
extended to Marvin 0. Allum for his editorial comments and, in particular,
his careful scrutiny of all of the nutrient data for errors and inconsis-'
tencies. Daniel F. ^Krawczyk and his staff are gratefully acknowledged for
conducting the chemical analysis on the thousands of samples involved in.
this study. Also deserving of recognition is Dr. Norbert S. Jaworski for
his support during the formative stages of this study. Lastly, the author
is especially indebted to Dr. Jack H. Gakstatter for his continual solid
support and invaluable guidance.
xi i

-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of watershed characteristics and stream nutrient runoff
data for a nationwide set of 928 nonpoint-source (NPS) type watersheds
indicates that:
1.	There were good correlations between general land use and NPS
nutrient concentrations in streams. Streams draining agricultural
watersheds had, on the average, considerably higher nutrient
concentrations than those draining forested watersheds. Nutrient
concentrations were generally proportional to the percent of land
in agriculture and inversely proportional to the percent of land
in forest. Mean concentrations of both total phosphorus and total
nitrogen were nearly nine times greater in streams draining agri-
cultural lands than in streams draining forested areas.
2.	In general, inorganic nitrogen made up a larger percentage of
total nitrogen concentrations in streams with watersheds having
larger percentages of agricultural land. The inorganic nitrogen
component increased from about 18% in streams draining forested
areas to almost 80% in streams draining agricultural watersheds.
The inorganic (orthophosphorus) portion of the total phosphorus
component stayed roughly at the 40% to 50% level regardless of
land use type.
3.	Several regional patterns were found in the relationships and
interrelationships between macro-watershed characteristics and
stream nutrient concentrations. The most noteworthy of these
were:
a.	Mean annual phosphorus concentrations in streams draining
forested watersheds in the west were generally twice as high
as those in the east.
b.	In the east, mean inorganic nitrogen concentrations in
streams draining forested watersheds were 2.3 to 3.3 times
higher than in the western or central parts of the country.
The inorganic-N concentrations were particularly high in New
York, Pennsylvania, and western Maryland.
c.	Total and inorganic nitrogen in streams draining agricultural
watersheds were considerably higher in the heart of the corn
belt than elsewhere.
1

-------
4.	Differences in nutrient loads in streams associated with different
land use categories were not as pronounced as differences in
nutrient concentrations. Both mean total phosphorus and mean
total nitrogen export from agricultural lands were about 2.9 times
greater than that from forested lands; mean inorganic nitrogen
export was over 13 times greater. Differences in magnitude between
the relationships of concentration to land use and export to land
use appear to be due mainly to differences in areal stream flow
from different land use types, and to a lesser degree, to differ-
ences in the mean annual precipitation patterns and mean slope of
study areas.
5.	Relationships between nutrient levels in streams and "contributing"
land use types (percent of drainage area in agricultural land plus
the percent in urban land use [% agriculture plus % urban]) cor-
related better than those considering only one land use type.
Separate regression analyses of % agriculture plus % urban against
both the total and inorganic forms of phosphorus and nitrogen
concentrations were performed. Regional equations from these
analyses offer a limited predictive capability. However, slightly
more complicated regional equations, which consider both the
positive correlation between "contributing" land use percentage
and stream nutrient concentrations and the negative correlation
between percent of watershed in forest and stream nutrients,
afford a somewhat better predictive capability, particularly for
the western and central parts of the United States.
6.	Because of the general availability of stream flow data and the
difficulty of incorporating two factors with differing spatial and
temporal variations into one model, stream nutrient export models
were not constructed. It appears that the most accurate method of
predicting export values or stream loads is to use the appropriate
model to determine stream nutrient concentrations, obtain flow
data from the U.S. Geological Survey Surface Water Records for the
particular area(s) of interest, and make the necessary calculations
7.	Qualitative refinement of the simple prediction models for total
phosphorus, orthophosphorus, total nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen
concentrations are provided in maps of the residuals of each
model. These maps indicate where, in the United States, nutrient
concentrations can be expected to be greater, equal to, or less
than those predicted by the models.
8.	Three colored maps of NPS-related concentrations of total phos-
phorus, total nitrogen, and inorganic nitrogen in streams were
compiled from interpretations of the NES data and relationships
between the data and macro-watershed characteristics. They provide
planners, managers, and other users with a broad national overview
of the NPS stream-nutrient-level relationships. In addition, a
quick and relatively accurate method utilizing these maps is pro-
vided for predictions of NPS stream nutrient concentrations in
2

-------
watersheds, basins, or regions where detailed information necessary
for more accurate predictions is unavailable.
9. Using a geological classification scheme based on origin and the
National Eutrophication Survey nutrient data, no clear relationships
were found between geology and phosphorus or nitrogen in streams.
Another classification scheme based on phosphorus composition of
major rock types revealed only slight relationships, too slight to
provide assistance in the compilation of predictive-models.
10. No good correlations were found between drainage density (stream
lengths per unit area of watershed) and stream nutrient levels.
3

-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
With increasing population densities, higher standards of living, and
increasing demands on natural resources in our country, we are becoming more
and more aware of the insidious effects our existence, life styles, and
demands are having on the water quality in our lakes and streams. Public
Law 92-500, enacted in 1972, was a result of this awareness and our interest
in understanding just how we are affecting the quality of our surface waters
and what our alternatives might be for doing something about it, should we
choose to do so. One of the key areas addressed by Public Law 92-500,
contained in Section 208, deals with the impacts of nonpoint sources on
surface waters. The area of nonpoint source (NPS) impact is extremely
difficult to understand, much more so than point-source impact, because of
the spatial, as well as temporal, relationships and interrelationships
involving the various water quality parameters and the various nonpoint
sources, both natural and anthropogenic.*
The primary purpose of this study is to help clarify one aspect of the
water quality—NPS impact area, that of phosphorus and nitrogen levels in
streams. Although recently considerable effort has been spent on gaining a
better understanding of the subject, and particularly on developing predic-
tive methods, most of this work has been site specific. That which has been
directed toward providing regional and national perspectives and related
predictive methods has been largely theoretical and/or based on empirical
data from different sources, taken at different times, and using different
sampling and laboratory methods. Understandably, the results of these
studies have been varied, and application of the results by planners and
managers in their problem assessment tasks has been cumbersome and frequently
without sound basis.
The relationships and predictive tools provided in this paper are based
on tributary data collected from a nationwide set of 928 nonpoint-source
watersheds in which land uses and other NPS characteristics were generally
typical of the areas they represented. The stream sampling was conducted
monthly forgone year. Sampling and laboratory methods were uniform through-
out the entire data set. For the purpose of this study, NPS watersheds are
defined as thosewithout municipal and industrial waste discharges and
animal feedlots identified as point sources.
*As used in this report anthropogenic refers to influences or impacts of
man's activities on natural systems.
4

-------
It is felt that the relationships and predictive methods presented in
this study will be helpful in giving planners and managers a spatial picture
of nutrient levels which can be attributed to nonpoint sources in their
geographical areas of interest as well as logical, easy to use, general
predictive tools for use in areas where extensive hard data are unavailable
for more exacting procedures. The results presented should also be useful
for interpreting the applicability of site-specific study results.
5

-------
SECTION III
APPLICATIONS
For those tasked with assessing the impacts of nonpoint sources on
nutrient levels in streams, the avenues of approach are generally dictated
by one or more of the following: (1) availability of resource materials,
such as stream nutrient data, land use maps, and aerial imagery; (2) availa-
bility of time and personnel; and (3) availability of funds. The best
possible situation, of course, is to have enough stream nutrient data to
make the necessary assessments quickly and at little expense. If, on the
other hand, a planner lacks sufficient stream nutrient data to make the
assessments but has enough time and money to conduct a sampling program,
collecting the data through stream sampling would be the logical route. The
methods outlined in this study are intended for use in those situations
where adequate stream nutrient data are unavailable and time and/or money
constraints preclude a sampling program. In this section, examples are
given to indicate when and how the suggested methods might be used.
One of the most likely situations a planner is apt to encounter is a
lack of stream nutrient data to make assessments of NPS impacts as well as a
lack of time and money to conduct a sampling program. However, for the
particular geographical area of interest, it is probable that there are
either good quality land use maps or recent usable aerial imagery from which
the general land use can be determined. Even if the land use has to be
determined from available aerial photography, the cost (in terms of time and
funds) probably is a small fraction of that needed to complete a stream
sampling program. The suggested approach for this type situation would be
use of the regional regression models shown in Table 9 (page 62) together
with the residuals of the model.
A simple example of this is provided here, considering the estimation
of total nitrogen stream levels attributable to nonpoint sources in the
Willamette River watershed upstream from Salem, Oregon. Relatively accurate
percentages of the forested, agricultural, and urban land use can be obtained
from land use maps and/or aerial imagery; but for purposes of this example,
percentages were estimated from more general sources. Forest was estimated
to cover about 49% of the watershed; agriculture, 37%; and urban, 1%. Using
the total nitrogen concentration model for the western region (Table 9; page
62) and the regional characteristics of values used to compile the model
(Figure 27; page 69), the prediction for the sample watershed is made as
follows:
6

-------
Log10 (NCONC) = -0.03665 + 0.00425 (38) - 0.00376 (49)
Log10 (NCONC) = -0.03665 + 0.16150 - 0.18420
Log]0 (NCONC) = -0.05935
However, judging from the values shown in Figure 27, one would expect the
predicted values in this geographical area to be at least 0.5 standard
deviations below that predicted by the model. Since the standard deviation
is the Loglf) value of the multiplicative standard error, Log,, of 1.75 =
0.24304 ana 0.5 standard deviations is 0.12152. Therefore,
Log]0 (NCONC) = -0.05935 - 0.12152
Log10 (NCONC) = -0.18089
TNC0NC = 0.659 mg/1
The mean annual export (load) of total nitrogen attributable to non-
point sources is computed using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) flow records
(which if not available for a given location can be estimated based on USGS
flow per unit area records for similar adjacent or nearby watersheds) and
the equation given on page 23 of this report. Total nitrogen export for the
sample watershed is computed as follows:
Annual T-N Load = 0.659 mg/1 x 674 m3/sec. x 31,536
Annual T-N Load = 14,007,200 kg.
Using the area for the sample watershed (18,900 km2), the export per
unit area is computed to be 741 kg. total nitrogen per square kilometer per
year.
The procedures for predicting inorganic nitrogen, total phosphorus, and
orthophosphorus stream levels are similar. Moreover, the procedures for
predicting the nutrient levels attributable to nonpoint sources up-gradient
from any point on any stream are similar. Only general land use (as defined
in this study) and stream flow (if export predictions are desired) data need
to be computed from other sources for each watershed. It should be stressed
that these procedures are estimative; interpretations of their accuracy are
given in Section V of this paper. Logically, accuracy will be better in
Parts of the United States where densities of NES data were the greatest
and/or where relationships between NES data and NPS watershed characteristics
appear most significant. In areas where surface runoff is minimal or topo-
graphic watersheds are difficult or impossible to define, the procedures
will be less accurate.
Another situation a planner is likely to encounter is also one of
lacking stream nutrient data and sufficient time and money to carry out
a sampling program, but in this case either being unable to obtain good
quality land use data or lacking time or money necessary to obtain aerial
imagery (if available) and interpret it for land use identification. For
7

-------
situations such as this, quick and relatively accurate assessments generally
can be made using the colored maps in the back cover jacket of this report.
Illustration of how the maps can be interpreted to make these assessments is
provided below by again using as an example the assessment of total nitrogen
levels from nonpoint sources in the Willamette River watershed upstream from
Salem, Oregon. The general procedures are as follows:
1.	Outline the topographic watershed of the Willamette River at Salem
on a 1:500,000 0SGS topographic map and a 1:3,168,000 USGS map of
the U.S. (1:500,000 USGS topographic maps are available for all
the states and the 1:3,168,000 map is a standard USGS wall map on
which major water courses and cities are shown). The delineation
should be performed on the 1:500,000 scale first so it may be used
as a guide when determining the watershed on the 1:3,168,000
seale.
2.	Enlarge the Willamette River watershed portion of the total
nitrogen concentrations colored map to the 1:3,168,000 scale using
a reducing/ enlarging projector such as a Lacy-Luci Visualizer, a
Kail Reflecting Projector or a Map-0-Graph Projector. State
outlines should be used for registration; i.e., to insure proper
scale alignment of the watersheds.
3.	At the enlarged scale (1:3,168,000), draw the watershed outline
and total nitrogen concentration map units (Figure 1). Then
using a transparent equidistant dot pattern, determine the percent
of the total watershed each map unit comprises. This method is
explained in the Data Collection Methods sub-section. For very
small areas, transparencies of 8, 10, and 12 line/inch grids can
be used with the line intersections constituting the "dots".
4.	The weighting process used to compute the mean annual total
nitrogen stream concentration attributable to nonpoint sources is
shown i n Table 1.
TABLE 1. COMPUTATION OF MEAN ANNUAL NONPOINT SOURCE TOTAL NITROGEN CONCEN-
TRATION (mg/1) IN THE WILLAMETTE RIVER AT SALEM, OREGON
Map	Map Unit	Mean of % of Watershed
Unit	Range	Range* Within Map Unit
1	<0.500	0.275	x	54.2	=	0.149
2	0.501 to 0.700	0.592	x	5.3	=	0.031
4	0.901 to 1.100	0.996	x	7.0	=	0.070
6	1.401 to 1.700	1.543	x	20.1	=	0.310
7	1.701 to 2.000	1.844	x	0.7	=	0.013
8	2.001 to 3.000	2.450	x	12.7	=	0.311
0.884
^Geometric mean (of two measures, the geometric mean is the square root of
their product), unless for first or last map unit in which case average
values are approximated from NES watersheds most representative of the
particular map unit(s). Geographic coordinates of all NES stream sampling
sites are in ST0RET, an EPA computer-based water quality system.
8

-------
Nonpoint Source Total Nitrogen Stream Concentration
Map Units in the Willamette River Watershed Upstream
from Salem, Oregon

Willamette River
Salem

watershed
boundary
Figure 1. An application of NES mapped nonpoint source stream nutrient
concentration interpretations.
9

-------
This system is also useful for areas where the predominant land use
types are neither agriculture nor forest; however, close attention should be
paid to the map's reliability inset relative to the location of one's subject
area. The figure obtained by the first predictive method, the mathematical
model, was about 25% lower than that obtained using the maps. This may be
due in part to the generalized method by which land use data were estimated
for use in the model or it may be that a fairly large amount of this water-
shed is in the cleared-unproductive land use category, a category not directly
considered by the models.
10

-------
SECTION IV
BACKGROUND
HISTORY AND OBJECTIVES
The initial planning for the National Eutrophication Survey (NES)
visualized a detailed watershed land use study for each of the approximately
750 lakes to be done parallel to the field sampling program. The idea
stemmed from a desire to better understand the relationship between lake
trophic state and watershed land use. It was hoped that the "fruits" of
this effort would be the development of a quick, relatively accurate method
of assessing nutrient loadings to lakes based on analysis of land use in
their watersheds.
The original concept pictured identification and mensuration of overall
land use types through aerial photo and topographic map interpretation of
the entire watershed of each lake included in the NES. For many reasons,
including the unavailability of usable photo and/or map coverage for many
watersheds or parts of watersheds, the original concept was considerably
modified. The project finally evolved into a study of over 900 nonpoint
type drainage areas associated with NES tributary sampling sites, most of
which are within watersheds of lakes that have been studied by the NES.
In its final format, the basic objectives of the NES land use study
were to: (1) investigate and gain a better understanding of the relation-
ships and interrelationships between nonpoint watershed characteristics and
stream nutrient levels, (2) develop a means for predicting stream nitrogen
and phosphorus levels based on land use and related geographical character-
istics, and (3) investigate and define possible regionalities in macro-
watershed characteristics—stream nutrient level relationships and provide
some accountability for these regionalities in the predictive methods.
Because the project was an appendage of the massive stream and lake sampling
program conducted by NES and included a large number of watersheds repre-
senting a nationwide variety of climatic and geographic conditions, it
afforded a unique opportunity to view the land use--stream nutrient levels--
eutrophication relationship on a national scale and to develop a predictive
system/or systems to reflect geographical or regional differences.
By reason of its ties with the NES field sampling program which was
accomplished in three phases, the NES land use study followed the same
pattern. One hundred and thirty three drainage areas were selected for land
use analysis in the area in which tributary sampling began in the summer of
1972. Three hundred and forty drainage areas were selected in the NES study
area where sampling was initiated in 1973; and, in the remainder of the
11

-------
conterminous United States where sampling began in 1974, 455 drainage areas
were defined. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the individual study
drainage areas and the overall areas covered by each of the three phases.
Upon completion of data compilation for each of these phases, a report
was to be written to present the data collected to date and to present some
analyses of these data. National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 25
(U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974b) presented data compiled
through the first phase. "The Influence of Land Use on Stream Nutrient
Levels" (Omernik, 1976) presented data compiled for the first two phases.
This report comprises an analysis of the entire data set.
LITERATURE
Recently with the surge of interest in the effects of nonpoint sources
on water quality, numerous literature reviews and/or assessments of the
state-of-the-art have been published on the relationships of watershed
characteristics to NPS nitrogen and phosphorus levels in streams (Weimer,
McGuire, and Gasperino, 1976; Wanielista, Yousef, and McLellon, 1977; Uttor-
mark, Chapin, and Green, 1974; McElroy et al. 1976; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1976; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1976b; Dornbush, Anderson, and Harms, 1974;
Loehr, 1974; Dillon and Kirchner, 1975; Likens and Bormann, 1974; and Ryden,
Syers, and Harris, 1973).
Many of the publications that have assessed the state of the art in the
NPS nutrient field have also as an objective the development of methods for
quantifying the relationships. One of the most recent of these was compiled
by the Midwest Research Institute (McElroy et al., 1976). They based their
system on the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), relating NPS nutrient
loadings of streams and lakes to soil erosion and sediment transport.
However, application of the USLE for estimating nutrient yields appears to
be beyond its original design (McDowell, 1976). Moreover, the factors
employed in the nutrient loading functions part of the system (which include
nutrient concentrations in soil, nutrient availability, and nutrient enrich-
ment ratios) require data which are unavailable for much of the United
States. The suggested alternatives to be used where data are unavailable,
generally call for extrapolation from dated, extremely small scale maps
(Parker et al. , 1946) and some measured values from a few experimental,
generally site-specific studies for which no theoretical approaches to broad
scale prediction have been attempted (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1976; Viets, 1975; Stoltenberg and White, 1953; Massey, Jackson, and Hays,
1953; and Kilmer [as cited by McElroy et al., 1976]). The USLE was designed
to predict soil loss from sheet and rill erosion; it was not designed to
estimate the amount of sediment entering a stream system, and it does not
account for deposition within watersheds (Wischmeier, 1976). Therefore, the
applicability of the USLE to areas larger than a field of a few acres, e.g.,
a 100 km2 watershed with different land uses and topographical variations,
is extremely questionable.
Two earlier studies that reviewed the literature on NPS nutrient
relationships, as well as attempted to provide predictive procedures, were
12

-------
*• £ A

30-
DISTRIBUTION OF
N.E.S. NONPOINT
SOURCE WATERSHEDS
Each of the 928 dots
represents a stream
sampling site and its
associated drainage area.
'72/73, and 74
refer to the years stream
sampling began in each
group of states.
Figure 2. Distribution of individual NES nonpoint source study watersheds.

-------
published by Uttormark, Chapin, and Green (1974) and Weimer, McGuire, and
Gasperino (1976). The authors gathered data from many of the investigations
that, by and large, based results on information collected from a small
number of drainage areas within specific geographic regions. In attempting
to develop systems for estimating nutrient runoff from land use based on
coefficients developed entirely from the literature, these reviewers have
summarized their findings by presenting ranges of values and midpoints or
averages. Generally, these ranges are quite wide and the midpoints, or
other indicators of central tendency, do not vary from one land use type to
another as appreciably as one might expect.
It would seem that uniformity in procedure, which is largely lacking
from one study to another, would limit the validity of comparing the results
of one with another or using combined results to establish nutrient loading
coefficients. More importantly, there is an insufficient quantity and an
inadequate distribution of data points available from literature sources to
study the regional aspects of nutrient runoff or to be able to distinguish
between regional and overall relationships. Examples of the latter point
are shown later in this paper in the sections dealing with the effects of
geology and drainage density on nutrients in streams.
SELECTION OF STUDY WATERSHEDS
In general, criteria for selecting tributary sites for study drainage
areas were:
A.	Absence of identifiable point sources.
B.	Availability of usable aerial photography (preferably
in scales of from 1:40,000 to 1:80,000) and/or existing
general land-use data.
C.	Availability of accurate topographic maps for drainage
area delineation.
D.	Sufficient relief for clear definition of drainage area
1imits.
E.	Sufficient precipitation to facilitate sampling and provide
significant surface runoff.
F.	Need to encompass a variety of geographic and climatic
areas and obtain, where possible, land-use homogeneity
within subdrainage areas.
A few exceptions to these criteria were necessary to accomodate study
of particular types of areas. Within the 1973 study area, several heavily-
mined watersheds and several predominately urban watersheds (but without
apparent industrial or municipal wastewater treatment facilities) have been
included.
14

-------
It should be noted that an overriding selection constraint was that
tributary sites for study drainage areas had to be among those already
selected for inclusion in the NES or had to be selected within a reasonable
distance of NES lakes to accomodate sampling by the National Guard. At the
time selections were being made of drainage areas within the 1972 study
area, tributary sites had already been selected and the field sampling was
underway. Moreover, at that time the major thrust of the Survey was on
point-source impact to lakes, particularly municipal wastewater treatment
plant discharges. Generally, only problem lakes were selected for study,
and many of these were in watersheds having problem-type land uses. Hence,
it was somewhat difficult to find drainage areas without point sources and
obtain adequate coverage of all land use types.
At the time tributary sites were being selected for 1973 NES lake
studies, emphasis was still on point sources. However, tributary sampling
had not yet begun in several of the states which allowed selection of addi-
tional sites where their inclusion was warranted by land use homogeneity and
other factors suitable for land use and nutrient runoff analyses.
Selection of tributary sites for land use study drainage areas in the
1974 area (west of the Mississippi) was made under more ideal conditions.
By that time, water research mandates had been revised by passage of Public
Law 92-500. These revisions resulted in a broadening of Survey objectives
to include assessment of relationships of nonpoint sources to lake nutrient
levels. In addition, lake selection criteria were modified to no longer
include just problem lakes, but lakes representative of the full range of
water quality. This presented a better balance of lake watersheds and land
use types as well as lake types. In several instances where it was necessary
to achieve a better geographic distribution of drainage areas or obtain a
better balance of land use categories, stream sampling sites were selected
outside NES lake watersheds. Figure 2, page 13, reveals a somewhat uneven
areal distribution of data points. Major gaps in geographical coverage of
study areas are in (1) the low lying Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains, (2)
the Great Plains west of the 100th meridian, and (3) the Intermontane Basin
and Range region. Selection of stream sampling sites in these areas was
generally precluded because one or more of the above mentioned criteria
could not be met. The most common problem in the west was intermittent
stream flows resulting from aridity. In the east, the density of point
sources and insufficient relief for definition of watershed boundaries were
major problems.
DATA COLLECTION METHODS
Drainage Area Measurement and Land Use Identification
Following tributary site selection, individual drainage areas were
delineated on U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps and their
areas were determined with a compensating polar pianimeter or an electronic
Planimeter. General land use identifications were made using recent aerial
Photography and/or land use maps. Agencies or companies from which the
Photos or maps were obtained were:
15

-------
1.	U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service. (487)*
2.	U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (136)
3.	National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B. Johnson
Space Center, Houston, Texas. (98)
4.	U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. (66)
5.	National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research
Center, Moffett Field, California. (49)
6.	New York Land Use and Natural Resources Inventory, Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, New York. (59)
7.	U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. (36)
8.	State of Wisconsin, Department of Transportation. (18)
9.	Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota. (15)
10.	Minnesota Land Information System, Minnesota State Planning Agency
(15)
11.	State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources. (10)
12.	Environmental Remote Sensing Applications Laboratory, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon. (9)
13.	U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (photos
obtained through Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center,
EPA Warrenton, VA). (6)
14.	Department of Air Force, Headquarters Rome Air Development Center,
Griffiss Air Force Base, New York. (5)
15.	Arizona State Highway Department. (1)
16.	Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Inc., Sacramento, California. (1)
Finished land use maps were generally unavailable for most of the
country at the time the study was conducted. The New York Land Use and
Natural Resources Inventory and the Minnesota Land Information System
comprised the only sources for usable land use maps. All the other sources
listed were for aerial imagery.
Land use categories included: (1) forest, (2) cleared-unproductive,
(3) rangeland, (4) agriculture, (5) urban, (6) wetland, and (7) "other"
*The number in parenthesis following each source indicates the approximate
number of study watersheds covered either completely or in part by that
particular source's photos or maps.
16

-------
(including barren, extractive, and open water). The land use categories
roughly correspond in level of classification to Level I of the recently
developed USGS Land Use Classification System (Anderson et al., 1976).
Land Use Percentage Computation
For each drainage area, percent coverage of each land use type was
compiled by use of equidistant dot pattern overlays. The dot patterns were
placed non-selectively over the map overlays on which land use units had
been outlined. To determine the land use percentage for a given drainage
area, the number of dots that fell on each land use category was totaled,
each total was multiplied by 100, and the resulting products were divided by
the number of dots falling in the drainage area. Dot pattern densities
varied from one drainage area to another depending on the overall size of
the drainage area; generally, the larger the area the less dense the dot
pattern. At least 400 dots per drainage area, but for convenience preferably
less than 800, were needed for a valid determination of percent coverage.
Animal Unit Density Computations
It is generally accepted that animal wastes are major contributors of
the nitrogen and phosphorus in agricultural land runoff (Holt, Timmons, and
Latterell, 1970; Holt, 1971; Robbins, Howells, and Kriz, 1971). Early in
this study, it seemed some mechanism should be developed to analyze this
aspect of agricultural runoff. Because of shifts in agricultural land use,
particularly from season to season and year to year, it seemed impractical
and perhaps impossible to accurately separate pasture from cropland. A more
expeditious method was to determine overall animal densities (i.e., animal
units per acre of subdrainage area).
For the most part, animal unit densities for each drainage area were
computed from U. S. Census of Agriculture figures, other literature sources,
and personal communications (Johnson and Mountney, 1969; Miner and Willrich,
1970; Miner, 1971; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1972a;
Wisconsin Statistical Reporting Service, 1973; Anonymous, 1974; Arscott,
1975; Harper, 1975; Hohenboken, 1975; and Miner, 1975). The quantities of
total nitrogen and total phosphorus produced annually by common farm animals
were also compiled from these sources (Table 2).
TABLE 2. ANIMAL NUTRIENT PRODUCTION (kg/yr/animal)
Total P	Total N
Cattle	17.60	57.49
Hogs	3.23	9.68
Sheep	1.47	10.06
Poultry
Layers	0.16	0.42
Broilers	0.09	0.39
Turkeys	0.39	0.84
17

-------
These data, together with Census of Agriculture figures for each
county, were used to compile animal unit densities per drainage area using
the following equations:
1 D C + (0.184-H)+(0.084-S)+(0.0093-P,)+(0.0011-P,)+(0.0222-P.)
a _	3 3	IDT.
*p- rc 1	;
and
1 D C + (0.169-H)+(0.175-S)+(0.0073-P1)+(0.0015-P. )+(0.0147-P.)
^ _	3 3	I	D	L
*c 1	;
where: A^ = Animal units per square kilometer for Total P;
An = Animal units per square kilometer for Total N;
Ac = Total agricultural land (by county) in square kilometers;
D = Percent of subdrainage area in agriculture;
d
C = Total cattle and calves (by county);
3
H = Total hogs and pigs (by county);
S = Total sheep and lambs (by county);
P-j = Total layers (by county);
Pb = Total broilers (by county); and
P^ = Total turkeys (by county).
For drainage areas located in more than one county, weighted unit
densities were determined based on the amount of agricultural land in each
county. The coefficients were adjusted to reflect average animal weights
relative to an average weight for cattle and calves (same sources as for
Table 2). It should be noted that coefficients for poultry take into con-
sideration average life spans and broods per year.
Geology Identification
Some recent works on NPS nutrients in streams have given as much or
more emphasis to the effects of geology than to the effects of land use
(Dillon and Kirchner, 1975; Thomas and Crutchfield, 1974; Stone, 1974;
Betson and McMaster, 1975; and Likens and Bormann, 1974).
None of these studies approached the geology—stream nutrient level
relationships subject from a national perspective. All were based on data
which were completely, or for the most part, collected from one specific
basin or geographical region. In addition, there appears to be little
18

-------
agreement as to which aspect of geology is related to stream nutrient levels.
Dillon and Kirchner noted significant differences in phosphorus loads in
streams from watersheds of sedimentary origin versus those of igneous origin,
and that a furthur breakdown of the igneous classification to plutonic
(intrusive) versus volcanic (extrusive) seemed to be important. Thomas and
Crutchfield, dealing exclusively with sedimentary watersheds, concluded that
the presence of medium- to high-phosphate limestone resulted in higher
phosphorus and nitrogen stream concentrations than where these geologic
types were absent and others such as sandstone and shale were present.
Stone studied one watershed with limestone and one without limestone and
concluded that this geologic characteristic was unrelated to stream phosphate
concentration but that the anthropogenic aspects, such as human and animal
densities and land use, were significantly related. Using these studies as
a guide and with an aim of providing as many combinations of possible rela-
tionships as possible given the source materials available for the entire
data set, the following general breakdown was used to classify NES study
subdrainage areas:
1.	Sedimentary-mixed
2.	Sedimentary-mixed, without limestone
3.	Sedimentary-1imestone
4.	Sedimentary-sandstone
5.	Sedimentary-shale
6.	Sedi mentary-undi fferenti ated
7.	Sedimentary-clay
8.	Sedimentary-glauconite, phosphate rock, or carbonate bearing
9.	Sedimentary-marine sediments
10.	Sedimentary-megafossils
11.	Igneous-mixed
12.	Igneous-plutonic
13.	Igneous-plutonic-acidic
14.	Igneous-plutonic-basic
15.	Igneous-volcanic
16.	Igneous-volcanic-acidic
17.	Igneous-volcanic-basic
19

-------
18. Metamorphic-mixed


19. Metamorphic-derived
from
sedimentary-mixed
20. Metamorphic-derived
from
sedimentary-mixed without limestone
21. Metamorphic-derived
from
igneous
22. Metamorphic-derived
from
igneous-plutonic
23. Metamorphic-derived
from
igneous-plutonic-basic
24. Metamorphic-derived
from
igneous-plutonic-acidic
25. Metamorphic-derived
from
igneous-volcanic
26. Metamorphic-derived
from
igneous-volcanic-basic
27. Metamorphic-derived
from
igneous-volcanic-acidic
28. Mixed


29. Composition Unknown


Where drainage areas included two of the above classifications, com-
binations were shown with the predominant type first. Sources for these
data were mostly state and federal geologic maps of varying dates and scales,
although most were of individual states at scales ranging from 1:250,000 to
1:500,000.
An abreviated version of the above breakdown, based on geologic origin,
was used in the earlier NES report on the eastern 473 watersheds (Omernik,
1976). In that report, it was concluded that on the basis of that particular
classification scheme and the NES eastern data set, there was no apparent
significant effect of geology on either phosphorus or nitrogen levels in
streams. It was suggested that, insofar as phosphorus levels in streams
were concerned, a more appropriate classification scheme be used based on
the mineral composition of rocks rather than entirely or primarily on origin.
Based largely on the data generated by Goldschmidt (1958) and Van Wazer
(1961), a list of phosphorus composition percentages for the most common
rock types was prepared (Table 3).
20

-------
TABLE 3. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS COMPOSITIONS OF ROCK TYPES
Rock Type	Total P Composition (%)
Sedimentary
Limestone	0.020
Sandstones	0.040
Shales	0.080
Red clay	0.140
Sedimentary-mixed (averaged)	0.070
Igneous
Rhyolite	0.055
Granite	0.087
Andesite	0.123
Syenite	0.133
Monzonite	0.139
Diorite and Dacite	0.144
Gabbro	0.170
Basalt	0.244
Igneous rock5"	0.118
Igneous-plutonic (averaged)	0.134**
Igneous-volcanic (averaged)	0.141**
*An average of the values given by Goldschmidt (1958) and
Van Wazer (1961).
**Averages of values for plutonic or volcanic types given in this
table. No data are available from the literature on igneous-
plutonic or igneous-volcanic per se.
Using the best available geologic maps for each of the study watersheds,
the major rock type, or types, were identified and their general extent
computed. Then the percent of total area of each watershed underlain by
each rock type was multiplied by percentage for that particular rock type
(Table 3). By weighting on the basis of areal extent of each rock type,
this procedure was continued until an overall phosphorus composition had
been determined. Metamorphic rocks were assigned the values for rocks from
which they were derived. Although information on metamorphic rocks is
gather scarce compared to that available for igneous and sedimentary rocks,
it appears that metamorphism produces no detectable change in the distribu-
tion of elements unless the rocks have been permeated by other materials
during metamorphism (Krauskopf, 1967). Figures for sedimentary-mixed,
igneous rock, igneous-plutonic and igneous-volcanic were included in Table 3
to accommodate computation of values for watersheds where source materials
of more detailed levels of classification were unavailable.
21

-------
Slope and Drainage Density Computations
For each drainage area, mean slope was calculated using an equidistant
dot pattern overlay. Less dense patterns were used for this work than were
used for computing land use percentages. For this procedure, 40 to 80 dots
per drainage area were used. The overlays were placed randomly over the
topographic maps on which the drainage areas had been outlined. Then, using
an appropriate slope indicator, the percent of slope for the points under
each dot was calculated. The data were then totaled and divided by the
number of points falling in the drainage area. The slope indicators used
were transparent templates indicating percent of slope from distances between
map contours, adjusted for map scale and contour interval.
Average drainage densities for 291 of the study areas were computed by
dividing the total length of "blue-line" streams (both perennial and inter-
mittent) by the watershed area. For purposes of this study, drainage density
is defined as total mapped stream lengths per unit area of watershed and is
expressed in kilometers per square kilometer. These data were compiled
through the use of an electronic planimeter capable of both linear and areal
mensuration. In all cases, the most recent U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 or 1:62,000
scale topographic maps were utilized. Where both scales were available for
a given area and the map compilation dates were similar, the 1:24,000 scale
was chosen. Because of the time involved in determining these data, the
compilations were made only for those watersheds which were in the predomi-
nantly (>90% and >75%) forested and predominantly agricultural land use
categories.
Soi1 pH Calculations
Early in the course of this project, it was found that even a good
approximation of mean surface soil pH for each of the over 900 drainage
areas was not available except through time-consuming work with numerous
large-scale maps from widely scattered sources and contact with local soils
scientists. The time and expense prohibited this approach, at least for the
present. The best alternative source was a collection of estimates of
surface soil pH ranges for map units appearing on the National Atlas soils
map (Smith, 1975; and U. S. Geological Survey, 1970). Each drainage area
was identified with a midpoint of the pH range for the soils map unit pre-
dominant within it. The limitations of this method are covered in the
discussion on nutrient runoff-soils relationships section of this report.
Precipitation
Mean annual precipitation data were compiled from National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (N0AA) climatological data publications. In
computing these data, consideration was given to the locations of climato-
logical data collection site(s) in relation to each of the study drainage
areas, especially with regard to elevation and exposure, and adjustments
were made accordingly.
22

-------
Nutrient Concentration and Export Estimates
Explanations of the following procedures are given in NES Working Paper
No. 1 (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974a); and NES Working Paper
No. 175 (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975):
1.	Tributary sampling methods and handling.
2.	Analytical methods (stream samples).
3.	Nutrient loading estimates.
4.	Stream flow estimates.
Mean annual concentrations were computed as the arithmetic mean of all
the values for a given sampling site for the year of sampling. Where mean
annual values were given for a group of watersheds they represent the arith-
metic mean of the arithmetic mean values for all of the data points within
that group.
It should be noted that nutrient exports reported herein were computed
using "normalized" flow data (long-term averages) from USGS and drainage
area measurements as determined by NES. For a few tributary sampling sites
where USGS did not provide flow estimates, they were calculated by NES from
runoff patterns in adjacent, overlapping, or nearby areas for which USGS
estimates were provided. Loadings for all drainage areas in this study were
estimated according to the following equation:
Annual Load = (C)(F)(31,536)
where: C = Mean annual concentration in milligrams per liter, and
F = Mean normalized annual stream flow in cubic meters per second.
The factor 31,536 is used to obtain loads in kilograms per year. The
annual loads were then divided by the area of their respective watershed in
square kilometers.
23

-------
SECTION V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section discusses the analysis of land use, other drainage area
characteristics, and stream nutrient runoff data compiled for the entire set
of drainage areas within all three groups of states covered by the NES. The
raw data are presented in Appendix A, and the distribution of the data
points (comprising the 1972, 1973 and 1974 areas) are illustrated in Figure
2 (page 13).
AREAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF DATA
After compiling the data presented in Appendix A, several types of
these data were sorted into classes and plotted on maps of the United States
using a graduated color scheme. It was theorized that this might aid in
uncovering correlations, regional patterns, and (by comparison with maps of
other macro aspects such as physiographic regions, fertilizer usage, human
population densities, domestic animal densities, geology, soils, and climate)
possible covariants. Maps were compiled for total P concentrations, total N
concentrations, ortho-P concentrations, inorganic N concentrations, total P
export, total N export, land use categories, flow per unit area per year,
and mean slope. The expense of publishing these colored maps precluded
their inclusion in this report. Less costly black and white versions, such
as those used in the previous report on the eastern data set, do not ade-
quately illustrate the patterns. Nevertheless, the gross patterns illus-
trated by the colored maps of value distributions indicate certain correla-
tions and these are worthy of mention.
The map depicting the various overall land use categories of the study
watersheds revealed what might be expected from knowledge of general land
use patterns in the United States. Generally, in parts of the country where
the land use is mostly agricultural, so were the study areas. Conversely,
in parts of the country where the land use is mostly forested, so were the
study areas. In the mixed-land use regions, such as west-central New York,
south-central Kentucky and northeastern Texas, the predominant land use in
the study areas varied from mostly forest to mostly agriculture, with a
scattering of predominantly urban and/or cleared unproductive. Generally,
it was evident that land use classifications in the NES nonpoint-source
watershed data set were typical of these found in the geographical area they
represent. Considering the objectives of this study this seems quite note-
worthy.
The map illustrating the areal distribution of mean total phosphorus
concentrations disclosed a pattern roughly similar to that of the land use
24

-------
map, and hence a possible correlation. Comparison of the total P and land
use maps revealed several groups of drainage areas with notably lower phos-
phorus concentrations than might be expected from land use alone. These
areas were in southwestern Missouri, east-central Maryland, Pennsylvania,
and parts of central and eastern Ohio and New York (particularly the Finger
Lakes area).
Two groups of drainage areas with somewhat higher phosphorus concen-
trations than might be expected from an association with land use were (1)
the predominantly agricultural region extending from central and eastern
North Dakota to southeastern Nebraska and (2) a region extending from
eastern Texas through Louisiana into western Mississippi.
The map of total nitrogen concentrations also had a pattern similar to
the map of land use. Some noteworthy differences were: (1) particularly
high total nitrogen concentrations in the Midwest (especially the "corn
belt") and the middle Atlantic region, from Maryland and Delaware through
New Jersey and southwestern Connecticut; and (2) very low values in northeast
Texas, Western Louisiana, southwest Arkansas, and in the mixed farming areas
of the central and southwestern Appalachians and Piedmont portion of the
Southeast.
Examination of the areal distributions of both total P and total N
export values revealed some similarities in pattern to that of land use but
far less than the likenesses between nutrient concentrations and land use.
The distribution maps of slope and flow (discharge/unit area) values were
constructed to study the possible relationships of these factors to the
differences in correlation between nutrient concentration and land use and
nutrient expert and land use. Analyses of these data will follow in other
sections of this paper.
OVERALL LAND USE-NUTRIENT RUNOFF RELATIONSHIPS
Category Definitions
Individual drainage areas were assigned overall land use categories
according to the following criteria:
1.	Forest; negligible extents of other types
a.	> 90% forest (including forested wetland)
b.	<2% agriculture
c.	< 1% urban
d.	< 5% rangeland
2.	Mostly forest; minor extents of other types
a. > 75% forest
25

-------
b.	< 7% agriculture
c.	<2% urban
d.	< 2% rangeland
e.	not included in > 90% forest category
Mostly forest; major extents of other types
a.	> 50% forest
b.	not included in > 90% forest or > 75% forest categories
Agriculture; other types negligible
a.	> 90% agriculture
b.	<3% urban
Mostly agriculture; minor extents of other types
a.	> 75% agriculture
b.	<7% urban
c.	not included in > 90% agriculture category
Mostly agriculture; major extents of other types
a.	> 50% agriculture
b.	not included in > 90% agriculture or > 75% agriculture
categories
Rangeland
> 75% rangeland
Mostly rangeland; remainder predominantly agriculture and/or
urban
a.	> 50% rangeland
b.	> 20% agriculture and urban
c.	not included in other mostly rangeland categories
Mostly rangeland; remainder largely forest, cleared unproducti
and/or wetland
a. > 50% rangeland
26

-------
b.	> 20% forest, cleared unproductive, and/or wetland
c.	not included in other mostly rangeland categories
10.	Cleared unproductive
>	75% cleared unproductive
11.	Mostly cleared unproductive
>	50%, but < 75% cleared unproductive
12.	Urban
>	40% urban
13.	Mixed; not included in any other category
For ease in referencing, the categories which were differentiated from
others mainly by differences in the coverage percentages of their major land
uses were named after those differentiating percentages (e.g., > 75% forest,
> 50% forest, etc).
General Analysis
The relationships between these overall land use categories and nutrient
runoff are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. It should be emphasized that
these graphs represent mean annual nutrient values for all watersheds in
each land use category from the entire 45 state area and do not reflect
regional relationships. For example, one should not conclude from Figure 3
that total phosphorus concentrations in streams draining > 50% agricultural
watersheds in Vermont and New York will average about 0.085 miligrams per
liter. Analysis of stream nutrient data for this geographical region indi-
cates average values are somewhat lower. By the same token, higher concen-
trations are generally found in streams draining > 50% agriculture watersheds
in Iowa. Obviously, other interrelated factors such as agricultural prac-
tices, slope, soils, climate, etc., are important.
However, Figures 3 and 4 illustrate some significant overall land use-
stream nutrient concentration relationships. Nutrient concentrations are
substantially higher in streams draining agricultural lands than in streams
draining forested areas. The concentrations are generally proportional to
the percent of land in agricultural use. Both total phosphorus and total
nitrogen concentrations are roughly nine times higher in streams draining
predominantly agricultural (>90% agriculture) watersheds than in streams
draining predominantly forested (>90% forest) watersheds. However, ignoring
the land use categories represented by small data sets (N < 50), the rate of
increase in nutrient concentration with increased amounts of agricultural
land usage appears to be more constant with regard to phosphorus than nitro-
gen. Over half of the nine-fold difference in total nitrogen concentration
occurs as agricultural use increases from at least 75% of the land area to
90% of the land area.
27

-------
N
68
77
295
5
16
103
12
17
10
144
11
72
74
Land Use
vs.
Mean Total Phosphorus and Mean
Orthophosphorus Stream Concentrations
Data from 904 "Nonpoint source-type" watersheds
distributed throughout the United States
orthophosphorus concentration
.034
total phosphorus concentration
>90% Forest
- 7 5% Forest
>	50% Forest
>	75% Cleared
Unproductive
>	50% Cleared
Unproductive
Mixed
>50% Range:
Remainder predominantly
forest
>	75% Range
>	50% Range:
Remainder predominantly
agriculture
>	50% Agriculture
>40% Urban
>75% Agriculture
£90% Agriculture
.08	.10	.12
Milligrams per Liter
Figure 3. Relationships between general land use and total phosphorus and
orthophosphorus concentrations in streams.

-------
68
77
295
5
16
103
12
17
10
144
11
72
74
>90% Forest
i 75% Forest
i 50% Forest
>	75% Cleared
Unproductive
>	50% Cleared
Unproductive
Mixed
^ 50% Range:
Remainder predominantly
forest
>75% Range
£50% Range:
Remainder predominantly
agriculture
>	50% Agriculture
>	40% Urban
£ 75% Agriculture
>90% Agriculture
Land Use
vs.
Mean Total Nitrogen and Mean
Inorganic Nitrogen Stream Concentrations
Data from 904 "Nonpoint source-type" watersheds
distributed throughout the United States
inorganic nitrogen concentration
a839
t
1.009
1.297
1.383
1.536
4.233
total nitrogen concentration
3.0	4.0
Milligrams per Liter
Figure 4. Relationships between general land use and total nitrogen and
inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams.

-------
The cleared unproductive, range, and urban land use categories were
represented by relatively few watersheds, and therefore the interpretation
of their mean nutrient runoff values is somewhat restricted. The cleared
unproductive categories included abandoned farmland, areas of recent timber
harvests, and natural grasslands and savanna or open low scrubland which was
apparently not being used for domestic animal grazing. One would expect the
anthropogenic effects on stream nutrient levels in these watersheds to be
considerably less than those in agricultural or urban watersheds but greater
than those in forested watersheds because of the possible residual effects
of former land usage. The values presented in Figures 3 and 4 do, in fact,
support this thought. The mean annual nutrient concentrations for the range
categories reveal what might be expected from range land usage. The concen-
trations are generally less than those for streams draining mostly agricul-
tural watersheds but considerably greater than those for streams draining
forested areas. Oddly, the mean values for the >50% range; remainder largely
forest, cleared unproductive and/or wetland category are not significantly
lower than the other two range categories as one might expect, particularly
regarding nitrogen.
Interestingly, based on the mean concentration values for the nationwide
data set, phosphorus would generally be expected to be the limiting nutrient
for algal growth in surface water draining either forested or agricultural
areas. The total nitrogen to total phosphorus ratios are 33:1, 27:1, 25:1,
21:1, 19:1 and 33:1 for >90% forest, >75 forest, >50% forest, mixed, >50%
agriculture, >75% agriculture, and >90% agriculture watersheds, respective-
ly. Generally phosphorus is considered the limiting nutrient when the N:P
ratio is 15:1 or greater (Vollenweider, 1968).
Figures 3 and 4 also reveal some interesting relationships regarding
the inorganic forms (commonly regarded as the available forms) of both
nutrients. Figure 3 shows the relationships between orthophosphorus (P04
as P; technically, soluble reactive phosphorus) concentrations and overall
land use categories to be about the same as those between total phosphorus
(as P) and land use. Mean orthophosphorus concentrations comprised from 41
to 50% of the mean total phosphorus regardless of land use, except for land
use categories represented by fewer than 20 watersheds.
In comparing the mean inorganic nitrogen (NH3 + N02 + N03) values with
those of mean total nitrogen (total Kjeldahl--N + N02 + N03) in Figure 4, one
can see that mean inorganic nitrogen concentrations represent an increasing
percentage of the mean total nitrogen concentrations with increased amounts
of agricultural land use. The percentages of inorganic nitrogen are 18%,
20%, 35%, 45%, 52%, 56% and 79% for >90% forest, >75% forest, >50% forest,
mixed, >50% agriculture, 75% agriculture, and >90% agriculture categories,
respectively. This probably reflects the use of inorganic nitrogen fertil-
izers and the high water solubility of inorganic nitrogen compounds.
Mean inorganic nitrogen represented over 65% of the mean total nitrogen
in the 11, >40% urban, drainage areas. As mentioned earlier, no industrial
or municipal waste treatment facilities or outfalls were known within these
urban areas. However, the time and expense that would have been involved
did not allow field verification. The data probably reflect effects of
30

-------
runoff from streets and lawns and, to some extent, the effects of septic
tanks.
It should be noted at this point that the data set used for analyses
involving nutrient concentrations numbers 24 less (total = 904) than that
used for analyses involving nutrient exports. It was felt that omitted
watersheds had too few samples, due to low or no flow most of the year, to
reflect mean annual concentrations relative to those watersheds from which
samples were collected most or all of the sampling year. However, because
the dry periods that caused the insufficient flow were generally typical of
the particular areas involved and because flow is generally more significant
than concentration in determining export, the 24 watersheds were included in
the analysis of stream nutrient export—nonpoint source relationships.
The nutrient exports per unit area of watershed for both forms of
phosphorus and nitrogen are shown in Figures 5 and 6. These data indicate
that the differences in export from different land use categories are
considerably less pronounced than the differences in nutrient concentra-
tions. Total phosphorus export was only 2.9 times greater from predomi-
nantly agricultural (>90% agriculture) land than from predominantly forested
(>90% forest) lands, and total nitrogen was only 2.8 times greater. Regarding
the inorganic forms, orthophosphorus export from agricultural watersheds was
2.3 times greater than from forested watersheds, whereas the difference in
inorganic nitrogen export was over 13-fold. For sake of comparison, inorganic
nitrogen concentrations were, on the average, 39 times greater in streams
draining >90% agriculture watersheds than they were in streams draining >90%
forest areas. Partial explanation of the difference in the relationships of
concentrations to land use and export to land use apparently lies in the
differences in stream discharge (average flow per unit area per year) between
agricultural lands and forested, or previously forested, lands. When the
entire data set was considered, regression analysis of discharge to the
percent of land in forest plus the percent of land in cleared unproductive
revealed a relatively low correlation (r = 0.32). However, when the data
were grouped by region, the correlations were higher for two of the regions
which together comprise 77% of the study watersheds. For the east, the
correlation coefficient was 0.63; for the plains, 0.59; and for the west,
0-28 (for areal definition of these regions see the insert in Figure 23.)
The reason for the low correlation in the west as well as the entire data
set may be due to a masking caused by the several severely dissected and/or
mountainous, relatively arid, forested watersheds in the west. Possibly the
higher correlations between forested and previously forested land usage and
stream discharge were due to greater slopes and thinner soils in the forested
areas as opposed to the agricultural areas. The correlation coefficient
between mean slope and percent of drainage area in forest plus cleared
unproductive was 0.61. For the eastern region the correlation was 0.63; for
the plains, 0.49; and for the west, 0.54. One would expect direct surface
runoff to increase with increased slope but not average annual stream dis-
charge as was shown with these data; therefore, one or more covariants seem
probable.
Some additional explanation of the difference between relationships of
nutrient concentrations to land use and nutrient export to land use may be
31

-------
N
69
80
298
7
16
105
12
17
11
146
11
76
80
>90% Forest
s£75% Forest
>50% Forest
>75% Cleared
Unproductive
^50% Cleared
Unproductive
Mixe50% Range:
Remainder predominantly
forest
^75% Range
^50% Range:
Remainder predominantly
agriculture
>50% Agriculture
>40% Urban
>75% Agriculture
^90% Agriculture
total phosphorus export
Land Use
vs.
Mean Total Phosphorus and Mean
Orthophosphorus Stream Exports
Data from 928 "Nonpoint source-type" watersheds
distributed throughout the United States
orthophosphorus export
15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Kilograms per Square Kilometer per Year
40.0 45.0
50.0
Figure 5. Relationships between general land use and stream exports of total
phosphorus and orthophosphorus.

-------
&
69
80
298
7
16
105
12
17
11
146
11
76
80
^90% Forest
>75% Forest
^50% Forest
^75% Cleared
Unproductive
^50% Cleared
Unproductive
Mixed
>50% Range:
Remainder predominantly
forest
>75% Range
^50% Range:
Reaainder predominantly
agriculture
>50% Agriculture
>40% Urban
^75% Agriculture
^90% Agriculture
Land Use
vs.
Mean Total Nitrogen and Mean
Inorganic Nitrogen Stream Exports
Data from 928 "Nonpoint source-type" watersheds
distributed throughout the United States
inorganic nitrogen export
total nitrogen export
1 346.7
140.5
139.6
544.6
384.3
294.2
488.0
326.2
1 554.6
780.7
953.9
200
300
400
1000
Kilograms per Square Kilometer per Year
Figure 6. Relationships between general land use and stream exports of total
nitrogen and inorganic nitrogen.

-------
found in differences in mean annual precipitation patterns of study area
locations. From analysis of study area locations, it appeared that most of
the forested drainage areas were located in regions receiving somewhat
greater average annual precipitation than regions where most of the agricul-
tural watersheds were located. Greater annual precipitation would help
explain the greater stream flow in forested study areas. Although the
correlation between percent of subdrainage area in forest plus cleared
unproductive land and mean annual precipitation was found to be low (r =
0.29) for the entire data set, the coefficients for the eastern and plains
regions were substantially higher (0.56 and 0.73, respectively). Here, as
with the discharge—forest correlations, the several dissected, semi-arid,
forested watersheds in the west may have masked the relationship for the
nationwide data set.
The data also indicate that urban land usage seems to have a pronounced
effect on the amount of export. Again, the cause is probably increased flow
rates, but in this case it was more likely because of greater areas of
impervious surfaces.
In connection with the above explanation for understanding the differ-
ences in the relationships between concentrations and land use, and export
and land use, it is very important to recognize that the drainage areas
included in this study are not control plots. Rather, they are existing
drainage areas which represent typical land use- and geographically-related
characteristics in their respective areas. If one were studying control
plots, where slope, soil type, and climate conditions were similar from one
plot to another, one would expect a significantly higher nutrient export
rate (as well as a higher nutrient concentration) from plots in agricultural
land use than from forested plots. Runoff, as well, would probably be
somewhat greater from agricultural plots than from forested plots because of
less biomass in the agricultural areas and hence less water lost through
evapotranspiration. The drainage areas included in this study, on the other
hand, possess different topographic, soils, and climatic characteristics.
These characteristics are important in determining land use in the first
place. In general, flat to rolling terrain and rich soils, such as are
found in Iowa and southern Minnesota, lend themselves to agricultural land
use. Conversely, where the terrain is too mountainous or dissected or the
soil too poor for agriculture to be economically feasible, such as in much
of New England, forests are allowed to predominate.
The fact that study subdrainage area sizes vary, and that those cate-
gorized as forest were considerably smaller than any other category, sug-
gested that size might have a bearing on nutrient concentrations and/or
stream flow. If either factor was related to size, then export would also
be related. However, analysis of these data revealed no good correlations.
The frequency polygons (Figures 7 and 8) illustrate how the nutrient
concentration data were distributed for each of the land use types repre-
sented by large data sets (n >50). Comparison of these polygons with Figures
3 and 4 show the data for forested drainage areas were grouped much more
tightly around the mean values than were data for agricultural drainage
34

-------
5	90 %	Forest (n.6B)
S	75 °/o	Forest { n * 77)
t	50 °/o	Forest (n* 295)
Mixed (n >103)
S	50 °/o	Agriculture (n»l44)
t	75%	Agriculture (n«72)
S	90%	Agriculture (n«74)
•••••••••••
m 30
)	.12	.15	.18 .21	.34	.27 .30 .33 .36 .3®
MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
*90%	Forest (n»«B)
£ 76 %	Forest (n- 77)
t 50%	Forest (n- 295)
Mixed  74 )
eoeeeoes
MEAN ORTHOPHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION
^ ^	l/U^T
.24	2ft	.28	V .57
(mg/l)
^gure 7.
Frequency polygons of mean total phosphorus and mean orthophosphorus
concentrations fn streams by overall land use category.
35

-------
2 90%	Forest (n-68)	—
2 75 %	Forest (n » 77)	
2 50 %	Forest (n. 295)			—
Mixed	(n »103)		
2 50 %	Agriculture (n»144)	eeeeeeeeeee
£ 75 %	Agriculture (n s 72)
2 90 %	Agriculture (n ¦ 74)
V 40-
MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
2 90 % Forest (n>68)
2 75 %	Forest (n -77)
2 50 %	Forest (n» 29S)
Mixed (n.|03)
2 50 %	Agriculture (n > 144)
2 75 %	Agriculture (n-72)
2 90 %	Agriculture (n • 74)
eeeeeeeeeee

MEAN INOROANIC NITROGEN CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
Figure 8. Frequency polygons of mean total nitrogen and mean inorganic nitroqen
concentrations in streams by overall land use category.
36

-------
areas. It appears that the greater the percent of land in forest the lower
the mean nutrient concentration and the less the variability about the mean.
Regi onali ty
To refine the relationships of land use to nutrient runoff shown by the
bar graphs and frequency polygons, and particularly to explain some of the
variations about the mean for each land use category, regional analyses
employing both statistical and cartographic techniques were performed. The
analyses will be discussed later, but it is important to mention at this
point the part this method played in focusing on possible regionalities of
relationships. The statistical analyses indicated that, after the variation
in nutrient level related to general land use was explained with regard to
the entire data set, the importance of each of the other macro-watershed
characteristics being considered (animal unit density, mean slope, drainage
density, mean annual precipitation, geology-origin, surface soil pH, and
mean annual stream discharge rate) was either highly questionable or non-
existent. When the data were analyzed by region, land use remained very
important but the other characteristics varied in importance; i.e., a given
characteristic which did not correlate well with nutrient levels when the
set was taken as a whole or by region for some regions, might correlate well
in other regions.
Cartographic techniques, on the other hand, revealed more concerning
the variations about the mean. They illustrated regional patterns in the
relationships and interrelationships between all of the macro-watershed
factors and stream nutrient concentrations. By studying these patterns one
can gain an insight about which man-induced and natural characteristics may
be important in specific geographic areas.
A first attempt at understanding the general nature of these region-
al ities involved further defining, by region, the individual land use
categories shown in Figures 3 and 4. The regional delimitations used for
these analyses (Figures 9 and 10) and the regression analyses mentioned
earlier were based primarily on patterns evidenced by the maps commented on
in the "Areal Distributions of Data" portion of this section (pages 24-25).
Figure 9 indicates that both total phosphorus and orthophosphorus NPS
concentrations in streams generally are higher in the western region of the
United States than in the east. The graph also illustrates that for a given
land use category in the central region, phosphorus concentrations in streams
are generally lower than those in the west but are higher than those in the
east. This relationship appears to be the clearest with regard to forested
watersheds (in the >75% forest and >90% forest categories) where total P and
ortho-P concentrations are about twice as high in the west as in the east.
The relationship does not appear to be quite as well defined with regard to
agricultural watersheds (in the >75% agriculture and >90% agriculture cate-
gories) because of the small sample size in the western region.
The data presented in Figure 10 illustrate general regionalizes for
NPS nitrogen concentrations that are considerably different than those for
phosphorus. Some of the noteworthy regionalities these data suggest are:
37

-------
> 90%
Forest
> 75%
Forest
> 50%
Forest
> 50%
Agriculture
> 75%
Agriculture
> 90%
Agriculture
N
1 ,006
23 pKl .011
I	1.009
15MHE2Z3 .020
.022
30
1.007
mtm .015
2
3 VtV-i .025
.036
Land Use by Region
vs.
Mean Total Phosphorus and Mean
Orthophosphorus Stream Concentrations
Data from 730 'Nonpoint source - type' watersheds
distributed throughout the United States
^ orthophosphorus concentration
013 	
.036
99
43
2
45
19
8
60
11
total phosphorus concentration
Regions

,.u/v
^	I .070
.055
U.4-4-4- + 4-44- + »-f+ + + + + + 4- + 4-4» + 4-4»| i1T
l + + + + + + + .f + ++ Vr++ + + + + + + + + + ¦! .11/
.063
.123

AWMWAWA
&000000000000000000
134
.140
i uoy
»QCg^ .173



.154
^025 [050 !075 J00 J25 150
Milligrams per Liter
3 .214
.175 .200 .225
Figure 9. Regional relationships between general land use and total phosphorus
and orthophosphorus concentrations in streams.

-------
N
>90%
Forest
>75%
Forest
> 50%
Forest
> 50%
Agriculture
> 75%
Agriculture
> 90%
Agriculture
mm .658
* + * * TJ .501
077
glvVt%%vj .622
,070
O	1 .601
i .778
Land Use by Region
vs.
Mean Total Nitrogen and Mean
Inorganic Nitrogen Stream Concentrations
Data from 730 'Nonpoint source-type' watersheds
distributed throughout the United States
3 .907
99
43
2
1.858
l .647
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + -I - -
S 4- 4- 4- 4. 4- +V+ 4- 4- + + 4- + +1 1./4I
1.832
1.615
19
8
60
11
- ' 7	'				3.005
1.931
I i.oyy
xxxxxxxxxyyyyyxyxxssgror^x^^.S3 2.833

~~T~:
1.735
3 2.366
_L
1.0
2.0	3.0	4.0
Milligrams per Liter
n344
inorganic nitrogen concentration
~ .907

total nitrogen concentration
Regions
S.044
6.082
5.0
6.0
Figure 10. Regional relationships between general land use and total nitrogen
and inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams.

-------
1.	Total nitrogen concentrations in streams are higher in the eastern
region than in the central or western regions. The difference is
slight with respect to forested watersheds but fairly large for
agricultural areas. However, as was the case with the data shown
in Figure 9, the small set of agricultural watersheds in the west
qualify this analysis to some degree.
2.	Inorganic nitrogen concentrations in streams are much higher in
the east than in the central or western regions particularly for
forested drainage areas. For the watersheds in categories with
the most forest (>75% forest and >90% forest), inorganic N concen-
trations are between 2.3 to 3.3 times higher in the east than in
the remainder of the country.
3.	Associated with the above regionalities, inorganic nitrogen gener-
ally makes up a higher percent of total nitrogen concentrations in
streams in the east than elsewhere within the conterminous United
States. The differences are especially noticeable when comparing
data for forest land use categories. These percentages are given
in Table 4.
TABLE 4. PERCENT OF MEAN INORGANIC NITROGEN TO MEAN TOTAL
NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS IN STREAMS BY REGION
Land Use Category
East
Regions
Central
West
>90% Forest
28
12
12
>75% Forest
32
16
12
>50% Forest
38
33
26
>50% Agriculture
58
37
*
>75% Agriculture
60
41
60
>90% Agriculture
82
32
*
^insufficient data points for adequate representation
Earlier, an interpretation was given based on mean values for the
nationwide data set (Figures 3 and 4) which indicated that phosphorus would
be expected to be limiting in surface waters draining either forested or
agricultural lands. The regional values shown in Figures 9 and 10 suggest
that nitrogen might be the limiting nutrient for algal growth in much of the
40

-------
agricultural parts of central and western United States. For the central
region (for regional definitions see Figure 23, page 64) total nitrogen to
total phosphorus ratios were 15:1, 14:1 and 11:1 for >50% agriculture, >75%
agriculture, and >90% agriculture. The ratios were 13:1, 16:1, and 11:1 for
>50% agriculture, >75% agriculture, and >90% agriculture watersheds in the
western region respectively. Again, the values for agricultural categories
in the western region are questionable because of the small sample size in
that region. The N:P ratios derived from Figures 9 and 10 greatly exceeded
15:1 for forested categories in all three regions and for agricultural
categories in the eastern region, which includes the "corn belt".
Another method for attempting to understand more about the varability
about the mean values shown in Figures 3 and 4 was to cartographically
Present the individual values for a given land use category or group of
categories for a given nutrient form that were within the highest third,
middle third, and lowest third of values for that particular data set (Fig-
ures 11 through 18). This method, in effect holds land use constant and
Graphically displays the possible regionalities relative to the geographical
locations of the study watersheds which the data represent. Maps were
compiled for both forested and agricultural categories for each form of each
nutrient. Data for agricultural watersheds included those from the >90%
agricultural and >75% agricultural categories. Maps showing data for for-
ested watersheds included values from watersheds in >90% forest and >75%
forest categories. The low, middle, and high ranges of concentrations for
seven of the eight maps were determined by studying frequency distributions
°f the concentrations and making divisions at logical, "even" points near
the one-third and two-thirds points. For one map (Figure 17), the range of
concentrations was divided into four parts because of a special interest in
these data and some peculiarities noticed in previous analysis.
The data presented in Figure 11 reveal that mean annual total phosphorus
concentrations in streams draining mostly forested watersheds were consis-
tently higher in the west and south central regions of the United States
than in the east. Generally, only in streams draining western high eleva-
tion- or National Park-watersheds were the phosphorus concentrations as low
as those observed in the forested eastern watersheds. Interestingly, the
characteristics the watersheds with low concentrations had in common that
the ones with high concentrations did not was a low density of domestic
animals (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1972). Even for
watersheds with mixed land usage (but holding the mixture constant), there
were generally higher phosphorus concentrations in the west than in the
east.
Figure 12 reflects regionalities of total phosphorus concentrations in
sampled streams draining agricultural watersheds. The map reveals an
area of data points having relatively high mean annual values extending from
North Dakota through eastern South Dakota and eastern Nebraska as well as
"•nto central Iowa and parts of southern Minnesota. For the remainder of the
a9ricultural watersheds in states south of this region, the total phosphorus
concentrations are generally much lower. Another significant grouping
appears in the east central part of the "corn belt", from central Illinois
1nto central and northern Indiana, where the mean annual total P concentra-
41

-------
-p>
f>o
4
I
REGIONALIZES OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
CONCENTRATIONS' IN STREAMS
DRAINING FORESTED WATERSHEDS"
Pho$pHorv«	Map
Concentrations (mg/li	Symbol
< 0.015		 0
0.016 to 0.025	©
> 0.025 	•
* representative of mean annual values
>75% Forest
Figure 11. Regionalities of total phosphorus concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining forested watersheds.

-------
c oo
Figure 12. Regionalities of total phosphorus concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining agricultural watersheds.

-------
tions in streams were generally lower than the mean for the agricultural
data set. It is difficult to see what aspect, or aspects, may be related to
these patterns that would help explain them. One possibility is that there
is a correlation with surface soil pH. Generally, soil pH is higher and
more near the level conducive to maximum availability of soil phosphorus in
the west central states where the stream concentrations are very high than
in the east-central part of the corn belt where the stream concentrations
are relatively low. The point of maximum phosphorus availability for soils
is pH 6.5; at higher pH values, calcium fixation limits the availability,
and at lower pH values aluminum fixation and iron fixation limit phosphorus
availability (Scarseth, 1962; Kling, 1977; and Moore, 1977). However, the
fact that relatively low phosphorus concentrations were obtained from streams
draining agricultural areas to the south where soil pH levels were similar
suggests that pH might not be the answer, although there are also north to
south differences in leaching and biological activity in the soil. Neverthe-
less, it appears that the patterns evidenced by the data on Figure 12, are
more closely associated with natural phenomena than anthropogenic activities.
Figures 13 and 14 illustrate patterns for orthophosphorus concentrations
in NES streams draining forested and agricultural watersheds which are very
similar to those for total phosphorus (Figures 11 and 12).
The maps illustrating regionalities of total and inorganic nitrogen
concentrations in NES streams draining forested watersheds (Figures 15 and
16), revealed markedly different regional patterns than those for phosphorus
and orthophosphorus (Figures 11 and 13). Figure 16 illustrates that, for
the NES data set, inorganic nitrogen concentrations were generally much
higher in streams draining forested areas in the east central and northeast-
ern states than elsewhere. There were a few exceptions to this, the most
notable was the group of watersheds in the Black Hills of South Dakota.
Inorganic nitrogen concentrations were particularly high in New York, Penn-
sylvania, and western Maryland. For the most part, the characteristic that
these high values have in common that the low ones did not, is proximity to
heavily industrialized and/or populated areas. There is a striking similar-
ity between value maps of these NES inorganic nitrogen stream concentrations
and isometric maps of observed acid precipitation (Likens, 1975). This
similarily tends to support Liken's (1975) conclusion that there is a rela-
tionship between annual atmospheric input of hydrogen ion and nitrate, and
that nitric acid is an important factor in explaining the recent increase in
acid precipitation. The total nitrogen patterns for forested watersheds
(Figure 15) were by contrast somewhat indistinct; for example, there were
mostly high concentrations in Pennsylvania; high, medium, and low concentra-
tions in New York; and medium and low concentrations for the remainder of
the forested watersheds in New England.
In general, mean annual total nitrogen concentrations in streams
draining predominantly agricultural watersheds were considerably higher in
the heart of the corn belt than elsewhere (Figure 17). Also, for agricul-
tural watersheds, there was a pattern of relatively low total nitrogen
concentrations in the plains states from South Dakota through Texas and
including much of Missouri and the southern tip of Illinois. The area with
high nitrogen concentrations in streams is also one of generally higher
44

-------
REGtONALITKS Of ORTHO PHOSPHORUS
CONCENTRATIONS' IN STREAMS
DRAINING FORESTED WATERSHEDS**
Ortho Phosphorus	Mop
Concentrotiom (mg/l)	Symbol
S 0.007 .... . . O
0.008 »o 0,015	w
> 0-015	•
* representative of mean annual values
**>75% Forest
Figure 13. Regionalities of orthophosphorus concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining forested watersheds.

-------
REGIONALIZES OF ORTHO PHOSPHORUS
CONCENTRATIONS * IN STREAMS
DRAINING AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS"
Ortho Phosphorus	Mop
Corx entropions (mg/l)	Symbol
S 0.030 	O
0.031 to 0.089 	0
> 0089	•
* representative of mean annual values
**2 75% Agriculture
Figure 14. Regionalities of orthophosphorus concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining agricultural watersheds.

-------
-fa.
REGION All TIES OF TOTAL NITROGEN
CONCENTRATIONS* IN STREAMS
DRAINING FORESTED WATERSHEDS"
Nitrogen	Mop
Concentrations (mg/1)	Symbol
S 0.500 		 O
0.501 to 0.900 	©
> 0.900 	•
* representative of mean annuol values
"2 75* Forest
Figure 15. Regionalizes of total nitrogen concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining forested watersheds.

-------
REGIONALIZES OF INORGANIC NITROGEN
CONCENTRATIONS' IN STREAMS
DRAINING FORESTED WATERSHEDS"
Inorganic Nitrogen	Map
Concentrations (wg/l)	Symbol
< 0.050 	O
0.051 to 0.100	©
0.101 to 0.200	0
2 0.200 	•
' representative of mean annual values
"> 75% Forest
Figure 16. Regionalities of inorganic nitrogen concentrations in NES sampled
stream draining forested watersheds.

-------

REGIONALIZES Of TOTAL NITROGEN
CONCENTRATIONS* IN STREAMS
DRAINING AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS
Nitrogen	Map
Concentrations (mg/1)	Symbol
S 2300	O
2.501 to S.000 	©
5.000 	•
' raprtMntorivt of mean annual values
"i 75% Agriculture
Figure 17. Regionalities of total nitrogen concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining agricultural watersheds.

-------
fertilizer expenditures and higher domestic animal unit densities compared
to the areas where the concentrations are lower (U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Census 1972b). However, as was stressed in the previous section
on applications, this is not meant to imply that the high nitrogen concen-
trations in surface waters in the central part of the corn belt are a direct
result of fertilizer applications or any other agricultural practice.
Certainly the nutrient-rich soils of the area that played a major role in
determining the intensive agricultural land usage in the first place were
also an important factor in determining the high stream concentrations. The
proportion of the stream nutrient levels attributable to natural sources,
relative to the proportion attributable to anthropogenic sources, probably
cannot be determined at the present time. Nevertheless, one should not
disregard the possible relationship between NPS anthropogenic inputs of
nitrogen and high stream nitrogen levels. The regional patterns of inorganic
stream concentrations in NES agricultural study areas (Figure 18) were
similar to those of total nitrogen.
REGRESSION ANALYSES AND PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY
Early in this study, multiple regression analysis was selected as the
most likely method for developing predictive models from the data. In order
to accommodate the development of such predictive models, the data that were
collected for each study watershed were for those macro-watershed charac-
teristics thought to have a relationship to stream nutrient levels. However,
the analyses of these data suggested that only one of the macro-watershed
characteristics, land use, was related to stream nutrient concentrations and
exports on both the national and regional levels. Regarding the entire data
set, generally after the variations in stream nutrient concentrations related
to land use were explained, the other macro-watershed characteristics were
unimportant. When the data were analyzed by regions, and especially when
they were shown cartographically, it became apparent that certain charac-
teristics other than land use might be related to stream nutrient levels in
some regions but not others. The fact that makes identification of these
relationships unwieldy to seemingly impossible is that most of these charac-
teristics are interrelated with one another, and these interrelationships
vary spatially and temporally in such a way as to mask or otherwise affect
individual relationships with stream nutrient levels. Therefore, this
section primarily will be concerned with the relationships of land use to
nutrient levels in streams and to regionalities of these relationships.
Contributing Land Use Types
Figures 19 through 22 illustrate the relationships between land uses
generally considered nutrient contributing (% agriculture plus % urban) and
nutrients in streams. Several ways of examining the effects of land use on
nutrient concentrations or loads in streams were investigated. In general,
nutrient levels increased with increased percentages in agricultural land
usage and decreased percentages in forested land. Little to no correlation
was found between nutrient levels and percent of land in either cleared-
unproductive, range, urban or wetland. This was expected because of the
probable masking effects of agriculture and forest. Since increased or
decreased percentages of all general land use types appeared to have some
50

-------
oo
CJ1
REGtONAUTlES OF INORGANIC NfTROGCN
CONCENTRATIONS* IN STREAMS
DRAINING AGRICULTURAL WATERSHEDS"
Mop
Symbol
Inorganic Nitrogen
Concentrations (mg/t)
< 1.000 .
14>01 to 4.000
> 4.000 .
* npraianhitivi of m
**2 75% Agriculture
Figure 18. Regionalities of inorganic nitrogen concentrations in NES sampled
streams draining agricultural watersheds.
Inorganic Nitrogen	Mop
Concentrations (mg/t)	Symbol
< 1.000 	O
1.001 to 4.000 	9
> 4.000 	•

-------
effect on nutrient levels, a land use ratio of contributing (agriculture +
urban) to non-contributing (forest + cleared-unproductive + wetland) types
was investigated for its utility as a single factor including all land use
types. Generally, relationships between these ratios and nutrient levels in
streams were found to correlate better than those considering only one land
use type. It was then determined that use of just the numerator (% agricul-
ture plus % urban) from the ratio provided more easily understood land use
values and eliminated the graphing problems encountered by working with
values to infinity.
Use of % agriculture plus % urban to relate effects of land use on
nutrient levels in streams appears to be appropriate where agriculture
and/or forest comprise the predominant type(s). These two land use cate-
gories comprise the bulk of the land use data gathered for this study but
also constitute by far the predominant land use in the eastern half of the
United States, as well as parts of the west where precipitation is adequate
to cause significant surface runoff most of the year. The use of % agricul-
ture plus % urban appears to compensate for minor amounts of the other
general land use types. However, its use is probably unsatisfactory for
predicting or estimating nutrient concentrations or loads for areas where
either urban, cleared-unproductive, or wetland land use types predominate
and particularly where urban use predominates. Insufficient data have been
collected for these types.
It should be mentioned for the relationships illustrated by Figures 19
through 22, that rather than construct one 1ine-of-best-fit for the entire
data set for each nutrient form, regional lines-of-fit were chosen. However,
where the intercepts are appreciably different between regions for one graph
(e.g. Figure 20), the scatter generally appears wider than it would if each
region were treated separately or if the intercepts are similar as in Figure
21.
Contributing Land Use--Nutrient Concentration Relationships
Figure 19 shows the relation between mean total phosphorus concen-
trations in streams and the contributing land use % agriculture plus %
urban. The equation for the relationship involving the entire data set
shown in Figure 19 is:
Log10 (PCONC) = -1.692 + .00816 (% agric. + % urban) (1)
The correlation coefficient (r) for this relationship is 0.65. The
utility of this equation for estimations can be illustrated by the use of a
multiplicative standard error. This factor, denoted by "f", when multiplied
by and divided into the value estimated by the equation, determines the
range which should contain roughly two-thirds of the observed concentrations
at a given level of contributing land use (% agric. + % urban). For equation
(1), the value of f is 2.05. The concentration ranges for different percent-
ages of contribution land use types are shown in Table 5.
52

-------
79-i
0-6-
0.5-
OJ 0.4 ¦
J.
— 0.3-
r = .52 (West)
r = .69 (Central)
r « 75 (Fast)
0.2
0.1
.07
.05
.04
.03
.02 -
.01-'
.007-
.005
.0045
-r-
70
~T-
90
10
—r~
20
r~
30
l
40
I
50
60
80
100%
% IN AGRICULTURE + % IN URBAN
Figure 19. Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to total
phosphorus concentrations in streams.

-------
TABLE 5. ESTIMATED MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
% Ag + % Urb
Avg. PCONC
67% Limits
0
25
50
75
100
0.020
0.033
0.052
0.083
0. 133
0.010-0.042
0.016-0.067
0.025-0.106
0.041-0.170
0.065-0.272
For example, for streams draining areas with a combined agriculture
plus urban land use percentage of 25%, mean total phosphorus concentrations
average 0.033 mg/1. However, because of the variation around this estimation,
there is only 67% probability that the true value will fall in the range
0. 016 to 0.067 mg/1.
Another aid to the interpretation of this equation is given by a
factor denoted by "A" which is the approximate percentage increase in the
mean nutrient level corresponding to an increase of 10 percentage points in
contributing land use (% agric. plus % urban). For example, for equation
(1), W = 21% indicating that a watershed in which a total of 30% of the area
is in agricultural and urban land use can be expected to have NPS stream
phosphorus concentrations which are roughly 21% greater than those of a
stream draining a watershed in which only 20% of the area is in contributing
land use.
The equations for the regional regression lines shown in Figure 19
generally indicate higher correlations and better predictive capability than
the equation for the entire data set, especially for the eastern region.
The equations for regional models, along with the associated interpretive
aids, are as follows:
for the eastern region,
Log10 (PCONC) = -1.836 + .00971 (% agric. + % urban)
r = 0.74, f = 1.85, and A = 25%
(2)
for the central region,
Log10 (PCONC) = -1.744 + 0.01010 (% agric. + % urban) (3)
r = 0.69, f = 2.07, and A = 26%
and for the western region,
Log]0 (PCONC) = -1.548 + 0.00929 (% agric. + % urban) (4)
r = 0.52, f = 2.15, and A = 24%
54

-------
Differences in estimated values using the model for the nationwide data
set as compared to those for the regional models are shown in Table 6.
TABLE 6. ESTIMATED MEAN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
FOR NATIONWIDE AND REGIONAL MODELS
Nationwide	Regional Models	
Model	East	Central	West
% Ag +	67%	67%	67%	67%
% (Jrb Ave P Cone Limits Ave P Cone Limits Ave P Cone Limits Ave P Cone Limits
0
25
50
75
100
0.020
0.033
0.052
0.083
0. 133
(.010-.042)
(.016-.067)
(.025-.106)
(.041-.170)
(.065-.272)
0.015
0.026
0.045
0.078
0. 136
(.008-.026)
(.014-.048)
(.024-.083)
(.042-.144)
(.073-.251)
0.018
0.032
0.058
0. 103
0. 185
(.008-.037)
(.015-.066)
(.028-.120)
(.049-.213)
(.089-.382)
0.028
0.048
0.083
0.141
0.240
(.013-.060)
(.022-.103)
(.038-.178)
(.065-.303)
(.111-.516)
Figure 20 illustrates the relationship between mean orthophosphorus
concentrations in streams and "% agriculture plus % urban". The equation
for the nationwide set of data points is:
Log]0 (0PC0NC) = -2.033 + 0.00710 (% agric. + % urban) (5)
The correlation coefficient for the equation is 0.59; the multiplica-
tive standard error (f), 2.07; and A, 18%.
The equations for the regional data sets showed better correlations
and predictive capabilities, except for the western region. Equations,
together with the associated interpretive aids, for the regional regression
lines shown in Figure 20 are as follows:
for the eastern region,
Log10 (°PC0NC) = -2.222.+ 0.00934 (% agric. + % urban) (6)
r = 0.73, f = 1.86 and A = 24%
for the central region,
Log10 (0PC0NC) = -2.082 + 0.00868 (% agric. + % urban) (7)
r = 0.63, f = 2.09 and A = 22%
and for the western region,
Log]0 (0PC0NC) = -1.851 + 0.00863 (% agric. + % urban) (8)
r = 0.52, f = 2.05 and A = 22%
55

-------
.79 -i
0.5
_ 0.4-
cn
0.3-
Z
— 0.2
0.1
.07-
.05
.04
.03-
.02-
! .01 -+•'
.007
.005 -h —
.0045
r = .52 (West)
r = .63 (Central)
r = .73 (East)

I
20
~r
10
30
i	i	i	n
40	50	60	70
% IN AGRICULTURE + % IN URBAN
80
—T"
90
100
Figure 20. Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to orthophos-
phorus concentrations in streams.

-------
Figures 21 and 22 display somewhat higher correlations between stream
nitrogen concentrations and "contributing" land use than were evidenced for
phosphorus in Figures 19 and 20. Regarding the nationwide set of 904 water-
sheds, the equation and the interpretive factors for the regression shown in
Figure 21 are:
Log10 (NCONC) = -0.247 + 0.00814 (% agric. + % urban) (9)
r = 0.78, f = 1.62 and A = 21%
It should be noted that the factor A appears to be a relatively poor
interpretive aid for the regressions shown on Figures 21 and 22 because of
the possible curvilinear relationships involved. As was mentioned earlier
in the discussion of data shown in Figure 4 (page 29), increases in stream
nitrogen concentrations proportionate to increases in agricultural land
usage were greater for watersheds with >75% agricultural land usage than
those with less agricultural land usage. However, analysis of Figure 4 and
identification of the individual data points in the upper right hand corner
of Figures 21 and 22, suggest the curvilinear relationship may only be
characteristic of the eastern data set.
A rough idea of the utility of equation (9), using the multiplicative
standard error of 1.62, is given in Table 7.
TABLE 7. ESTIMATED MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)

% agric. + % urban
Avg. NCONC
67% Limits
0
0.57
0.35-0.92
25
0.90
0.56-1.46
50
1.45
0.89-2.34
75
2.31
1.43-3.74
100
3.69
2.28-5.97
Similar to the findings for total phosphorus, two of the three equa-
tions for the regional regression lines shown on Figure 21 indicated better
predictive capability than the equation for the entire nationwide data set.
Only for the western region, which includes less than one-fourth of the
study watersheds, was the correlation coefficient lower. Although the
correlation coefficient is slightly less for the central regional model than
that for the nationwide set, the multiplicative standard error is lower
indicating less variation about the mean and greater predictive capacity.
Equations for the regional regression lines shown on Figure 21, together
with the related interpretive factors are:
57

-------
15.85 T-
10.0-
rr	7.0-
0>
^	5.0-
~	4.0-1
o
< 3.0-
0£
~—
z
ui 2.0-
r * .82 (East)
r = .50 (West)
x - .71 (Central)
"# -
> . \
m
¦

W£S7
CENTRAL
#•*#" " ¦ «
» m
0.3
0.2
0.1
"T"
10
I
20
T
30
I
40
I
50
I
60
r~
70
-1—
80
I
90
100%
% IN AGRICULTURE + % IN URBAN
Figure 21. Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to total
nitrogen concentrations in streams.

-------
for the eastern region,
Log1Q (NCONC) = -0.292 + 0.00932 (% agric. + % urban) (10)
r = 0.85, f = 1.52 and A = 24%
for the central region,
Log]0 (NCONC) = -0.246 + 0.00662 (% agric. + % urban) (11)
r = 0.72, f = 1.54 and A = 16%
and for the western region
Log10 (NCONC) = - 0.200 + 0.00704 (% agric. + % urban) (12)
r = 0.50, f = 1.84 and A = 18%
Differences in estimated concentrations using the regional and nationwide
models are illustrated in Table 8.
TABLE 8. ESTIMATED MEAN TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1)
FOR NATIONWIDE AND REGIONAL MODELS

Nationwide

Regional Models

Model
East
Central
West
% Ag + 67%
% Urb Ave N Cone Limits
67%
Ave N Cone Limits
67%
Ave N Cone Limits
67%
Ave N Cone Limits
0
0.57
(0.35-0.92)
0.51
(0.33-0.77)
0.57
(0.37-0.88)
0.63
(0.34-1.16)
25
0.90
(0.56-1.46)
0.87
(0.57-1.32)
0.83
(0.54-1.28)
0.95
(0.52-1.75)
50
1.45
(0.89-2.34)
1.49
(0.98-2.26)
1.22
(0.79-1.88)
1.42
(0.77-2.61)
75
2.31
(1.43-3.74)
2.55
(1.68-3.88)
1.78
(1.15-2.74)
2.13
(1.16-3.92)
100
3.69
(2.28-5.97)
4.37
(2.87-6.64)
2.61
(1.69-4.02)
3.19
(1.73-5.87)
Figure 22 portrays the relationship of inorganic nitrogen concentra-
tions in streams to contributing land usage. Equations for the relationship
involving the complete data set and the regional breakdowns are:
for the nationwide data set,
Log-|Q (INC0NC) = -0.978 + 0.01404 (% agric. + % urban) (13)
r = 0.79, f = 2.28 and A = 38%
59

-------
15.85-r
r = .83 (East
r = .54 (West
r = .65 (Central
wesr
0.7-
0.5 J
.03-
central
100 %
% IN AGRICULTURE + % IN URBAN
Figure 22. Scattergram of "contributing" land use types related to inorganic
nitrogen concentrations in streams.

-------
for the eastern region,
Log-j0 (INCONC) = -0.890 + 0.0146 (% agric. + % urban) (14)
r = 0.83, f = 1,95 and A = 39%
for the central region,
Log10 (INCONC) = -0.953 + 0.00975 (% agric. + % urban) (15)
r = 0.65, f = 2.18 and A = 25%
and for the western region,
log1Q (INCONC) = -1.048 + 0.01278 (% agric. + % urban) (16)
r = 0.54, f = 2.70 and A = 34%
Comparison of Figure 22 with Figure 21 reveals greater variation about
the mean for the inorganic form of nitrogen than for total nitrogen. This
is also evidenced by the substantially higher "f" values for the inorganic
nitrogen equations as compared to those for total nitrogen.
Contributing and Forest Land Use~-Nutrient Concentration
Relationships
The preceeding equations reflect simple relationships between a com-
bination of land use categories that had a positive correlation with NPS
nutrient concentrations in streams. They afford a fairly good predictive
capability for the eastern region of the United States and, for the total
form of both nutrients, appear quite useful for the central region as well.
For the west, however, their utility appears limited. This is probably due
in large part to the greater percentages of range and cleared-unproductive
land usage in the west. In the eastern and central regions, most of the
area that was not in agricultural and urban land usage was largely forested.
Since this is often not the case in the west, a slightly more complicated
model was constructed which considered the negative correlation between
percent of watershed in forest and stream nutrient concentrations in addition
to the positive relationship between "contributing" land use percentage and
stream nutrient concentrations. Equations for these models are given in
Table 9 and the relationships are illustrated in Figures 23 and 24.
61

-------
TABLE 9. REGIONAL STREAM NUTRIENT CONCENTRATION PREDICTIVE MODELS
Nutrient Form Model, Correlation Coefficient and Multiplicative Standard
Region	Error
Total phosphorus
East	Log10 (PCONC) = -1.8364 + 0.00971 (% agric + % urb)
r = 0.74, f = 1.85
Central ^og^ (PCONC) =-1.5697 + 0.00811 (% agric + % urb) -0.002312 (% for)
r = 0.70, f = 2.05
West Log10 (PCONC) =-1.1504 + 0.00460 (%agric + %urb) -0.00632 (% for)
r = 0.70, f = 1.91
Qrthophosphorus
East	Log10 (OPCONC) = -2.2219 + 0.00934 (% agric + % urb)
r = 0.73, f = 1.86
Central '-°9]o (OPCONC) = -2.0815 + 0.00868 (% agric + % urb)
r = 0.63, f = 2.05
West	Log10 (0PC^NO = -1.5513 + 0.00510 (% agric + % urb) -0.00476 (% for)
r = 0.64, f = 1.91
Total nitrogen
East Log10 (NC0NC) = -0.08557 + 0.00716 (% agric + % urb) -0.00227 (% for)
r = 0.85, f = 1.51
Central Log1Q (NCONC) = -0.01609 + 0.00399 (% agric + % urb) -0.00306 (% for)
r = 0.77, f = 1.50
West Log]0 (NCONC) = -0.03665 + 0.00425 (% agric + % urb) -0.00376 (% for)
r = 0.61, f = 1.75
(Continued)
62

-------
Table 9. (Continued)
Nutrient Form Model, Correlation Coefficient and Multiplicative Standard
Region	Error
Inorganic nitrogen
East	Log10 (INCONC) =-0.3479 + 0.00858 (% agric + % urb) -0.00584 (% for)
r = 0.84, f = 1.93
Central Log1Q (INCONC) = -0.5219 + 0.00482 (% agric + % urb) -0.00572 (% for)
r = 0.71,f = 2.06
West Log10 (INCONC) = -0.6339 + 0.00789 (% agric + % urb) -0.00657 (% for)
r = 0.65, f = 2.45
Comparison of "r" and "f" values for these equations to those involving
only "contributing" land use indicates that an improvement in predictive
capability for the western region was gained through addition of percent of
watershed in forest to the models. For the eastern and central regions,
the addition of % in forest to the total P and ortho-P models generally
resulted in little or no increase in the predictive capability. Where this
occurred, new models incorporating the addition were not constructed for
inclusion in Table 9 and Figures 23 and 24; instead, the regional models
including only "contributing" land use are shown.
Figures 25 through 28 offer some qualitative refinement of the models
shown in Table 8 by showing geographical areas where nutrient concentrations
can be expected to be greater, much the same as, or less than those predicted
by the models.
The data in Figure 25 illustrate some fairly obvious regional patterns.
They indicate that total phosphorus concentrations in streams are generally
higher than those predicted by the regional models in a very large region
extending from Wisconsin, southern Minnesota, and Iowa west into Nebraska,
South and North Dakota, and even northwestern Wyoming and southeastern
Montana. Another area where total-P concentrations are, for the most part,
higher than those predicted by the models comprises much of eastern Texas,
Louisiana, and western Mississippi. This area appears to join a region of
similarly high concentrations which extends from northwestern Tennessee
through western Kentucky into southern and eastern Illinois and western
Indiana. A very large region where phosphorus concentrations are nearly the
same as, or lower than, those predicted by the model includes most of the
Northeast from West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania through Maine, with
63

-------
REGIONAL' RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAND USE AND PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS IN STREAMS
EAST
02	r =.75
025 %
\ *
\.03
\
\
K-
> in Agric + % in Urban
EAST
•UVO
\o, %
A
\
015 V
CENTRAL
r = .70
% in Agric + % in Urban
CENTRAL
rs .63
%
%
«y015 /O
\
v02 "V
..025 «
T	JT	I *1
WEST
west
r = .70
in Agric + % In Urban
WEST

in Agric * % in Urban
in Agric * % in Urban
in Agric ~ v in Urban
Figure 23. Differences in predictive characteristics between regional land
use-phosphorus concentration models.

-------
REGIONAL* RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAND USE AND NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS IN STREAMS
Regions
EAST
CENTRAL
in Agric + % in Urban
in Agric + % in Urban
WEST
west
Cen-
% in Agric + % in Urban
EAST
CENTRAL
WEST
% in Agric + % in Urban
in Agric + % in Urban
in Agric + in Urban
Figure 24. Differences in predictive characteristics between regional land
use-nitrogen concentration models.

-------
s
£
*

mu imhimh ttsnuu tmtsn m amm
KHMM (a) Ml* FW IK IK KU KHMMU V
IK HUMM niMU* HKU
U|_ (TP)- -UK* * JM71(X I* If. ~ X k Mm)
m (ir}'-uii;*.niii(xhi|. ~ * )• mm)-mxa(*i«F«**t
ta»JW)—UK* ~ JMN(X hi H. ~ X h Mn) - JKU (X la Ml
IniHi
It*
1.1
U ta U
II MU
-UkU
1J ti-IJ
U It-IJ
-1.1
Figure 25. Areal distribution of residuals from regional predictive models for
total phosphorus concentrations in streams.

-------
the exception of the area centered on southeastern New York and Connecticut.
Other smaller areas where phosphorus concentrations are mostly lower than
those predicted are south-central Texas, central Ohio, and a small region
extending from southern Missouri through northern Arkansas.
The regional patterns for orthophosphorus concentrations (Figure 26)
are generally similar to those for total phosphorus. There are some notable
exceptions, however. The large area in the Northeast, where total-P concen-
trations are generally the same as or lower than those predicted by the
model, is more extensive on the orthophosphorus map. The same is true for
the smaller area centered on northern Arkansas and southern Missouri which
had concentrations consistently lower than those predicted by the total
phosphorus model.
Regional patterns were also evident for the total nitrogen predictive
models (Figure 27). The regional patterns illustrated by residuals of the
nitrogen estimative model show little or no resemblance to those of the
total phosphorus model. It is also noteworthy that neither map reveals
patterns that appear to have any clear correlation with map units of the
natural macro-aspects (such as physiographic regions, climatic characteris-
tics, soil types, and geology) that one might expect to affect the regional
patterns of the residuals. One exception to these general notations may be
seen in the Pacific Northwest where the data indicate both nitrogen and
phosphorus concentrations in streams draining the well-watered forested
watersheds in western Oregon and western Washington to be generally well
below those predicted by the models.
Figure 27 indicates three major areas where observed total nitrogen
concentrations were above those predicted by the regional models. The first
area is centered on the corn belt and includes most of Iowa, northern and
central Illinois and western and central Indiana. The second area covers
much of northern and central California. The third high area may exist in a
region extending from the Black Hills of South Dakota through most of Wyoming
and into the southern edge of Montana and southeastern tip of Idaho, but
large gaps in data points make definition of this area difficult to support.
This map also reveals a large area centered on eastern Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, and southeastern New York (but including much of Delaware, east-
central Maryland, central Pennsylvania, and northeastern New York and Connect-
icut) where total nitrogen concentrations in streams are near or above those
predicted by the regional models. Figure 27 also suggests that throughout
most of the Appalachian highlands and adjacent parts of the Piedmont, southern
Illinois, southern Indiana, and southern Ohio, total nitrogen concentrations
in streams can be expected to be near or below the levels the models predict.
Another area of lower total-N concentrations is apparent in the western
parts of Oregon and Washington, with the exception of the Puget Sound lowland.
Figure 28, depicting the regional patterns of residuals from the
inorganic nitrogen regional models, illustrates both similarities and
dissimilarities with the-map of total-N residuals. Similar to the total-N
map, Figure 28 reveals patterns of high inorganic-N concentrations in the
corn belt and central part of the northeast. On the other hand, the high
concentrations of total-N indicated for Wyoming and adjacent areas and
67

-------

<8

&
«?
1


TK IN HI HSMIU
la«|(|lf)«-znit * JMMIX ti *«.~ X It Mm
(X (¦*).«% la Mm
U|r»T)-IJII»*
Wwli
tai (W)>-MSU * .«*»(% k l|.*X \m Mm)
a Mitt
U
U H U
UNM
1.1 ft U
-IJ ia-U
-M M-IJ
-IJ
Figure 26. Areal distribution of residuals from regional predictive
models for orthophosphorus concentrations in streams.

-------
d?
%


?*
i
w
IK nUMIM
J*7W(X ta l|.*X li Mm) -JK2J(% h Farnt
(%kl|.*Xklita)-JaiN(Xkhrnt
* JMS(X It H. * % k Ma) - JHJ« (* k hmt
a Mas
U
1J to 1.S
U to IJ
-UtoU.
-IJ to-U
U to-U
« - U
Figure 27. Areal distribution of residuals from regional predictive
models for total nitrogen concentrations in streams.

-------


>3°
*
<*»
w»
%
%

uwtua m ntMtn
KfUTM (v) Mm HM IK LM KM B8MU *
IK nUtWIM HMMU' MHI:
farnl
UijM)* - JM •
(Xtat|.*X ii Ma) - JHM(X h
(Xta»|.*X kMa)-JBIIl«k
{X la l|. * X ii Ma) - jm(X li Nntt)
¦ U	•
u a u	•
UkU	•
-U to U	«
-I.lt.-U...	O
-u a-u . . . .	o
«-!.!	o

0

e® °oe
«e I
V
o
o
'*A
&
to#
*%*>
QO
o %
o •
-&¦
Q

ese
'o
-------
northern and central California do not occur with inorganic nitrogen. Also,
the pattern of low total-N concentrations in Oregon and Washington, which
was quite clear in Figure 27, was not as pronounced for inorganic nitrogen.
Although the models presented illustrate a significant increase in the
ability to estimate nutrient concentrations in streams using land use pa-
rameters, rather than simply using mean values of data points regardless of
land use parameters, the models only indicate correlations found between
existing land use patterns and nutrient concentrations in streams. It does
not necessarily follow that the models can be used to predict changes in
concentrations with associated changes in land use. However, gross predic-
tions of this nature may be aided by analysis of the raw data (Appendix A)
together with some of the individual relationships and regional patterns
which have been illustrated.
Lastly, it is important to recognize why models for predicting nutrient
export have not been included in this report. There are several reasons and
they are somewhat interrelated. It is generally accepted that stream nutri-
ent concentrations vary temporally as well as spatially because both natural
phenomena and anthropogenic activities also vary with time and space. This
makes it very difficult to focus on the land use—stream nutrient concentra-
tion picture from a regional or national perspective. However, with a
massive nationwide data set, a uniform monthly (for one year) sampling
scheme, uniform laboratory methods, and other safeguards to ensure a study
of just "apples" and not "apples and oranges", the mean annual overall
relationships that would not be visible with small data sets or site-specific
studies should become apparent. The results of this study support this
conclusion quite strongly. Even so, the temporal and spatial variations in
the data still cloud the picture to a degree. In the construction of
predictive models, if one were to include flow data, which is necessary for
determination of export or loading rates, one would be incorporating another
factor with probably as much or more spatial and temporal variation associ-
ated with it than that of nutrient concentrations. Hence, the "clouding"
effect would be multiplied. But an even more important reason concerns
availability of data. At the present time, for most of the United States
there is a paucity of data on NPS nutrient concentrations in streams. There
is not a paucity of stream flow data. There are excellent stream flow
records for several thousand stream sites, representing both large and small
watersheds, distributed throughout the nation. Therefore, where detailed
stream nutrient data are unavailable but land use data are, nutrient export
could be determined by using the regional nutrient concentrations models
presented in this report, refining the concentration data where possible
using the maps of residuals, obtaining flow data from the U. S. Geological
Survey Surface Water Records for the particular area(s) of interest, and
subsequently making the necessary calculations to determine nutrient loads.
MAPPED INTERPRETATIONS
After analyzing the data, uncovering the many apparent qualitative
relationships and interrelationships between nutrient concentrations and NPS
macro-watershed characteristics, and constructing the mathematical models,
it seemed appropriate to compile composite graphical interpretations of
71

-------
these data and relationships in such a way as to provide planners, managers,
and other users with a broad national overview of the relationships between
stream nutrient levels and nonpoint sources. The three maps in the jacket
inside the back cover of this report were compiled to accomplish this pur-
pose.
It is extremely important to understand that these maps reflect both
the natural and anthropogenic nonpoint areal characteristics related to
nutrient concentrations in streams. It is difficult to impossible at this
time, with this data set, to separate the natural sources from the anthro-
pogenic sources. Although virtually all of the 928 study watersheds were
without known point sources, each has to a certain degree been affected by
man's activities, whether directly or indirectly (e.g., dairy cattle defeca-
tion in and along streams, atmospheric input from industrial or automotive
emissions, etc.). However, one can study the patterns of NPS nutrient
concentrations in streams and compare them with patterns of other natural
and anthropogenic characteristics to get a better understanding of the
spatial relationships and interrelationships involved. From analysis of
these patterns it appears that there is more correlation between anthropo-
genic aspects (such as fertilizer applications and proximity to heavily
populated or industrialized areas) and NPS nitrogen concentrations in streams
than between those aspects and phosphorus concentrations. That is not to
say the high nutrient concentrations in our nation's food baskets are due
completely, or in large part, to fertilizer applications or other agricul-
tural practices. Certainly much can be attributed to the nutrient rich
soils that exist in these areas, which is the primary reason these areas are
being so intensively farmed as compared to other areas where the soils are
not as high in the essential nutrients. Nonetheless, the patterns exist,
and they appear so significant one cannot ignore the possibility of such a
relationship.
Basically, the development of each of the three stream nutrient concen-
tration maps involved several preliminary processes. First, the actual mean
annual nutrient concentrations were assigned to the representative positions
of their true sampling site locations on a 1:3,168,000 scale base map.
Then, an enlargement of Anderson's Major Land Uses map (U.S. Geological
Survey, 1970) was prepared in color at the 1:3,168,000 scale (it should be
noted that the land use category scheme used on Anderson's map is compatible,
with some transposition, with that used for Figures 3 and 4). Next, a blank
drafting film overlay was attached to the base map on which the actual
concentrations for a given nutrient form had been annotated. These in turn
were superimposed on, and registered to, the enlarged land use map. Then a
1:3,168,000 map illustrating all of the study watersheds by color coded
dots, indicating their respective land use categories, was compared to the
above map to enable the compiler to determine whether or not data points
were representative of typical general land use in their respective regions.
By studying these mapped data and knowing the general relationships
shown by the preceeding figures and tables in this paper, one could visualize
the general land use patterns and the spatial relationships between observed
stream nutrient concentrations and land use. Additional help in understand-
72

-------
ing the part other macro-watershed characteristics play was provided by
comparison with various other maps including distribution maps of fertilizer
expenditures, cattle, and other agricultural products or activities (U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1972b); isometric maps of acid precipi-
tation observations (Likens, 1975); and an ecoregions map, which in itself
Provides a regional breakdown of a synthesis of the macro-watershed charac-
teristics relative to forest and rangeland resources (Bailey, 1976). There-
fore, the actual drawing of the stream nutrient concentration map units was
guided to a great extent by the alignment of Anderson's land use map units.
However, as the observed values and their apparent relationships and inter-
relationships with existing land use and other phenomenon varied regionally,
the map units were drawn to reflect these variations.
The nutrient concentration map units (each representing a range of
concentrations) were determined mainly by analysis of the frequency distri-
butions of the 928 values for each nutrient form. The objective was to
obtain a fairly even distribution of values (observations) throughout each
nap's range of map units. Understandably, the map unit sizes were adjusted
slightly to allow for even, understandable intervals.
The categories shown in the reliability map inset reflect several
factors. The two most important are (1) the distribution of data points and
(2) the types and homogeneity of land use in a given region together with
the probable applicability of land use--stream nutrient concentrations
relationships to that region. Also important were the significance of
surface runoff in determining stream nutrient concentrations and the distin-
Quishability of nonpoint from point source impact on streams. Examples of
where the latter becomes a problem can be found in the flat tidal reaches of
the Atlantic Coastal Plain and throughout much of Florida. Obviously,
regions where NES stream sampling sites were concentrated and land use and
Watersheds were well defined, the reliability would be categorized as good.
On the other hand, in arid areas where streams were scarce and stream data
Were difficult to obtain, the reliability would be categorized as poor.
Areas categorized as fair generally were those where NES tributary sampling
data were scarce or lacking but where land use and other macro-drainage area
characteristics were such that reasonable estimates could be made based on
the relationships and interrelationships observed in similar areas elsewhere.
INDIVIDUAL RELATIONSHIPS
Nutrient Runoff—Soils Relationships
The preliminary analysis of the relationships between soils and nutrient
concentrations in streams, discussed in Working Paper No. 25, (U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1974b) indicated good correlations between pH
characteristics in soils and nutrient concentrations in streams. Generally,
concentrations were considerably higher in streams draining areas with soil
orders characteristically high in bases than in streams draining areas with
Mostly acid-type soils. Efforts were therefore made to consider surface
soil pH in the analysis of results in this follow up study. As alluded to
earlier, time and money constraints necessitated use of a system for identi-
fying the average surface soil pH for each watershed. That system left much
73

-------
to be desired, for the actual surface soil pH values probably varied consid-
erably with land use within the area covered by a given soils map unit. For
instance, for a given soils map unit in central South Carolina, the surface
soil pH is probably a great deal higher in the active cropland areas than in
the parts where pine forests predominate. However, even with these limita-
tions, which if anything would have a "diluting" effect on the pH to stream
nutrient concentration correlations, there appeared to be sufficiently good
correlations in the eastern data set to warrant a more detailed examination
of the relationship. The correlation coefficients for the relationships
between surface soil pH and mean nutrient concentrations in streams which
were reported in the previous publication were as follows:
pH and Total Phosphorus, r = 0.58
pH and Orthophosphorus, r = 0.57
pH and Total Nitrogen, r = 0.61
pH and Inorganic Nitrogen, r = 0.55
When the entire nationwide data set was analyzed for soil pH--nutrient
concentration relationships, relatively poor correlations were found. They
ranged from a low of 0.18 with inorganic nitrogen to a high of 0.38 with
total phosphorus. Nevertheless, it seems improbable that soil pH is unrela-
ted to nutrient concentrations in streams, particularly phosphorus. It is
likely that the poor correlations are due to one or both of the following:
1) inadequacies in the system used to identify pH for each of the study
areas and; 2) the complexities of soil pH--nutrient availability relation-
ships which is complicated by spatial variations in availability of other
minerals such as iron, aluminum, and calcium, which in turn influence the
availability of nutrients.
Nutrient Runoff--Geology Relationships
Generally, the inclusion of geology as a macro-aspect to be considered
in this study was motivated by the overall interest in geology-nutrient
runoff relationships, the lack of nationwide-scale data on the subject, and
the strength of the conclusions in one report (Dillon and and Kirchner,
1975) which suggested a significant effect of geology on nutrient loads in
streams. Dillon and Kirchner1s data indicate a strong effect of sedimentary
geology on phosphorus loads in streams. Generally their mean values for
sedimentary watersheds were between 2 1/4 and 2 1/2 times greater than those
from igneous watersheds of plutonic origin. Additional data from the litera-
ture led Dillon and Kirchner to conclude that one would expect phosphorus
loads in streams draining igneous watersheds of volcanic origin to be 15
times greater than in streams draining igneous watersheds of plutonic origin.
Figures 29 and 30 were compiled to illustrate the possible effects of
watershed geologic origin on nutrient concentrations and loads in streams.
The drainage areas were identified according to the geological classifica-
tion outlined earlier in this paper, although only those classifications
represented by a sufficiently large number of watersheds for a given land
74

-------
use category were included. The data were grouped by overall land use
category to hold land use as a constant as possible. Data were not presented
for drainage areas in the categories of > 50% agriculture, mixed, urban,
range, and cleared-unproductive because of either too much within-category
land use variation or too few representative watersheds.
For the most part, data in Figures 29 and 30 indicate that given this
classification scheme and the NES data, there is no apparent significant
effect of geology on either phosphorus or nitrogen loads in streams. The
same appears true for phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations. However, the
examination of these data for each relationship is difficult because of the
Paucity of representative watersheds in some geologic classifications. It
was for this reason that the "predominantly" classifications were included
to aid the investigation. Nevertheless, the graphs indicate that there are
no apparent relationships between geologic origin and stream nutrient levels.
It should be noted that the apparent relationship between geologic
classification and nitrogen concentrations in streams (watersheds of sedi-
mentary origin have stream nitrogen [particularly inorganic nitrogen] levels
that are somewhat higher than those of igneous origin) may be related to the
Proximity of the stream to industrialized and/or populated areas and not
geology. A larger percentage of the forested watersheds of igneous origin
are in the west than in the east, and a greater percentage of the forested
sedimentary watersheds are located in the east. As was discussed earlier,
in the vicinities of highly populated and/or industrialized parts of the
east, the level of inorganic nitrogen may be related to acid rainfall pat-
terns as reported by Likens (1975).
It should be emphasized that the above analysis does not suggest that
geology has no effect on nutrient concentrations or loads in streams. It
does point out that no clearly important effects are apparent using this
type of classification and the NES data, and that geologic origin, unlike
land use, does not appear to be a macro-watershed parameter which will
provide help in the development of models for predicting nonpoint-source
stream nutrient levels.
An analysis of the NES data and geologic classifications using the
scheme suggested in the earlier report (Omernik, 1976) and outlined in
the Data Collection Methods sub-section proved only marginally fruitful.
Comparisons of actual mean annual phosphorus concentrations in streams to
the phosphorus compositions of rock types predominant in their associated
watersheds are presented in Table 10.
75

-------
TABLE 10. MEAN ANNUAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS (mg/1) IN STREAMS VS.
PHOSPHORUS COMPOSITIONS OF PREDOMINANT ROCK TYPES
> 90% Forest


Mean ann.
strm. conc.




Rock Type



Regi on
P Composition (%)
N*
Total-P
Ortho-P
East
< 0.074
18
0.011
0.006

0.075 to 0.149
5
0.012
0.006

> 0.150
0
	

Central
< 0.074
15
0.020
0.009

0.075 to 0.149
0
--
--

> 0.150
0
—
—
West
< 0.074
15
0. 021
0.011

0.075 to 0.149
12
0.025
0.015

> 0.150
4
0.015
0.008
Nationwide
< 0.074
48
0.017
0.008

0.075 to 0.149
17
0.021
0.012

> 0.150
4
0.015
0.008
> 75% + > 90%
Forest

Mean ann.
strm. conc.



	 Rock Type



Region
P Composition (%)
N*
Total-P
Ortho-P
East
< 0.074
36
0.013
0.006

0.075 to 0.149
12
0.014
0.006

> 0.150
1
0.015
0.006
Central
< 0.074
26
0.022
0.010

0.075 to 0.149
3
0.028
0.011

> 0.150
0
	
	
West
< 0.074
32
0.027
0.012

0.075 to 0.149
25
0.027
0.014

> 0.150
11
0.025
0.018
Nationwide
< 0.074
94
0.020
0.009

0.075 to 0.149
40
0.023
0.012

> 0.150
12
0.024
0.017





*Number of representative watersheds
Again land use was held relatively constant. Data for the >90% forest
and >75% forest land use categories were combined in the second half of this
76

-------
table to provide larger numbers of watersheds representative of the various
ranges in phosphorus potentials of rocks.
The values in Table 10 indicate that for the >90% forest land use
category, phosphorus concentrations in streams are not higher in streams
draining watersheds underlain with rocks of higher phosphorus composition.
However, the interpretation of this data set is restricted by the lack of
watersheds representing rock types classified in the medium to high phos-
phorus composition ranges. The second half of the table, showing comparisons
relative to the combined land use categories having forest percentages >75%,
contains a greater number of representative watersheds in almost all of the
phosphorus potential ranges for the different regions and appears to show a
slight relationship. Here, in most cases (regional or nationwide subgroups),
mean phosphorus stream concentrations were greater in watersheds underlain
by rock types classified in the high phosphorus content ranges than in those
classified in lower ranges. The relationship is particularly evident with
respect to orthophosphorus stream concentrations. That this relationship is
qualified by the fact that the combining of the >75% forest data set with
that of the >90% forest set added a greater amount of variability in land
use, does not seem to be the case. As a matter of fact, there is a slight
inverse relationship regarding both the western and nationwide >75% + >90%
forest data sets. For example, the mean combined percentage of agricultural
and urban land use for the 94 watersheds with rock type phosphorus composi-
tions of >0.074% mg/1 was 1.7%; for the 40 with percent compositions in the
0.075 to 0.149% range, it was 1.3%; and for the 12 with compositions >0.150%,
it was 0.8%. However, the relationship was not good enough to provide
assistance in the compilation of predictive models, mainly because, for many
parts of the United States, there was a lack of available, reliable geology
maps containing the level of detail necessary to adequately accomplish this
type of classification. Also complicating and clouding the analyses were
the variations in percentage compositions reported in the several different
studies, reflecting the varying methods with which the data were obtained,
the important regional differences, and the natural range in phosphorus
content for any particular material. The chemical composition of sedimentary
rocks is exceedingly variable, more so than igneous rocks, since sedimenta-
tion generally leads to further diversification. More than likely, depth of
soil to bedrock was an additional complicating factor.
Nutrient Runoff--Drainage Density Relationships
In the planning stage of this project, it was suggested that drainage
density (stream kilometers/square kilometer of watershed) might be related
to stream nutrient levels. The decision to include this macro-watershed
characteristic was finally made mid-way through the project after Kirchner
(1975) published a paper which illustrated a very high correlation (r =
0.94) between phosphorus export and drainage density using a data set con-
sisting of 18 forested, igneous drainage basins located in southern Ontario,
Canada. Kirchner's stated purpose was to attempt to explain the variation
in phosphorus export from forested basins underlain by plutonic igneous
rock, reported by Dillon and Kirchner (1975) and thus facilitate more accu-
rate predictions of phosphorus export from such watersheds.
77

-------
The NES nonpoint source stream nutrient data did not reveal a good
correlation between drainage density and either nutrient concentration or
export. Holding land use constant (considering only the >90% forest data
set, only the >90% agriculture data set, etc.), the mean annual values for
both forms of both nutrients were regressed against drainage density. The
correlation coefficients ranged from -0.27 to 0.19. Coefficients for export
values were not appreciably different from those for concentration values
nor were there any significant differences resulting from the use of log-
rithmic values.
ANOMALIES
At the time watersheds were being selected for possible inclusion in
the study, a fairly detailed check of each watershed was conducted for
possible point sources, significant indirect drainage upstream from the
sampling site, and other aspects mentioned earlier in the selection criteria
section. The principal tools for this particular investigation were USGS
topographic maps, county highway maps, and miscellaneous lists of municipal
and industrial waste discharge locations. Later when the aerial photography
was being interpreted for land use identification, a second check was per-
formed. Finally, a third check was accomplished after the land use had been
identified and after the samples had been collected, analyzed, checked, and
entered in computer files. Land use identification and stream sampling for
a given part of the country were generally carried out durinq the same time
period.
In the final checking process, the stream data for each watershed were
carefully studied for irregularities, including point sources, but also for
other sources of nutrients not characteristic of the overall land use for
the areas represented. Because there were so many watersheds in the study,
many of which were located in small clusters, they served as a check on one
another. For instance, if there were four watersheds in one particular
geographical region and all had similar land use patterns, soil types,
slopes etc., but one of the four had far higher nutrient concentrations than
the other three, a detailed check was made which usually included a call to
the respective county extension agent or some other knowledgeable individual
in the area in question. For problem or unusual watersheds, the sampling
data were scrutinized for patterns that might indicate particular natural or
anthropogenic causes. Generally, if a watershed had a source that was
atypical of the overall land usage in the area it represented, that water-
shed was excluded from the data set. In a couple of cases, sampling sites
with much higher concentrations than might be expected from the land usage
in their areas had been located downstream from dumps or major interstate
rest areas (which, for one reason or another, were not evident on the
photography or maps). These were considered anomalies and were excluded
from the data set. In a few cases, high nutrient concentrations were related
to intensive seasonal grazing, poultry production, or some other activity
which was typical of the land use for the particular area but because of
spotty spatial patterns and simple happenstance, was not evidenced in nearby
watersheds. These watersheds were left in the data set.
78

-------
Although there were not many watersheds that were excluded from the
study because of anomalies, some of those that were excluded are worthy of
mention because they do, in fact, contain nutrient sources that are somewhere
between point and nonpoint in nature and not at all representative of broad
areal characteristics. These watersheds are listed below, by the creek on
which the sampling sites were located:
1.	Two unnamed creeks (STQRET #'s 0802D1 and 08Q21E) southeast and
east of Barr Lake, Colorado. Phosphorus concentrations in these
streams were at least 10 times higher than one would expect in an
agricultural area such as this, and the orthophosphorus concentra-
tions were between 80% to 90% of those for total phosphorus.
Nitrogen concentrations were about twice as high as one might
expect for this area. A check with the local officials revealed
only that the area was one of wheat farming and that there were no
activities in the area that might explain the high values. How-
ever, the author visited the two sites and found numerous, recently
drilled, gas wells and much associated activity in both watersheds.
It was not immediately obvious what activities associated with the
gas drilling and piping operations gave rise to the high concen-
trations. Once the anomalous character of the watersheds was
established, the data were dropped from the study; lack of time
precluded further investigation.
2.	Creek in Chalk Bluff Draw (STQRET #350701) north-northeast of Lake
McMillan in southeastern New Mexico. Very high nitrogen concen-
trations were noted in the creek—about five times higher than one
might expect in this grassland area which, according to local
officials, was grazed only lightly if at all. Inorganic nitrogen
was particularly high and comprised about 86% of the total nitrogen,
but phosphorus concentrations were very low. The county extension
agent indicated that there were active oil-drilling operations in
the watershed but couldn't explain the association with high
nitrogen stream concentrations.
3.	Arroyo Grande Creek (STQRET #0614A2) and Lopez Canyon Creek (STQRET
#0614C1) upstream from Lopez Reservoir, east of San Luis Obispo,
California. Throughout the year phosphorus concentrations in
these creeks were consistently about 10 times higher than one
might expect in watersheds of similar land use characteristics.
Mean annual orthophosphorus concentrations were about 80 to 90/fe of
those for total phosphorus. The nitrogen concentrations in the
creeks appeared to be normal. The local farm advisor noted that
there were low grade phosphate deposits in the area and that there
had even been some effort to mine them. Further checking with
local geologist supported the existence of phosphate deposits; but
to their knowledge, the formation (a highly phosphatic calcareous
siltstone) was not being mined commercially, although some of the
overburden had been removed for building stone, probably exposing
the phosphate deposits.
79

-------
4.	Wyatt Creek (STORE! #2201 El), upstream from Anacoco Lake in
western Louisiana. Phosphorus concentrations were about four to
five times higher than would be expected in a predominantly
forested watershed such as this, and the total nitrogen to total
phosphorus ratio of about 4.7:1 indicated a possible point source.
A recheck of the maps and aerial photos and a call to local offi-
cials revealed a major rest area on U.S. Hwy. 171 in the watershed.
5.	P1 ainview Creek (STORET #41041F) about 11 miles southeast of
Albany, Oregon. Both phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in
this stream were considerably higher than those of nearby, similar
agricultural watersheds. The phosphorus concentrations were 10 to
15 times higher and the nitrogen concentrations were about two
times higher. The probable reason for these high concentrations
was discovered during a visit to the watershed. Two fertilizer
distribution facilities were found; one was located about 150
meters from the stream and about 2.5 kilometers upstream from the
sampling site, and the other was located about 3.5 kilometers
upstream from the sampling site.
6.	Harvey Creek (STORET #4827R1) near Sam Rayburn Reservoir in east-
ern Texas. The streams draining this watershed and two others in
the immediate area had phosphorus concentrations that were about
three to four times higher than would be expected in a forested
area in this part of the country. Visits to these watersheds were
impossible because of the expense involved, so telephone calls
were made to individuals living in the vicinity of the watersheds.
Conversations with these people revealed a point source in one of
the watersheds and a great deal of logging (including clearcutting)
and a limited amount of agricultural activity in the others. A
dump, located directly upstream from the sampling site on Harvey
Creek, comprised the point source and necessitated removal of the
watershed it occupied from the data set. The other two watersheds
exemplified nonpoint source activity and therefore remained in the
study.
FOLLOW-UP STUDIES
Although the results of this study clarify some of the relationships
between macro-drainage area characteristics and nonpoint-source phosphorus
and nitrogen levels in streams, much room for improvement remains. It seems
likely that a significant amount of the variability in nutrient levels which
is not explained using the systems outlined in this study, might be accounted
for through refinement of the systems. Based on findings of this study, two
refinements in particular appear to offer the most promise.
Probably the most important of these refinements involves the proximity
of the general land use category to perennial streams. This will be a
complicated aspect because it involves the addition of another dimension.
In general, the characteristics accounted for by systems used in this study
are those of an overall nature, such as percent of total watershed area in a
80

-------
given land use, mean slope, average animal unit density, etc., without
regard to the spatial relationship with perennial streams in the watershed.
Intuitively, most would probably agree that all other factors being equal, a
watershed having a 50% cover of forest located in the stream valleys and a
50% cover of agricultural land located in the interfluvial areas would have
lower stream nutrient levels than a watershed having the reverse land use
pattern (50% cover of forest in the interfluvial areas and 50% cover of
agricultural land in the stream valleys). In order to keep it easy to use
and more or less universal in applicability, the predictive system could
consider the percent of each general land use type within three regions of
each watershed: along the main stream in the watershed, in the interfluvial
areas furthest from the perennial streams, and the area between the first
two.
The second refinement would be the development of agricultural phos-
phorus and nitrogen factors for use in the predictive models. These factors
would take into account fertilizer usage as well as animal-unit density.
Moreover, there appears to be considerable room for improvement in the
animal unit density factors themselves, but this too involves a tricky
additional dimension. Rather than base the animal unit densities purely on
average animal nutrient production (Table 2; page 17), the factors might
include consideration of the nature of a given type of animal production
relative to the likelihood of its effects on stream nutrient levels. A
system involving factors such as these would, for example, likely give less
weighting to commonly pastured beef animals than to generally more confined
dairy animals.
Another consideration is periodicity. There is a strong possibility
that with the nationwide data set of over 900 NPS stream sites from which
samples were taken on the average of monthly for a year, one might be able
to identify regionalizes of high nutrient concentration periods. In turn,
these regional high periods could be compared with data on natural phenomena,
such as climatic characteristics, or data on man's activities, such as field
tillage, to help identify associations that could lead to corrective meth-
odologies in areas where high stream nutrient levels are of great concern.
81

-------
SECTION VI
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. R., E. E. Hardy, J. T. Roach and R. E. Witmer. 1976. A Land
Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor
Data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. 28 pp.
Anonymous. 1974. Livestock Waste Management with Pollution Control. North
Central Regional Publication 93, Manuscript. 246 pp.
Arscott, G. H. 1975. Personal communication: Poultry Production Charac-
teristics. Poultry Science Department, School of Agriculture, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Bailey, R. G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States. Map, scale -
1:7,500,000. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.
Betson, R. P. and W. M. McMaster. 1975. Nonpoint Source Mineral Water
Quality Model. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 47(10)-
2461-2473.
Dillon, P. J. and W. B. Kirchner. 1975. The Effects of Geology and Land
Use on the Export of Phosphorus from Watersheds. Water Research
9:135-148.
Dornbush, J. N. , J. R. Anderson and L. L. Flarms. 1974. Quantification of
Pollutants in Agricultural Runoff. EPA Environmental Protection
Technology Series EPA-660/2-74-005. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 149 pp.
Goldschmidt, V. M. 1958. Geochemistry. Oxford University Press, London.
730 pp.
Harper, J. A. 1975. Personal communication: Turkey Production Charac-
teristics. Poultry Science Department, School of Agriculture, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Hohenboken, W. D. 1975. Personal communication: Sheep Production Charac-
teristics. Animal Science Department, School of Agriculture, Oregon
State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Holt, R. F. 1971. Surface Water Quality Is Influenced by Agricultural
Practices. Paper presented at the 1971 Winter Meeting of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, Illinois.
Holt, R. F. , D. R. Timmons and J. R. Latterell. 1970. Accumulation of
Phosphates in Water. Agricultural Food and Chemistry 18(5):781-784.
82

-------
Johnson, T. H. and G. J. Moutney. 1969. Poultry Manure Production, Utili-
zation, and Disposal. World's Poultry Science Journal 25(3): 202-217.
Kirchner, W. B. 1975. An Examination of the Relationship Between Drainage
Basin Morphology and the Export of Phosphorus. Limnology and Oceanog-
raphy 20(2):267-270.
Kling, G. F. 1977. Personal communication: Soil pH and Phosphorus Rela-
tionships in Streams. Department of Soil Science, School of Agricul-
ture, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Krauskopf, K. B. 1967. Introduction to Geochemistry. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York. 721 pp.
Likens, G. E. 1975. Acid Precipitation: Our Understanding of the Phenome-
non. In: Acid Precipitation; Proceedings of a Conference on Emergency
Environmental Problems. EPA-902/9-75-001, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II, New York. pp. 45-75.
Likens, G. E. and F. H. Borman. 1974. Linkages Between Terrestrial and
Aquatic Ecosystems. Bioscience 24(8):447-456.
Loehr, R. C. 1974. Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude of Non-Point
Sources. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation 46(8):1849-
1872.
Massey, H. F. , M. L. Jackson and 0. E. Flays. 1953. Fertility Erosion on
Two Wisconsin Soils. Agronomy Journal 45:543-547.
McDowell, T. R. 1976. Application of the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) to Determine Sediment Yields from Forested Watersheds. Unpub-
lished Manuscript, Geography Department, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon.
McElroy, A. D., S. Y. Chiu, J. W. Nebgen, A. Aleti, F. W. Bennett. 1976.
Loading Functions for Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint
Sources. EPA Environmental Protection Technology Series EPA-600/2-76-
151, Midwest Research Institute (MRI), Kansas City, Missouri. 445 pp.
Minor, J. R., ed. 1971. Farm Animal-Waste Management. North Central
Regional Publication 206. Iowa Agriculture Experiment Station Special
Report 67. Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames,
Iowa. 44 pp.
Minor, J. R. 1975. Personal communication: Swine and Cattle Production
Characteristics. Agricultural Engineering Department, School of
Agriculture, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Minor, J. R. and T. L. Willirch. 1970. Livestock Operations and Field-
spread Manure as Sources of Pollutants. In: Agricultural Practices
and Water Quality, T. L. Willirch and G. E. Smith, eds. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa. pp. 231-240.
83

-------
Moore, D. P. 1977. Personal communication: Soil pH and Phosphorus Rela-
tionships in Streams. Department of Soil Science, School of Agricul-
ture, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Omernik, J. M. 1976. The Influence of Land Use on Stream Nutrient Levels.
EPA Ecological Research Series EPA-600/3-76-014. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Cor-
vallis, Oregon. 105 pp.
Parker, F. W. , J. R. Adams, K. G. Clark, K. D. Jacob, and A. L. Mehring.
1946. Fertilizers and Lime in the United States. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Miscellaneous Publication No. 586. 80 pp.
Robbins, J. W. D., D. H. Howells and G. J. Kriz. 1971. Role of Animal
Wastes in Agricultural Land Runoff. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report No. 13020 DGX 08/71. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 114 pp.
Ryden, J. C., J. K. Syers and R. F. Harris. 1973. Phosphorus in Runoff and
Streams. Advances in Agronomy 25:1-45.
Scarseth, G. D. 1962. Man and His Earth. Iowa State University Press,
Ames, Iowa. 199 pp.
Smith, G. D. 1975. Surface Soil pH Ranges Estimates for National Atlas
Soils Map Units. Unpublished. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Hyattsville, Maryland.
Stoltenberg, N. L. and J. L. White. 1953. Selective Loss of Plant Nutrients
by Erosion. Soil Science Society of America, Proceedings 17:406-410.
Stone, L. J. 1974. A Study: Effects of Geology and Nutrients on Water-
Quality Development. Journal of American Water Works Association
66(8):489-494.
Thomas, G. W. and J. D. Crutchfield. 1974. Nitrate-Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Contents of Streams Draining Small Agricultural Watersheds in Kentucky.
Journal of Environmental Quality 3(1):46-49.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1972. The Nation's Range
Resources—A Forest-Range Environmental Study. Forest Resource Report
No. 19, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington,
D.C. 147 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 1972a. 1969 Census of
Agriculture Vol. I, Parts 1-4, 6,7 and 13-15. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.
		. 1972b. 1969 Census of Agriculture Vol. V, Part 15:
Graphic Summary. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
145 pp.
84

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974a. National Eutrophication
Survey Methods for Lakes Sampled	in 1972. National Eutrophication
Survey Working Paper No. 1, U.S.	Environmental Protection Agency,
National Eutrophication Research	Program, Corvallis, Oregon. 40 pp.
	• 1974b. Relationships Between Drainage Area Charac-
teristics and Non-Point Source Nutrients in Streams. National Eutroph-
ication Survey Working Paper No. 25, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, National Eutrophication Research Program, Corvallis, Oregon.
50 pp.
		1975. National Eutrophication Survey Methods, 1973-
1976. National Eutrophication Survey Working Paper No. 175, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Eutrophication Research
Program, Corvallis, Oregen. 91 pp.
		• 1976a. Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual Vol. I.
EPA-600/9-76-014, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Computer
Services Systems Division, Cincinnati, Ohio. 487 pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service. 1975a. Control of Water Pollution from
Cropland: Vol. 1. A Manual for Guideline Development. EPA-600/ 2-75-
026a or ARS-H-5-1, National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia. Ill pp.
		• 1976b. Control of Water Pollution from Cropland:
Vol. II. An Overview. EPA-600/2-75~026b or ARS-H-5-2, National Tech-
nical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. 187 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1970. The National Atlas of the United States.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 417 pp.
Uttormark, P. D., J. D. Chapin and K. M. Green. 1974. Estimating Nutrient
Loadings of Lakes from Non-Point Sources. EPA Ecological Research
Series EPA-660/3-74-020, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, D.C. 112 pp.
Van Wazer, J. R. 1961. Occurrence and Mining. In: Phosphorus and Its
Compounds: Vol. II. Technology, Biological Functions, and Appli-
cations, J. R. Van Wazer, ed. Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York,
pp. 955-985.
Viets, F. G., Jr. 1971. Fertilizer Use in Relation to Surface and Ground-
water Pollution. In: Fertilizer Technology and Use, 2nd ed. Soil
Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 517-532.
85

-------
Vol 1enweider, R. A. 1968. Scientific Fundamentals of the Eutrophication of
Lakes and Flowing Waters, With Particular Reference to Nitrogen and
Phosphorus as Factors in Eutrophication. OECD Report DAS/CSI/ 68.27.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Directorate for
Scientific Affairs, Paris. 182 pp.
Warn*elista, M.P., Y.A. Yousef and W. M. McLellon. 1977. Nonpoint Source
Effects on Water Quality. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation
49:441-451.
Weimer, W. C., H. E. McGuire and A. F. Gasperino. 1976. A Review of Land
Use Nutrient Loading Rate Relationships. Prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency by Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories,
Richland, Washington. 77 pp.
Wischmeier, W. H. 1976. Use and Misuse of the Universal Soil Loss Equation.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 31:5-9.
Wisconsin Statistical Reporting Service. 1973. 1973 Wisconsin Agricultural
Statistics. Wisconsin Statistical Reporting Service, Madison Wisconsin
74 pp.
86

-------
SECTION VII
APPENDIX
87

-------
SUBDRAIMAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
AREA

SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SU6DRAINAGE AREAS
3
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
FOR
CL
RA
AG
URB WET OTHER
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
GEOLOGY
4 P-COM
ORIGIN (*)
MEAN
SLOPE
<*)
PH
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
FLOW 6
(CM/SO
KM)
ALABAMA
GANTT RESERVOIR
010 3B1
GUNTERGVILLE RESERVOIR
0 104A1
0104E1
0104G1
0104J1
0104L1
HOLT LOCK AND DAM
0105B1
0105C1
010501
LAY LAKE
0106C1
010601
martin lake
0107C1
0107H1
„ MITCHELL LAKE
0108B1
pickwick lake
0109C1
0109D1
0109K1
0109M1
0109C1
W. F. GEORGE RESERVOIR
011161
0111C1
0111J1
0111M1
WEISS LAKE
0112C1
0112E1
WILSON LAKE
Oil4F1
LAKE PUROY
OllSdl
0115C1
21.26
74.5
.6
0
24.9
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1113
.070
8.8
4.5
147
.155
53.92
52.2
3.4
0
43.5
0
0
.9
50
FOR.
1210
.032
11.0
4.5
137
1 .410
78.55
34.9
2.5
0
61.8
.5
0
.3
50
AG.
1311
.060
5.9
4.5
137
1 .580
55.06
24.4
1.1
0
74.3
0
0
.2
50
AG.
1314
.060
3.6
4.5
132
1 .060
127.74
42.8
1.6
0
55.4
.1
0
.1
50
AG •
1314
.060
4. 7
4.5
132
2.440
22. 17
60.0
1.3
0
24.0
0
0
14.7
50
FOR.
1010
.043
9.3
4.5
132
.460
5.44
93.8
1.4
0
2.4
0
0
2.4
75
F OR •
1111
.050
16.2
5.0
135
.090
4.47
69.9
1.7
0
3.3
2.9
0
2.2
50
FOR.
1111
.050
23.3
5.0
135
.050
29.86
85.0
1.0
0
0
0
0
14.0
75
fur.
1111
.050
21.9
5.0
135
.470
22.07
74.7
1.5
0
23.8
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1213
.020
6.6
4.5
140
.390
45.38
69.0
2.6
0
27.7
.1
0
.6
50
FOR.
1212
.020
10.3
4.5
140
.830
40.71
73.3
6.0
0
19.5
1.1
0
.1
50
FOR.
3136
.073
9.2
4.5
135
.710
43.36
79.1
1.3
0
19.1
0
0
.5
50
FOR.
3131
.043
7.3
4.5
135
.320
26.94
63.2
.7
0
35.7
0
.3
. 1
50
FOR.
3137
.101
9.0
4.5
142
.540
174.80
64.8
9.0
0
24.6
.9
0
.7
50
FOR.
1010
.042
13.0
4.5
127
2.290
134.32
74.8
4.1
0
20.7
. 1
0
.3
50
FOR .
1010
.042
16.7
4.5
127
1.810
42.48
76.6
4.2
0
19.1
0
0
.1
50
FOR.
1112
.062
15.8
4.5
127
1 .040
173.63
80.2
3.5
0
16.2
0
0
.1
SO
FOR.
1112
.062
18.2
4.5
127
2.720
11.60
80.4
11.3
0
8.3
0
0
u
50
FOR .
1010
.042
19.5
4.5
132
.190
31.44
84.6
2.3
0
11.2
0
.9
1.0
50
FOR.
1310
.033
8.2
4.5
135
.450
117.85
81 .6
5.3
0
12.6
0
.3
.2
50
FOR.
1316
.060
9.0
4.5
135
1.310
25.74
72.9
5.6
0
19.8
.2
1.5
0
50
FOR.
1300
.040
10.1
4.5
132
.320
32.50
58.0
3.9
0
37.5
0
.4
.2
50
FOR.
1300
.040
7.9
4.5
135
.410
26.42
89.2
1.4
0
9.4
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1010
.040
20.4
4.5
132
.460
23.65
50.3
45.2
0
4.5
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1010
.040
7.5
4.5
132
.390
7.30
25.7
8. 1
0
66. 1
0
0
.1
50
AG •
1200
.020
3.6
4.5
127
.090
a.44
89.8
1.3
0
8.8
0
0
.1
50
FOR.
1314
.060
19.8
5.0
140
.180
3.99
72.5
0
0
26.9
.3
0
.3
50
fur.
1314
.060
12.1
5.0
140
.090
AKliONA
FOOLS HOLLOW LAKE
0402C1
25.1 1
95.8
3.0
.3
75 FOR.
1226 .081 5.2
7.2
38
.003

-------
SUMMARY of land use parameters by suborainage areas
SUBORAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SU KM)
OKTHO P TOT N INORg N
ALABAMA
GANTT RESERVOIR
010 3d 1
GUNTERSVILLE RESERVOIR
0104A1
0 10 4E 1
0104G1
0104J1
0104L1
HOLT LOCK AND DAM
010581
0105C1
01051) 1
LAY LAKE
0106C1
010601
MARTIN LAKE
0107C1
0107H1
MITCHELL LAKE
0108B1
PICKWICK LAKE
0109C1
0109U1
0109K1
0109M1
0 10 901
W. F. GEORGE RESERVOIR
0 1 1 1B 1
0111C1
0111J1
0111M1
»IE ISS LAKE
0	112C1
0112E1
WILSON LAKE
0114F1
LAKE PURDY
0115B1
01	ISC 1
ARIZONA
FOOLS HOLLOW LAKE
0402C1
0
23.0
23. 1
.OH
.005
. rt05
.215
4. 1
1.1
185.1
49.4
0
0
c
0
c
65.8
93.A
115.2
57.2
18.6
68.0
102.3
125.6
60.9
19.3
.072
.042
.051
.044
.027
.017
.012
.010
.011
.007
1.433
2.129
2.492
2. 145
1.865
.688
1.318
1.497
1.511
1.430
59.4
26.6
31.0
26.5
17.7
14.0
7.6
6. 1
6.6
4.6
1181.7
1350.5
1512.9
1292.1
1223.3
567.4
836. 1
908.9
910.2
938.0
1.077
1.875
1.427
2.0
2.5
0
2.0
2.6
0
.021
.020
.012
.007
.008
.006
1.235
1.314
.897
.736
.774
.508
11.0
7.1
6.0
3.7
2.8
3.0
644.3
463.5
445.3
384.0
273.0
252.2
0
0
39.7
46.3
39.3
45.8
.039
.040
.012
.018
.650
• 892
.270
.253
21.7
23.1
6.7
10.4
362.2
514.5
150.5
145.9
')
a
24.6
25.5
24.7
27.3
.021
. C45
.008
.017
.<.50
.691
.116
.150
11.6
10.5
4.4
4.0
247.5
160.8
63. 8
34. 9
0
33.4
33.8
.0 32
.012
1.021
.327
20.2
7.6
645.4
206.7
o
0
0
0
c
19.2
13.0
12.8
11.5
5.2
18.4
12.9
12.6
11 .4
5.0
.035
.0 39
.011
.014
.029
.010
.011
.006
.009
.011
.729
.531
.532
• 674
.711
.264
.193
.205
.225
.134
14.5
16.6
8.5
6.9
1.6
4.1
4.7
4.6
*.4
.6
301.2
225.7
410.7
333.0
38.2
109. 1
82.0
158.3
111.2
7.2
0
0
J
0
10.2
11.4
13.0
24.6
10.0
11.2
12.9
24.4
.015
.027
.0 24
.032
.006
.007
.008
.008
.840
.527
.779
.797
.091
.092
.224
.373
6.8
9.5
102.0
12.7
2.7
2.5
34.0
3.2
379.2
184. 7
3311.8
317. 1
41.1
32.3
952.3
148.4
0
0
10.8
4.4
10.5
4.4
.014
.030
.006
.009
.655
1.137
.137
.107
7.7
15.6
3.3
4.7
359.6
591. J
75.2
55. 6
0
41.4
41 . 1
. 046
.019
1.713
.893
17.9
7.4
666.0
347.2
0
0
14.7
44.9
14.5
44.5
.052
.057
.016
.011
1.177
.605
.106
.100
35.0
40.5
10.8
7.8
791.6
430.4
71.3
71.1
1.015
.1
.1
.067
.019
1.257
.080
.3
.1
4.7
.3

-------
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
ARIZONA
RAINBOW LAKE
04091C
ARKANSAS
BEAVER RESERVOIR
050181
050101
0501F1
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE
050301
050 3E1
0503F1
BULL SHOALS RESERVOIR
0504B1
0504C1
0504E1
0504F1
o	050*61
0504K1
0504M1
0504N1
050 401
DE GRAY RESERVOIR
0507B1
0507C1
050 701
0507E1
0507F1
LAKE ERLING
050801
O5O0C1
HAMILTON LAKE
0510G1
MILLWOOD RESERVOIR
0511C1
0511G1
051lHl
0511M1
0511P1
051191
0511R1
051IT 1
NIMROD LAKE
0512B1
0512C1
0512E1
0 512F1
AREA

MEAN
SLOPE 5
(*) PH
.5
1.5
2.7
1.6
1.1
7.5
1.4
1.5
1.0
.7
.3
1.5
0
.5
0
9
3.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24.2
64.4
56.1
8.1
62.7
40.8
57.3
58.7
1.1
0
0
0
.3
0
0
.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
.2
.5
0
.4
0
.2
.4
0
0
0
I)
50	FOR.
50	At..
50	AG.
50	FOR.
50	AG.
50	FCW.
50	AG.
50	AG.
90 FOR.
90 FOR.
90 FOR.
90 FOR.
1300
1300
1300
1 J00
1 300
1300
1300
1300
1413
1413
1413
1413
.141 8.6
.045 31.1
.047 9.5
.040 12.7
.053 23.7
.053 22.8
.053 21.0
.020 24.1
.020 31.2
.020 20.1
.020 21.9
.020 27.1
.020 27.4
.020 15.7
.020 12.3
.020 15.8
.074 7.9
.074 6.6
.080 21.2
.080 14.0
.040 19.2
.040
.080
.8
1.1
.040 15.2
.040
.040
.040
.040
.040
.040
.040
.04C
1.3
5.7
4.7
9.4
4.8
5.2
3.6
5.3
*074 16.6
.074 19.0
.074 20.8
.0 74 22.8
7.2
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.S
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
S.u
4.5
5.0
5.0
S.U
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4 . b
4.5
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
67
126
126
126
13*
139
139
135
135
140
140
128
126
128
128
127
187
187
187
187
187
193
193
190
182
182
182
183
183
183
163
183
133
133
133
133
FLO* 6
(CM/SO
KM)
.54 3
.380
.524
.470
.331
.388
1.770
.200
•	3^0
. b40
3.230
.690
.490
1.070
.420
.238
.080
.200
.262
.170
•	266
. 198
.467
1 .230
.320
.390
.320
.200
.300
.910
.668
. 700
.683
.363
. /30
• 560

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND VJSE PARAMETERS ax SUBORAlNAbE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SQ KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INOWG N
TOT P
tXPOKT
(Ko/SU KM)
OSTHO P TOT
INOtfG N
ARIZONA
RAINBOW LAKE
04091C
• 777
.061
.018
.767
.066
14.8
7.5
240.7
13.3
ARKANSAS
BEAVER RESERVOIR
050181
050101
050 IF 1
BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE
050301
0503E1
050 3Fi
BULL SHOALS RESERVOIR
0504B1
0504C1
0504EI
050 4F1
0504G1
050 4K1
0504MI
0504N1
050481
!£ OE GRAY RESERVOIR
050 7B1
050 7C1
050701
050 7E1
050 7FI
LAKE ERLING
050881
0508C1
HAMILTON LAKE
0510G1
MILLWOOD RESERVOIR
0511C1
0511G1
0511H1
0511*1
051IP 1
osiiai
0511R1
0511T1
NIMROD lake
0512B1
0512C1
0512E1
0512F1
2
0
11.9
11.7
2
0
78.1
81.4
2
0
59.9
62.3
2
1.020
.4
.4
2
1.151
2.2
2.3
2
.752
1.2
1.3
2
0
3.7
3.7
2
1.440
2.3
2.3
2
0
16.0
15.9
Z
c
15.0
14.9
2
0
6.4
6.4
2
c
5.4
5.4
2
0
8.4
8.3
2
0
9.0
8.9
2
0
6.5
6.3
2
1.172
0
0
2
e
8.5
8.7
2
1.446
1.3
1.4
2
0
8.0
8.1
2
0
7.6
7.7
2
0
8.4
8.7
2
0
7.4
7.8
2
!»
14.0
13.7
2
0
10.7
10.8
2
0
49.8
49.5
2
0
40.4
44 • 6
2
0
5.6
6.2
2
u
73.7
85. 1
2
c
48.0
55.4
2
0
67.4
77.8
2
0
69.0
79.7
2
1.336
.5
.6
2
1.646
0
0
2
1.457
0
0
2
1.040
0
0
.024
.017
.644
.141
.031
.021
1.800
1.117
.0 38
.019
1.243
.654
.027
.009
.840
.053
.020
.008
.548
.049
.019
.008
• 461
.071
.011
.006
.268
.074
.009
.006
.294
.121
.010
.006
.586
.313
.015
.006
.546
.363
.009
.006
.246
.109
.012
.008
.707
.425
.015
.007
.587
.244
.010
.008
.455
.248
.011
.005
.487
.249
.021
.008
.191
.043
.020
.008
.354
.095
.013
.006
. 149
.022
.014
.007
.302
.07*
.015
.008
.218
.094
.098
.0 36
1.067
.078
.096
• 044
.80 3
.085
.019
.010
.231
.068
.027
.008
.550
.067
.029
.008
.809
.310
• C 4 7
.018
.495
.076
.055
.017
.522
.181
.043
.016
.612
.287
• C46
.015
.49 3
.167
.068
.021
.825
.325
.046
.016
.703
.302
.016
.008
• 467
.058
.017
.007
.606
.048
.016
.008
.509
.047
.025
.009
.375
.113
10.4
7.4
278.5
61.0
13.1
8.9
759.0
471.0
18.4
9.2
601 .9
316.7
9.8
3.3
306.3
19.3
7.9
3.2
217.5
19.4
7.1
3.0
171.2
26.4
3.2
1.8
78.9
21.8
2.6
1.7
84.8
34.9
2.9
1.8
171.9
91.6
4.4
1.6
161.9
107.6
2.5
1.6
67.6
29.9
3.5
2.3
203.4
122.3
1.2
.9
53.5
29. 1
11.5
5.4
450 .fa
1 87. 3
2.5
1.1
111.0
46. J
10.1
3.9
92. 1
^0 . 7
9.5
3.8
168.5
45. ?
5.4
2.5
61.9
9. 1
6.0
3.0
129. •*
33.9
6.9
3.7
99. *
43. 1
31.3
11.5
340.3
?4.9
30.8
14.1
257.6
27.3
11.9
6.3
144.8
42*6
13.0
3.8
264.2
32.2
13.9
3.8
388.1
148.7
22.8
8.7
239.9
36.8
25.8
8.0
245.3
85. 1
20.7
7.7
295.3
138.5
21.4
7.0
229.4
7 7.7
32.5
10.0
394.5
155.4
23.8
8.3
363.7
156.2
6.7
3.3
194.6
24.2
7.6
3.1
272.b
21.6
6.8
3.4
217.6
20. 1
10.7
3.8
160.2
48.3

-------
subdrainage areas
STORET NO.
ARKANSAS
NORFOLK LAKE
051361
0513C1
0 513D 1
0513E1
0 513 J1
051381
OUACHITA LArCE
0514B1
0514C1
0514H1
table rock reservoir
0515B1
0515C1
0515F1
0515G1
0515N1
CALIFORNIA
BOCA UAKE
066281
vi 0602C1
CASITAS RESERVOIR
060 4A2
060461
DON PEDRO RESERVOIR
0606A3
0606B1
060 6C1
LAKE HENNESSEY
06091G
0609C1
060901
0609H1
0609J1
060	9K1
LAKE HENSHAW
061001
061OE1
IRON GATE RESERVOIR
0611C1
061	ID 1
061IE 1
AREA
(SO KM)
SUMMARY of LAND USE PARAMETERS dY SUdDR AINACjE AREAS
3
LAND USE PERCENTAGES	OVERALL	GEOLOGY
ME AN
FOR
CL
RA
AG
18.43
36.7
.6
27.5
34.2
22.31
71.6
4.6
14.2
9.4
23.27
SC. 2
14.3
3.9
1.6
26.14
81.7
6.6
3.4
8.1
75.02
57.6
2.0
0
40.4
50.06
86.6
1.5
0
11.9
22.59
97.9
.5
0
1.3
27.34
95.9
1.6
1.4
.7
10.31
97.9
1.6
.2
.3
48.45
57.6
.4
5.1
36.7
45.95
43.2
6.6
13.0
36. 1
74.58
90.9
.4
0
a.7
147.34
70.5
.5
0
28.2
10.31
76.5
1.2
0
21.8
24.. 38
61.1
38.9
0
0
9.12
31.S
68.5
0
0
33.81
58.0
41.7
.2
0
24.92
54.6
41.0
1.5
2.7
176.82
73.1
25.0
0
0
10.23
49.6
50.1
0
0
22.75
30.5
10.2
50.2
8.4
8.84
46.8
1.6
0
51.6
43.55
67.5
20.2
1.5
10.8
34.27
70.1
19.8
0
10. 1
10.74
45.4
24.1
6.4
24.1
8.41
52.8
30.9
0
16.3
11.59
51.8
20.8
0
27.2
66.00
32.5
54.7
12.0
.4
15.22
47.7
31.5
20.2
.3
38.79
77.9
11.4
10.5
0
51.38
29.9
51.2
18.3
.6
46.66
18.4
77.8
1.4
2.4



LAND USE
4
P-COM
SLOPE
UKb
WET
OTHER
CATEGORY
ORIGIN
<*)
<*)
PH
.5
0
.5
MIXED
1200
.020
ft.2
4.5
0
0
.2
50
FOR.
1200
.020
15.2
4.5
0
0
0
75
FOR.
1200
.020
14 . 5
4.5
0
0
.2
50
for •
1200
.020
12.5
4.5
0
0
0
50
for.
1200
.020
13.4
4.5
0
0
0
50
for.
1200
.020
18.9
4.5
0
0
.3
90
for.
1h 13
.074
27.2
4.5
0
0
.4
90
fur.
1413
.074
20.6
4.5
0
0
0
90
FOR.
1 314
.060
17.4
4.5
.2
0
0
50
FOR.
1200
.020
27.3
4.5
.9
0
.2
MIXED
1200
.020
26.6
4.5
0
0
0
50
for .
1211
.036
23.4
4.5
.3
0
.5
50
FOR.
1211
.036
25.7
4.5
• 5
0
0
50
for .
1000
.042
27.7
4.5
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1500
0
11.5
5.5
0
0
0
50
CL.
2626
.141
7.0
5.5
0
0
.1
50
FOR.
1500
0
55.1
7.5
0
0
.2
50
FOR.
1500
0
52.6
7.5
1.9
0
0
50
FOR.
1000
.030
26.0
7.5
0
0
.3
50
CL.
1523
.120
19.2
7.5
0
0
.7
50
RAF.
3700
.141
29.4
7.5
0
0
0
50
AG.
2415
.141
23.8
7.5
0
0
0
50
FOR.
2018
.127
31 .4
7.5
0
0
0
50
FOR.
2018
.127
36. 5
7.5
0
0
0
MIXED
1800
0
30.9
7.5
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1620
.105
29.6
7.5
0
0
.2
50
FOR.
2033
.136
26.0
7.5
.4
0
0
50
CL.
2032
.089
32.2
7.7
0
.3
0
MIXED
2131
.100
28.6
7. 7
.2
0
0
75
FOR.
2 400
.141
10.8
6.5
0
0
0
50
Cl.
2400
.141
33.6
6.5
0
0
0
75
CL.
2400
.141
27.6
6.5
AVt
PRtCIP.
(CM)
117
117
117
117
120
127
201
201
190
137
137
137
137
143
65
6o
57
57
44
44
44
84
113
94
94
94
94
76
76
54
54
54
FLOW 6
(CM/SO
KM)
. 190
.234
.237
.256
.550
.350
.275
.337
. 130
.269
. 190
.450
.990
.349
.367
.139
.191
.139
2.390
.011
. 146
.0 17
. 266
.354
.01b
.021
.029
.167
.009
1.390
.436
.607

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SQ KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
ARKANSAS
NORFOLK LAKE
0513B1
0513C1
051301
0513E1
0513J1
0513Q1
OUACHITA LAKE
0514B1
0514C1
0514H1
TABLE ROCK RESERVOIR
05ISH1
0515C1
0515F1
0515G1
0515H1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
1.612
1.564
0
0
0
1.467
1.178
1.836
0
C
0
a
o
13.0
13.0
.017
.008
1.307
.987
2.4
2.4
.012
.005
.670
.379
.6
.6
.012
.008
.656
.337
3.1
3.0
.010
.006
.716
.325
14.3
13.9
.011
.006
.660
.425
4.3
4.2
.012
.007
1. 113
.711
.9
.9
.026
.016
.248
.035
.5
.5
.018
.013
.345
.042
.2
.2
.017
.010
.581
.051
28.5
26.2
.012
.011
1.618
.732
21.2
20.5
.017
.010
2.034
1.044
6.2
7.2
.015
.006
.974
.087
20.2
23.3
.025
.015
2.016
.996
21.1
20.4
.011
.008
.954
.315
5.5
2.6
424.9
320.9
4.0
1.7
221.6
125.4
3.9
2.6
210.7
108.2
3.1
1.9
221. 1
100.4
2.5
1.4
198.8
98.3
2.6
1.5
245.4
156.8
10.0
6.1
95.2
13.4
7.0
5.1
134.1
16.3
6.8
4.0
231.0
20.3
2.1
1.9
283.3
128.2
2.2
1.3
265.2
136.1
2.9
1.1
185.3
16.6
5.3
3.2
427.2
211.0
1.8
1.3
156.9
51.8
CALIFORNIA
3 BOCA LAKE
060261
0602C1
CASITAS RESERVOIR
0604A2
060461
DON PEDRO RESERVOIR
0606A3
0606B1
0606C1
LAKE HENNESSEY
0609IG
0609CI
0 60901
0609H1
0609J1
0609K1
LAKE HENSHAW
061001
0610E1
IRON GATE RESERVOIR
0611C1
061101
061IE 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.019
.009
.439
.036
9.0
0
0
0
.061
.042
.887
.206
29.3
0
0
0
.012
.007
.495
.093
2.1
0
3.5
3.2
.014
.012
1.222
.104
2.5
0
0
0
.027
.010
.910
.056
11.5
0
0
0
.056
.033
1.822
.585
1.9
0
27.8
28.0
.026
.007
1.601
.218
5.3
0
83.3
83.7
.206
.147
2.726
1.564
12.5
0
17.4
17.5
.045
.028
1.239
.276
8. 7
0
16.3
16.4
.048
.025
1.174
.158
15.6
3
38.9
39.1
.054
.033
1.587
.766
2.5
0
26.3
26.4
.049
.030
1.478
.700
3.9
0
43.9
44.1
.082
.048
1 .803
1.086
6.5
£>
.9
.8
.029
.022
1.403
.046
2.3
0
.7
.7
.020
.013
.860
.039
.4
.945
0
0
.033
.024
.693
.060
37.3
0
2.2
2.2
.042
.032
1.214
.057
11.2
0
0
0
.036
.025
1.117
.191
14.8
4.3
20.2
1.2
2.1
4.3
1.1
1.4
8.9
5.4
8.1
1.6
2.4
3.8
1.8
.2
27.1
8.6
10.3
208.4
426.3
88.2
215.0
387.9
61.8
324.0
165.3
238.7
382.4
74.6
116.4
142.3
112.0
16.0
783.1
324.9
458.3
17.1
99.0
16.
18.
23.9
19.8
44. 1
94.9
53.2
51.5
36.0
55.1
85.7
3.7
.7
67.8
15.3
78.4

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE parameters BY SUBDHAINAGt AREAS
3
1


LAND USE PERCENTAGES


OVERALL
GEOLOGY
MEAN

subdrainage areas
AREA

2





LAND USE
4
P-COM
SLOPE
i
STORET NO.

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS HY SU6DRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
T01 P ORTHO P TOT N 1NOKG N
TOT P
tXPORT
(K6/SU KM)
OKTHO P TOT N
INORG N
CALIFORNIA
LAKE MENDOCINO
0616B1
NICASIO RESERVOIR
0617A2
061761
lower otay reservoir
0618G1
LAKE PILLSBURY
0619B1
0619C1
061901
0619E2
SANTA MARGARITA LAKE
0620A2
0620C1
LAKE SHASTA
0621B1
0621C1
0621E1
062 IF 1
0621H1
to 0621J1
" SHAVER LAKE
0622C1
TULLOCH RESERVOIR
062461
0624C1
UPPER TWIN LAKES
0625A2
LOWER TWIN LAKES
0626B1
COLORADO
BLUE MESA RESERVOIR
080 3F1
CHERRY CREEK RESERVOIR
08O4E1
DILLON RESERVOIR
0806G1
0806H1
GRAND LAKE
0807B1
GREEN MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR
oaoeci
0
0
6.1
7.3
.082
.019
.931
.190
105.2
0
0
6.0
6.2
.047
.028
1.474
.302
20.2
0
0
20.3
21.0
.046
.023
1.684
.413
20.0
90
1.867
0
0
.037
.012
2.700
1.420
2.1
o
1.481
0
0
.026
.014
.534
.058
17.1
o
1.412
0
0
.052
.024
. 845
.051
39.6
0
1.628
0
0
.061
.018
.653
.02d
45.6
0
.898
.2
.2
.036
.016
1.045
.030
26.4
o
0
3.2
3.2
.039
.021
. 259
.058
3.2
0
0
fl.l
8.1
.241
. 143
.720
.065
5.2
o
0
0
0
.014
.006
.587
.066
15.4
0
.780
0
0
.020
.011
.982
.039
15.3
o
.667
0
0
.018
.009
1.365
.080
19.8
o
.851
0
0
.019
.011
.876
.04?
2*».0
o
.676
0
0
.022
.016
1.153
.055
24.1
0
.643
0
0
.018
.012
.765
.067
19.8
0
0
4.7
4.6
.019
.019
.740
.071
10.8
o
0
28.1
28.3
.054
.047
1.515
.369
15.3
0
0
0
0
.022
.011
1.473
.640
3.5
0
0
0
0
.021
• 0O6
.767
.074
10.8
0
0
0
0
.018
.007
1.142
.170
8.5
0
0
0
0
.067
.047
.893
.081
14.8
0
1.691
11.1
11.2
.044
.019
.656
.049
.6
o
5
0
0
.010
.006
.259
.037
3.4
0
0
0
0
.019
.005
.258
.063
6.4
0
C
0
0
.011
.007
• 4bl
.047
7.0
0
0
.7
.7
.075
• 046
.481
.054
14.2
24.4 1194.1
12.0
10.0
9.2
18.3
13.5
11.7
1.7
3.0
6.6
8.4
9.9
13.9
17.6
13.2
13.3
1.7
633.3
731 .a
ISO.7
351.9
643.0
488.4
766.0
20 . 9
IS.6
644 . 2
751 .S
1497.9
1105.d
1265.2
839.5
10.8 419.2
429.8
231.7
3.1 395.7
3.3 538.5
10.4
.2
2.0
1.7
4.4
8.7
197.5
8.2
86.9
86. 3
292. 1
90.8
243. 7
129.7
179.5
79. 3
38.2
38.8
20.9
22.0
4.7
1.4
72.4
29. H
87.3
59.3
60 .4
73.5
40.2
104.7
100.7
38.2
80.2
17.9
• 6
12.4
21.1
29. 8
10.2

-------
SU8DRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
AREA
(SQ KM)
summary of land use parameters by SUBDKAINAGE AREAS
land use percentages
2
FOR CL
RA AG
UR6 WET
OVERALL
LAND USE
OTHER CATEGORY ORIGIN
GEOLOGY	MEAN
4 P-COM SLOPE
<*) <*>
PH
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
FLOW 6
(CM/SQ
KM)
COLORADO
NAVAJO RESERVOIR
0812F1	18.67 8.4 88.5
0812HJ	17.72 16.1 83.9
SHADOW MTN. RESERVOIR
0 813E1	2p*b
0813F1	3*35 97,2 2,8
o
2.4
0
0
.7
75
CL.
1500
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
CL.
1413
.072
o
0
0
.1
.5
50
FOR.
3122
.079
0
0
0
0
0
90
FOR.
3100
.070
27.4
28.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
40
40
55
55
.052
.040
.169
.028
CONNECTICUT
ASPINOOK POND
09O1C1
090 IF 1
HANOVER POND
090581
LAKE ZOAR
0910&1
0910C1
0910D1
0910F1
0910G1
0910H1
2.33
87.4
3.1
0
7.7
22.74
82.5
3.8
0
8.8
12.85
46.5
11.3
0
.3
1.71
72.5
13.2
0
14.3
24.81
74.3
9.7
0
6.2
4.82
40.8
17.5
0
39.1
2.98
69 » 2
7.2
0
13.6
12.02
68. 7
7.3
0
22.5
12.28
40.2
17.7
0
11.9
1.3
.7
40.0
0
8.2
1.1
9.6
.4
11.9 28.1 1.8
.3
.2
50 FOR.
3839
.150
6.6
4.5
97
3.7
.5
50 FOR.
3236
.064
7.2
4.5
97
1.6
.3
MIXED
1310
.060
11.4
4.5
94
0
0
50 FOR.
3632
.064
lb.O
4.5
97
.9
.7
50 FOR.
3438
.141
12.0
4.5
94
1.5
0
MIXED
3438
.141
12.8
4.5
91
0
.4
50 FOR.
3438
.141
15.1
4.5
89
.2
.9
50 FOR.
3438
.141
11.8
4.5
91
1.8
.3
MIXED
3332
. 121
11.0
4.5
91
.050
.428
.260
.040
.550
.100
.060
.260
.230
DELAWARE
KILLCN POND
1002AZ
1002B1
SILVER LAKE
1008B1
WILLIAMS POND
1009C1
GEORGIA
ALLATOONA RESERVOIR
130 IF 1
CHATUGE lake
1303A1
130 3CI
CLARK HILL RESERVOIR
1304CI
1304FJ
1304J1
1304K1
JACKSON LAKE
I309A1
37.40
2.28
36.0
23.4
1.8
0
0
0
61.0
76.6
.8
0
.4
0
0
Ci
50
75
AG.
AG.
5.02
6.1
.5
0
92.1
.9
0
.4
90
AG
4.01
29.0
10.1
0
59.4
1.5
0
0
50
AG
46.54 96.2 1.8
15.44
23.34
31.13
71.92
43.38
25.64
188.84
91.3
89.5
80.4
70.3
67.9
62.4
.5
2.4
9.3
3.8
2.5
2.7
59.3 2.1
1.8
8.2
8.1
10.1
25.2
29.5
33.8
37.6
0
0
0
.7
0
.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
90 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
SO fOR•
leu
1811
.040
.040
1.3
1.2
5.5
4.5
117
117
.530
.040
1815
0
1.9
4.5
114
.080
1811
.040
.6
4.5
117
.010
1036
.063
20.0
4.5
132
.660
2310
1310
.105
.040
42.4
43.4
4.5
4.5
152
163
.360
.540
2222
2236
2400
2400
.087
.087
.141
.141
7.7
9.0
6.9
8.3
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
117
117
117
117
.290
.650
. 360
.230
3632
.087
6.3
4,5
119
2.380

-------
SUMMARY OF LANO USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
DRAINAGE
ANIMAL DENSITY
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
EXPOKT
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
7
DENSITY
(AN ONITS/SO KM)

(MG/L)


(KG/SO
KM)

STORET NO.
TAG
(KM/SQ KM)
TOT P
TOT N
TOT P
OKTHO P
TOT N
INOKG N
TOT P
OWTHO P
TOT N
INOWG M
COLORADO












NAVAJO RESERVOIR












0812F1
90
0
.4
.4
.026
.008
1 .333
.052
2.3
.7
117.1
4.6
0812H1
0
0
0
0
.015
.006
.831
.049
1.1
.4
59.2
3.5
SHADOW MTN. RESERVOIR












0813E1
0
0
0
0
.022
.006
.657
.087
5.9
1.6
175.4
23.2
0813F1
0
.994
0
0
.019
.009
.451
.060
5.0
2.4
118.9
15.8
CONNECTICUT












ASPINOOK POND












0901C1
1
0
17.2
16.4
.041
.009
1 .256
.440
27.7
6.1
850.0
297.8
090 IF 1
1
0
19.6
18.8
.021
.010
.959
.291
12.5
5.9
569.2
172.7
HANOVER POND












0905B1
1
5
.3
.3
• 045
.022
1 .664
.995
28.7
14.0
1061.8
634.9
LAKE ZOAR












091061
1
0
13.7
13.5
.021
.011
.532
.295
15.5
8.1
392.4
217.6
0910C1
1
p
5.9
5.8
.032
.009
.956
.279
22.4
6.3
668.3
195.1
0910D1
1
0
37.4
36.8
.031
.008
.978
.416
20.3
5.2
639.9
272.2
0910FI
1
0
15.2
14.6
.018
.010
1.126
.721
11.4
6.3
715.0
457.8
0910G1
1
0
25.1
24.2
.044
.020
1 .416
.758
26.0
12.7
965.9
517.1
0910H1
1
0
11.4
11.2
.034
.012
1 .069
.653
20.1
7.1
631.4
385. 7
DELAWARE












KILLEN POND












1002A2
1
r.
16.3
17.2
.261
.192
3.322
2.523
116.6
85.8
1484.6
1127.5
1002B1
1
.880
20.5
21.6
. 126
.057
2.743
1 .836
69.7
31.5
1517.6
1015.6
SILVER LAKE












1008B1
1
.52 J
26.9
26.5
.047
.020
7.610
7.406
23.6
10.1
3824.5
3722.0
WILLIAMS POND












1009C1
1
0
85.2
109.0
.083
.030
1 .382
.601
6.5
2.4
108.7
47 • 3
GEORGIA












ALLATOONA RESERVOIR












1301F1
1
1.271
1.9
2.2
.024
.006
.401
.041
10.7
2.7
179.3
18.3
CHATUGE LAKE












130 3A1
1
0
17.0
15.2
.028
.006
.458
.136
20.6
4.4
336.8
100.0
130 3C1
1
0
16.8
15.1
.038
.006
.458
.130
27.7
4.4
334.2
94.9
CLARK HILL RESERVOIR












1304C1
1
0
2.1
2.1
.025
.017
.532
.164
7.3
5.0
156.3
48.2
1304F1
1
0
32.3
31.4
.026
.010
.951
.138
7.4
2.9
271.1
3 9.3
1304J1
1
a
39.9
37.6
.029
.012
.818
.090
7.6
3.1
214.1
23.6
1304K1
1
0
46.9
43.6
.036
.017
1.189
.191
10.2
4.8
336.4
54. 0
JACKSON LAKE












1309A1
1
0
30.2
29.9
.032
.008
.711
.232
13.8
3.4
306.3
100.0

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS by suborainage areas
1	3
SUBORAINAGE AREAS AREA 5^° USE PERCE:NTAGES	OVtRALL	GEOLOGY	MEAN	AVE ANN
STORET NO. (SO KM) FOR	r. Bi ,r ,,oo rT	„ LAND USE	4P-COM SLOPE	5 PRECIP.
FOR	CL RA AG URB WET	OTHER CATEGORY	ORIGIN <*)	(%)	PH (CM)
GEORGIA
SIDNEY LANIER LAKE
1310C1
131001
1310E1
NOTTLEY RESCRVOIR
1311C1
131101
SEMINOLE LAKE
131201
BLUE RIDGE LAKE
1316A1
1316C1
131601
1316E1
BURTON LAKE
1318B1
1318C1
131801
1318E1
HIGH FALLS POND
131961
00
IDAHO
CASCAOE RESERVOIR
1602E1
COEUR D'ALENE LAKE
16031L
16031M
16031N
16031P
1603C1
1603H1
1603J1
160 3K1
DKORSHAK RESERVOIK
1604C1
160401
1604E1
1604F1
1604G1
1604J1
HAYDEN LAKE
1606A2
160601
1606C1
63.56
61.5
1.8
53.54
53.4
.5
43.15
51.5
2.0
71.77
73.9
1.9
29.84
82.0
.6
55.43
67.7
4.0
9.40
85.9
2.7
36.36
83.4
1.3
10.23
86.0
2.5
16.96
96.0
.8
16.14
98.0
0
20.33
99.4
0
17.25
99.2
0
14.71
99.1
0
99.30
54.9
3.5
12.23
66.7
29.0
15.85
2.1
0
52.92
13.4
1.2
23.45
20.4
2.8
62 .64
17.0
3.8
153.99
88.9
7.4
68.77
60.2
12.0
38.94
44.4
12.6
37.69
75.7
15.1
17.06
84.9
15.1
26.38
90.6
9.4
24.87
99.3
.7
161.50
92.6
7.1
332.76
92.8
7.1
79.64
85.5
14.5
72.79
90.6
7.0
12.26
89.4
9.7
21.59
84.1
13.4
0
36.6
.1
0
0
45.6
.3
.1
0
45.0
1.4
0
0
24.2
0
0
0
17.2
0
0
0
27.1
0
.6
0
11.4
0
0
0
15.3
0
0
0
11.5
0
0
0
3.2
0
0
0
2.0
0
0
0
.6
0
0
0
.8
0
0
0
.9
0
0
0
40.7
.2
.2
0
0
0
0
0
97.9
0
0
0
85.4
0
0
0
76.8
0
0
0
79.2
0
0
0
3.7
0
0
.7
26.9
0
.2
2
38.8
0
0
9
4.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1
0
0
0
0
0
2.2
0
0
0
.7
0
0
0
2.5
0
0
0
50
FOR .
1310
.1
50
FOR.
1310
.1
50
FOR.
1310
0
50
FOR.
1310
0
50
F OR.
1310
.6
50
FOR.
1012
0
50
FOR.
1310
0
50
FOR.
1310
0
50
FOR.
1310
0
75
FOR.
3131
0
75
FOR.
1310
0
90
FOR.
1310
0
90
FOR.
1310
0
90
FOR.
1310
.5
50
FOR.
3233
4.3
50
FOR.
2126
0
90
AG.
1031
0
75
AG.
2600
0
75
AG.
2610
0
75
AG.
1031
0
75
FOR.
1500
0
50
FOR.
2621
0
MIXEO
2621
b
75
Fur .
2126
0
75
FOR.
2600
0
90
FOR ,
2635
0
90
FOR.
1021
.3
90
FuR.
2135
0
90
FOR.
1021
0
75
fok.
1000
.2
75
FOR.
1021
.2
75
FOR.
1021
0
75
FOR.
1021
.040
15.4
4.5
152
.040
12.3
4.5
157
.040
14.2
4.5
163
.040
17.8
4.5
135
.040
27.4
4.5
135
.045
4.7
4.5
132
.040
31.1
4.5
132
.040
25.6
4.5
132
.040
20.8
4.5
132
.030
35.5
4.5
132
.040
34.3
4.5
165
.040
38.0
4.5
165
.040
39.9
4.5
165
.040
36.6
4.5
165
.088
6.8
4.5
122
.167
24.1
6.5
46
0
4.4
5.0
52
.244
9.1
5.0
68
.128
9.5
5.0
68
0
8.1
5.0
52
0
35.7
5.0
66
. 192
20.2
5.0
66
.192
23.2
5.0
68
. 167
30.2
5.0
68
.244
14.tt
5.0
94
.194
23.0
5.0
94
.087
39.6
5.0
94
.130
24.5
6.5
69
• 084
3b. 7
5.5
94
.040
44.2
5.0
89
.084
31.0
5.0
68
.084
33.5
5.0
6a
.084
26.9
5.0
68
FLO* 6
(CM/SO
KM)
1.770
1 .040
.800
1 .370
.530
. 630
.270
1.050
.300
.490
.550
•	6«0
.590
•	5 0 0
1.420
. 186
.032
. 1 06
.025
.125
1.4 79
. 665
.316
.196
.489
.005
. 759
4.900
11.000
2.430
.910
.152
.252

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBORAlNAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
TAG
DRAINAGE
DENSITY
(KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SQ KM)
ORTHO P TOT
N 1NORG N
GEORGIA
SIDNEY LANIER LAKE
1310C1
131001
13I0E1
NOTTLEY RESERVOIR
1311C1
131101
SEMINOLE LAKE
1 31201
BLUE RIDGE LAKE
1316A1
1316CI
131601
1316EI
BURTON LAKE
1318B1
1318CI
1318D1
1318E1
HIGH FALLS POND
131981
0
c
0
204.8
233.5
230.4
222.3
261.9
258.4
.072
.055
.062
.030
.020
.016
.931
1.072
1.295
• 465
.626
.679
63.2
33.7
36.2
26.3
12.3
9.4
817.6
656. 7
757.2
408.4
383.5
397.0
0
0
41.4
38.5
38.5
35.0
.037
.035
.009
.010
.619
.759
.185
.110
22.3
19.6
5.4
5.6
372.6
425.1
111.4
61.6
3
16.5
20.5
.106
.047
.794
.098
37.4
16.6
260.1
34.6
0
9
0
1.200
13.5
18.1
13.6
9.8
13.1
17.6
13.2
11.4
.018
.031
.046
.010
.006
.007
.007
.007
.769
.487
.729
.470
.174
.108
.070
.043
16.3
28.2
42.5
9.1
5.4
6.4
6.5
6.4
696.6
443.5
674.2
428.2
157.6
98.4
64.7
39.2
1.230
1.195
1.193
1.379
3.3
1.0
1.3
1.5
3.8
1.1
1.5
1.7
.008
.015
.009
.008
.005
.010
.005
.005
.422
.466
.342
.353
.080
.066
.052
.082
8.6
15.8
9.7
8.6
5.4
10.5
5.4
5.4
453.5
491 .5
368.9
378.4
86. 0
69.6
56. 1
87.9
0
38.7
38.6
.025
.007
.522
.227
11.3
3.2
235.4
102.4
IDAHO
CASCADE RESERVOIR
1602E1
COEUR D'ALENE LAKE
16031L
16031M
16031N
16031P
160 3C1
1603M1
1603J1
160 3K1
DtfORSHAK RESERVOIR
1604C1
160401
1604E1
1604F1
1604G1
1604J1
HAYDEN LAKE
1606A2
160661
1606C1
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.760
.656
.531
.626
.407
9
0
0
.567
0
1.561
I .643
1.540
1.373
1.786
1.325
1.050
1.219
0
0
.034
.017
.435
.083
15.1
14.8
.170
.110
7.690
6.582
13.1
13.1
.192
.100
3.307
1.970
11.1
11.0
.241
.106
3.151
2.056
11.3
11.1
.173
.048
3.384
1.993
.6
.6
.018
.011
.580
.077
4.1
4.1
.052
.030
1.842
.829
5.9
5.9
.052
.037
1.026
.527
.7
.7
.034
.021
.471
.061
0
0
.031
.016
.578
.058
0
0
.029
.018
.480
.032
0
0
.024
.009
.393
.029
0
0
.036
.030
.303
.029
0
0
.017
.013
.417
.033
0
0
.011
.005
.469
.058
.3
.3
.016
.008
.479
.059
.1
.1
.019
.012
1.082
.041
.4
.4
.030
.012
.811
.032
16.3
10. 8
12.1
8.1
10.9
5.5
15.9
13.3
5.6
28.0
27.9
23.1
34.4
17.7
10.6
6.3
7.4
11.0
8.2
7.0
6.3
3.6
3.0
3.3
9.1
9.5
3.4
14.5
17.3
8.7
28.7
13.6
4.8
3.2
4.7
4.4
208.6
489.6
208.9
105.9
213.0
175.7
561.7
262.6
77.2
522.5
461.9
378.2
289.9
434.7
451.3
188.8
423.0
298.5
39.8
419.1
124.^
69.1
125.4
23.3
252.8
134.9
10.0
52.4
30.8
27.9
27.7
34.4
55.8
23.3
16.0
11.8

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUtfDRAINAGE AREAS
3
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
IDAHO
islano park reservoir
ILLINOIS
CARLYLE RESERVOIR
1706D1
_ 1706E1
g 1706H1
CRAB ORCHARD LAKE
1712C1
LAKE OECATUR
I714B1
1T14C1
1714E1
1714FI
1714G1
17I4H1
1714J1
LAKE LOU YAEGER
I7Z6C1
REND LAKE
1735B1
1735F1
SHELBYVILLE RESERVOIR
173981
I739C1
1739G1
1739H1
SPRINGFIELD LAKE
1742B1
AREA
(SQ KM)
FOR
CL
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
AG
KA
U9B WET OTHEK
OVERALL GEOLOGY	MEAN	AVE ANN FLOW 6
LAND USE	4 P-COM SLOPE 5 PRECIP. (CM/SO
CATEGORY OR IO IN (i)	<*,) PH	(Cr4)	KM)
1607B1
MAGIC RESERVOIR
38.20
82.8
15.5
1.5
0
0
0
.2
75 FOR.
2526
.150
28.8
5.5
86
.520
160901
PALISADES RESERVOIR
20.05
2.4
43.9
42.9
10.7
0
0
.1
MIXEO
2421
.167
14.6
o.5
41
.035
1610B1
1610C1
1610D1
1610£1
LOWER PAYETTE
202.27
17.39
149. 79
100.36
64.0
65.7
60.8
44.2
36.0
33.9
38.8
53.2
0
0
0
.4
0
0
0
.2
0
0
0
0
0
.4
0
0
0
0
.4
2.0
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 CL.
1010
1818
1818
1000
.030
.040
.040
.030
51.8
52. J
61.9
56. 3
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
57
57
57
57
2.210
.168
1.960
• 387
161161
1611C1
TWIN LAKES
12.55
10.93
65.9
71.B
33.1
28.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
0
0
0
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
2100
2100
• lib
.115
24.2
28.5
5.0
5.0
78
78
.289
. 246
1612B1
1612C1
16121)1
7.35
6.65
37.94
89.6
85.7
94.6
1.4
14.3
4.3
8.7
0
.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3
0
.5
75 FOR.
75 for.
90 FOR.
2100
2100
2100
.115
.115
.115
36.3
37.3
33.1
5.0
5.0
5.0
68
68
68
.118
.106
.610
134.89
14.9
3.0
0
80.5
1.5
0
.1
75
AG.
223.41
29.0
4.5
0
66.2
.2
0
.1
50
AG.
59.39
9.9
2.5
0
86.8
.8
0
c
75
AG •
43.90
39.3
7.0
0
52.6
.3
0
.8
50
AG.
20.90
.5
2.0
0
97.4
.1
0
0
90
AG.
109.06
3.6
1.2
0
93.8
1.2
0
.2
90
AG.
53.54
0
.9
0
99.1
0
0
0
90
AG.
45.56
0
1.1
0
98.9
0
0
0
90
AG •
26.37
2.0
2.8
0
93.9
1.2
0
.1
90
AG.
57.06
.6
2.3
0
97.1
0
0
0
90
AG.
21.63
1.4
2.8
0
95.8
0
0
0
90
AG.
51.13
1.4
1.1
0
97.3
0
0
.2
90
AG.
229.14
27.8
3.4
0
68.0
.6
0
.2
50
AG .
30.82
20.8
3.2
0
76.0
0
0
0
75
AG.
28.21
3.7
.4
0
95.9
0
0
0
90
AG.
40.64
3.0
1.0
0
96.0
0
0
0
90
AG.
144.39
1.9
.8
0
97.2
. 1
0
0
90
AG.
119.30
4.6
1.2
0
93.3
.9
0
0
90
AG.
60.74
1.1
.4
0
98.4
0
0
.1
90
AG.
1010
1000
1000
1310
1000
1010
1000
1010
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
.049 1.5
.049	2.3
.049	1.5
.047	8.3
.056
.049
• 03b
.045
.056
.045
.049
.038
.045
.047
.054
.054
.054
.054
2.2
1.7
.5
.6
1.5
1.7
1.6
3.7
2.6
1.1
.9
.7
1.1
.054 1.1
6.3
6.3
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.3
6.3
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
104
102
102
117
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
91
107
107
97
97
97
99
91
•	840
1.420
.370
.270
.130
.t>90
.340
•	2R0
.160
.340
.120
.310
1 .460
.190
.170
.250
.930
.750
.390

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BX SUBDRAINAbE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SO KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SQ KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SQ KM)
ORTHO P TOT
N INORG N
IDAHO
ISL1607B1RK RESERV0IH	o 1.523	0	0	.041	.028	.589	.051	17.6	12.0	252.8	21.9
MAS1609Dl'Lf'VOIR	0	0	3'4	3«8	*092	•°65	•63°	*1M*	5,1	3,6	45*7	7*9
PALI.M0b! RESERV°Ik	0	0	0	0	.036	.015	.356	.057	12.,	5.2	122.7	19.6
I610C1	o	0	0	0	.019	.009	.234	.084	5.8	2.7	71.3	25.6
JtlSnJ	o	0	0	0	.027	.014	.426	.143	11.1	5.8 175.8	59.0
«	«	1.1	7	.01?	.494	.140	4.5	1.5 60.1	17.0
0
1.523
0
0
.041
.028
.589
.051
17.6
0
0
3.4
3.8
.092
.065
.630
.144
5.1
0
0
0
0
.036
.015
.356
.057
12.4
0
0
0
0
.019
.009
.234
.084
5.8
0
0
0
0
.027
.014
.426
.143
11.1
0
0
.1
.1
.037
.012
.494
.140
4.5
0
0
0
0
.012
.005
.578
.215
8.7
0
0
0
0
.012
.005
.282
.034
8.5
0
.702
0
0
.037
.010
.570
.204
18.7
0
1.183
0
0
.023
.015
.642
.039
11.6
0
.922
0
0
.030
.015
.558
.057
15.2
1610E1
L0"l611BlETTE	o	0	0	0	.012	.005	.578	.215	8.7	J.6	419.7	156.1
}£}}£}	0	0	0	0	.012	.005	.282	.034	8.5	3.5	200.2	24.1
T-I|^?BlS	0	.70?	0	0	.037	.010	.570	.204	18.7	5.1	288.6	103.3
!£Jfc!	o	1.183	0	0	.023	.015	.642	.039	11.6	7.5	322.7	19.6
!£}!£{	°	i,,	n	n	.(no	.015	.558	.057	15.2	7.6	282.9	28.9
illinors
CARLYLE RESERVOIR
1706D1
1706E1
-	1706H1
° CRAB ORCHARD LAKE
1712C1
LAKE DECATUR
1714B1
1714C1
1714E1
1714F1
1714G1
1714H1
1714J1
LAKE LOU YAEGER
1726C1
REND LAKE
1735B1
1735F1
SHELBYVILLE RESERVOIR
1739B1
1739C1
1739G1
1739H1
SPRINGFIELD LAKE
174281
.852	27.7	27.3
0	21.7	21.4
.895	29.1	28.7
C	28.8	28.4
.828	12.3	12.2
.811	11.9	11.7
.429	12.5	12.4
.466	15.6	15.4
.868	13.4	13.2
.563	15.4	15.1
.606	12.1	12.0
.735	38.9	38.1
0	25.4	24.9
1.283	29.0	28.4
.463	27.2	26.7
.562	23.4	22.9
.505	15.8	15.3
.658	18.1	17.6
1	.732	29.5 28.8
243
.105
2.095
.750
134
.045
1.720
.529
273
.093
2.305
.734
089
.021
2.236
1.395
122
.041
6.399
5.093
153
.078
5.292
4.897
,092
.032
6.848
5.832
,078
.026
5.510
4.920
160
.089
5.453
4.809
,115
.035
6.227
5.645
,127
.044
6.955
6.051
.177
.090
7.265
6.066
.198
.041
2.390
.710
.143
.026
2.138
.685
.123
.074
5.370
4.694
.094
.033
6.660
6.157
.211
.102
7.269
6.359
.270
.136
7.082
5.961
.110
.050
7.332
6.533
47.7
26.9
53.6
20.6
9.0
18.3
411.4
344.8
452.9
147.3
106.0
144.2
17.3
4.1
433.7
270.6
23.9
30.5
18.4
15. 1
30.6
21.6
22.2
8.0
15.6
6.4
5.0
17.0
6.6
7.7
1255.2
1055.9
1371.4
1067.9
1043.4
1170.1
1216.8
999.0
977.1
1168.0
953.6
920.2
1060.8
1058.7
33.8
17.2
1389.1
1159.8
39.8
27.8
8.2
5.1
480.2
415.7
142.7
133.2
23.4
18.2
42.9
53.5
14.1
6.4
20.7
27.0
1020.5
1292.0
1476.5
1404.1
892. 1
1194.4
1291.6
1181.8
22.3
10.1
1484.6
1322.8

-------
SUMMARr OF LAND USE PARAMETERS Br SUelOR AINAGE AREAS
3
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS	AREA
STORE! NO.	(SO KM)
ILLINOIS
VERMILLION RESERVOIR
1748A3	98.52
174881	13.49
1748C1	24.29
1748E1	29.73
1748F1	43.90
174861	35.41
SANGCHRIS lake
1753B1	36.23
1753C1	12.61
175301	17.38
1753E1	32.17
HOLIDAY LAKE
1754A2	138.15
RACOON LAKE
1762A2	90.86
LAKE VANOALIA
1764A2	11.47
1764B1	10.54
1764C1	4.53
176401	3.16
INDIANA
CATARACT LAKE
180501	3.55
1805E1	6.42
1805E2	15.67
GEIST RESERVOIR
1811D1	23.88
MISSISSINEWA RESERVOIR
1S27C1	7.59
182701	25.62
1827*1	18.36
MORSE RESERVOIR
182981	48.02
HAKASEE LAKE
1836C1	4.53
HINONA LAKE
1840B1	29.81
1840CI	9.27
MAXINKUCKEE LAKE
184381	3.01
184 3C1	5.10
FOR
.2
3.3
.2
.1
.1
1.4
2.8
0
.1
1.8
2.6
6.5
5.2
0
54.8
39.0
44.3
6.6
4.9
15.5
1.9
8.5
16.5
11.9
8.2
9.1
18.6
CL
.2
.2
.2
.3
0
.7
.2
0
1.0
.5
RA
AG
3.9 1.4
22.0 2.0
4.1
9.2
6.1
1.1
0
.3
0
.1
1.9
.4
.8
6.4
6.2
97.6
96.5
99.6
99.6
99.9
97.2
97.0
100.0
98.9
97.6
93.9
0 75.2
97.4
93.5
94.8
100.0
41.1
51.1
47.9
0 91.1
93.7
83.6
98.1
90.4
80.7
87.1
8SP.7
84.5
72.0
^T AGES

OVERALL
GEOLOGY
MEAN

AVE ANN
FLO*



LAND USE
4
P-COM
SLOPE
5
PRECIP.
(CM/SQ
URB
wET
OTHER
CATEGORY
ORIGIN
<*>
(*)
PH
(CM)
KM)
1.7
.1
.2
90
AG.
1214
.050
1.2
6.0
94
.630
0
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.052
1.6
6.3
97
.090
0
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.050
1.6
6.0
94
.150
0
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.056
1.2
6.0
94
. 1H0
0
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.056
1.4
6.3
97
.260
.7
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.056
1.6
6.0
94
.210
0
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.038
.8
6.0
91
.220
0
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.038
.2
6.0
91
.080
0
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.038
.4
6.0
91
.110
0
0
.1
90
AG.
1000
.038
.5
6.0
91
.200
.8
0
0
90
AG.
1213
.032
1.4
6.0
86
.890
.2
.1
.5
75
AG.
1000
.037
3.0
6.3
104
.570
0
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.038
.9
6.3
97
.070
0
0
0
90
AG .
1000
• 03B
1.8
6.3
97
.060
0
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.038
1.2
6.3
97
.030
0
0
0
90
AG.
1000
.044
1.4
6.3
97
.020
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1112
.056
10.1
6.0
107
.030
0
0
.7
50
AG.
1112
.056
7.1
6.0
107
.060
0
1.1
.6
MJXEO
1112
.056
16.3
6.0
107
. 150
0
0
1.2
90
AG.
1212
.020
3.0
6.3
91
.230
.9
.5
0
90
AG.
1211
.044
1.6
6.3
94
.0 70
.2
.4
0
75
AG.
1211
.044
3.4
6.3
94
.240
0
0
0
90
AG.
1211
.044
1.5
6.3
94
.170
.9
0
.1
90
AG.
1412
.050
2.1
6.3
91
.530
0
.9
0
75
AG.
1400
.080
1.9
6.3
91
.040
.2
.2
.2
75
AG.
1212
.020
2.4
6.3
94
.280
0
.5
.8
75
AG.
1212
.020
2.8
6.3
94
.090
0
0
0
75
AG.
1400
.080
4.7
6.3
94
.040
0
3.2
0
50
AG.
1400
.080
5.0
6.3
94
.050

-------
SUMHMRT OF LAND use PARAMETERS BY SUBDHAINA13E AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
ILLINOIS
VERMILLION RESERVOIR
1748A3
174881
1748C1
1748E1
1748F1
174861
SANGCHRIS LAKE
175381
1753C1
175301
1753E1
HOLIDAY LAKE
1754A2
RACOON LAKE
1762A2
LAKE VANDALI*
1764A2
176481
1764C1
176401
INDIANA
CATARACT LAKE
180501
1805E1
1805E2
GEIST RESERVOIR
181101
MISSISSINEWA RESERVOIR
1827C1
182701
1827F1
HORSE RESERVOIR
182981
WANASEE LAKE
1836C1
WINONA LAKE
184031
1840C1
MAXINKUCKEE LAKE
1843B1
1843C1
DRAINAGE
DENSITY
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
tXPORT
TAG
(KM/SQ KM)
TOT P
TOT N
TOT P
ortho p
TOT N
1NORG N
.670
19.9
19.6
.092
.027
7.816
7.011
1.210
17.4
17.2
.099
.026
8.025
7.444
1.081
17.9
17.8
.079
.015
7.827
7.247
.630
17.9
17.8
.153
.019
8.842
7.846
.720
18.0
17.8
.0 76
.017
8.39*
7.630
.97 4
17.5
17.3
.067
.014
7.809
7.177
.678
17.8
17.4
.121
.049
6.624
5.915
.886
18.3
17.9
.052
.038
6. 109
5.229
.664
18.1
17.7
.121
.046
6.510
5.607
.741
26.0
25.5
. 182
.093
7.641
6.87t>
.664
66.0
67.0
.123
.051
7.141
6.292
1.334
26.5
26.1
.191
.045
2.775
.599
.378
31.9
31.5
.164
.089
2.260
.888
.637
30.6
30.2
.169
• 069
2.550
.791
.885
31.0
30.6
.191
.069
2.108
.575
1.145
32.7
30.3
.313
.133
3.042
1.444
0
29.8
29.2
.135
.036
1.222
.675
0
37.0
36.3
.259
.142
3.215
1.834
0
34.7
34.0
.044
.014
1.155
.532
.500
35.1
34.6
.096
.047
5.143
4.424
1.390
55.1
53.2
.172
.118
5.226
4.210
1.060
35.1
33.8
.105
.038
2.616
1.295
.590
44.8
43.5
.096
.052
5.781
4.730
.700
43.7
42.8
.070
.045
4.029
3.356
1.590
49.2
48.7
.043
.023
5.048
4.241
.770
65.7
62.5
.073
.020
2.781
1.527
.820
67.7
64.4
.054
.014
2.928
1.687
1.070
46.1
45.1
.163
.085
4.731
3.373
0
41.5
40.7
.130
.039
2.630
1.489

(KG/SU
KM)

roT p
ORTHO P
TOT N
INORb N
18.6
5.4
1449.1
1413.H
18.7
5.5
1688.4
1566.2
15.4
2.9
1524.3
1411.3
29.2
3.6
1688.2
1498.5
14.2
3.2
1567•b
1425.1
12.5
2.6
1460.5
1342.3
23.2
9.4
1268.5
1132.7
10.4
7.6
1222.2
1046.2
2*.2
9.2
1299.4
1119.1
35.7
18.2
1498.1
1348.1
25.0
10.4
1450.8
1278.3
37.8
8.9
549.0
118.5
31.6
17.1
435.0
170.9
30.3
12.4
457. 8
142.0
39.9
14.4
440. 3
120.1
62.5
26.5
607.2
288.2
36.0
9.6
325.7
179.9
76.3
41.9
947.6
540 . 5
13.3
4.2
348. 7
160.6
29.2
14.3
1562.1
1343.7
50.0
34.3
1520.0
1224.5
31.0
11.2
772.8
332.6
28.0
15.2
1688.1
1381.2
24.4
15.7
1402.4
1168.1
12.0
6.4
1405.7
1181.0
21.6
5.9
823.8
452.3
16.5
4.3
896.5
516.5
54.0
28.1
1566.4
1116.8
40.2
12.1
813.1
460.4

-------
subdrainage areas
STORET NO.
INDIANA
OLIVER LAKE
184 7B1
VERSAILLES LAKE
185001
185001
PIGEON LAKE
1855A2
18S5B1
HARSH LAKE
185661
HAMILTON LAKE
1857B1
1857C1
185701
IOWA
AHQUABI LAKE
1901B1
BIG CREEK RESERVOIR
1902A2
- 190201
-p. LAKE MACflRlOE
19071C
190 71D
19071E
190 71F
190 72E
RED ROCK RESERVOIR
1910E1
1910F1
1910G1
1910H1
WEST OKOBOJI LAKE
19151A
19151B
19151C
19151D
KANSAS
COUNCIL GROVE RES.
2002C1
2002D1
2002E1
2002F1
2002G1
2002G2
2002H1
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
AREA

2




(SQ KM)
FOR
CL
RA
AG
URB
WET
5.52
12.1
4.0
0
83.1
0
.8
15.46
25.4
43.4
0
31.2
0
0
11.58
21.0
10.0
0
68.4
.2
0
33.20
15.0
3.0
0
ei.9
0
0
8.18
10.4
5.6
0
84.0
0
0
5.52
15.1
15.7
0
65.7
0
3.5
21.89
15.6
.6
0
83.8
0
0
2.15
17.0
.1
0
82.9
0
0
1.81
25.7
14.9
0
59.4
0
0
5.92
25.6
3.9
7.7
57.7
0
0
101.81
.7
1.1
.3
97.8
0
.1
54.44
.3
1.0
.7
95.3
2.7
0
13.96
6.4
.2
0
93.4
0
0
8.68
3.9
2.0
0
88.3
1.7
0
21.42
4.2
4.3
0
91.1
.2
.1
51.37
5.1
2.1
0
92.2
0
.4
11.08
.4
3.7
0
95.3
.4
.2
65.89
3.7
1.2
0
94.2
0
0
17.60
2.2
0
9.2
88.0
0
0
30.58
i.e
1.0
0
96.6
.4
0
34.31
7.3
.3
C
90.5
.6
0
27.65
.2
2.2
0
97.2
.2
.2
20.81
.3
1.6
0
96.7
.8
.3
21.22
.5
0
0
99.5
0
0
30.67
.4
0
0
99.6
0
3
27.50
6.4
0
23.9
67.3
0
1.3
82.95
5.2
.2
31.8
61.5
0
0
29.08
6.7
0
46.7
43.4
0
0
45.74
3.1
0
40.1
56.0
0
0
45.31
2.3
0
25.5
71.5
0
0
25.77
.8
0
19.9
78.5
0
0
17.31
1.8
0
14.3
82.9
0
0
QY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
3

OVERALL
GEOLOGY
MEAN

AVE ANN
FLOW I

LAND USE
4
P-COM
SLOPE
5
PRECIP.
(CM/SQ
OTHER
CATEGORY
ORIGIN
(«)
li)
PH
(CM)
KM)
0
75
AG.
1414
.080
2.4
6.3
89
.050
0
MIXED
1211
.050
3.9
5.8
104
.140
.4
50
AG.
1211
.050
3.9
5.0
104
.110
.1
75
AG.
1414
.oao
2.4
6.3
89
.310
0
75
AG.
1414
.080
2.1
6.3
89
.080
0
50
AG.
1414
.080
6.0
6.3
89
.050
0
75
AG.
1414
.080
3.4
6.3
89
.200
0
75
AG.
1414
.080
6.0
6.3
89
.020
0
50
AG.
1414
.080
8.1
6.3
89
.020
5.1
50
AG.
1110
.057
9.3
6.0
82
.031
0
90
AG.
1110
.057
2.4
6.0
90
.510
0
90
AG.
1110
.057
2.3
6.0
90
.261
0
90
AG.
1212
.020
9.0
6.3
77
.081
4.1
75
AG.
1212
.020
10.2
6.0
77
.051
.1
90
AG.
1212
.020
6.2
6.0
77
.125
.2
90
AG.
1212
.020
7.9
6.0
77
.299
0
90
AG.
1212
.020
5.1
6.0
77
.064
.9
90
AG.
1413
.060
8.9
5.5
71
.395
.6
75
AG.
1413
.060
9.6
6.3
71
.106
.2
90
AG.
1413
.060
7.2
5.5
71
. 183
1.3
90
AG.
1413
.060
8.3
5.5
82
.206
0
90
AG.
1012
.056
2.2
6.0
72
.107
.3
90
AG.
1012
.056
1.4
6.0
72
.080
0
90
AG.
1012
.056
1.9
6.0
72
.082
0
90
AG •
1012
.056
1.7
6.0
72
.118
1.1
50
AG.
1015
.050
3.6
6.5
76
.129
1.3
50
AG.
1015
.050
4.4
6.5
76
.398
1.2
MIXED
1015
.050
7.6
6.5
76
.145
.8
50
AG.
1015
.050
3.9
6.5
76
.220
.7
50
AG.
1015
.050
2.9
6.5
76
.217
.8
75
AG.
1015
.050
2.4
6.5
76
• 124
1.0
75
AG.
1015
.050
3.8
6.5
76
.081

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SU9DRAINAGE AREAS


DRAINAGE
ANIMAL
OENSITY

MEAN CONCENTRATIONS

EXPORT

SUBORA(NAGE AREAS
7
DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SQ KM)

(MG/L)


(KG/SQ
KM)

ST WET NO.
TAG
(KM/SQ KM)
TOT P
TOT H
TOT P
ORTHO P
TOT N
1NORG N
TOT P
ORTHO P
TOT N
INORG b
INDIANA












OLIVER LAKE












184761
1
.800
80.4
77.5
.035
.015
3.285
2.221
10.0
4.3
938.4
634.4
VERSAILLES LAKE












1850B1
1
0
21.1
20.7
.031
.013
.927
.413
8.9
3.7
264.7
117.9
165001
1
0
46.4
45.3
.080
.037
1.336
.603
24.0
11.1
400.2
180.6
PI6EON LAKE












1855A2
1
• 64C
47.7
47.9
.078
.020
3.301
1.991
23.0
5.9
972.0
586.3
1B55B1
1
1.370
48.9
*9.1
.104
.042
5.098
3.597
32.1
13.0
1572.3
1109.4
MARSH LAKE












1856B1
1
0
38.3
38.4
.161
.105
2.509
1.328
46.0
30.0
716.7
379.3
HAMILTON LAKE












1B57H1
1
1.219
46.8
49.0
.087
.031
3.109
1.820
25.1
8. 9
895.8
524.4
1857C1
1
1.370
46.3
48.5
.074
.009
1.700
.736
21.7
2.6
498.7
215.9
1857D1
1
0
34.6
34.7
.052
.013
1.567
.713
18.1
4.5
546.0
248.5
IOMA












AHQUABI LAKE












i90iat
1
0
*~3.9
43.2
.162
.048
4.490
3.048
26.8
7.9
in
•
r-
503.3
BIG CREEK RESERVOIR












1902A2
I
.860
64.6
63.6
. 162
.054
7.890
6.941
25.6
8.5
1246.4
1096.5
- 1902bI
I
.654
59.7
58.B
.295
.095
8.698
7.356
44.6
14.4
1315.1
1112.2
S LAKE MACBRIOE












19071C
1
1.659
76.6
74.8
.213
.083
4.678
2.894
39.0
15.2
856.0
529.5
190710
1
1.233
86.2
83.2
.116
.058
3.480
2.373
21.5
10.7
644.8
439.7
19071E
1
1.316
79.1
79.9
.137
.058
7.381
6.381
25.2
10.7
1358.4
1174.3
19071F
1
1.300
91.4
89.5
.248
.107
5.362
3.977
45.5
19.6
984.2
730.0
19072E
1
1.309
76.9
75.2
.161
.091
10.145
8.976
29.3
16.6
1848.0
1635.0
RED ROCK RESERVOIR












1910E1
1
1.129
86.5
84.9
.300
.066
7.383
5.921
56.7
12.5
1395.8
1119.4
1910F1
1
1.307
83.6
83.1
.173
.064
4.193
3.132
32.9
12.2
796.4
594.9
19IPG1
1
1.126
89. 1
87.6
.391
.076
6.889
5.322
73.8
14.3
1300.1
1004.4
19I0H1
1
1.186
68.8
67.8
.185
.060
3.625
2.428
35.0
11.4
686.4
459.7
WEST OKOBOJI LAKE












19151A
1
.479
72.5
72.9
.141
.054
9.726
8.374
17.2
6.6
1166.9
1021.9
19151B
1
.482
74.8
75.0
.206
.075
9.829
8.246
25.0
9.1
1191.6
999.7
19151C
1
.847
74.2
74.7
.246
.115
14.460
10.531
30.0
14.0
1762.2
1283.3
19151D
I
.905
74.3
74.7
.071
.043
13.483
12.299
8.6
5.2
1635.9
1492.3
KANSAS












COUNCIL GROVE RES.












2002C1
2
0
27.9
27.7
.126
.049
2.479
1.192
18.6
7.2
366.7
176.3
200201
2
0
25.2
25.0
.192
.108
2.951
1.860
29.1
16.3
446.5
281.4
2002E1
2
0
18.0
17.9
.062
.027
3.106
1.836
9.7
4.2
488.4
288.7
2002F1
2
0
23.2
23.0
.086
.024
2.520
1.169
13.0
3.6
382.2
177.3
2002G1
2
0
29.6
29.4
. 158
.051
2.690
1.194
23.9
7.7
406.3
180.3
2002G2
2
1.420
32.5
32.3
.167
.071
2.788
1.074
25.3
10.8
423.1
163.0
2002H1
2
1.578
34.3
34.1
.059
.027
1.965
.856
8.7
4.0
290.0
127.6

-------
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
AREA
(SO KM)
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
3
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
FOR
CL
RA AG
UR6 XET OTHER
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
GEOLOGY
4 P-COM
ORIGIN <*)
MEAN
SLOPE
(%>
PH
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
FLO* 6
(CM/SO
KM)
KANSAS
MARION RESERVOIR
2007C1
200701
MILFORD RESERVOIR
2009D1
NORTON RESERVOIR
2010A3
PERRY RESERVOIR
2011C1
201101
2011E2
2011F1
201IG1
POMONA RESERVOIR
201201
TORONTO RESERVOIR
201301
TWTTUE CREEK RESERVOIR
20141M
201481
2014C1
20141.1
2014N1
S 2014P1
29.28
1.2
.1
15.6
82.2
0
.1
. 8
75
AG.
1200
.020
3.0
6.5
89
.158
15.26
1.1
.5
63.0
34.0
0
.2
1.2
50
RAA.
1110
.052
4.4
6.5
89
.082
53.99
5.3
.3
22.2
70.1
0
0
2.1
50
AG.
1211
.040
4.6
6.5
71
.263
195.48
.6
0
0
98.a
.2
0
.4
90
AG.
1314
.060
2.5
7.2
67
.227
28.97
21.1
1.7
17.1
59.7
0
0
.4
50
AG.
1214
.050
7.4
5.5
97
.086
15.56
7.2
.6
4.4
87.3
0
0
.5
75
AG •
1214
.050
5.5
5.5
97
.087
35.90
7.4
.3
14.6
77.4
0
0
.3
75
AG.
1214
.050
4.5
5.5
79
.201
13.57
34.6
.6
21.7
42.9
0
0
.2
MIXED
1214
.050
6.1
5.5
79
.076
17.77
6.6
.6
6.2
86.2
0
0
.4
75
AG.
1214
.050
4.3
5.5
97
.100
30.71
3.6
3.0
23.0
70.0
0
0
.4
50
AG.
1214
.050
3.8
5.5
104
.193
44.21
11.8
1.9
79.3
6.8
0
.1
.1
75
RA.
1214
.050
7.2
6.5
115
.349
19.18
7.6
7.1
77.4
7.1
0
.5
.3
75
RA.
1214
.050
10.6
6.5
82
.061
45.02
7.2
.9
25.6
65.3
0
0
1.0
50
AG •
1214
.050
4.3
6.5
82
.144
55.34
3.2
2.0
31.0
63.6
0
0
0
50
AG.
1214
.050
6.4
6.5
82
.188
112.92
6.9
2.2
37.9
52.4
.3
0
.3
50
AG.
1214
.050
7.8
6.5
93
.370
14.52
4.3
7.2
46.1
42.3
0
0
.1
MIXED
1214
.050
10.5
6.5
82
.046
16.47
10.1
2.5
16.6
69.0
0
.3
1.3
50
AG.
1214
.050
5.4
6.5
93
.059
KENTUCKY
LAKE CUMBERLANO
2101C1
2101H1
2101J1
2101K1
2101S1
DALE HOLLO* RESERVOIR
210261
2102C1
2102F1
KENTUCKY LAKE
2104C1
2104D1
2104E1
2104F1
2104K1
21044.1
2104*1
2104N1
2104V1
2104W1
2104*1
2104Y1
210421
12.61
46.2
6.2
0
47.6
0
0
0
MIXED
1810
.040
17.8
4.5
132
.170
39.63
47.1
1.6
0
50.8
.3
0
0
50
AG •
1810
.040
14.9
4.5
127
.530
40.38
35.4
1.8
0
62.5
0
0
.3
50
AG.
1810
.040
13.6
4.5
127
.540
58.43
20.3
3.0
0
75.8
.8
0
.1
75
AG.
1810
.040
10.1
4.5
127
.800
46.36
89.1
6.6
0
2.8
.5
0
1.0
75
FOR.
1810
.055
22.6
4.5
122
.620
12.92
41.0
4.7
0
54.3
0
0
0
50
AG.
1810
.062
16.C
4.5
127
.240
30.46
39.9
4.7
0
55.2
.1
0
.1
50
AG.
1812
.020
17.2
4.5
132
.550
23.39
78.6
6.0
0
15.4
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1000
.070
25.6
5.0
137
.490
76.59
40.2
4.6
0
55.0
0
0
0
50
AG .
1810
.043
7.6
5.6
122
1 .120
8.96
52.4
11.4
0
35.6
.3
0
.3
50
FOR.
1810
.043
11.0
4.5
122
.130
138.44
54.5
2.5
0
42.7
0
.1
.2
50
FOR.
1800
.070
8.4
4.5
122
2.020
32.92
64.3
8.7
0
27.0
0
0
0
50
FOR •
1800
.070
10.9
4.5
122
.<~70
9.61
82.5
2.8
0
14.7
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1000
.070
14.8
4.5
127
.150
38.18
76.2
4.0
0
19.6
0
.1
.1
50
FOR.
1000
.070
16.0
4.5
127
.560
19.43
66.7
2.5
0
30.5
0
0
.3
50
FOR.
1000
.070
11 .8
4.5
127
.dflO
13.99
57.2
10.1
0
29.9
2.1
0
.7
50
FOR.
1000
.070
8.1
4.5
127
.200
37.58
74.6
2.2
0
22.9
.3
0
0
50
FOR.
1000
.0 70
1 7.5
4.5
132
.550
55.04
77.S
3.6
0
18.6
.2
0
.1
50
FOR.
1000
.070
17.8
4.5
132
.800
48.02
86.1
2.0
0
11.9
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1300
.070
19.4
4.5
132
. 700
59.83
79.1
2.1
0
18.7
.1
0
0
50
FOR.
1000
.070
17.4
4.5
130
.870
19.71
76.1
3.2
0
20.7
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1000
.070
10.3
4.5
127
.290

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(M6/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SU KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
KANSAS
MARION RESERVOIR
2007C1
200701
MILFORD RESERVOIR
2009D1
NORTON RESERVOIR
2010A3
PERRY RESERVOIR
2011 CI
201101
2011E2
201IF!
2011G1
POMONA RESERVOIR
201201
TORONTO RESERVOIR
201301
TUTTLE CREEK RESERVOIR
20141M
2014B1
2014C1
2014L1
2014N1
3 2014P1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.727
0
0
.782
0
1.602
1.375
0
1.133
0
0
0
1.S77
0
0
31.9
31.9
.089
.014
1.428
.458
15.1
2.4
243.0
77.9
13.2
13.2
.162
.027
1.829
.373
27.5
4.6
309.9
63.2
28.1
27.8
.286
.117
4.421
2.064
43.9
18.0
679.2
317.1
18.9
18.9
.246
.181
1.651
.338
9.0
6.6
60.5
12.4
26.3
24.2
.164
.027
1.918
.741
15.7
2.6
183.7
71.0
38.5
35.4
.071
.023
1.577
.839
12.5
4.1
278.1
147.9
33,5
31.6
.123
.025
1.696
.807
21.7
4.4
299.5
142.5
18.9
17.4
.066
.025
.817
.236
11.7
4.4
144.3
41.7
38.0
34.9
.139
.052
2.279
1.306
24.7
9.2
404.4
231.8
26.4
26.4
.061
.025
1.802
.542
12.1
5.0
357.1
107.4
3.1
3.1
.053
.011
1.092
.261
13.2
2.7
271.9
65.0
ie.3
18.2
.040
.011
.868
.208
4.0
1.1
87. 1
20.9
28.1
28.3
.126
.066
2.067
.929
12.7
6.7
208.5
93.7
27.4
27.6
.106
.036
1.644
.578
11.4
3.9
176. 1
61.9
20.9
20. 8
.113
.042
1.991
.708
11.7
4.3
205.7
73.2
24.0
23.8
.075
.055
2.548
1.688
7.5
5.5
254.6
168.6
3.1
3.1
.067
.018
1 .883
.726
6.7
1.8
189.7
73. 1
KENTUCKY
LAKE CUMBERLAND
2101C1
2101H1
2101J1
210 IK 1
2101S1
DALE HOLLOW RESERVOIR
2102B1
2102C1
2102F1
KENTUCKY LAKE
2I04C1
210401
2104E1
2104FI
21OAK 1
21044-1
2104M1
2104N1
2104V1
2104W1
2104X1
2104Y1
2104Z1
0
46.7
46.4
.021
.008
1.554
.811
8.9
3.4
660.7
0
47.9
47.7
.025
.014
1.205
.676
10.5
5.9
508.2
0
61.6
61.2
.020
.009
1.223
.779
8.4
3.8
515.8
1.100
74.7
74.3
.021
.011
1.150
.786
9.1
*.7
496.5
1.490
2.3
2.5
.009
.007
.607
.103
3.8
3.0
256.0
0
53.2
52.9
.015
.008
.881
.485
8.8
4.7
516.1
0
50.6
50.3
.011
.005
1.342
.527
6.3
2.8
764.2
0
19.0
20.9
.012
.007
.658
.241
7.9
4.6
434.7
0
30.9
30.6
.129
.037
1.865
.461
59.5
17.1
860.1
0
20.0
19.8
.025
.013
1.304
.448
11.4
5.9
596.6
0
24.9
24.6
.130
.030
1.630
.483
59.9
13.8
750.0
0
16.1
15.9
.042
.009
.544
.124
18.9
4. 1
244.9
0
9.6
9.4
.008
.006
.598
.096
3.9
3.0
294.4
0
12.8
12.6
.009
.006
.818
.337
4.2
2.8
378.4
0
19.9
19.6
.010
.006
.565
.224
4.5
2.7
256.8
0
19.5
19.2
.020
.007
.800
.218
9.0
3.2
360.7
0
19.6
19.5
.019
.008
.580
.193
8.8
3.7
267.7
0
12.6
12.4
.018
.009
.551
.177
8.3
4.1
252.6
0
7.3
7.2
.012
.007
.869
.195
5.5
3.2
399.5
0
11.5
11.3
.023
.010
1.173
.239
10.5
4.6
537.9
0
13.5
13.3
.008
.006
.271
.142
3.7
2.8
125.7
344.8
285. 1
328.5
319.4
43.4
284. 1
300. 1
159.2
212.6
205.0
222.3
55.8
47.3
155.9
101.8
98.3
89. 1
81.1
89.6
109.6
65.9

-------
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
AREA
(SO KM)
summary of land use parameters by subdrainage areas
3
land use percentages
2
FOR
CL
RA
AG
URB WET OTHER
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
GEOLOGY
4 P-COM
ORIGIN (95)
MEAN
SLOPE

-------
SUMMARY OF LANO USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE ASEAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS	7
STORET NO.	TAG
LOUISIANA
ANACOCO LAKE
2201B1	2
2201CI	2
22010I	2
LAKE BISTINEAU
2203E1	2
220	3F1	2
2203G1	2
BLACK BAYOU
2204E1	2
2204F1	2
BUNOICKS LAKE
2205CI	2
220501	2
CADDO LAKE
2206B1	2
2206C1	2
2206G1	2
2206K1	2
CROSS LAKE
2210C1	2
221001	2
2210E1	2
g 2210H1	2
O'ARBONNE LAKE
2211B1	2
2211C1	2
221	IF 1	2
LAKE VERNON
221 TCI	2
2217D1	2
MAINE
MATTAWAMKEAG LAKE
2308BI
2308C3
MOORSEHEAD LAKE
230 9K1
RANGELEY LAKE
231081
SEBASTICOOK LAKE
2312F1
MARYLAND
DEEP CREEK LAKE
2402B1	1
2402C1	»
2402D1	1
2402E1	1
DRAINAGE ANIMAL DENSITY
DENSITY (AN UNITS/SQ KM)

-------
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
AREA
(50 KM)
summary of land use parameters by suborainage areas
LAND USE PERCENTAGES	3
2
FOR
CL
RA
AG
URB WET OTHER
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
GEOLOGY MEAN	AVE ANN FLOW 6
4 P-COM SLOPE 5 PRECIP. (CM/SCJ
ORIGIN  <*) PM	(CM)	KM)
MARYLAND
LIBERTY RESERVOIR
2403B1
2403C1
240 3D 1
2403E1
LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR
2408B1
2408C1
240801
2408E1
2408F1
240631
2408H1
2408J1
MICHIGAN
LAKE CHARLEVOIX
2617B1
261701
2617E1
— MACATAWA LAKE
° 2648A3
2648B1
PORTAGE LAKE
266961
2669H1
THORNAPPLE LAKE
2683BI
CRYSTAL LAKE
269481
MINNESOTA
BIG STONE LAKE
270901
2709E1
2709f1
BUFFALO LAKE
2713C1
COKATO LAKE
2719B2
2719C1
HERON LAKE
2739H1
18.10
35.1
2.9
0
60 • 6
1.3
0
.1
50 AG
73.45
31.3
3.9
0
63.3
1.4
0
.1
50 AG
16.06
20.8
3.3
0
74.2
1.1
0
.6
50 AG
37.48
25.3
4.3
0
63.5
6.6
0
.3
50 AG,
53.90
39.9
15.0
0
26.6
17.3
0
1.2
MIXED
150.02
35.2
8.7
0
54.3
1.8
0
0
50 AG,
10.57
43.2
8.8
p
39.4
8.6
0
0
MIXEU
8.60
34.1
6.0
0
15.3
44.6
0
0
URBAN
7.95
33.1
7.1
0
37.6
22.2
0
0
MIXED
4.14
33.0
9.6
0
53.4
4.0
0
0
50 AG.
2.67
12.5
29.5
0
0
58.0
0
0
URBAN
3.76
5.0
8.1
0
0
86.9
0
0
URBAN
29.09
52.9
6.0
0
40.7
0
.4
0
50
FOR
44.88
40.6
3.2
0
54.3
.6
.6
.7
50
AG.
202.15
73.4
7.1
0
18.6
.2
.5
.2
50
FOR
171.30
4.8
5.9
0
88.0
1.2
0
.1
75
AG.
39.73
9.5
21.3
0
55.7
7.3
5.8
.4
50
AG.
42.97
58.6
2.4
0
38.9
0
0
.1
50
FOR
57.55
61.8
6.9
0
27.9
2.6
.1
.7
50
FOR,
144.83
19.2
1.0
0
77.2
.3
1.6
.7
75
AG.
7.49
26.4
14.1
0
58.5
1.0
0
0
50
AG.
35.02
2.6
2.3
0
95.0
0
0
.1
90
AG.
15.07
3.9
1.6
0
94.5
0
0
0
90
AG.
62.19
1.8
2.0
0
96.2
0
0
0
90
AG.
6.19
9.4
0
0
74.1
15.2
1.3
0
50
AG.
51.90
4.8
.1
0
75.0
2.3
15.2
2.6
75
AG.
9.82
5.1
0
0
89.8
0
5.1
0
75
AG.
6.24
1.0
1.1
0
97.8
0
0
.1
90
AG.
3821
.165
10.5
4.5
112
.210
3821
.205
13.1
4.5
112
.800
3821
.165
7.7
4.b
112
.200
3821
.165
9.0
4.5
112
.430
300C
.055
7.5
4.5
114
.650
3000
.055
11.2
4.5
112
1.610
3000
0
11.2
4.5
112
.140
3000
.020
12.8
4.5
112
.050
3000
0
12.2
4.5
112
.130
3000
.020
11.1
4.5
112
.070
3000
.020
9.6
<4.5
114
.030
3010
.020
7. 1
4.5
114
.030
1410
.065
11.2
5.0
76
.530
1400
.080
8.6
5.0
76
.530
1411
.071
11.2
5.0
76
5.340
1311
.053
1.8
5.5
84
1 .460
1300
.043
1.1
5.5
84
.340
1300
.040
4.7
4.5
91
• 590
1300
.040
5.9
4.5
91
. 770
1200
.020
1.9
6.3
76
1. 180
1000
.046
3. 1
6.3
76
.060
1415
.060
2.0
7.2
53
.040
1415
.060
2.0
7.2
53
.020
1415
.060
1.3
7.2
53
.080
1017
.065
1.5
6.5
74
.040
1415
.060
3.1
6.3
69
.210
1415
.060
4.0
4.0
69
.040
1415
.060
1.2
6.3
64
.012

-------
summary of land use parameters by subdrainage areas
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET no.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SO KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SQ KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N 1NORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SU KM)
ORTHO P TOT N INOKiJ N
MARYLAND
LIBERTY RESERVOIR
240 381
240 3C1
240 3D 1
2403E1
LOCH RAVEN RESERVOIR
2408B1
2408C1
240801
2408E1
240 8FI
2408G1
240 8HI
2408J1
MICHIGAN
LAKE CHARLEVOIX
2617B1
261701
2617E1
— MACATAWA LAKE
"" 2648A3
2648B1
PORTAGE LAKE
2669G1
2669H1
THORNAPPLE LAKE
2683B1
CRYSTAL LAKE
2694B1
MINNESOTA
BI6 STONE LAKE
2709D1
2709E1
2709F1
BUFFALO LAKE
2713C1
COKATO LAKE
2719B2
2719C1
heron lake
2739H1
o
52.3
51.2
.026
.309
2.551
2.235
9.5
3.3
933.4
817.8
o
54.6
53.5
.017
.007
2.463
2.193
5.8
2.4
84b. 0
753.3
0
64.0
62.7
.020
.008
2.765
2.406
7.9
3.1
1085.9
944.9
0
54.8
53.6
.024
.008
2.908
2.609
8.7
2.9
1052.1
944.0
0
18.1
17.9
.016
.010
2.115
1.700
6.1
3.8
804.3
646.5
o
36.8
36.5
.040
.020
2.214
1.927
13.5
6.7
745.3
648. 7
0
26.7
26.5
.018
.013
2.349
1.742
7.5
5.4
981.2
727.6
o
10.4
10.3
.019
.011
1.424
1.106
3.5
2.0
261. 1
202.8
0
25.5
25.3
.092
.044
3.175
2.630
47.4
22. 7
1637.3
1356.2
0
36.2
35.9
.026
.01?
2.385
2.190
33.1
6.4
1271.7
1167.7
o
0
0
.027
.017
2.342
2.022
9.6
6.0
829.9
716.S
0
0
0
.020
.015
1.981
1.662
5.0
3.8
498.5
418.2
c
25.8
25.7
.009
.005
1.947
1.266
5.2
2.9
1118.7
727.4
0
33.6
33.5
.012
.006
1.436
.372
4.5
2.2
534.8
138.5
0
8.7
8.5
.014
.006
1.199
.722
11.7
5.0
998.8
601.5
1.136
66.6
64.3
.167
.057
4.845
2.808
44.9
14.0
1302.3
754.7
0
45.0
43.3
.076
.029
2.534
1.295
20.5
7.8
683.9
349.5
c
15.3
15.3
.056
.024
1.437
.282
24.2
10.4
622.2
122. 1
0
11.0
10.9
.041
.024
1.056
.435
17.3
10.1
445.6
183.5
.529
42.7
43.1
.077
.043
1.863
1.017
19.8
11.0
478.7
261 .3
0
19.8
19.8
.038
.017
1.382
.257
9.6
4.3
349. 1
64.9
.539
29.0
29.0
.089
.031
1.159
.460
3.2
1.1
41.7
16.6
1.004
28.8
28.0
.052
.030
3.106
2.589
2.2
1.3
130.0
108.4
.677
29.4
29.3
.073
.035
1.431
.504
3.0
1.4
58. 1
20.4
0
59.3
58.9
.240
.158
2.119
.731
48.9
32.2
431.8
149.0
.656
60.0
59.6
.326
.165
3.033
1.275
41.6
21.1
387.0
162.7
.815
71.8
71.4
.202
.087
4.626
2.312
25.9
11.2
594.2
297.0
1.010
52.0
51.9
.099
.045
4. 676
3.059
6.0
2.7
283.6
185.5

-------
subdrainage areas
STORET NO.
MINNESOTA
MASHKENODE LAKE
2756B1
UPPER 5AKATAH LAKE
2777B1
LAKE PEPIN
27A4HI
27A4J1
27A4K1
ZUMBRO LAKE
27 ASF 1
27A5GI
LAKE ST. CROIX
27A7CI
SUMMARY OF LANO USE PARAMETERS Br SUBDRAINAGE AKEAS
3
AREA
(SO KM)
17.28
88.34
176.79
64.39
44.91
.49
78.30
15.07
FOR
LANO USE PERCENTAGES
2
CL RA AG URB WET
41.4 14.7
6.2 1.1
19.1
26.8
19.9
0
7.7
1.2
4.5
4.2
0
0
1.2 27.8 1.1
79.9 .7 11.5
13.4 4.8
79.6	0
68.7	0
73.8	2.0
76.2	23.a
92.3	0
81.5	0
.1
0
0
0
0
OTHER
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
GEOLOGY
4 P-COM
ORIGIN 
MEAN
SLOPE
(«)
5
PH
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
FLOW 6
(CM/SQ
KM)
13.8
MIXED
3133
.053
4.5
5.5
71
.097
.6
75
AG.
1200
.040
5.2
6.3
76
.370
0
0
.1
75
50
50
AG.
AG.
AG.
1017
1213
1213
.065
.030
.030
9.3
12.0
12.4
6.3
6.3
6.3
74
74
76
.830
.320
.210
0
0
50
90
AG.
AG.
1214
1213
.040
.030
6.7
5.9
6.0
6.0
74
74
.002
.270
.3
75
AG.
1213
.030
6.9
6.5
74
.110
MISSISSIPPI
ARKABUTLA RESERVOIR
280101
ENID LAKE
83.14
20.2
5.4
0
70.9
2.9
0
.6
50
AG.
1500
0
5.5
6.0
132
1.380
2802B1
280201
ROSS 8ARNETT RESERVOIR
32.14
34.60
58.1
55.3
1.3
1.2
0
0
40.1
43.5
0
0
0
0
.5
0
50
50
FOR.
FOR.
1117
1116
.070
.070
9.8
11.8
6.0
6.0
132
132
.470
.530
2804C1
SAROIS LAKE
183.79
59.8
.7
0
39.5
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1600
.070
2.3
6.0
127
2.460
2805C1
2905E1
2S05F1
2805H1
2805J1
GRENADA LAKE
8.91
69.00
31.31
27.38
23.98
62.7
50.7
56.8
45.8
51.8
10.5
11.6
6.7
5.0
1.7
0
0
0
0
0
26.1
37.7
35.5
48.8
45.3
0
0
.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.7
0
.6
.4
1.2
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
MIXED
50 FOR.
1117
1617
1617
1617
1617
.070
.070
.070
.070
.070
6.6
8.4
6.8
10.4
10.4
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
132
132
132
132
132
.050
.970
.380
.400
.180
2806F1
56.62
49.0
.9
0
50.0
0
.1
0
50
AG.
1617
.070
3.6
6.0
132
.860
MISSOURI
CLEARWATER RESERVOIR
290101	11.38	89.0
POMME OE TERRE RESERVOIR
2902C1	63.89	44.4
2902E1	74.17	49.2
2902F1	12.23	31.1
2*0201	16.47	32.5
2902H1	45.26	26.6
STOCKTON RESERVOIR
290361	82.97	19.7
290 301	44.63	20.6
290301	111.02	20.4
2903H1	18.87	47.8
1.2 3.7
2.9
5.3
3.0
1.5
2.8
0
1.9
1.4
2.5
0
6.1
52.7
41.4
64.3
62.0
70.0
2.6	5.1	71.4
3.9	2.5	71.8
2.8	4.?	71.0
6.6	4.0	41.3
0
2.1
.2
1.5
.6
.7
.4
1.0
.3
75 FOR.
50 AG.
MIXEL)
50 AG.
50 AG.
50 AG.
50 AG.
50 AG.
50 AG.
MIXED
1200
1200
1412
1412
1200
1200
1214
1000
1200
1214
.020 24.4
.020
.050
.050
.020
.020
5.4
6.8
6.2
5.1
4.5
.044	7.0
.048	6.7
.020	3.8
.050	9.2
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
125
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
.083
.482
.450
.559
.124
.341
.630
.339
.843
.143

-------
SUMMARY OF UNO USE PAR MEIERS «i SUBORAINAGE AREAS
SUBORAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
EXPUlRT
(KG/SU KM)
TOT P ORTrtO P TOT N INORG N
MINNESOTA
MASHKENODE LAKE
2756B1
UPPER SAKATAH LAKE
2777B1
LAKE PEPIN
27A4H1
27A4J1
27A4K1
ZUM0RO LAKE
27A5FI
27A5G1
LAKE ST. CROIX
27A7C1
1
0
.6
.6
.036
.008
1.313
.823
6.4
1.4
232.4
145.7
1
.750
40.3
39.5
.233
.134
5.320
3.0B0
30.8
17.7
702.7
406.8
1
1
1
1.226
0
0
62.2
63.5
73.7
61.6
63.5
73.7
.231
.224
.161
.072
.073
.364
2.566
2.059
2.391
1.329
1.044
1.584
34.2
35.1
23.7
10.7
11.4
9.4
382.9
322.7
352.6
196.8
163.6
233.6
1
1
0
1 .450
66.8
75.6
65.9
74.9
.121
.147
.062
.109
2.219
3.651
1.007
2.646
15.6
16.0
8.0
11.9
285.6
397.0
129.6
287.7
1
.880
b0.5
60.4
.053
.031
1.812
1.341
12.2
7.1
417.1
308.7
MISSISSIPPI
ARKABUTLA RESERVOIR
2801G1
ENID LAKE
2BC2B1
280201
ROSS BARNETT RESERVOIR
2804C1
- SAROIS lake
" 2805C1
2805E1
2805F1
2805H1
2805J1
GRENADA LAKE
2fl06f1
52.0
51.9
.093
.030
.794
.232
48.7
15.7
415.6
121.4
31.1
31.1
.086
.014
1.478
.245
39.7
6.5
681.6
113.0
26.6
26.6
.101
.023
1.235
.270
48.8
11.1
596.6
130.4
64.2
69.5
.219
.068
1.672
.405
92.4
37.1
705.8
171.0
15.3
15.3
.031
.010
.850
.344
5.5
1.8
150.4
60.9
25.0
24.9
.034
.013
1.059
.288
15.1
5.8
469.5
127.7
26.2
26.5
.047
.015
1.732
• 645
18.0
5.7
662.9
246.9
36. 1
36.5
.070
.019
1.288
.419
32.3
8.8
593.4
193.0
33.5
33.8
.064
.017
1.433
.470
15.1
4.0
339.2
111.3
38.8
38.7
.086
.016
.801
.144
41.2
7.7
383.7
69.0
MISSOURI
CLEARWATER RESERVOIR
2901D1
POMME DE TERRE RESERVOIR
2902C1
2902EI
290 2F1
2902G1
2902H1
STOCKTON RESERVOIR
2903B1
290301
290 3G1
2903H1
2	1.878	2.5 2.A
2	0	27.0	26.5
2	0	24.1	24.0
2	0	37.4	37.2
2	0	34.4	33.8
2	0	40.7	40.5
2	0	41.5	41.3
2	0	42.9	42.7
2	0	38.3	37.7
2	0	24.0	23.9
012
.006
1.096
.081
017
.009
1.239
.205
024
.011
1.194
.274
035
.021
2.174
1.061
018
.010
1.269
.333
021
.008
1.435
.290
027
.015
1.527
.564
019
.013
1.593
.813
,054
.020
1.468
.633
022
.008
1.183
.345
2.8
1.4
252.1
18.6
4.0
2.1
294.8
48.8
4.6
2.1
228.5
52.4
50.4
30.3
3133.7
1529.4
4.3
2.4
301.3
79.1
5.0
1.9
341.0
68.9
6.5
3.6
365.6
135.1
4.6
3.1
381.6
194.7
12.9
4.8
351.5
151.6
5.3
1.9
282.7
82.4

-------
SUMMARY of land use parameters
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
MISSOURI
LAKE TANEYCOMO
290481
290 4EI
THOMAS HILL RESERVOIR
2905IE
2905IF
2905A3
2905A4
2905B2
290501
LAKE WAPPAPELLO
2906BI
2906E1
2906F1
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
AREA

2




(SO KM)
FOR
CL
RA
AG
URB
MET
93.85
64.5
1.6
0
33.5
.4
0
13.27
72.6
1.3
0
26.1
0
0
8.95
60.8
2.1
3.0
33.3
0
0
11.80
44.8
3.2
10.4
40.6
0
0
61.64
9.0
.5
1.0
89.0
0
0
30.92
6.4
.1
2.5
90.0
0
0
10.56
8.6
0
0
90.6
0
0
40.46
7.0
.1
0
92.7
0
0
42.25
87.5
1.5
0
11.0
0
0
28.82
86.0
5.3
0
8.4
0
0
28.73
90.9
6.8
0
2.3
0
0
MONTANA
CANYON FERRY
3001B1
63.40
65.5
34.5
0
0
0
0
3001C1
98.16
57.4
36.2
4.6
1.8
0
0
300 ID1
53.70
57.6
31.5
7.3
3.6
0
0
FLATHEAD LAKE







3003D1
11.77
34.2
1.2
26.5
36.3
0
0
3003E1
15.01
97.4
2.6
0
0
0
0
3003H1
16.66
80.9
18.7
.2
0
0
0
3003J1
5.36
92.6
7.1
0
0
0
0
GEORGETOWN LAKE







3004D1
7.76
82.3
17.7
0
0
0
0
KOOCANUSA RESERVOIR







3006B1
61.98
90.5
9.5
0
0
0
0
3006F1
84.83
89.2
10.8
0
0
0
0
3006G)
41.71
93.4
6.6
0
0
0
0
3006H1
37.29
91.4
B.5
0
0
0
.1
3006J1
39.77
80.5
11.5
0
0
0
0
3006K1
24.82
88.3
io.a
.9
0
0
0
3006L1
44.61
96.6
3.4
0
0
0
0
MARY ROMAN LAKE







30 0 701
31.79
98.0
1.9
0
.1
0
0
3007C1
5.70
98.4
.5
0
1.1
0
0
MCDONALD LAKE







300801
.95
100.0
0
0
0
0
0
3008E1
15.96
74.4
4.4
0
0
0
.2
SEELEY LAKE







3010C1
7.15
72.4
27.5
0
0
0
0
3010D1
4.05
62.7
36.7
0
0
0
0
3010E1
12.50
65.2
34.2
0
0
0
0
8Y SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
3

OVERALL
GEOLOGY
Mt AN

AVE ANN
FLOW i

LAND USE
4
P-COM
SLOPE
5
PRECIP.
(CM/SQ
' HER
CATEGORY
ORIGIN
(*)
(*>)
PM
(CM)
KM)
0
50
FOR.
1200
.020
30.9
4.5
128
.580
0
50
FOR.
1200
.020
If.8
4.5
128
.084
.6
50
FOR.
1214
.050
14.1
6.3
9b
.049
.0
MIXED
1412
.050
14.9
6.3
9b
.064
.5
75
AG.
1214
.050
6.2
5.0
96
.335
.0
90
AG.
1200
.020
7.0
5.0
96
.168
.8
90
ACi.
1200
.020
4.2
6.3
96
.057
.2
90
AG.
1214
.050
5.4
5.0
96
.230
0
50
FOR.
1312
.030
14. a
6.0
136
.510
.3
50
FUR.
1025
.075
15.4
6.0
133
.348
0
75
FOR.
1025
.075
12.7
6.0
133
.347
0
50
FOR.
1000
.046
46.2
5.5
44
.105
0
50
FOR.
1022
.150
47.2
5.5
44
.146
0
50
FOR.
1022
.150
41.5
5.5
44
.049
.8
MIXED
1500
0
19.1
7.5
27
.007
0
90
FOR.
1700
0
28.2
7.5
27
.009
.2
75
FOP.
1100
.040
31.0
5.5
27
.096
.3
90
FOR.
1134
.060
41.2
5.5
27
.031
0
75
FOR.
1214
.032
1^.4
5.5
52
.029
0
90
F03.
3414
.060
32.2
5.0
48
.444
0
75
FIJR,
1100
.070
32.0
5.0
36
1.260
0
90
F UW.
3*11
.060
2b.9
5.0
36
.619
0
90
FOR.
34 11
.060
33.6
5.0
48
.354
0
75
FOR.
3411
.060
32.2
5. 0
4rt
• 2 64
0
75
FOP.
1100
.080
33.7
5.0
36
.149
0
90
FOR.
3411
.060
36.9
5.0
3b
.268
0
90
FOR.
3411
.060
23.5
7.5
32
.060
0
90
FO».
3411
.060
29.5
7.5
32
.046
0
90
FOR.
1134
.060
19.7
5.0
74
.010
.0
50
FOR.
1100
.070
42.7
5.0
74
.165
.1
50
FOR.
10 34
.040
21.0
5.5
62
.122
.6
50
FOR.
1034
.040
19,5
5.5
62
. 069
.6
50
FOR.
1034
.040
19.3
5.5
62
.111

-------
SUMMARY of land use parameters by suudrainage areas
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET no.
TAG
DRAINAGE
DENSITY
•KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SQ KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPOWT
(KG/SO KM)
ORTHU P TOT N INOr
-------
SU9DRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
AREA

MEAN
SLOPE 5
<%> PH
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
FLOW 6
(CM/SQ
KM)
MONTANA
SWAN LAKE
30UC1
8.49
85.6
5.8
0
0
0
0
8.6
75
FOR.
301101
19.41
92.1
1.6
0
0
0
0
6.3
90
FOR.
301 IE 1
7.30
86.9
4.8
0
0
0
0
8.3
75
FOR.
301 IF 1
12.00
91.6
4.6
0
0
0
0
3.8
90
FOR.
TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR








3014DI
101.69
1.5
10.1
85.5
2.6
0
0
.3
75
RA.
3014E1
64.23
7.5
16.6
68.1
7.7
0
0
.1
50
RAF.
3014F1
56.24
18.0
5.0
71.4
5.6
0
0
0
50
RAF.
LOWER WHITEFISH









3016C1
43.07
9?.5
5.0
0
.1
0
1.9
.5
90
FOR.
3016E1
7.76
73.5
26.5
0
0
0
0
0
50
FOR.
NEBRASKA










BRANCHED OAK RES.










31011C
19.13
3.4
1.1
5.4
89.5
0
0
.6
75
AG.
3101A2
73.66
4.4
0
23.7
71.4
0
0
.5
50
AG.
3101A3
13.29
1.7
0
16.6
81.4
0
0
.3
75
AG.
310 IB 1
55.98
8.2
0
16.1
74.7
0
o
1.0
50
AG.
HARRY D. STRUNK RES.









310 301
28.38
.4
42.3
57.3
0
0
0
0
50
RAF.
3103E1
147.48
.9
.2
52.2
46.7
0
0
0
50
RAA.
—' 310 3G1
172.30
.9
0
86.3
12.8
0
0
0
75
RA.
n LAKE MCCONAUGHY









3106C1
17.18
0
0
66.5
33.5
0
0
0
50
RAA.
PAWNEE LAKE









3107A2
37.25
13.4
1.5
0
85.0
0
0
.1
75
AG.
NEVADA










LAHONTAN RESERVOIR










3202C1
115.58
25.8
46.2
28.0
0
0
0
0
MIXED
LAKE TAHOE










320510
27.61
68.5
31.4
0
0
0
0
.1
50
FOR.
32051T
9.80
97.0
2.0
0
0
0
1.0
0
90
FOR.
32051U
6.90
90.5
9.5
0
0
0
0
0
90
FOR.
3205H1
24.19
68. 8
30.1
0
0
.9
0
.2
50
FOR.
3205C2
3.99
91.8
8.2
0
0
0
0
0
90
FOR.
3205N1
TOPAZ LAKE
19.49
86.8
12.7
0
0
0
.1
.4
75
FOR.
3206C1
7.05
17.6
0
82.4
0
0
0
0
75
RA.
320601
78.12
45.0
7.4
32.0
15.6
0
0
0
MTXFO
WASHOE LAKE










3208IE
19.98
76.0
23.9
0
0
0
0
. ]
75
FOR.
32081F
10.28
43.7
17.0
39.3
0
0
0
0
MIXEU
1100
1100
1134
1134
1112
1112
1112
1700
1700
1300
1400
1400
1400
1214
1314
1214
1211
1300
2422
2626
2223
1420
2415
2426
2215
3124
2015
2226
2224
.040	38.6
0	48.3
.060	51.2
.060	47.5
.066	19.1
.066	22.5
.066	21.3
0	6.8
0	42.5
.040	8.1
.OfO	13.3
.080	13.3
.080	9.7
.045	9.7
.045	10.8
.045	11.8
.043	9.8
.040	10.1
.098 33.3
.244 29.1
.100 51.2
.086 49.0
.105 33.7
.192 24.8
.087 24.3
.096 32.3
.099 30.1
.105 39.6
.088 36.6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
7.7
7.7
7.3
6.5
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
7.2
5.5
7.8
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.5
7.5
7.5
5.5
5.5
67
67
67
67
45
45
45
53
53
60
61
61
69
60
60
51
47
69
13
65
29
51
81
81
81
206
206
96
96
.229
.477
.197
.358
.102
.092
.081
.920
.178
.067
.263
.047
.216
.041
.213
.250
.220
.100
.086
1.022
.063
.041
.882
.117
.748
.063
.547
. 142
.051

-------
SUBORAIMAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
MONTANA
SWAN LAKE
3011C1
301101
301 IE 1
301 IP 1
TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR
301401
3014E1
3014F1
LOWER WHITEFISH
3016C1
3016E1
TAG
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUwDRAINAGE AREAS
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
DRAINAGE
DENSITY
(KM/SQ KM)
1.401
1.19ft
1.261
1.243
0
0
0
.922
0
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO
KM)

(MG/L)

TOT P TOT
N
TOT P
ORTHO P
TOT N
INORG N
0
0
.015
.009
.780
.028
0
0
.012
• COS
.582
.093
0
0
.010
.005
1.135
.217
0
0
.012
.008
.648
.093
.3
.3
.063
.010
1.399
.191
.9
.9
.127
.014
1.719
.356
.6
.6
.099
.023
1.430
.200
0
0
.017
.008
.716
.092
0
0
.014
.009
.558
.068
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SQ KM)
ORTriO P TOT N
INORG N
12.8
7.7
663.5
23.8
9.3
6.2
451.0
72.1
8.5
4.3
965.9
184.7
11.3
7.5
609.7
87.5
2.0
.3
44.3
6.0
5.7
.6
77.6
16.1
4.5
1.0
65.0
9.1
11.5
5.4
<~82.3
62.0
10.1
6.5
403.6
49.2
NEBRASKA
BRANCHED OAK RES.
31011C
3101A2
3101 A3
3101H1
HARRY D. STRUNK RES.
310381
3103EI
^ 3103G1
LAKE MCCONAUGHY
3106C1
PAWNEE LAKE
3107A2
NEVADA
LAHONTAN reservoir
3202C1
LAKE TAHOE
3205IQ
32051T
32051U
3205B1
3205C2
3205N1
TOPAZ LAKE
3206C1
320601
WASHOE LAKE
3208 IE
32081F
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
2
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.779
0
1.473
0
0
0
0
0
1.496
0
1.263
.670
0
1.003
.092
0
0
1.197
0
29.2
28.9
.385
.282
2.837
1.989
42.5
31.1
313.3
219.7
30.2
30.2
.260
.158
1.735
.837
29.3
17.8
195.4
94.2
31.6
31.6
.206
.147
2.069
1.014
23.0
16.4
230.7
113.1
35.7
35.7
.218
.143
2.073
1.157
26.5
17.4
252.2
140.8
10.5
10.4
.106
.053
3.207
2.126
4.8
2.4
146.1
96.9
11.5
11.5
.132
.029
2.367
1.320
6.0
1.3
107.8
60. 1
3.1
3.1
.137
.089
2.738
1.905
6.3
4.1
125.3
87.2
6.8
6.9
.127
.100
1.945
1.467
51.3
40.4
785.5
592.4
42.6
42.6
.325
.234
1.790
.921
27.5
19.8
151.5
78.0
0
0
.438
.395
2.500
.902
10.3
9.3
58.7
21.2
0
0
.038
.019
.479
.058
44.4
22.2
559.1
67.7
0
0
.027
.012
.344
.053
5.5
2.4
69.7
10.7
0
0
.053
.033
.492
.034
9.9
6.2
92.2
6.4
0
0
.016
.013
.354
.036
18.4
14.9
407.0
41.4
0
0
.010
.006
.394
.022
9.2
5.5
364.3
20.3
0
0
.017
.010
.453
.035
20.6
12.1
548.3
42.4
0
0
.115
.024
.900
.101
32.4
6.8
253.6
28.5
37.6
37.6
.123
.092
.715
.093
27.2
20.3
157.9
20.5
0
0
.029
.017
.376
.036
6.5
3.8
84.3
8.1
0
0
.023
.012
.497
.031
3.6
1.9
77.8
4.9

-------
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
AREA

-------
SUMMMtt OF UNO USE. PARAME.TE.RS BY SUBORAlNMit AREAS
SUBORAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE
330341
330301
330 3E1
3303F1
330 3J1
330 3K1
330 3L1
330 3N1
3303U1
3303V1
3303X1
330 3ri
NEW JERSEY
SPRUCE RUN RESERVOIR
3420 A 2
342061
3420 CI
3420D1
3420E1
UNION LAKE
342281
NEW MEXICO
EAGLE NEST LAKE
3504C1
ELEPHANT BUTTE RES.
3505E1
UTE RESERVOIR
3509C1
NEW YORK
CANADIAGUA LAKE
3604A3
3604C1
360401
3604£l
360 4H1
CANNONSVILLE KES.
360SB 1
360501
3605E1
3605F1
TAG
DRAINAGE
ANIMAL
DENSITY

MEAN CONCtNTRAT IONS

t*P0WT
DENSITY
IAN UNITS/SO KM)

IMG/L)


(Ko/S J
KM)
(KH/SQ KM>
TOT P
TOT H
TOT P
ORTHO P
TOT N
1N0K6 N
TOT P
OKTHO P
TOT N
0
6.7
6.4
.017
.008
.517
.106
10.0
4.7
305.3
0
13.4
12.9
.017
.010
.348
.0 74
14.7
8.6
300. 7
G
6.5
6.2
.030
.010
.622
.129
18.5
6.2
383.4
3
12.5
12.0
.018
• OOB
.358
.164
11.1
4.9
221.4
0
11.0
10.6
.013
.007
.80 7
.599
8.2
4.4
507.5
.516
4.3
4.1
.015
.006
.589
.329
9.0
3.6
354. 1
1.011
2.2
2.1
.018
.010
.676
.172
10.9
6.1
410.5
0
7.4
7.1
.018
.007
.504
.091
11.2
4.3
312.4
1.060
.8
.7
.017
.006
.544
.082
10.3
3.6
328.2
.951
1.9
1.8
.020
.007
.855
.127
12.0
4.2
511.6
.595
2.5
2.4
.017
.006
.343
.075
11.3
4.0
228.9
.487
4.8
4.6
.020
.006
.304
.109
12.2
3.7
185. 1
0
32.9
31.2
.035
.021
1.582
.939
15.6
9.4
705.3
0
37.9
35.9
.023
.014
1.541
1.101
10.0
6.1
672.5
0
39.3
37.2
.022
.009
1.638
.839
10.3
4.2
7e9.9
0
24.7
23.4
.024
.012
1 • 098
.506
10.7
5.3
469.2
0
22.9
21.7
.032
.018
1.350
.550
15.3
8.6
646.5
r.
17.8
15.4
.026
.012
1.909
1.249
10.1
4.7
74 1.9
1.559
.2
.2
.077
.023
1.219
. 129
6.6
2.0
104.7
0
0
0
.013
.011
.744
.025
0
0
2.8
0
0
0
.082
.018
1.550
.235
1.7
.4
31.8
C
34.2
34.3
.050
.015
2.826
2.036
9.7
2.9
550.9
0
12.2
12.2
.064
.044
1.392
.949
13.4
9.2
291.0
u
14.7
14.7
.022
.010
.890
.528
4.2
1.9
168.1
0
13.6
13.6
.017
.007
.896
.572
3.3
1.4
174.0
p
8.5
8.5
.030
.007
.941
.662
11.5
2.7
360.3
.750
6.2
6.2
.016
.009
.492
.181
8.0
4.5
247.4
0
19.2
19.2
.021
.010
.899
.515
10.8
5.1
460.6
0
18.2
18.2
.oia
.009
1.216
.759
10.4
5.2
699.7
.860
0
0
.014
.007
.803
.378
8.5
4.3
488.6
INORb M
62*6
63.9
79.5
101. 4
376.7
197.8
104.4
5 b • 4
49.5
76.0
SO. 1
66.4
418.6
480.5
394. 4
2?5.5
263.4
4(j5.4
II. 1
. 1
4.8
396.9
190.4
99.7
111 - 1
253.5
91.0
263.8
436. 7
230.0

-------
subdrainage areas
STORET NO.
NEW YORK
CARRY FALLS RESERVOIR
3606B1
CASSAOAGA LAKE
3607B1
3607C1
CAYIJGA LAKE
3608G2
3608H1
3608M1
3608P2
360801
CHAUTAUQUA LAKE
361G b 1
3610C1
361001
3610E1
361 OF 1
3610H1
3610J1
3610K1
GOODYEAR LAKE
3613b1
3613C1
™ 361301
° 3613E1
LAKE HUNTINGTON
3615A1
KEUKA LAKE
3617B1
3617C1
3617D1
3617f"l
3617H1
OTTER LAKE
3625B1
ROUNO LAKE
3630A1
3630b1
3630C1
SCHROON LAKE
363401
363403
3634E1
3634F1
3634G1
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
3
LAND USE PERCENTAGES	OVERALL	GEOLOGY
MEAN
AVE ANN
FLOW 6
AREA

2





LAND USE
4
P-COM
SLOPE
5
PRECIP.
(CM/SQ
(SO KM)
FOR
CL
RA
AG
URB
WET
OTHER
CATEGORY
ORIGIN
m
<%>
PM
(CM)
KM)
4,92
95.1
0
0
0
0
2.9
2.0
90 FOR.
1550
0
4.5
4.5
97
.090
.75
62.8
3.9
0
33.3
0
0
0
50 FOR.
1400
.080
10.8
5.0
97
.020
1.27
76.4
18.6
0
5.0
0
0
0
75 FOR.
1400
.080
14.6
6.0
97
.020
6.81
20.6
27.8
0
51.6
0
0
0
50 AG.
1400
.080
4.0
6.3
86
.080
22.02
27.9
23.1
0
45.8
.5
2.7
0
MIXED
1400
.080
3.1
6.3
66
.300
6.16
21.1
6.3
0
72.1
0
.5
0
50 AG.
1010
.050
2.9
6.3
86
.030
6.29
11.9
7.0
0
80.6
.5
0
0
75 AG.
1410
.065
5.5
6.3
89
.070
37.30
22.9
4.0
0
71.0
.3
1.8
0
50 AG.
1010
.050
3.2
6.3
89
.450
27.97
47.7
6.4
0
38.2
1.2
6.4
.1
MIXED
1400
.080
6.6
6.0
107
.510
60 .66
66.ft
14.7
0
14.6
.2
3.4
.3
SO FOR.
1400
.080
8.9
5.0
107
1.130
24.94
45.9
4.4
c
45.8
.2
3.5
.2
MIXED
UOO
.080
7.9
5.0
107
.22 0
75.73
56.8
6.6
0
31.6
2.7
?.l
.2
50 FOR.
1400
.080
6.9
5.0
107
1.510
4.12
35.9
10.0
0
6.3
47.8
0
0
URBAN
1400
.080
5.8
5.0
107
.030
15.44
53.5
11.6
0
34.4
.5
0
0
50 FOR.
1411
.072
8.3
5.0
107
.310
31.73
62.9
13.5
0
19.9
.8
2.7
.2
50 FOR.
1400
.080
8.3
5.0
107
.590
35.77
57.4
5.0
0
35.8
.3
1.5
0
50 FOR.
1400
.080
7.4
5.0
107
.590
29.50
51.9
1.6
0
40.4
1.1
5.0
0
50 FOR.
1111
.064
11.4
5.0
102
.470
5.67
41.3
1.5
0
56.4
0
.8
0
SO AG •
1111
.064
8.9
5.0
102
.090
10.23
74.4
5.9
0
17.6
0
2.1
0
50 FOR.
1111
.064
11.4
5.0
102
.170
32.58
58.3
5.0
0
32.4
1.1
3. 1
. 1
50 FOtf.
1100
.064
11.3
5.0
102
.520
.44
77.4
6.4
0
0
12.9
3.3
0
50 FOR.
1314
.060
6.4
5.5
114
.010
3.37
39.9
13.6
0
38.1
8.4
0
0
MIXED
1400
.080
10.5
5.0
86
.030
5.96
28.7
8.3
0
62.4
0
.6
0
50 AG.
1400
.080
6.7
5.0
86
.050
89.72
41.2
20.4
0
35.3
.2
2.1
. 8
M1XEO
1412
.074
9.0
6.3
86
.750
8.21
27.3
22.6
0
48.4
.8
.9
0
WIXED
1412
.050
4.7
6.3
86
.070
4.12
26.0
26.1
0
47.8
0
.1
0
HIAEO
1414
.080
7.5
5.0
86
.040
1.06
18.9
13.5
0
62.2
0
5.4
0
50 AG.
1412
.050
7.9
5.0
91
.010
7.54
87.8
3.a
0
1.8
5.9
.7
0
50 FOR.
1400
.080
7.6
5.0
104
.120
2.28
44.5
3.7
0
51.8
0
0
0
50 AG.
1400
.080
4.7
5.0
104
.040
44.60
34.5
25.3
0
26.9
5.6
5.0
2.5
MIXED
1400
.080
4.6
5.0
104
.730
25.07
89.1
1.6
0
0
4.6
2.4
2.3
50 F OR.
2223
.133
12.9
4.5
97
.410
21.57
93.7
0
0
0
.7
2.8
2.8
90 For.
2223
. 133
13.9
4.5
97
.350
5.70
94.0
2.4
0
0
.8
0
2.8
90 FUR.
2223
.133
12.2
4.5
97
.090
5.98
92.3
0
0
0
2.8
3.7
1.2
SO FOR.
3100
.101
17.6
«.5
99
.100
61.77
88.U
1.1
0
0
.2
6.fa
3.3
75 FOR.
2130
.120
11.4
4.5
99
1 .040

-------
SUMMARt OF LANO USE. PARAMLTE.KS 6X SUBDrtAlNA&E AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
< AN UNITS/SO KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO p TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
NE# YORK
CARRY FALLS RESERVOIR
3606B1
CASSAOAGA LAKE
3607B1
3607C1
CAYUGA LAKE
3608G2
360BH1
3608M1
360BP2
360801
CHAUTAUOUA LAKE
3610BI
3610C1
361001
3610E1
3610F1
3610H1
3610J1
3610K1
GOODYEAR LAKE
3613B1
_ 3613C1
361301
3613E1
LAKE HUNTINGTON
361SA1
KEUKA LAKE
3617B1
3617C1
3617D1
3617F1
3617H1
OTTER LAKE
3625B1
ROUND LAKE
3630A1
3630B1
3630C1
SCHROON LAKE
3634D1
363402
3634E1
3634F1
3634G1
1.440
0
0
.018
.006
1.171
.260
0
3.3
3.3
.089
.007
.856
.457
.810
15.9
15.9
.010
.005
.799
.458
0
25.0
31.8
.021
.008
1.428
1.017
0
16.4
16.4
.022
.006
1.039
.635
c
55.9
55.2
.027
.012
2.579
1.765
1.190
48.1
47.5
.051
.028
1.745
1.101

42.4
41.8
.031
.010
1.943
1.512
0
32.8
32.7
.032
.013
1.006
.390
0
12.5
12.5
.034
.012
.853
.460
G
39.3
39.2
.027
.008
.816
.384
0
27.1
27.0
.031
.010
.80 7
.330
0
5.4
5.4
.094
.032
1.340
.399
C
29.5
29.4
.031
.009
.878
.365
0
17.1
17.0
.011
.006
.706
.366
0
30.7
30.6
.023
.006
1.180
.751
0
37.5
37.2
.025
.008
1.191
.715
0
52.3
51.9
.026
.008
.982
.427
0
16.3
16.2
.018
.006
.960
.482
0
30.0
29.8
.035
.009
1.058
.542
3
0
0
.038
.0 22
1.178
.416
0
21.2
21.4
.045
.0 29
1.108
.905
0
31.1
31.3
.017
.008
1.551
.851
0
14.4
14.4
.033
.008
1.058
.715
0
19.8
19.8
.027
-i> 14
1.939
1.345
n
26.6
26.9
.034
.018
2.044
1.338
0
37.1
36.6
.023
.009
2.302
1.724
0
1.2
1.2
.061
.010
.963
.275
0
35.8
35.6
.097
.023
1.111
.237
3
18.6
18.5
.050
.018
.912
.266
0
0
0
.019
.006
.890
.222
.545
0
0
.015
.006
1.110
.157
.664
0
0
.012
.006
.864
.251
.410
0
0
.010
.005
.832
.159
.497
0
0
.013
.005
1.293
.143
10.4
24.4
5.0
7.8
9.5
4*1
20.5
11.8
18.4
20.0
7.5
19.5
21.6
19.6
6.5
12.0
12.6
13.0
9.4
17.6
27.2
12.6
4.5
8.7
7.3
10.4
6.8
30.6
53.7
25.8
9.8
7.7
6.0
5.3
6.9
3.5 675.5
5.9
2.5
3.0
2.6
1.8
11.2
3.8
7.5
7.0
2.2
6.3
7.3
5.7
3.5
3.1
4.0
4.0
3.1
4.5
15.8
8.1
2.1
2.1
3.8
5.5
5.0
12.7
9.3
3.1
3.1
3.0
2.6
2.7
719.9
396.8
529.0
446.4
396. 1
699.9
739.2
578.5
501.1
227.0
507.4
307.7
555.9
414.0
613.8
598.4
491.6
503.1
532.5
844.3
311.1
410.3
278.9
521.4
625.8
150.0
384.3
227.5
376.8
272.8
271.1
441 - 6
575.3
224.3
270.2
106.8
207.5
91.6
231.1
214.6
390.6
359.2
213.7
252.6
272.8
298.2
254.1
225.1
188.5
361-6
409.7
2.7 684.9 512.9
483.3
614.7
470.7
459.0
568.0
430.2
438.8
686.5
138.0
131. 1
137.3
114.5
80.3
125.0
83.8
75.9

-------
summary of land use parameters by subcwaimage areas
3
subdrainage areas
STORET NO.
area
(SJ KM)
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
?
FOR
CL
RA
AG
URB wfcT OTHER
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
GEOLOGY
4 P-COM
ORIGIN < %)
MEAN
SLOPE
<*)
AVE ANN
5 PRECIP.
PH	(CM)
NEW YORK
SENECA LAKE
3635D1
3635F2
3635G1
3635H1
3635L1
3635M1
swan lake
3636A1
SWINGING HRIOGE RES.
3637H1
CONESU5 LAKE
3639A1
3639B1
3639C1
363902
3639F1
3639H1
LOWER ST. REGIS
3640 A1
ALLEGHENY RES.
3641C1
3641H1
5 3641J1
3641K1
3641L1
3641M1
3641N1
37.87
43.0
22.1
64.59
42.5
34.2
13.52
55.7
24.5
14.27
40.6
32.6
24.50
20.3
50.8
33.05
58.8
13.0
17.02
60.5
8.7
27.35
51.0
25.1
4.84
25.0
9.6
6.76
25.2
25.2
6.U
23.8
6.5
.78
6.7
3.3
7.61
15.4
9.5
18.08
39.6
10.4
1.71
92.7
0
73.53
50.0
1.8
10.93
93.0
2.7
S3.51
96.0
1.2
30.23
99. 1
.9
51.67
98.3
1.7
55.40
95.1
4.6
177.19
91.9
5.4
0
32.9
.6
.9
0
21.6
. 1
1.5
0
19.0
.4
0
0
22.5
2.5
1.2
0
24.7
4.2
0
0
22.0
1.7
4.0
0
21.6
4.9
4.0
0
7.4
15.6
.5
0
65.4
0
0
0
47.5
2.1
0
0
69.7
0
0
c
43.3
46. 7
0
0
71.4
.3
3.4
0
48.4
1.1
.4
0
0
1.8
5.5
0
47.4
.3
.5
0
4.3
0
0
0
2.3
.5
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 3
0
0
1.6
1.0
0
.5
MIXEL)
1410
. 1
MIXED
1410
.4
50 FOR.
1014
.6
MIXED
1014
0
50 CL.
1014
.5
50 FOR.
1014
.3
50 FOR.
1111
.4
50 FOR.
1413
0
50 AG.
1400
0
MIXED
1 1 14
0
50 AG.
1410
0
URBAN
1410
0
50 AG.
1412
.1
MIXED
1 1 14
0
75 FOR.
3300
0
50 FOR.
1000
0
75 FOR.
1410
0
75 FOR.
1310
0
90 FOR.
1310
0
90 FOR.
1314
0
90 Fur•
1314
.1
75 FUR.
1314
.072
16.4
5.0
81
.072
9.1
6. J
84
.065
6.3
6.3
81
.065
4.4
6.3
84
.065
2.4
6.3
81
.065
12.2
6.3
81
.060
12.6
5.5
114
.060
12.2
5.5
114
.080
4.3
6.3
79
.080
6.2
6.3
79
. 065
6.0
6.3
79
.065
5.0
6.3
79
.050
3.1
6.3
79
.080
9.3
6.3
79
. 134
5.8
4.5
97
.060
10.6
5.0
112
.060
17.4
5.0
114
.040
18.8
5.0
114
.040
18.5
5.0
114
.060
16.8
5.0
117
.060
14.1
b.O
117
.060
12.8
5.0
117
NORTH CAROLINA
8ADIN LAKE
3701B1
BLEWETT FALLS LAKE
23.05
77.3
.8
0
21.2
0
0
.7
50
FUR.
2526
. 149
8.8
4.5
114
3702b1
3702C1
3702G1
3702H1
FONTANA LAKE
36.67
32.56
16.24
77.52
80.5
72.4
54.9
76.1
1.0
8.3
1.6
.6
0
0
0
0
18.2
19.2
43.1
21.7
0
0
0
.5
0
0
0
0
.3
.1
.4
1.1
50
50
50
50
FOR.
FOR.
FUR.
FOR.
1000
1024
1024
1022
.090
.093
.076
.081
6.8
b.4
3.6
B.l
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
112
117
112
122
3704C1
3704E1
3704F1
HIGH ROCK LAKE
81.61
29.93
24.04
87.0
98.3
88.2
0
0
.3
0
0
0
13.0
1.3
11.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.4
C
50
90
50
FOR •
FUR.
FOR.
10 36
1130
1140
.068
.057
.060
43.8
46.5
38.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
142
142
142
370681
3706D1
370651
39.03
33 . 64
40.12
65.3
41.6
42.7
• e
2.6
1.9
0
0
3
32.4
54.7
52.6
1.1
.6
1.6
0
0
0
.4
.5
1.2
50
50
50
FOR.
AG.
AG .
2526
2223
2223
.126
.134
.134
6.4
7.9
5.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
114
114
114
FLOW 6
(CM/SQ
KM)
.590
.950
.060
.230
.120
.<•90
.360
.420
.060
.080
.080
.010
.080
.220
.030
1.310
.290
1 .570
.450
.650
.590
2.000
.240
.310
.290
. 140
1.180
3.040
.650
.910
.320
.280
.400

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND use PARAMETERS BY SU8D*MNAGE 
8.9
8.8
.025
.011
1.007
.579
3.9
1.7
3635MJ
1 5
13.1
13.2
.021
.008
.837
.34 7
9.8
3.7
SWAN LAKE









3636A1
1 9
54.0
46.6
.341
.015
1.183
.389
27.3
10.0
SWINGING BRIDGE RES.









3637H1
1 0
18.5
16.0
.033
.014
1 .044
.452
16.0
6.8
CONESUS LAKE









3639A1
1 0
34.5
35.0
.069
.039
2.349
1.487
27.0
15.2
3639BI
1 0
25.0
25.4
.050
.027
1.554
.751
18.7
10.1
3639C1
1 c
36.7
37.3
.043
.018
1 .82 7
.956
17.8
7.4
363902
1 0
22.8
23.1
.078
.057
1.588
1.077
31.5
23.0
3639F1
1 0
37.6
38.2
.098
.058
2.44B
1.205
32.S
19.2
3639H1
1 o
25.5
25.9
.022
.008
1.153
.382
b.4
3.1
LOWER ST. REGIS









3640A1
1 .605
0
0
.013
.007
.798
.315
7.2
3.9
ALLEGHENY RES.









36*1C1
1 
-------
subdrainage areas
STORET NO.
AREA

MtAN
SLOHE
(*)
PH
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
FLU* b
(CM/SO
KM)
NORTH CAROLINA
HIWASSEE LAKE
370761
3707C1
LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE
371061
RHODHISS LAKE
371561
3715H1
SANTEETLAH LAKE
3716A2
3716B1
3716C1
371601
3716E1
3716F1
LAKE TILLERY
3717C1
NORTH DAKOTA
ASHTABULA LAKE
3B01B1
_ JAMESTOWN RESERVOIR
£	3A06B1
MATEJCEK RESERVOIR
3B081C
SAKAKAWEA RESERVOIR
38121P
381201
3812M1
381ZN1
3812R1
3812R2
3812SI
SHEET BRIAR LAKE
381410
381481
3814C1
OHIO
BEACH CITY RESERVOIR
65.50
14.01
78.8
88.7
13.39 40.7
15.80
19.79
144.88
9.71
19.22
110.62
35.66
72.88
29.50
6.97
20.52
26.06
41.56
300.28
38.70
22.83
136.84
57.93
103.33
36.33
18.66
18.16
63.B
73.B
83.4
73.0
85.3
97.3
97.3
99.5
55.1
1.4
.9
.5
0
1.8
.5
.8
1.9
.6
.5
.2
1.2 4.0
0 3.0
19.8
10.3
58.7
35.4
22.7
15.0
26.0
12.7
2.1
2.2
.3
43.5
0 94.8
0 96.8
1.4 6.3 3.0 87.5
0
4.1
0
.5
1.4
.1
6.7
0
.1
0
3.1 15.9
59.6 6.5
40.2 19.4
41.9 19.?
32.4	45.1
21.5	69.3
51.0 9.7
.5 13.0
.B 24.?
0 33.8
80.9
29.2
40.4
37.9
14.7
4.9
31.7
85.9
74.3
66.2
.8
1.7
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
.8
.2
1.5
0
. 1
0
0
0
.2
0
.3
.3
0
0
.1
0
0
.1
.2
.1
0
0
0
0
0
.3
.1
.5
0
.5
6.4
4.0
.7
.3
.3
0
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 AG.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
50 FOR.
75 FOR.
75 FOR.
90 FOR.
50 FOR.
90 AG.
90 AG.
75 AG.
75 AG.
50 CL.
MIXEO
MIXED
MIXEl)
50 RAF.
50 CL.
75 Ab.
50 AG.
50 AG.
3901C1
4<».21
13.3
.7
0
84.0
1.9
0
.1
75
AG
390101
83.99
15.4
2.7
0
80.2
.4
0
1.3
75
AG
390 IE1
8.96
30.3
2.8
0
63.8
0
0
3.1
50
At>
390 IF 1
34.50
29.0
1.9
0
65.9
.3
0
2.9
50
AG
390|G|
15.51
16.1
3.6
0
76.3
1.0
0
3.0
75
AG
3901H]
31.03
17.0
1.5
0
79.5
1.4
0
. 6
75
AG
3901K1
70.42
21.6
4.3
0
65.6
.3
0
a.2
50
AG,
1331
.060
35.9
4.5
152
1.620
1331
.060
21.3
4.5
152
.340
3800
.244
8.9
4.5
119
.230
3200
.040
12.0
4.5
127
.280
3222
.081
10.9
4.5
127
.410
1031
.068
39.1
4.5
157
4.140
1031
.068
40.7
4.5
142
.310
1031
.068
39.8
4.5
142
.630
1031
.068
39.2
4.5
147
4.500
1031
.068
42. b
4.5
152
1.150
1031
.068
39.9
4.5
165
1.920
3324
.107
9.4
4.5
1 14
.320
1413
.060
1.9
7.7
55
.006
1413
.060
3.0
7.7
51
.025
1413
.060
3.9
7.7
40
.012
1500
0
6.8
6.5
50
.041
1500
0
12.5
7.7
48
.3
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL OENSITY
(AN UNITS/SU KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
NORTh CAROLINA
HIWASSEE LAKE
370 7ri1
3707C1
LOOKOUT SHOALS LAKE
3710S1
RHOOHISS LAKE
3715G1
3715H1
SANTEETLAH LAKE
3716A2
3716B1
37I6C1
371601
3716E1
3716FI
LAKE TILLERY
3717C1
¦J
0
3
2.1*0
1.830
I.BOO
30.7
28.1
.01*
.005
.316
.070
16.0
1 * .6
.0*8
.006
.510
.179
52.*
51.*
.033
.01*
.82*
.376
5*.8
59.*
.05*
.016
1.29*
.295
35.2
38.1
.022
.012
.659
.230
11.2
11.2
.029
.006
.*90
.186
19.*
19.*
.037
.008
.663
.187
9.5
9.5
.02*
• 006
.*52
.15*
1.6
1.6
.011
.007
.38*
.083
1.6
1.6
.010
.005
.*69
.111
.2
.2
.006
.005
.619
.177
*5.8
**.5
.050
.026
1.190
.*87
10.9
3.9
2*6.5
5*.6
36.7
*.6
390.3
137.0
17.9
7.6
**6.*
203.7
30.2
8.9
723.2
16*.9
1*.*
7.8
*30.6
150.3
26.1
5.*
**1 .6
167.6
37.3
8.1
667.5
188.3
2*.8
8.3
*67.2
159.2
l*.l
9.0
*92.6
106.5
10.2
5.1
*77.0
112.9
5.0
*.2
51*.3
1*7.1
17.1
8.9
*07.1
166.6
NORTH DAKOTA
ASHTABULA LAKE
380 IB!
- JAMESTOWN RESERVOIR
DS 3806B1
MATEJCEK RESERVOIR
38C81C	2	1.024
SAKAKAWEA RESERVOIR
38121P
381201
3812M1
92	.577
2	.775
0	1.386
0	0
0	C
3812N1	0	0
3812R1
3812R2
3812S1	0
SWEET BRIAR LAKE
381*10
381*B1
381*C1
0	
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND U5E PARAMETERS BY SJdORAINAnE AREAS
3
SUBDRAINAGE APEAS
STORET MO.
OHIO
CHARLES MILL RESERVOIR
3905BI
39U5C1
DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
3906S1
3906C1
DILLON RESERVOIR
3908b!
390SCI
3908E1
3908F1
3908G1
LAKE GRANT
3912AI
3912B1
HOOVER RESERVOIR
3914CI
MOSOUITO CREEK RESERVOIR
3921A1
3921B1
PLEASANT HILL LAKE
3924B1
^ 3924C1
K 392*01
3924E1
GRAND LAKE OF ST. UARYS
3927B1
3927C]
392701
3927FI
3927G1
ATWOOD RESERVOIR
3928B1
3928C1
BERLIN RESERVOIR
3929B1
3929F1
HOLIDAY LAKE
3930C1
0•SHAUGHNESSY RESERVOIR
3931C1
ROCKY FORK CREEK
3932B1
3932C1


LAND
USE PERCENTAGES


OVERALL
IDEOLOGY
MEAN

AVE ANN
FLO,; f
AREA

2





LAND USE
4
P-COM
SLOPE
5
P«tCiP.
(CM/SO
(SO KM)
FOR
CL
RA
AG
JKB
KET
OT rtt
CATEGOKY
ORIGIN
U)
(»)
Prl
(CM)
KM)
19.76
18.4
0
0
79.a
1.3
0
• b
/5
AO .
1000
.056
5.3
6.(1
89
.190
42.17
16.6
.9
0
81.3
.7
.2
.3
75
AG .
1000
.048
2.9
6.0
89
.410
31.57
3.0
.8
0
96.0
0
0
.2
90
AO.
1*00
.080
1.3
6.3
99
.330
15.41
2.3
.6
0
97.1
0
0
0
90
AO.
1014
• 062
.1
6.3
99
.150
11.86
35.9
13.3
0
50.8
0
0
0
50
AO •
ICOO
.044
15.6
5. 5
102
• 1 30
9.14
46.6
14.1
c
39.3
0
0
0
f'lXEO
1010
.051
lb.7
b. S
99
• Q9U
12.71
38.3
8.4
0
52.4
.9
0
0
50
AO.
1014
.042
11.5
6.3
99
.140
50.30
33.0
9.5
0
57.3
0
0
.2
50
AG.
1014
.042
15.0
6.3
102
.520
<•0.46
50.9
10.5
1)
38.5
0
0
.1
50
Fl_W.
1010
.051
14.7
5.5
102
.*30
52.89
15.9
1.9
0
82.0
0
0
• 2
75
AG.
1412
.050
. 8
6.0
109
.580
5.00
11.2
.8
0
86.6
1.2
0
.2
75
AO.
1412
.050
1.4
6.0
lOf
.060
32.30
11.3
.9
0
87.0
.4
0
• *
75
AG .
1014
• 066
.7
6.3
97
. 320
47.63
30.9
5.4
a
62.a
0
. 2
.7
50
AO.
1014
.066
1.5
6.3
99
.4*0
9.17
25.9
5.8
0
67.4
0
.5
.4
50
AG •
1000
• 056
2.2
6.3
99
. 100
28.36
29.0
6.0
0
64.3
.7
0
0
50
AG.
1012
.04 2
9.3
6.(J
91
.290
31.03
35.4
12.6
0
51.3
.7
0
0
50
AG.
1012
.0*2
15.3
6.0
91
.320
16.08
29.8
8.9
0
60.1
1.2
0
0
50
Aij .
1012
.042
11.6
b.b
91
. 1 70
21.52
28.0
5.6
0
66.2
.2
0
s
50
AG.
1012
.042
12.5
5.5
91
.230
18.60
6.0
.9
0
93.a
0
0
.1
90
AG.
1214
.044
1.0
6.3
-J*
. 170
45.84
5.5
.4
0
92.3
1.8
0
0
90
AG.
1214
.044
1.6
6.3
94
.4*0
47.22
6.7
.4
0
92.4
.2
0
.3
90
AG.
1214
.044
1.8
6.3
94
.*50
8.62
15.2
0
0
84.8
0
0
0
75
A .
1314
.044
2.5
6.3
V*
. 090
12.10
4.4
0
0
95.0
.6
0
0
90
AG.
1H1*
.04*
1.2
6.3
9U
. 12a
15.20
38.7
20.6
0
40.2
0
0
.5
MIAfcu
1010
.053
18.0
5.t>
91
. 160
20. 98
38.5
8.2
0
52.7
.3
0
.3
50
AG.
1010
.053
13.0
5.5
11
.210
47.14
25.8
4.4
0
67.5
0
.7
1.6
50
AO.
1000
.052
4.6
6.0
91
.*70
18.93
39.1
4.2
c
52.1
.4
.1
4.1
50
AG.
1000
.052
1.7
6.0
91
.190
6.55
11.7
0
0
87.5
.4
0
.4
75
AO.
1012
.042
4.0
6.3
89
.060
27.40
10.0
0
0
89.2
.3
0
.5
75
Alj.
1214
.044
1. 3
6.3
94
.270
86.14
19.2
5.4
0
73.6
1.8
0
0
50
AG.
1214
. 04*
8.3
6.0
112
1.000
15.15
11.8
1.7
0
86.0
.5
0
0
75
Ao •
1214
.044
4.0
6.0
107
.170

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINA6E AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SQ KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORO N
tXPORT
(K&/SU KM)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
OHIO
CHARLES MILL RESERVOIR
390SB1
3905C1
DEER CREEK RESERVOIR
3906B1
3906C1
OILLON RESERVOIR
390SB1
3908C1
3908E1
3908F1
3908G1
LAKE GRANT
39I2A1
39I2B1
HOOVER RESERVOIR
3914C1
MOSQUITO CREEK RESERVOIR
3921A1
3921B1
PLEASANT HILL LAKE
_ 3924B1
~ 3924C1
392401
3924E1
GRAND LAKE OF ST. MARYS
3927B1
3927C1
3927D1
3927F1
3927GI
ATWOOD RESERVOIR
3928B1
3928CI
BERLIN RESERVOIR
3929B1
3929FI
HOLIOAY LAKE
3930C1
O'SHAUGHNESSY RESERVOIR
3931C1
ROCKY FORK CREEK
393281
3932C1
1.530
1.400
.910
.550
0
C
0
0
I]
1.610
1.650
.860
1.080
1.190
1.400
1.060
.700
0
0
0
0
2.340
.850
0
2.460
58.2
38.5
34.1
51.8
41.1
31.8
31.5
34.4
25.8
41 .4
43.7
59.1
39.3
50.8
51.2
43.0
33.2
32.5
35.6
26.8
41.2
4J.5
42.6 44.3
41.1
43.9
30.4
24.3
28.4
31.3
62.4
69.6
69.7
49.8
71.6
26.6
34.9
49.4
36.8
22.1
37.9
49.3
57.6
41.1
43.9
31.1
24.8
29.1
32.0
57.6
62.6
62.7
47.5
64.5
26.9
35.2
47.7
35.4
23.1
38.9
48.8
57.0
.0 29
.014
1.574
.850
8.8
4.2
<.77 .3
261 ml
.0 35
.021
1.747
1.000
10.7
6.4
535.6
306.6
» 0 65
.022
3.532
2.684
21 .4
7.3
1164.3
8M4. 8
.088
.040
3.328
2.585
27.0
12.3
1021.6
793.5
.028
.011
1.336
.462
9.7
3.8
461.8
159.7
.023
.008
1.220
.412
7.1
2.5
378.8
127.9
.046
.016
1.525
.868
16.0
5.6
529.7
301 .5
.041
.012
1.687
.972
13.4
3.9
550.0
316.9
.018
.007
.794
.337
t> • 0
2.3
266. 1
112.9
.213
.059
1 .858
.452
73.7
20.4
642.5
156.3
.215
.046
1.632
.319
81.4
17.4
617.0
120.7
.081
.032
2.338
1.377
25.3
10.0
730.5
430 .2
.069
.014
1.632
.583
21.9
4.4
518.7
185.3
.087
.025
2.088
.975
29.9
8.6
718.1
335.3
.049
.022
2.116
1.449
15.8
7.1
683.0
467. 3
.025
.010
1.340
.945
8.1
3.3
435.8
30 7.3
.039
.013
1.849
1.240
13.0
4.3
616.5
413.4
.036
.013
2.023
1.510
12.1
4.4
681 .8
508.9
.216
• J97
4.476
3.196
b2 . 3
28.0
1290.1
921 .2
.318
.148
3.896
2.466
96.3
44.8
1179.3
746.5
.278
.127
3.915
2.617
83.5
38.2
1176.6
786.5
.226
.074
4.504
2.965
74.4
24.4
1483.0
976.3
.435
.358
4.954
4.038
136.0
112.0
1549.4
1262.9
.028
.010
.916
.537
9.3
3.3
304. 1
178.3
.038
.012
1.870
1.117
12.0
3.8
590.3
352.6
.057
.019
2.608
1.312
17.9
6.0
820.0
412.5
.044
.008
1.518
.593
13.9
2.5
480.5
187.7
. 104
.029
4.377
3.027
30.0
8.4
1264.4
874.4
. 063
.028
2.331
1.513
19.6
8.7
724.4
470.2
.039
.023
2.080
.756
14.3
8.4
761.5
276.8
.099
.029
2.500
1.388
35.0
10.3
884. 7
491.2

-------
SUMMARY of land use parameters by suborainage areas
3
suborainage areas
STORET NO.
OHIO
LAKE SHAWNFE
3933A2
TAPPAN RESERVOIR
3934A1
3934B1
393401
Oklahoma
ALTUS RESERVOIR
<~00181
4001C1
ARBUCKLE LAKE
4002B1
lake Ellsworth
4003B1
4003C1
LAKE EUFAULA
4004B1
FORT COBB RESERVOIR
4005A2
4005B1
- 4005C1
g FORT SUPPLY RESERVOIR
4006C1
A30601
4006E1
4006G1
FOSS DAM RESERVOIR
4007B1
400701
GRAND LK 0« THE CHEROKEE
40091L
40091M
40092M
KEYSTONE RESERVOIR
401 IB]
401 IE I
4011E2
401 IF 1
4011G1
4011G2
OOLOGAH LAKE
40 12D 1
401202
4012E1
4012F1
AREA

MEAN
SLOPE
<*>
PH
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
.1
90
AG.
1214
.044
1.4
6.3
94
24.7
MIXED
1000
.056
24.3
5.5
99
26.8
MIXED
1011
.060
19.5
5.5
99
0
MIXEL)
1000
.056
22.8
5.5
99
.5
75
•AG.
1300
.040
1.8
7.2
79
.9
90
AG.
1123
.145
1.1
7.2
79
3.7
75
AG .
1100
.060
6.0
6.5
96
1.4
MIXED
1500
0
6.7
7.2
86
1.8
MIXED
1500
0
6.3
7.2
86
.1
MIXED
1315
.040
6.3
5.5
122
1.4
50
AG •
1312
.030
3.6
6.5
94
.9
75
AG.
1312
.030
5.4
6.5
94
0
90
AG.
1300
.040
4.7
6.5
94
.3
50
AG.
1300
.040
4.5
6.5
38
. 2
75
AG •
1300
.040
4.8
6.5
3B
.4
50
RAA.
1300
.040
7.1
6.5
38
• 2
50
AG.
1300
.040
6.5
6.5
41
2.0
50
RAA.
1200
.020
6.4
7.2
68
4.0
50
AG .
1213
.030
7.3
7.2
68
.1
50
For.
1000
.042
21.3
4.5
136
J
50
FOR.
1000
.042
18.2
4.5
116
0
50
FOR.
1000
.342
16.0
4.5
136
0
50
RAA.
1000
.042
4.9
5.5
117
0
50
AG •
1000
.042
4.9
5.5
117
0
50
AG.
1000
.042
4.4
5.5
117
.3
MIXED
1010
.042
4.2
5.5
116
. 1
MIXED
1010
.042
4.1
5.5
116
• 5
MIXED
1010
.042
4.4
5.5
116
.5
50
AG.
1200
.020
4.4
5.5
106
.8
50
RAA.
1214
.050
4.8
5.5
106
.2
50
Al>.
1412
.050
5.0
5.5
106
• 2
MIXED
1214
.039
5.7
5.5
106
FLOW 6
(CM/SO
KM)
.220
• 590
.250
.100
.110
.036
.360
.150
.233
.900
.570
.208
.071
.035
.015
.021
.154
.059
.044
.442
1.287
.815
.085
.450
.068
.323
.568
.175
.138
.328
• 615
.276

-------
SUMMARY OF LANO USE PARAMETERS BY SUBORAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
TAG
DRAINAGE
DENSITY
(KM/SG KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNlTS/SCl KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SJ KM)
ORTHO P TOT
N INORG N
OHIO
LAK3933ArPr	1	.870	71.7 71.3 ,0« .016 4.292 3.540	14.4	5.2 1402.0 1156.3
TAPPAN RESERVUIR	>a08 uu4 >5A0	u.8	2.8 392.0 186.7
1
• 870
71.7
71.3
.044
.016
4.292
1
1
1
0
0
0
23.0
22.8
35.4
24.9
24.6
38.3
.034
.059
.041
.308
.022
.011
1.134
1.143
1.273
393*A1	0	22 8 V.6 .059 .022 1.143 .502	20.1 7.5 389.6 171.1
39£g|	1	2	Mil 3H13 .041 .oil 1.273 .633	14.4 3.9 448.1 222.8
OKLAHOMA
ALTOS RESERVOIR
400161
4001C1
ARBUCKLE LAKE
4002B1
LAKE ELLSWORTH
400	IB1
40O3C1
LAKE EUFAULA
400461
FORT COBB RESERVOIR
4005A2
4005B1
4005C1
™ FORT SUPPLY RESERVOIR
4006C1
400601
4006E1
4006G1
FOSS DAM RESERVOIR
4007B1
400701
GRAND LK 0< THE CHEROKEE
40091L
40091M
40092M
KEYSTONE RESERVOIR
40 1 IB 1
401	IE 1
4011E2
401 IF 1
4011G1
4011G2
OOLOGAH LAKE
401201
401202
4012E1
4012F1
2
2
.548
.991
18.8
26.6
18.6
26.7
.086
.208
.022
.022
2.292
2.704
.943
1.144
2.8
6.0
.7
.6
74.3
77.5
30.6
32.8
2
1.528
34.0
33.9
.095
.028
1.501
.171
12.2
3.6
192.4
21.9
2
2
0
0
7.6
18.2
7.6
18.2
.039
.047
.011
.012
1.020
1.627
.372
.941
6.9
8.4
1.9
2.2
179.6
291.7
65.5
168.7
2
0
9.2
9.1
.025
.007
.909
.092
8.7
2.4
315.3
31.9
2
2
2
0
.769
.795
27.0
30.5
36.1
27.1
30.S
36.2
.223
.223
.268
.080
.061
.082
2.448
1.983
2.114
.914
.253
.578
11.7
10.7
14.0
4.2
2.9
4.3
128.2
95.3
110.8
47.9
12.2
30.3
2
2
2
2
0
1.112
P
0
16.8
16.5
9.3
10.9
16.8
16.5
9.3
10.9
.077
.060
.082
.092
.035
.020
.018
.046
1.736
1.704
1.473
1.071
1.075
.639
.492
.290
1.6
1.2
1.6
1.9
.7
.4
.4
1.0
36.1
34.2
28.9
22.2
22.4
12.8
9.6
6.0
92
2
0
0
10.3
18.4
10.3
18.4
.230
.066
.032
.018
1.630
2.848
.270
,B95
6.8
2.0
1.0
.5
54.4
84.3
8.0
26.5
2
2
2
0
1'
L
12.8
12.9
14.3
12.5
12.6
13.9
.021
.016
.017
.012
.009
.010
.655
.634
.551
.269
.305
.326
5.9
4.5
4.7
3.4
2.5
2.8
183.0
177.1
153.9
75.2
85.2
91.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
12.0
2B.8
27.7
18.4
19.1
19.5
12.0
28.8
27.7
18.4
19.1
19.5
.042
.075
.058
.074
.065
.058
.009
.014
.011
.017
.014
.015
1.250
1.312
1.365
1.068
1.182
1.143
.114
.112
.311
.225
.330
.359
4.0
8.8
8.3
9.8
8.2
7.7
.9
1.6
1.6
2.3
1.8
2.0
118.2
154.1
194.2
141.6
149.0
151.4
10.8
13.2
44.3
29.8
41.6
47.5
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
29.3
18.4
29.5
19.4
29.3
18.3
29.5
19.4
.054
.038
.072
.073
.030
.027
.029
.025
2.049
1.296
1.416
1.303
.517
.225
.542
.190
11.2
7.9
15.0
15.2
6.2
5.6
6.0
5.2
426.5
269.7
294.6
271.3
107.6
46.8
112.8
39.6

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS by SUBORAINAGE AREAS
3
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
AkFA
) PH	(CM)
OKLAHOMA
TENKILLER FERRY RES.
4013B1 6.66	46.4 0 5.6 47.9 0 0
LAKE THUNDERHIRD	U
20.15	10.1 11.0 38.5 37.5 0 .2
25.13	49.2 10.3 15.7 33.9 0 .2
401AF1 13.48	58.9 10.2 23.9 7.2 0 0
.1
KIXEO
1010
.042
7.7
4.5
129
2.7
MIXED
1413
.060
4.7
6.5
103
.7
MIXED
1300
.040
5.9
6.5
103
.8
50 FOR.
1300
.040
8.6
6.5
103
OREGON
BROWNLEE RESERVOIR
4101E1
410 IF 1
4101G1
410 1J1
4101K1
HELLS CANYON RESERVOIR
4103B1
4103C1
HILLS CREEK RESERVOIR
41041E
41041G
41041H
41041J
i	4104IK
4104B1
4104C1
410401
OWYHEE RESERVOIR
410501
SUTTLE LAKE
41D71C
410710
33.99
13.9
69.2
14.46
.1
0
42.59
6.6
0
19.70
.2
68.8
31.73
0
2.0
20.49
38.3
45.8
103.40
50.0
21.9
6.39
2.9
.2
46.93
6.5
.2
4.02
1.8
0
6.67
.4
0
10.75
19.7
0
30.63
76.0
24.0
23.99
87.0
13.0
137.36
77.6
22.0
20.45
.9
.6
19.22
93.7
2.9
40.79
91.0
4.1
16.9
0
0
0
99.9
0
0
0
93.4
0
0
0
31.0
0
0
0
98.0
0
0
0
15.9
0
0
0
28.1
0
0
0
8.6
87.8
.5
0
7.8
82.6
0
0
0
98.2
0
0
0
97.2
0
0
9.3
69.4
0
1.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97.5
.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.4
0
50
CL.
2400
0
75
RA.
2426
0
75
RA.
2624
0
50
CL.
2624
0
75
RA.
2400
0
MIXED
2400
0
50
FOR.
2624
0
75
AG .
2613
2.9
75
AG.
1326
0
90
AG.
1315
2.4
90
AG.
1315
.5
50
AG.
2613
0
75
fur.
2626
0
75
FOR.
2626
.4
75
FOR.
2626
.2
75
RA.
2600
3.4
90
FOR.
2626
4.5
90
FOR.
2626
.141
55.8
6.5
38
.192
33.3
6.5
38
.192
38.5
6.5
38
.192
28.6
6.5
38
,141
32.4
6,5
38
.141
46.2
7.5
39
,192
32.8
7.5
39
112
11.7
5.0
121
112
3.1
5.0
99
040
.6
5.0
99
040
.9
5.0
99
112
15.6
5.0
121
151
40.3
4.5
123
151
47.2
4.5
123
159
45. 6
4.5
123
244
19.8
7.2
28
184
17.1
4.5
224
134
10.9
4.5
224
PENNSYLVANIA
BLANCHARD RESERVOIR
420 IB 1
4201C1
420101
CONNEAUT LAKE
420401
PYMATUNING RESERVOIR
4213B1
<»213C1
4213F1
4213H1
29.79
51.2
.2
42.79
40.1
1.0
12.90
82.1
0
2.25
42.3
3.0
14.71
32.3
1.8
9.89
50.0
3.8
39.70
42.1
1.1
17.33
38.6
3.0
0	46.6	.2	0
0	57.6	.4	0
0	17.7	0	0
0	54.0	.4	0
0	65.2	.4	o
0	43.5	1.1	.7
0	56.4	0	.1
0	57.6	.4	0
1.8
50
FOR.
1013
.9
50
AG.
1312
.2
50
FOk.
1414
.3
50
AG.
1513
.3
50
AG.
1000
.9
50
fur.
1000
.3
50
AG.
1000
.4
50
AG.
1513
,046
21.6
5.0
102
,033
15.0
5.3
102
080
23.7
5.0
102
040
6.1
5.0
102
056
3.7
5.0
94
056
2.0
5.0
94
050
2.4
5.0
97
040
2.7
5.0
97
FLOW b
(CM/SU
KM)
.068
.0 74
.076
.040
.238
.029
.075
.017
.041
.369
1 .940
.058
.224
.019
.031
.086
.950
.744
4.310
.061
.538
1.061
.170
.100
.050
.050
.130
• 040
.580
.210

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS SOeDRMNfcGE AREAS
SUBORA1NAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
TAG
DRAINAGE
DENSITY
(KM/SO KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM>
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TUT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/5Q KM)
OkTHO P TOT N
INOKG N
OKLAHOMA
TENKILLER FERRY RES.
40 13B1
LAKE THUNDERBIRD
401401
4014E1
4014F1
OREGON
BRONNLEE RESERVOIR
4101E1
4101F1
4101G1
4101J1
410 IK 1
HELLS CANYON RESERVOIR
410361
4103C1
HILLS CREEK RESERVOIR
41041E
410416
41041H
_ 41041J
£ 41041K
410461
4104C1
410401
OWYHEE RESERVOIR
410501
SUTTLE LAKE
41071C
410710
2
0
20.9
CO
•
O
f\J
.1)31
.017
1.127
.204
©
•
o
2
0
16.1
16.2
.077
.016
1.180
.443
6.4
2
0
10.3
10.3
.085
.029
.939
.139
8.1
2
0
3.1
3.1
.344
.008
.858
.112
4. 1
0
0
0
0
.031
.020
1.274
.679
6.8
0
0
0
0
.097
.073
.928
.243
6.1
0
0
0
0
.079
.058
.918
.253
4.4
0
0
0
0
.110
.094
.548
.041
3.0
0
0
0
0
.096
.070
1.063
.503
3.9
0
0
0
0
.042
.026
.654
.277
23.9
0
0
0
0
.030
.018
1.082
• 476
17.8
0
.714
17.4
17.5
.039
.016
1.869
1.245
11.2
0
1.014
23.0
26.1
.148
.049
1.589
.512
22.3
0
.761
27.3
31.1
.106
.062
1.403
.414
15.8
0
.916
27.0
30.8
.111
.068
2.152
1.367
16.3
0
0
19.3
22.0
.041
.019
.504
.099
10.3
0
.734
0
0
.041
.030
.230
.025
40.1
0
.643
0
0
.050
.042
.274
.033
48.9
0
.873
0
0
.033
.026
.222
.039
32. 7
0
0
.2
.2
.102
.093
1.241
.485
9.6
0
.521
0
0
.010
.005
1.470
.035
8.8
0
.264
0
0
.010
.005
.380
.020
8.2
5.5
14.8
10.7
8.7
362.9
371.4
640.2
116.7
65.7
1.3 97.8 36.7
2.6 89.6 13.3
.7 80.3 10.5
4.4	281.3	149.9
4.6	58.7	15.4
3.2	51.0	14.1
2.6	14.9	1.1
2.9	43.3	20.S
157.3
231 .6
4.6	535.0	356.4
7.4	239.2	77.1
9.2	209.1	61.7
10.0	315.4	200.4
4.8	127.2	25.0
29.3	225.0	24.5
41.1	268.0	37.2
25.7	219.7	38.6
45.6
4.4 1297.6 30.9
4.1 311.7 16.4
PENNSYLVANIA
BLANCHARD fcESERVOIP
420 IB1
4201C1
420101
CONNCAUT LAKE
420401
PYMATUNING RESERVOIR
421381
4213C1
4213F1
4213H1
1
0
34.5
34.4
.028
.014
2.605
1.895
5.0
2.5
468.8
341.0
1
0
42.6
42.5
.026
.008
2.501
1.946
1.9
.6
184.3
143.4
1
0
13.1
13.1
.016
.008
.776
.166
2.0
1.0
94.9
20.3
1
0
47.5
47.4
.052
.014
1.115
.553
36.4
9.8
781.4
387.5
1
b
42.8
42.8
.047
.018
1.872
1.239
13.1
5.0
521.7
345.3
1
0
28.6
28.6
.086
.028
1.558
.660
11.0
3.6
198.7
84.2
1
0
49.6
49.6
.039
.014
1.302
.681
18.0
6.5
599.9
313.B
1
0
50.7
50.6
.030
.014
1. 7y8
1.272
11.5
5.4
687. 1
486.1

-------
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
AREA
(SO KM)
SUMMARY OF LANO USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
3
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
FOR CL
RA
AG
URB WET OTHER
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGOKY
GEOLOGY
4 P-COM
ORIGIN (*)
MEAN
SLOPE
<«!
Prt
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
FLO* 6
(CM/SO
KM)
PENNSYLVANIA
SHENANGO RESERVOIR
4216F1
4216G1
4216H1
BEAVER RUN RESERVOIR
4219BI
LAKE CANADOTHA
422181
4221C1
INDIAN LAKE
422301
422301
CONEWAGO LAKE
4226A1
422661
4226C1
LAKE WALLENPAUPACK
4229C1
4229D1
7.67
33.1
5.2
0
61.7
0

0
o
50
AG.
1315
.040
7.2
5.0
102
22.79
30.4
9.7
0
57.5
2.2

0
.2
50
AG.
1315
.040
5.7
5.0
99
9.48
26.7
13.6
0
58.1
1.6

0
0
50
AG.
1J15
.040
4.2
5.0
97
7.19
48.3
2.3
0
O
•
CD
1.4

0
0
MIXED
1514
.080
9.9
4.5
102
8.03
48.6
12.0
0
36.6
0
2
.8
0
MIXED
1413
.060
7.b
5.0
107
7.28
43.3
9.5
0
47.2
0

0
0
MIXED
1^13
.060
f.9
5.0
107
8.73
92.3
0
0
1.4
3.0
2
.1
1.2
50
FOR.
1000
.046
8.8
5.0
112
19.30
88.1
0
0
3.4
3.8
3
.4
1.3
50
FUR.
1000
.046
8.3
5.0
112
21.21
64.5
1.9
0
33.0
.5

0
.1
50
FOR.
2111
.060
12.3
<~•5
99
3.55
51.5
3.3
0
45.2
0

0
0
50
FOR.
1121
.060
7.9
4.5
99
6.55
56. 7
5.4
0
37.9
0

0
0
50
FUR.
2111
.060
13.0
4.5
97
10.08
90.0
3.4
0
5.2
0

0
1.4
75
FUR.
1413
.060
12.3
b.O
109
3.65
63.8
3.2
0
23.2
0

0
9.8
50
FOR.
1413
.060
10.3
5.0
112
.060
.130
.050
.400
•	130
. 160
.120
.210
•	580
.020
.090
.170
.060
SOUTH CAROLINA
HARTWELL RESERVOIR
w 450581
~ 4505F1
MARION LAKE
450 6F1
4506J1
MURRAY LAKE
4507B1
4507C1
ROBINSON LAKE
450SCI
450801
4508F1
KEOWEE LAKE
4513E1
4513F1
4513G1
SECESSION LAKE
4514E1
WILLIAM C. BOWEN LAKE
451661
4516CI
76.82
59.0
1.0
0
40.0
0
0
0
50 FOR.
3737
.055
8.5
4.5
132
1.070
26.21
45.1
5.6
0
48.6
.7
0
0
MIXED
3737
. 055
11.8
4.5
137
• *~40
25.15
40.3
.6
0
58.6
0
.2
.3
50 AG.
1800
0
3.3
4.5
112
. 220
55.24
47.0
2.3
0
48.0
2.0
.7
0
MIXED
1200
.020
1.9
4.5
112
• bOO
18.44
51.3
3.0
0
44.4
.7
0
.6
5o fur.
3611
.040
5.8
4.5
119
.2^0
46.10
57.9
.5
0
39.4
.7
0
1.5
50 FOR.
3611
.040
<~.7
4.5
122
.630
16.71
30.3
33.0
0
33.7
0
2.6

MIXEu
1111
.040

4.5
122
. 1 80
21.19
31.8
23.9
0
43.1
0
.6
.6
MIxED
1111
.040
2
.480
30.64
95.1
0
0
4.8
0
0
.1
75 FOR.
3736
.071
26.0
4.5
173
. 760
8.39
39.3
2.3
0
58.1
0
0
.3
50 AG.
3736
.055
6.3
4.5
122
.100
11.50
49.5
9.5
0
39.3
.7
0
1.0
MIXED
3736
.055
8.5
4.5
137
. 1 30
9.12
40.2
2.7
0
55.3
1.5
0
• 3
50 AG.
3736
.053
9.4
4.5
12/
.100

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUflORAINAGE AREAS
DRAINAGE
ANIMAL DENSITY
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
PENNSYLVANIA
SHENANGO RESERVOIR
4216F1
4216G1
4216H1
BEAVER RUN RESERVOIR
4219B1
LAKE CANAOOTHA
422181
4221C1
INDIAN LAKE
<.22301
4223D1
CONEWAGO LAKE
4226A1
4226B1
4226C1
LAKE WALLENPAUPACK
4229C1
422901
SOUTH CAROLINA
^ HARWELL RESERVOIR
£ 4505B1
450 5F1
MARION LAKE
4506F1
4506JI
MURRAY LAKE
4507B1
4507C1
ROBINSON LAKE
4508C1
450 8D1
4508E1
KEOWEE LAKE
4513E1
4513E1
45I3G1
SECESSION LAKE
4514E1
WILLIAM C. BOWEN LAKE
4516B1
4516C1
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
TAG
(KM/SO KM)
TOT P
TOT N
TOT P
ORTHO P
TOT N
INORG N
TOT P
ORTHO P
TOT N
INORG N
0
50.0
50.0
.041
.020
2.092
1.143
10.1
4.9
516.1
2*2.0

46.6
46.6
• 0 30
.011
1.619
.568
5.4
2.0
291.2
102.2
0
47.0
47.0
.037
.016
1.559
.696
6.2
2.7
259.3
115.8
j
36.4
36.5
.123
. 060
1.644
.864
218.5
106.6
2920.9
1535.0
I
28.B
28.8
.038
.013
1.416
.336
19.4
6.6
722.9
171.5
0
38.6
38.5
.024
.007
1.443
.492
16.6
4.9
1000.1
341.0
.850
1.2
1.2
.012
.006
1.460
.370
5.2
2.6
632.9
160.4
.960
2.8
2.8
.021
.006
1.705
.810
7.2
2.1
585.0
277.9
C
25.0
24.5
.022
.008
1.238
.299
19.0
6.9
1067.6
257.8
5
34.2
33.6
.028
.007
1.006
.442
5.0
1.2
178.7
78.5
9
28.7
28.2
.022
.006
.881
.453
9.5
2.6
381.8
196.3
.640
5.7
5.5
.020
.008
1.117
.184
10.6
4.3
594. 1
97.9
0
24.4
24.5
.023
.009
1.081
.521
11.9
4.7
560.4
270.1
0
30.4
30.1
.030
.008
.933
.290
13.2
3.5
409.8
127.4
0
52.5
51.0
.028
.009
.852
.425
14. 8
4.8
451.1
225.0
0
15.0
14.4
.064
.023
1.432
1.051
17.7
6.3
395.0
289.9
0
17.0
16.2
.084
.029
1.137
.344
28.8
9.9
389.5
117.8
¦>
36.7
38.7
.037
.018
.733
.388
16.5
8.0
325.9
172.5
0
32.6
34.4
.063
.024
.641
.200
27.2
10.3
276.3
86.2
J
26.5
21.8
.007
.005
.537
.181
2.4
1.7
182.4
61.5
0
33.8
27.9
.014
.006
.481
.101
4.8
2.1
164.6
34.6
0
24.8
20.5
.016
.006
.688
.369
5.9
2.0
224.0
120.2
1.67C
4.1
4.0
.024
.007
.275
.058
18.6
5.4
213.0
44.9
0
9.7
9.5
.025
.008
.312
.069
18.9
6.1
236.3
52.2
2.18C
5.2
5.0
.019
.006
.628
.098
14.9
4.7
491.2
76.7
n
44.2
43.8
.023
.012
1.104
.459
8.6
4.5
415.0
172.5
9
25.8
25.6
.020
.007
.535
.220
7.1
2.5
190.7
78.4
0
36.2
36.0
.020
.007
.736
.371
6.9
2.4
254.5
128.3

-------
summary of land use parameters
1	LAND USE PERCENTAGES
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS	AREA	2
STORET NO.	(SQ KM) FOR CL HA AG URb WET
SOUTH DAKOTA
LAKE ALVIN
460216
26.31
1.5
.5
0
97.4
0
.4
46021C
37.17
1.0
2.2
0
96. 1
0
.3
LAKE COCHRAN







46081A
28.38
.4
5.5
o
92.9
0
1.1
OEERFIELD LAKE






4610A2
203.71
85.4
3.2
10.1
1.3
0
0
4610A3
70.00
84.9
5.2
8.3
1.5
0
0
461081
16.79
86.1
3.3
5.6
5.0
0
0
LAKE HERMAN







461281
28.45
1.2
.2
0
96.5
0
2.1
4612CI
47.23
.1
.9
0
98.1
0
.9
LAKE MADISON







46151C
20.25
3.8
0
0
95.2
0
.7
46151B
36.26
3.1
0
0
96.5
0
.2
PACTOLA RESERVOIR







4620C1
26.08
87.8
5.9
2.7
3.6
0
0
462001
16.12
84.9
1.3
11.7
2.1
0
0
4620E1
23.09
92.6
1.8
4.A
1.2
0
0
4620F1
34.29
68.7
.5
21.6
9.2
0
0
RICHMOND lake






4624B1
23.50
.5
0
24.2
74.1
0
1.0
STOCKADE LAKE







4627b1
27.85
73.7
21.2
G
5.0
.1
0
SHERIDAN LAKE





4628A3
47.23
81.7
.8
8.2
9.3
0
0
4628C1
24.47
58.8
.5
24.u
16.?
0
0
Tennessee
BARKLEY LAKE
470 IF 1
44.68
78.3
3.4
0
17.8
0
.2
4701G1
105.44
54.4
27.3
0
18.3
.2
0
4701J1
49.68
48.9
9.7
0
40.4
.8
u
4701N1
28.13
53.8
5.4
0
40.3
.3
0
4701P1
431.03
58.0
6.0
0
35.2
.3
.1
4701R1
29.09
87.0
2.7
0
10.0
.3
0
4701S1
30.04
82.2
1.6
0
15.8
. 1
.2
4701T1
23.41
90.5
.7
0
8.6
0
0
4701U1
25.95
79.4
.8
0
19.4
0
0
BOONE RESERVOIR







4704B1
33.54
18.2
7.4
0
72.7
1.4
0
4704C1
7.49
18.5
3.8
0
68.6
8.8
0
4704G1
8.60
18.5
6.4
0
73.7
1.4
0
4704H1
5.70
17.7
11.8
0
63.0
7.5
0
4704J1
42.14
56.4
6.4
0
36.3
.5
0
4704K1
17.90
79.9
1.2
0
18.9
0
0
4704L1
31.00
78.8
3.4
0
17.8
0
0
BY SUoURrtlNAGE AREAS
3

OVERALL
GEOLOGY
ME AN

AVE ANN
Flow

LAND USE
4
P-COM
SLOPE 5
PRECIP.
(CM/so
ther
CATEGORY
ORIGIN
<«)
(*)
Rh
(CM)
KM)
.2
90
AG •
121*.
• O^t J
2. 1
b • 0
5b
.025
.4
90
AG.
10 34
.055
. b
6.0
5b
• U3b
. 1
90
AG.
1400
• oao
3.8
7.2
6b
.048
0
75
FOR.
1030
.045
14. /
7.0
52
.270
. 1
75
for •
1030
.045
20.3
7.0
52
.044
0
75
FOR .
3000
.040
20.5
1.0
52
.022
0
90
AG •
1400
.080
J.2
7.2
be
.009
0
90
AG.
1400
.080
3.0
7.2
6b
• U?rt
.3
90
AG .
1400
.080
2.2
7.2
68
. 00*
.2
90
AG.
1400
.080
2.1
~t.i
66
.016
0
75
for .
3010
.043
22. 1
7.0
52
.052
0
75
FOR .
3000
. 142
20. 1
7.0
4b
• 042
0
90
FOR .
3011
.050
19.2
7.0
4b
.060
0
50
FGK •
3010
. 04 J
19.0
7.0
4b
.055
.2
50
AG.
1400
.080
1.3
7.5
46
.001
0
50
FOR.
3022
.064
31.7
7.0
45
.039
0
50
for.
3022
• 0h4
15.4
7.0
44
.086
.5
50
FOR .
3000
. 142
15.1
7.0
44
.045
.3
50
FOR.
1212
.020
16.2
4.5
11}
.660
.1
50
FOR.
1212
.020
li.8
4.5
122
1 . 540
.2
MI*EU
1212
.020
15.7
4.5
122
. 710
.2
50
Fuw.
1212
.020
18.7
4.5
122
.390
.4
50
fur .
1212
.020
16.4
4.5
122
6.070
0
50
FOR.
1213
.030
20.3
4.5
127
.410
.1
50
FOR.
1213
.030
lb. 1
4.5
130
.4
-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAlNAGE AREAS
subdrainage areas
STORET NO.
SOUTH DAKOTA
LAKE ALVIN
460216
46021C
LAKE COCHRAN
46081A
DEERFIELO LAKE
4610A2
4610A3
4610B1
LAKE HERMAN
4612B1
4612C1
LAKE MADISON
46151C
461510
PACTOLA RESERVOIR
4620C1
462001
4620E1
4620FI
RICHMONO LAKE
4624B1
_ STOCKADE LAKE
£ 4627B1
SHERIDAN LAKE
462SA3
4628C1
TENNESSEE
BARKLEY LAKE
470 IF1
4701G1
4701J1
4701N1
470 IP1
470 1R1
4701S1
470 IT 1
4701U1
BOONE RESERVOIR
4704B1
4704C1
4704G1
4704HI
4704J1
4704K1
4704L1

ORAINAGE
ANIMAL
DENSITY

MEAN CONCENTRATIONS

tXPOKT

7
DENSITY
(AN UNlTS/SU KM)

(MG/L)



KM)

rAG
(KM/SO KM)
TOT P
TOT N
TUT P
ORTHO
P TOT N
INOKG N
TOT P
ORTHO P
TOT M
INOrtb
2
.941
SO.5
50.6
.205
.089
1.504
.438
6. 1
2.7
45.1
13. 1
2
.706
49.8
49.9
. 140
.091
1.907
.985
4.3
2.8
38.2
30. 1
2
1.200
32.6
32.5
.036
.011
1.735
.766
1.9
.6
92.5
**0.9
0
.622
.2
.2
.030
.012
.615
.117
1.3
.5
25./
4.9
0
.500
.2
.2
• 027
.010
.537
.168
1.1
• *4
22. I
7. 1
0
1 .476
.7
.7
.064
.0 35
.903
.061
2.6
1.4
37.3
2.5
92
.912
44.5
44.6
.520
.300
5.460
2.640
5.2
3.0
54 • 5
26. 3
2
.979
45.2
45.3
.367
.203
2.942
.790
6.9
3.8
55.0
14.8
92
.80ft
43.9
44.0
.693
.535
5.367
2.773
9.7
7.5
75.2
38.9
2
.864
44.2
44.6
.321
.262
2.650
1.089
4.5
3.6
36.9
15.2
0
.73C
.5
• S
.031
.008
.614
.107
1.9
.5
38.(3
6.7
0
.911
.4
.4
.012
.006
.452
.144
1.0
.5
37.1
11.H
0
1.383
.2
.2
.022
.015
.518
.117
1.8
1.2
42.4
9.6
0
0
1.2
1.2
.0 32
.015
.498
.075
1.6
.8
25.2
3.H
2
0
22.0
22.4
.704
.575
2.760
.252
1 .0
.9
2.6
.2
0
1.541
.7
.7
.023
.012
.802
.123
1.0
.5
35.4
5.4
0
0
1.2
1.3
.065
.026
1.931
.063
3.7
1.5
110.9
3.6
0
0
2.2
2.2
.053
.027
1.659
.063
3. 1
1.6
96.2
3.7
1
0
11.7
11.6
.017
.010
.762
.433
7.9
4.7
364 • 3
201 .7
I
0
11.8
11.6
.064
.012
i.oe4
.422
29.5
5.5
499.3
194.4
1
0
24.8
24.4
.016
.008
.837
.464
7.2
3.6
377.2
209. 1
1
0
32.3
32.0
.032
.013
.650
.228
14.0
5.7
284.2
99.7
1
0
30.1
29.9
.059
.023
.725
.285
26.2
10.2
322.0
126.6
1
0
6.1
6.1
.023
.013
.610
.208
10.2
5.8
271.1
92.5
1
0
9.7
9.6
.024
.014
.598
.291
10.6
6.2
263. 1
126.3
1
0
5.3
5.2
.021
.014
• 426
.168
9.3
6.2
189.4
74.7
1
0
11.9
11.7
.010
.007
1.225
.576
4.4
3.1
535.9
252.0
1
0
78.4
77.6
.0 39
.014
1.802
1.315
13.9
5.0
643.8
469.8
1
9
73.9
73.4
.040
.016
2.274
1.852
13.5
5.4
766.0
623.8
1
0
64.3
64.1
.097
.046
2.315
1.631
35.6
16.9
848.9
598. 1
I
0
55.0
54.8
.019
.010
2.378
1.845
6.3
3.3
789.4
6 12. 5
1
0
31.5
31.5
.029
.013
1.486
.967
14.5
6.5
745. 1
484.9
1
0
16.5
16.4
.024
.011
.494
. 199
11.8
5.4
243. 7
98. 2
1
a
15.5
15.5
.027
.016
1.037
.411
13.5
8.0
516.9
204.9

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS tiY sUnORAINAtiE AREAS
3
SUBDRAINAGE areas	akfa
STORET NO.	(SO KM)
TENNESSEE
CHEROKEE LAKE
4707B1	49.91
4707C1	15.13
CHICKAMAUGA LAKE
4708D1	72.21
4708E1	35.04
4708K1	41.70
470 BH1	57.16
4708H1	44.96
DOUGLAS LAKE
471IB 1	78.50
47UD1	44.50
471IK 1	3.94
FT. LOUDOUN LAKE
4712C1	48.90
4712E1	42.71
4712F1	24.97
4712H1	29.14
4712J1	26.44
4712L1	49.11
47121=1	7.54
- 4712*1	6.63
& NICKAJACK RESERVOIR
4717E1	59.03
4717M1	10.49
4717N1	4.69
4717P1	3.39
471781	3.89
4717R1	2.38
4717T1	42.37
OLD HICKORY LAKE
4720C1	36.86
4720F1	79.41
PERCY PRIEST RESERVOIR
4723F1
TIMS FORD RESERVOIR
4724E1
4724F1
REELFOOT LAKE
4727C1
FOR
49.4
65.7
49.9
51.5
43.8
61.3
55.4
8.55
21.37
CL
10.7
12.8
3.3
3.1
4.it
3.2
5.5
30.0 2.0
50.8 4.9
25.6 .5
15.1
16.8
11.3
35.4
30.7
57.1
29.2
27.2
92.1
99.8
99.8
100.0
99.2
99.9
97.2
28.5
20.3
28.59 35.4
48.7
67.5
21.86 63.8
TEXAS
LAKE BASTROP
48021B	58.47	.6
48021C	83.96	0
48022C	103.48 1.0
11.2
20.4
33.2
4.0
5.8
5.2
13.8
11.5
.5
.2
.2
0
.7
.1
1.0
4.3
5.9
?.4
7.1
7.3
9.6
2.9
4.1
4.7
R A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.7
8.3
8.2
! PERCENTAGE
s

OVERALL
GEOLOGY
ML AN

AVt ANN
rLOil o




LAND OSt
4
P-COM
SlORE
5
PRtClH.
(CM/5U
AG
URB
wET
OTHER
CATEGORY
ORIGIN
u>
<*)
HH
(CM)
KM)
38.8
1.1
U
0
MIAEJ
1113
.054
2^.2
5.0
114
.670
21.5
G
0
0
30 F Or! ~
1000
.035
42.6
4.5
122
. 1 7 U
46.7
0
0
. 1
MIXED
1012
.047
12.2
4.5
142
1 .200
45.4
0
0
0
50 fur.
1012
.03t<
12.4
4.5
142
.bOO
51.2
0
0
. b
50 Ao•
1214
.048
13.4
4.3
132
. / JO
33.8
1.7
0
c
5o fa>i.
1010
.040
lb.O
4.S
132
1 .010
38. 7
.2
0
.2
50 fUR.
1200
.020
16.2
5.0
122
1 .05U
64.6
.3
0
3.1
50 A3.
1«*12
.050
16.4
4.5
112
. 760
43.6
.2
.1
.4
50 FuR.
1*00
.080
30.0
7.0
112
• 82C
66.7
6.7
0
.5
50 AO.
1200
.020
15.1
4.5
lid
.040
16.3
57.0
0
.4
UKtSAN
U12
.050
10.3
3. U
13/
. o 1 0
6.5
56.3
0
0
URBAN
1*4 12
.050
lu.2
5.0
142
. /1 u
0
55.3
G
.2
URBAN
1200
.020
10.3
5.0
142
.4 10
58.5
1.8
0
.3
50 AG.
1412
.050
12.3
4.5
12?
.010
61.2
1.9
0
.4
50 AG.
1214
.038
9.9
4.5
127
.420
35.0
2.4
0
. 3
30 FOR.
1214
.03m
18.0
4.5
122
1 .050
0
56.4
0
.6
URBAN
1214
.044
13.1
4.3
132
.130
0
60.2
0
1.1
URBAN
1412
.056
13.B
4.5
132
.110
4.7
0
0
2.7
75 FOR.
1111
.060
19.6
5.U
132
1.500
0
0
0
0
90 FOR.
1100
. 064
25.4
3.0
127
.270
0
0
0
0
90 FOR.
1100
.056
23.7
5.0
124
. 12u
0
0
0
0
90 F 0^ .
1100
.064
2h . 5
3.0
124
. 090
0
0
0
.1
90 FON.
1100
.064
24.3
5.0
124
. 100
0
0
0
0
90 F ufi.
1100
• 0 64
2b.fe
5.0
1 24
. OfaU
.9
0
0
.9
90 ^ OR•
1100
.058
19.3
5.0
124
1.350
65.6
.6
0
1.0
50 Ac..
1812
0
13.9
5.3
124
.680
73.2
.5
0
.1
50 AG.
1512
• 0?0
5.4
5.3
124
1.470
59.4
.4
0
2.4
50 AG.
1 tt 1 2
0
/.9
5.3
119
• >+oo
4 <+.2
0
0
0
MIAEO
1214
.032
10.6
4.5
137
. 140
24.8
.3
a
.1
50 Fur.
1412
.050
11.0
4.5
137
. 3f>0
24.8
0
0
1.8
50 FOR.
1500
0
22. 7
6.0
122
. 2S0
89.5
.3
0
0
75 AG.
1011
.054
2.9
7.2
124
.234
87.2
0
0
.4
75 A3.
1011
.054
3.0
7.2
124
.336
85.7
0
0
.<•
75 AG.
1011
.054
3.6
7.2
124
.414

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SU6DRAINAGt AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SO KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
tXPORT
(KG/SU KM)
ORTHO P TOT N INoRG N
TENNESSEE
CHEROKEE LAKE
470781
4707C1
CHICKAMAUGA LAKE
470801
4708E1
470 8KJ
4708M1
4708R1
DOUGLAS LAKE
471161
4711D1
471IK 1
FT. LOUDOUN LAKE
4712C1
4712E1
4712F1
4712H1
4712J1
4712L1
4712P1
471291
- N1CKAJACK RESERVOIR
" 4717E1
4717M1
4717N1
4717P1
471781
4717R1
4717T1
OLD HICKORY LAKE
4720C1
4720F1
PERCY PRIEST RESERVOIR
4723F1
TIMS FORO RESERVOIR
4724E1
4724F1
REELFOOT LAKE
4727C1
0	31.7	31.7
0	17.6	17.5
H	52.9	52.1
0	50.1	51.0
0	53.1	53.2
0	30.5	31.3
0	35.9	35.5
0	75.6	75.0
0	38.4	39.1
0	69.8	69.2
0	15.6	15.4
0	6.2	6.2
0	0	0
C	66.3	65.9
C	69.4	68.9
0	33.5	33.1
0	0	0
0	0	0
1.390	4.6	4.9
1.370	0	0
1.410	0	0
1.350	0	0
2.123	0	0
1.820	0	0
1.580	*1
0	63.5	63.5
0	70.9	70.9
0	65.7	65.6
0	53.1	52.7
0	29.8	29.6
1	C	12.8 12.6
.041
.016
1.115
.573
.057
.041
1.363
.350
.031
.015
1.152
.371
.037
.018
.896
.381
.041
.1)18
.971
.358
.033
.020
.771
.302
.030
.011
1.050
.557
.026
.013
1.482
1.028
.032
.016
.978
.279
.022
.013
2.013
.988
.113
.051
1.797
1.157
.107
.055
2.508
1.699
.092
.030
1.930
1.072
.039
.018
1.350
.815
.02?
.007
1.420
.753
.049
.018
.851
.375
.083
.048
1.668
1.197
.048
.023
1.842
1.413
.009
.005
• 461
.112
.007
.007
1.107
. 249
.00b
.005
.407
.087
.006
.005
.495
.oe>o
.006
.005
.415
.078
.005
.005
.374
.065
.006
.005
• 546
.003
. 149
.086
.975
.226
.166
.102
1.260
.416
.132
.079
.753
.277
.035
.012
.774
.239
.032
.011
.729
.245
.127
.058
.556
.134
17.4
6.8
472.0
242.6
23.3
16.7
556.5
142.9
16.2
7.9
603. 7
299.2
20.0
9.7
483.8
205.7
22.6
9.9
536.1
197.6
18.4
11.1
429.6
168.3
22.1
8.1
773.3
410.2
7.9
4.0
452.5
313.9
lb.6
9.3
568.3
162. 1
7.0
4.2
644.5
316.3
59.0
26.6
938.7
604.4
56.1
28.8
1314.8
890.7
47.6
15.5
999.4
555.1
25.7
11.9
891.2
538.0
11.0
3.5
711.3
377.2
33.0
12.1
573.8
252.8
45.1
26. 1
906.9
650.8
25.1
12.0
963.8
739.3
7.2
4.0
369.4
89.8
5.7
5.7
898.6
202. 1
4.8
4.0
328.4
70.2
5.0
4.2
414.4
50.2
4.9
4.1
336.4
63.2
4.0
4.0
297.3
51.7
6.0
5.0
548.6
83.4
86.6
50.0
566.9
131.4
96.9
59.5
735.6
2h2.9
58.2
34.9
332.2
122.2
18. 1
6.2
399.7
123.4
17.0
5.8
387.3
130.2
45.8
20.9
200.5
48.3
TEXAS
L*K480218ROP	92 1.005	21.9	22.2	.080	.030	2.510	.507	10.1	3.6 316.8 e>4.0
40021c	92 1.149	21.3	21.6	.342	.043	3.793	2.688	43.2	5.4 478./	339.2
48022C	1.148	21.0	21.3	.353	.042	2.330	.944	44.5	5.3 294.0	119.1

-------
SUMMARY of land use parameters by subdrainage areas
3
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS	AREA
STORET NO.	 the pines




4818B1
8.79
52.2
2.3
8.0
4818C1
20.27
70.2
3.9
.6
481801
14.99
82.0
1.1
0
4818F1
12. 86
81.6
.8
3.4
481 SGI
88.15
69.6
1.9
0
4818H1
93.95
41.8
3.2
0
4818K1
61.95
36.4
1.2
.9
4818K2
44.99
20.0
1.2
1.2
4B18P1
57.94
80.5
4.6
4.7
lake lavon




4819C1
19.38
4.1
1.4
10.6
LIVINGSTON LAKE




4B20B1
51.96
86.1
4.6
2.5
4820C1
31.29
76.8
2.1
0
482001
39.05
73.7
.8
1.8
4820H1
100.84
91.0
.5
0
LYNDON 8. JOHNSON LAKE



482181
23.34
2.4
0
88.3
4B21C1
63.39
.6
0
98.0
4821E1
99.55
23.9
.7
71.7
4821H1
25.03
11.7
0
85.1
AG
21.1
43.2
9.9
4.3
18.4
63.2
30.8
67.9
83.0
70.6
70.8
72.1
1.5
.9
36.2
23.6
16.1
12.7
27.5
52.0
61.0
76.9
6.3
81.9
6.2
19.3
21.7
7.1
4.9
.9
2.2
3.2
NT AGES


OVERALL
GEOLOGY
Mh AN

AVE ANN
FLOW



LAND USt
4
P-COM
SLOPE
5
PRECIP•
(CM/SO
URB
WET
OTHER
CATEGORY
ORIGIN
(4)
<%>
PH
(CM)
K-1)
0
0
.2
50
FOR .
1019
.060
5.4
7.2
119
.40 7
0
0
2. 1
MIXEO
1011
.061
^.6
6.5
89
.0 24
0
0
.3
MIXED
2200
.087
11.1
7.2
83
.015
0
0
.4
MIAEu
1412
.050
9.2
7.2
104
.099
0
0
.6
mi;
XEti»
1000
• 05U
b.2
7.2
104
.10b
2.4
0
1.0
50
AG.
1111
• 0b5
2.5
6.a
92
.044
.8
0
2.7
50
RAA.
1010
.055
4.3
6.5
149
.121
0
.2
1.9
50
AG.
1^11
.060
J.O
6.5
129
.698
1.0
0
.5
75
AG.
1417
.080
2.5
6.5
129
. 1 86
0
.2
1.2
50
AG.
1411
.060
1.7
6.5
129
.420
0
0
0
50
AG.
1417
.080
1.5
6.8
129
.335
0
0
.3
50
AG.
1411
.060
1.7
b.8
129
.177
0
0
.2
90
FOR.
1111
.040
3.9
4.5
178
.078
0
0
0
90
FOR.
1111
.040
2.6
4.5
178
• 0 88
0
0
1.3
50
FuR •
131?
.040
6.1
4.5
151
.058
0
.6
.9
50
FOR.
1317
.040
7.4
4.5
151
.294
0
0
.2
50
FOR.
1J17
.040
10.b
4.5
151
• d JB
1.3
.2
0
50
for.
1317
.040
7.9
4.5
151
. 186
.6
0
.4
50
FOR.
1317
.040
b.l
4.5
151
1.119
.8
0
2.2
50
AO •
1317
. 040
4.2
4.5
151
• b 1 9
0
0
.5
50
AG.
1317
.040
3.3
4.5
164
. 793
0
0
.7
75
AG •
1317
.040
3.8
4.5
164
.296
.2
.5
3.2
75
FOR .
1317
.040
6.7
4.5
151
. 640
.9
0
1.1
75
AG.
1210
.02a
2.2
7.2
119
.149
.6
0
0
75
FOR •
1100
.050
6.7
4.5
156
. 1 88
.4
0
1.4
50
for •
1 100
.050
4.7
4.5
15b
. 1 18
0
0
2.0
50
FOR •
HOC
.050
4.0
4.5
156
. 1 46
0
0
1.4
50
l/R •
1100
.050
2.5
4.5
156
• **60
3. 7
0
.7
75
RA.
1211
.038
4.9
6. d
10B
.046
0
0
.5
75
R A.
3110
.051
6.0
6.8
10B
.128
0
0
1.5
50
RAF.
3131
.070
10.9
6. 6
83
.212
0
0
0
75
RA.
3110
.063
6.7
b.8
104
.053

-------
summary of land use parameters by subdrainage areas
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
TEXAS
6ELT0N RESERVOIR
4003C1
LAKE BROKNWOOO
4805E1
LAKE BUCHANAN
4806b1
4806E1
4806F1
CALAVARAS LAKE
4803A2
EAGLE MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR
4813E1
GARZA LITTLE ELM RES.
4015G1
4815H1
481SJ1
4815K1
4815L1
HOUSTON LAKE
4817N1
4B17P1
LAKE 0« THE PINES
4818B1
g 4818CI
481801
4818F1
4818G1
4818H1
4818K1
4818K2
4818P1
LAKE LAVON
4819C1
LIVINGSTON LAKE
4820B1
4B20C1
482001
4820HI
LYNDON B.
482181
4821C1
4821E1
4821H1
JOHNSON LAKE

DRAINAGE
ANIMAL
DENSITY

MEAN CONCENTRATIONS

EXPORT

7
DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)

(MG/L)


(KG/SO
KM)

TAG
(KM/SQ KM)
TOT ?
TOT N
TOT P
ORTHO P
TOT N
INORG N
TOT P
ORTHO P
TOT N
INORG N
2
3
5.0
5.3
.013
.006
.991
.668
1.7
.8
127.6
86.0
2
0
12.9
13.4
.065
.011
1.014
.050
2.5
.4
39.0
1.9
2
C
2.3
2.3
.017
.008
.225
.040
1.1
.5
14.6
2.6
2
a
.9
1.0
.010
.006
.746
.389
.6
.4
46.8
24.4
2
0
4.0
4.4
.011
.005
1.107
.760
.7
*3'
72.8
50.0
2
c
29.8
29.8
.114
.035
1.215
.257
5.0
1.5
53.7
11.4
2
c
8.9
8.9
.042
.009
1.071
.193
4.6
1.0
117.8
21.2
2
0
25.3
25.2
.208
.066
1.640
.478
36. 7
11.7
289.6
84.4
2
1.130
30.9
30.9
.108
.020
1.584
.534
19.1
3.5
280.3
94.5
2
0
26.3
26.2
.209
.079
1.704
.463
36.9
14.0
301.0
81.8
2
a
26.4
26.3
.239
.109
1.952
.510
42.2
19.2
344.3
89.9
2
0
26.8
26.8
.207
.100
1.735
.420
36.5
17.6
306.2
74.1
2
0
.5
.5
.013
.006
.352
.078
2.8
1.3
76.7
17.0
2
0
.3
.3
.026
.010
.718
.094
5.3
2.0
146. 5
19.2
2
0
14.0
14.0
.032
.010
.568
.156
6.7
2.1
118.2
32.5
2
0
9.7
9.7
.031
.011
.469
.102
14.2
5.0
214.5
46.7
2
0
8.7
8.9
.025
.008
.524
.088
12.5
4.0
262.4
44. 1
2
0
7.3
7.4
.033
.015
.695
.096
15.1
6.B
317.0
43.8
2
0
15.3
15.6
.049
.018
.649
.136
19.6
7.2
259.8
54.4
2
0
31.8
32.0
.098
.048
1.400
.449
20.4
10.0
290.9
93.3
2
0
17.5
17.7
.079
.021
.847
.178
31.9
8.5
341.9
71.9
2
1.118
22.1
22.3
.058
.020
.893
.207
12.0
4.1
185.3
42.9
2
0
2.5
2.6
.027
.009
.401
.096"
12.3
4.1
183.3
43.9
2
.865
22.5
22.7
.026
.015
2.241
1.355
6.3
3.6
543.4
328.5
2
0
2.2
2.2
.029
.019
.726
.093
3.3
2.2
82.8
10.6
2
0
6.5
6.5
.021
.015
.770
.049
2.5
1.8
91.6
5.8
2
0
6.9
6.9
.067
.044
.911
.069
7.9
5.2
107.4
8.1
2

1.8
1.8
.028
.009
.790
.074
4.0
1.3
113.6
10.6
2
0
1.1
1.1
.011
.006
.615
.092
. 7
.4
38.2
5.7
2
0
.2
.2
.013
.007
.591
.108
.8
.4
37.6
6.9
2
0
.5
.5
.011
.007
.640
.116
.7
.5
43.0
7.8
2
0
.7
.8
.012
.006
.513
.218
.8
.4
34.3
14.6

-------
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS BY SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
3
AREA
(SO KM)
FOR CL
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
?
RA
AG
UkB WET OTHER
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
GEOLOGY
4 P-COM
ORIGIN <*>
Mt AN
SLOPE
<*)
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
TEXAS
MEDINA RESERVOIR
4822A3
363.21
50.7
1^.7 22.2
11.7
0
0
.7
50 FOR.
1212
.020
23.9
7.2
100
4B22A4
273.16
50.4
13.3 23.2
12.2
0
0
.9
50 FOR.
1212
.020
22.8
7.2
100
482261
149.16
52.2
1.8 35.9
9.5
.1
0
.5
50 FOR.
1212
.020
16.6
6.8
107
4822C1
32.96
49.7
1.3 45.4
3.6
0
0
0
MIXED
1212
.020
15.8
7.2
107
PALESTINE RESERVOIR












4824E1
29.16
40.7
4.7 26.3
21.8
1.4
1.6
3.5
MIXED
1311
.060
7.2
4.5
140
4824FI
20.16
26.0
.4 63.9
6.9
1.2
0
1.6
50 RAF.
1311
.060
7.0
4.5
140
SAM RAY60RN RESERVOIR











4827D1
41.74
4b. 1
0 47.6
5.1
.5
0
.7
MIXED
1719
0
4.1
4.5
170
4827G1
68.90
92.3
5.6 1.5
.2
.2
0
.2
90 FOR.
1111
.040
7.5
4.5
20 7
4827H1
18.73
68.8
4.6 0
6.4
0
0
.2
75 FOR.
1111
.040
8.9
4.5
207
4827J1
13.67
98.8
.9 .3
0
0
0
0
90 FJR.
1100
.040
8.2
4.5
207
4827K1
7.47
99.4
.6 0
0
0
0
0
90 FOR.
1111
.040
6.1
4.5
20 7
4827L1
10.81
98.9
1.1 0
0
0
0
0
90 FOR.
1111
.040
7.1
4.5
207
4827P)
11.59
92.3
1.3 1.6
4.8
0
0
0
75 FOR.
1111
.080
3.0
4.5
170
4827Q1
24.41
72.6
23.3 t
3.7
0
0
.4
50 FOR.
1111
.080
3.4
4.5
170
SOMERVILLE lake











4829F]
121.18
35.5
2.5 .5
59.3
0
0
2.2
50 Ao.
1000
.040
2.3
6.6
123
STILLHOUSE HOLLOW RES.













4831C1
158.93
19.7
3.2 54.6
21.1
0
0
1.4
50 RAA.
1000
.040
4.9
6.5
95
TEXARKANA reservoir











4833J1
42.24
39.4
3.3 8.2
47.5
0
0
1.6
MIXED
1110
.090
7.2
4.5
164
TEXOMfl LAKE











4834F1
44.67
11.7
.6 65.9
20.2
0
.1
1.5
50 RAA.
2215
.078
5.2
6.8
111
4834G1
45.45
18.2
J 3.0
78.3
0
0
.5
75 AG.
1117
.060
7.3
4.5
120
4834H1
51.42
7.9
1.0 40.9
49.6
0
0
.6
MIXED
1510
.060
5. 1
6.5
111
TRAVIS LAKE













4835B1
24.29
40.0
9.2 50.6
0
0
0
.2
50 RAF.
1000
.038
15.3
6.5
108
483501
21.15
6.6
.1 71.1
22.1
0
0
.1
50 RAA.
1000
.050
3.4
6.5
108
4035E1
50.06
9.5
0 78.5
11.6
0
0
.4
75 RA.
3100
.040
5.1
6.5
108
4835F1
78.45
25.5
1.6 64.6
8.3
0
0
0
50 RAF.
3100
.040
11.7
6.5
108
WHITNEY RESERVOIR













4839E1
61.91
28.3
7.8 46.5
14.8
.2
0
2.4
MIXED
1010
.032
6.2
6.5
95
4839J1
38.76
1.1
75.7 22.6
0
0
0
.6
75 CL.
1010
.032
3.0
6.5
95
UTAH
BEAR LAKE
4901C1
11.64
3.9
17.8
77.7
0
0
0
.6
75
RA.
2400
.141
30.1
7.2
27
4901H2
26.64
74.2
11.9
13.9
0
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1612
.045
34.1
7.2
27
490 IK 1
60.93
17.9
9.5
68.5
3.9
0
0
.2
50
RAF.
1010
.045
25.2
6.5
30
DEER CREEK RESERVOIR















4903B1
4.74
78.6
0
21.4
0
0
0
0
50
FOR.
1010
.045
33.9
6.5
64
FLOW 6
(CM/SQ
KM)
.777
.584
.310
.082
.196
.135
.178
.202
.051
.037
.031
.029
.063
.104
• 705
.386
.310
.223
.250
.211
.097
.068
.160
.026
.310
.155
.006
.270
.038
.011

-------
sjmmar/ of land use parawete^s bv subdhainage a^eas
WAINAGE ANIMAL DENSITr MEAN CONCENTRATIONS	tXPOKT
SU60RAINAGE A«EAS 7 DENSITY »AI4 
2.3
2.4
.019
.008
.548
.101
1.6
.7
47.1
8.7
4827JI
2
.719
a
0
.015
.008
.545
.071
1.3
.7
46.5
6.1
4827KI
2
.618
a
0
.017
.009
.597
.064
2.2
1.2
78.1
8.4
4827L1
2
.744
0
0
.013
.008
.564
.058
1.1
.7
49.4
4.9
482 7P1
2
.725
a
a
.059
.021
.745
.063
10.1
3.6
127.7
10.8
4B27Q1
2
,596
a
0
.066
• 020
.756
,088
8.7
2.7
101.6
11.8
SOMERVILLE LAKE












4tt29f 1
2
0
31.4
31.3
.053
.025
1.260
.137
9.7
4.6
231.2
25.1
STILLHOUSE hollow res.












4831C1
- 2
0
6.3
7.3
.023
.006
.543
.166
1.8
.5
41.6
12.7
TEXARKANA resehvoir












S 4833JI
2
D
13.6
13.8
.109
.045
,920
.236
25.2
10.4
212.9
54.6
¦" TEXOMA LAKE












4834F1
2
Q
6.9
6.9
.030
.014
.958
.084
4.7
2.2
150,8
13.2
4834G1
2
1.391
29.4
29.4
« 041
.013
.986
.163
7.1
2.3
171.0
28.3
i»S34Hl
2
1
22.9
22.8
.040
.016
1.714
.280
5.2
2.1
221.8
36.2
TRAVIS LAKE












4835fc)l
2
0
0
0
.011
.005
.637
.335
1.4
.6
80.2
42.2
483501
2
0
4.8
5.0
.020
.008
1.097
.562
2.0
.8
111.2
57.0
4835E1
2
3
2.6
2.8
.019
.011
.698
.127
1.9
1.1
70.4
I2.fi
4835FI
2
C
1.4
1.4
.010
.005
.598
.321
.1
.1
6.3
3.4
WHITNEY RESERVOIR












4B39E1
2
'J
5.7
5.7
.022
.008
.767
.306
3.5
1.3
121.1
48.3
48 39 J1
2
0
29.1
29.3
.169
.143
1.213
.539
21.3
18.0
1S3.0
68.0
UTAH
BEA* LAKE
4901C1
0
0
0
0
.321
.030
3.530
1.937
5.2
.5
57.4
31.5
4901H2
0
0
0
0
.033
.021
.78ft
.121
10.S
6.7
251.9
38.7
4901M
0
0
.6
.6
.036
.008
.697
.172
.7
.2
13.7
3.4
DEER CREEK RESERVOIR












490361
0
1.438
0
0
.059
.025
.324
,125
4,3
1.6
23.7
9.1

-------
summary of land USE PARAMETERS by subdrainage areas
3
subdrainage areas
STORET NO.
area
(SO KM)
FOR
land use PERCENTAGES
2
CL
RA
AG
URB WET OTHER
OVERALL
LAND USE
CATEGORY
GEOLOGY
4 P-COM
ORIGIN <*>
MEAN
SLOPE

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PftRhME.TE.KS bX SU8DRA1NA0E ftHtAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
TAG
DRAINAGE
DENSITY
(KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SU KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INOrfG N
TOT P
tXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
ORThO P TOT
N INORG M
UTAH
PINEVIEW RESERVOIR	„	n	. ,
49l6El	0 0 2.5 2.6 .076 .034 .897 .560 15.2 6.8	179.9	112.3
UTAH LAKE	„ ,	,,, ,	,, ,
^924Q1	0 0 .7 .7 .026 .015 .476 .291 b.<» 3.7	117.1	71.6
VERMONT
ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN LAKE
501021	1
501031	1
WATERBURY RESERVOIR
501131	1
501141	1
501151	1
&
61.8
61.7
.031
.007
1.029
.426
18.6
4.2
617.5
255.7
0
35.3
35.2
.036
.007
1.034
.499
21.6
4.2
619.8
299. 1
0
17.9
17.8
.021
.007
.697
.324
14.7
4.9
467 . 6
226.6
0
13.3
13.2
.013
.005
. 745
.373
9. 1
3.5
519.8
260.3
c
13.8
13.7
.020
.006
.835
.375
13.8
4.1
577.3
259.3
VIRGINIA
CLAYTOR LAKE
5103B1
5103E1
JOHN W. FLANNAGAN RES.
5105D1
5105E1
5105F1
- 0CC09UAN RESERVOIR
5 5108D1
SMITH MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR
5110E1
5110F1
5U0G1
LAKE CHESDIN
5111B1
5111C1
5111E1
CHICKAHOMINY LAKE
511261
5112C1
511201
1.620
.7
.7
.022
.007
.433
.131
6. 1
1.9
119.4
36. 1
1.64C
109.3
113.2
.022
.010
1.374
.996
5.7
2.6
356.1
258.2
0
3.8
3.8
.023
.008
1.400
.450
9.0
3.1
547.9
176. 1
C
6.0
6.0
.020
.010
.917
.209
7.9
3.9
360.3
82. 1
1.570
3.1
3.1
.022
.009
.842
.152
8.6
3.5
329.6
59.5
0
15.8
15.8
.041
.028
.924
.277
11.2
7.6
251.4
75.4
0
22.1
22.0
.075
• C 27
.893
.336
28.0
10.1
332.9
125.3
0
38.7
38.6
.099
.024
.990
.313
35.1
8.5
350.5
1 10.fl
0
46.5
46.4
.036
.014
.710
.339
13.5
5.3
267.2
127.6
0
19.7
19.2
.049
.022
.889
.179
14.9
6.7
270.9
54.6
0
14.2
14.0
.037
.012
.540
.057
11.3
3.7
165.5
17.5
c
8.8
8.7
.040
.013
.640
.068
11.9
3.9
190.5
20.2
0
2.0
2.0
.064
.035
.660
.049
25.4
13.9
261.8
19.4
0
4.3
4.2
.076
.039
.730
.126
27.3
14.0
262.7
45. 3
0
9.0
8.7
.115
.064
.727
.101
42.1
23.4
265.9
36.9
WASHINGTON
BANKS LAKE
53021F
90
1.460
20.6
20.8
.460
.217
7.937
6. 650
10.2
4.8
175.5
147. 1
5302B1
0
1.416
19.5
19.7
.259
.101
5.734
4.816
5.7
2.2
125.7
105.6
5302E1
90
1.472
22.3
22.5
1.120
.212
8.019
4.838
24.5
4.6
175.8
106.0
CHELAN LAKE










50.2

5303D1
0
1.063
0
0
.020
.015
.248
.085
4.0
3.0
17.2
530 3E1
0
.882
0
0
.014
.011
.276
.100
5.8
4.5
114.1
41.3
530 3F1
0
0
0
0
.020
.008
.130
.054
9.6
3.9
62.7
26. 1
530 3G1
0
0
0
0
.011
.006
.360
.049
6.8
3.7
223.6
30.4
5303H1
0
0
0
0
.011
.006
.553
.118
14.4
7.9
725.0
154.7

-------
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
AREA
STORET NO.
(SO KM)
FOR
CL
RA
AG
WASHINGTON





KEECHELUS LAKE





S3061F
105.70
64.7
34.2
0
0
53061G
15.64
67.2
32.8
0
0
S3061H
34.65
68.1
31.9
0
0
53061J
12.77
63.7
36.3
0
0
53061K
57.67
74.7
25.0
0
0
53061L
11.92
65.6
34.1
0
0
53061M
91.01
80.9
18.9
0
0
530681
20.66
67.0
31.6
0
0
530601
10.44
80.0
17.1
0
0
5306E1
34.59
48.5
49.5
0
0
MAYFIELD LAKE





5307H1
27.80
45.1
6.8
.8
44.3
5307C1
5.60
61.1
17.9
0
21.0
OZETTE LAKE




5310 IF
15.09
45.7
54.3
0
0
5310B1
26.24
64.5
33.8
0
0
5310C1
58.76
52.8
45.3
0
1.9
531001
20.50
83.7
15.2
0
0
5310E1
12.90
44.1
55.7
0
.2
SAMMAMISH LAKE





531 IE 1
13.00
89.0
.6
0
7.1
WHATCOM LAKE




5312B1
9.78
91.8
8.2
0
0
5312C1
19.96
91.4
.2
0
.2
WEST VIRGINIA





BLUESTONE RESERVOIR





SAO IE 1
45.95
66.2
1.9
0
31.9
540 IF 1
31.83
61.1
3.2
0
35.7
LAKE LYNN





540 2C1
6.03
72.0
1.1
0
23.4
TYGART RESERVOIR





5404C1
1.50
52.2
0
0
47.0
540401
9.04
26.9
2.9
0
62.3
5404H1
23.23
48.4
5.8
0
38.9
WISCONSIN





BUTTERNUT LAKE





5509A3
57.73
46.7
7.4
0
8.0
5509B1
20.54
35.3
10.2
0
22.7
EAU CLAIRE LAKE




5515C1
76.12
59.1
6.5
0
32.1
SUMMARY of land use parameters by suborainage areas
3
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
URB WET
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.6
0
8.2
0
0
3.4
0
7.8
0
.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
0
0
0
1.9
0 37.2
0 31.8
2.3

OVERALL
GEOLOGY
MEAN

AVE ANN
FLO* i

LAND USE
4
P-COM
SLOPE
5
PRECIP.
(CM/SCI
OTHER
CATEGORY
ORIGIN
<£>
(*>
PH
(CM)
KM)
.3
50
FOR.
2626
.184
42.1
b.O
258
7.820
0
50
FOR.
2626
.184
42.0
5.0
258
1.100
0
50
FOR.
2626
.184
38.9
5.0
258
3.030
0
50
FOR.
2626
.184
42.7
5.0
258
.830
.3
50
FOR.
2626
. 184
42. 1
b.O
258
3.920
.3
50
FOR.
2626
. 184
<•2.2
5.0
258
.770
.2
75
FOR.
2626
.184
41.2
5.0
258
6.550
1.4
50
For •
2626
.184
39.6
5.0
185
1 .470
2.9
75
FOR.
2626
.184
54.9
5.0
185
. 750
2.0
MIXED
1124
.133
59.8
5.0
185
2.610
0
MIXED
1024
.136
12.3
5.0
144
.663
0
50
FOR.
1526
. 146
10.4
5.0
144
.134
0
50
CL.
1100
.040
12.5
5.5
263
3.420
1.7
50
FOR.
1100
.040
15.7
5.5
263
6.230
0
50
FDR.
1126
.157
10.6
5.5
263
14.650
0
75
FOR.
1100
.040
20.6
5.5
263
4.880
0
50
CL.
1100
.040
6.2
5.5
263
3.210
.7
50
FOh.
1500
0
22.4
*.5
89
.253
0
90
FOR.
1100
.040
29.3
4.5
91
.301
0
50
FOR.
1100
.040
30.2
4.5
91
.580
0
50
FOR.
1000
.056
29.9
<~.5
97
. 730
0
50
FDR.
1000
.056
28.1
4.5
97
.490
.1
50
FOR.
1000
.049
15.8
5.5
112
. 140
.6
50
FOR.
1000
.049
19.4
5.5
117
.040
.1
50
AG.
1000
.04*
13.6
5.5
117
.200
5.0
MIXED
1000
.04 9
23. 1
5.5
117
.510
.7
MIXED
2000
. 118
3.5
4.4
84
• 690
0
MIXED
2000
. 118
4.0
4. b
84
.240
0
50
FDR.
1300
.040
3.0
b. J
79
.390

-------
summary of land use parameters by suborainage areas
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SQ KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTMO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
ORTHO P TOT N
INORG N
WASHINGTON
KEECHELUS LAKE
53061F
53061G
53061H
53061J
53061K
53061L
53061M
530681
530601
5306E1
MAYFIELO LAKE
5307t)l
5307CJ
OZETTE LAKE
5310 IF
5310ril
5310C1
5310D1
5310E1
_ 5AMMAMISH LAKE
£ 531 IE 1
WHATCOM LAKE
531261
5312C1
WEST VIRGINIA
BLUESTONE RESERVOIR
SAO IE 1
540 IF 1
LAKE LYNN
5402C1
TYGART RESERVOIR
5404C1
540401
5404H1
WISCONSIN
BUTTERNUT LAKE
5509A3
550981
EAU CLAIRE LAKE
5515CI
o
c
0
0
.008
.005
.228
.095
18.7
11.7
532.0
221.6
o
c
0
0
.008
.006
.227
.032
17.7
13.3
503.5
71.0
o
0
0
0
.010
.008
.323
.057
27.6
22.1
890.7
157.2
o
0
0
0
.011
.006
.319
.085
22.5
12.3
653.9
174.2
o
0
0
0
.010
.005
.328
.043
21.4
10.7
703.1
92.2
o
0
0
0
.022
.019
.225
.041
44. 8
38.7
458.4
83.5
0
.922
0
0
.010
.009
.116
.025
22.7
20.4
263.3
56.7
o
0
0
0
.008
.008
.159
.072
17.8
17.8
353.4
160.0
0
1.219
0
0
.007
• 0C6
.265
.049
15.9
13.6
600.4
111.0
0
0
0
0
.007
.006
.196
.077
16.7
14.3
466.4
183.2
0
0
29.0
29.1
.053
.027
1.448
.915
39.9
20.3
1089.0
688.2
0
0
13.7
13.8
.032
.014
.892
.533
24.2
10.6
675.1
403.4
o
0
1.8
1.8
.034
.014
.449
.141
243.0
100.1
3209.1
1007.8
o
0
0
0
.015
.1)07
.236
.063
112.3
52.4
1767.0
471.7
0
0
0
0
.022
.012
.433
.119
173.0
94.4
3404.5
935.6
0
.748
.2
.2
.015
.007
.282
.070
112.6
52.5
2117.0
525.5
0
0
0
0
.041
• 015
.454
.090
321.7
117.7
3562.7
706.3
0
0
10.1
10.3
.023
.010
1.907
1.477
14.1
6.1
1170.4
906.5
0
1.363
0
0
.019
.007
.787
.601
18.4
6.8
763.9
583.3
0
0
.3
.3
.022
.007
.838
.633
20.2
6.4
767.9
580. 1
J
0
27.7
28.0
.019
.007
.589
.291
9.5
3.5
295.1
145.8
1
0
30.2
30.3
.015
.006
.810
.389
7.3
2.9
393.2
188.8
1
0
16.4
19.0
.012
.006
1.186
.868
H.8
4.4
868.4
635.5
1
0
43.9
44.5
.056
.020
1.003
.557
47.1
16.8
843.5
468.4
1
0
58.2
59.0
.077
.019
1.241
.593
53.7
13.3
865.8
413.7
1
0
27.3
27.5
.027
.006
.774
.301
18.7
4.2
535.9
208.4
1
0
5.5
5.5
.033
.015
.928
.203
12.4
5.7
349.8
76.5
1
0
15.6
15.6
.041
.018
1.282
.274
15.1
6.6
472.4
101.0
1
0
26.4
26.5
.068
.029
1.650
.282
16.6
7.1
403.3
68.9

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND USE PARAMETERS Br SU6DRAINAGE areas
j
subdrainage areas
STORET NO.
WISCONSIN
KEGONSA LAKE
5S20C1
5520D1
SHAWANO LAKE
5539C1
TAINTER LAKE
5546B1
WAPOGASSET LAKE
S550C1
WAUSAU LAKE
55S1C3
LAKE WINNEBAGO
5554B1
5554CI
WISCONSIN LAKE
5555D2
55S5E2
LAKE WI5S0TA
555601
BIG EAU PLEINE RES.
556561
5565C1
5! BEAVERDAM LAKE
w 5577C2
5577E2
WYOMING
BOULDER LAKE
5602B1
BOYSEN RESERVOIR
560 3L1
FLAMING GORGE RESERVOIR
560561
5605D1
5605K1
FREMONT LAKE
5606B1
KEY MOLE RESERVOIR
560BC1
560801
SEMINOE RESERVOIR
5610D1
5610E1
AREA
(SO KM)
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
FOR CL RA AG
OVERALL
LAND USE
URB WET OTHEP CATEGORY ORIGIN
15.05
6.3
7.2
0
60.3
0
6.0
.2
75
AO
6.55
8.5
2.3
0
88.7
0
0
.5
75
AG
38.85
9.4
.8
0
72.5
.2
14.0
3.1
50
AG
45.92
36.3
2.8
0
49.5
0
10.9
.5
MIXED
8.91
16.5
6.0
0
55.0
0
22.5
0
50
AG,
34.19
20.5
4.6
0
72.4
2. 1
0
.4
50
AG,
44.34
7.5
2.6
0
83.7
5.0
1.2
0
75
AG,
51.02
5.4
3.4
0
82.9
6.1
1.1
1.1
75
AG,
25.72
9.7
.9
0
88.4
1.0
0
b
75
AG,
87.31
15.0
1.4
0
78.4
1.7
3.5
0
75
AG,
143.20
37.7
4.5
0
56.1
0
1.7
0
50
Ao,
83.09
31.8
4.4
0
63.0
.6
0
.2
50
AG,
59.34
34.7
4.7
0
58.2
0
0
2.4
50
AG,
60.97
10.0
6.1
0
71.7
0
12.2
0
50
AG,
4.30
0
0
0
99.1
.9
0
0
90
AG,
3.27 44.1	45.4 9.4
33.88 12.5	83.5 2.8
58.30	84.3	.3 14.8
123.36 18.7	45.0 36.3
73.44	31.0	44.4 24.6
5.46 74.3	25.7 0
119.51
36.21
47.13
68.61
.4
0
0
0
0
0
0 1.5 87.3 9.0
17.7 25.8 14.C 27.2
6.2 59.4 32.9
18.5 66.5 13.0
1.5
2.0
0
0
.4
0
0
.4
0
0
c
0
.5
0
.3
1.2
.2
0
0
1.7
15.3
MIXED
75 CL.
75 FOR.
MIXEu
MIXED
SO FOR.
75 RA.
MIXEu
50 CL.
50 CL.
GEOLOGY
4 P-COM
ORIGIN 
5
PH
AVt ANN
PREC1P.
(CM)
F L 0 6
(CM/SO
KM)
1213
1200
.030
.020
4.5
5. 7
6.3
6.3
81
61
• 060
.030
1213
.030
2.0
4.5
76
• 2B0
1300
.040
8.8
6.3
74
.250
1300
.040
3.7
6.3
71
.050
2133
.120
2.6
6.3
81
.280
1214
1214
.050
.050
4.7
3.4
6.3
6.3
7b
76
.170
.200
1312
1312
.030
.030
5.1
7.8
6.5
6.3
76
76
.200
.660
1300
.040
3.4
6.3
79
1.000
2133
2133
.128
.128
2.8
4.0
6.3
6.3
79
79
.610
.130
1213
1200
.027
.020
2.8
1 .4
6.3
fa.3
76
76
.390
.030
2200
• OR7
24.6
5.5
26
.046
1222
.054
29.6
8.5
35
.025
3413
1410
1410
.040
.065
.065
16.4
21.2
20.6
7.2
S • 5
8.5
35
35
35
• h02
.076
.059
1500
0
26.8
8.5
26
.076
1411
1111
.070
.060
3.5
9.4
7.7
7.7
30
30
.021
.072
1122
2210
.078
.078
22.a
26. 1
6.5
6.5
40
4U
.160
.359

-------
SUMMARY OF LAND OSE PARAMETERS BY SU8DRAINAGE AREAS
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG (KM/SO KM)
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N IN0R6 N
TOT P
EXPORT
(KG/SO KM)
OUT HO P TOT N
WISCONSIN
KEGONSA LAKE
5520C1
1 .630
81.6
80.8
.235
.097
3.704
1.973
29.5
12.2
5520D1
1 1.2C0
90.2
89.2
.184
.092
3.378
2.563
26.6
13.3
SHAWANO LAKE









5539C1
1 0
70.5
70.3
.050
.0 1 7
1.426
.194
11.4
3.9
TAINTER LAKE









5546B1
1 0
43.5
43.4
.107
.058
1.454
.225
18.4
10.0
WAPOGA5SET LAKE









5550C1
1 0
58.9
57.0
.111
.047
1.783
.684
19.6
8.3
WAUSAU LAKE









5551C3
1 0
73.3
73.1
.125
.071
1.949
.999
32.3
18.3
LAKE WINNEBAGO









555*61
1 .800
13.4
13.1
.195
.102
3.645
2.301
23.6
12.3
5554C1
1 .958
13.2
13.0
.179
.098
3.150
1.737
22.1
12. 1
WISCONSIN LAKE









5555D2
1 .953
62.9
82.9
.059
.030
2.259
2.084
14.5
7.4
5555E2
1 .568
77.9
77.3
.131
.056
2.444
1.726
31.2
13.3
LAKE WISSOTA









5556D1
1 0
52.5
52.4
.085
.050
1.872
.921
18.7
11.0
BIO EAU PLEINE RES.









5565B1
I 0
63.8
63.6
.102
.048
1.866
.700
23.6
11.1
556SC1
i 0
58.9
58.8
.066
.036
2.453
1.352
15. 1
8.2
BEAVERDAM lake









5577C2
1 0
67.5
67.5
.224
.089
2.723
.735
45.2
18.0
5577E2
1 .128
100.0
99.1
.136
.094
7.449
6.510
29.9
20.7
46b.7
487.9
324. 1
249.6
315.5
503.4
440.7
389.4
554.0
582.6
412.3
432.0
560.6
549.3
1636.9
WYOMING
BOULDER LAKE
5602B1
0
0
.1
.1
.063
.037
1.108
.089
27.9
16.4
491.5
BOYSEN RESERVOIR











560 3L1
90
0
0
0
.037
.005
1.611
.092
.9
.1
37.5
FLAMING GORGE RESERVOIR











5605B1
0
.798
0
0
.023
.006
.602
.043
5.0
1.3
130.9
56050I
0
0
0
0
.092
.035
1.590
.594
1.8
.7
30.9
5605K1
0
0
0
0
.081
.018
1.528
.373
2.1
.5
38. 1
FREMONT LAKE











560681
0
0
0
0
.011
.007
.588
.037
4.8
3.1
258.1
KEY HOLE RESERVOIR











5608C1
0
0
.9
1.0
.358
.059
1.892
.365
2.0
.3
10.5
560801
0
0
2.9
3.1
.284
.140
1.736
.147
17.8
8.8
108.9
SEMINOE RESERVOIR











561001
0
0
.2
.2
.094
.032
1.236
.177
10.1
3.4
132.3
5610E1
0
0
.2
.3
.063
.018
.939
.091
10.4
3.0
154.9
INOtfG N
248. 1
370.2
44. 1
38.6
121.0
258.0
278.2
214.7
511.0
411.5
202.8
162.1
309.0
148.3
1432.3
39.5
2.1
9.4
11.5
9.5
16.2
2.0
9.2
18.9
15.0

-------
SUMMARY of land use parameters «y subdrainage areas
3
SU8D.4AINAGE AREAS
STORET Mi).
AREA
(SO KM)
FOR
CL
LAND USE PERCENTAGES
2
RA AG UR6 MET
OVERALL
LAND USE
GEOLOGY MEAN
4 P-COM SLOPE
OTHER CATEGORY ORIGIN U)
(*)
PH
AVE ANN
PRECIP.
(CM)
FLOW 6
(CM/SO
KM)
WYOMING
VIVA NAUGHTON RESERVOIR
5612B1
YELLOWTAIL RESERVOIR
561401
13.08 21.1	0 70.1	0	0 0 8.8 50 RAF. 1110 .070 26.3
195.82 16.1 40.8 43.0 .1	0 0	0 MIXED	1117	0 24.6
7.2
5.5
24
55
.055
.300
-e»
oo

-------
SUMMARY of land use parameters by subdrainage areas
SUBDRAINAGE AREAS
STORET NO.
DRAINAGE
7 DENSITY
TAG fKM/SQ KMI
ANIMAL DENSITY
(AN UNITS/SO KM)
TOT P TOT N
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
(MG/L)
TOT P ORTHO P TOT N INORG N
TOT P
EXPORT
(K6/SQ KM)
ORTHO P TOT
N INORG N
WYOMING
VIVA NAUGHTON RESERVOIR
561231	0	C	0	0 .085 .044 1.699 .725	11.3	5.8 225.3 96.1
YtLLOWTAIL RESERVOIR
561401	90	0	0	0 .035 .007 1.296 .329	1.7	.3 62.6 15.9
XXUXXXX&XXX FOOTNOTES XXXXXXXXXXXX
1. LAKE NAMES ARE INCLUDED ONLY TO IDENTIFY THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STREAM SAMPLING SITES. ABOUT 90 PERCENT OF THE SITES
LIE WITHIN THE LAKE'S WATERSHED UNDERWHICH THEY ARE LISTED.
2. CL . . . CLEARED UNPRODUCTIVE.
3. OVERALL LAND USE CATEGORY
90 FOR
75 FOR
50 FOR
90 AG
75 AG
50 AG
75 RA
>	90k FOREST
>	754 FOREST
2	50* FOREST
>	90* AGRICULTURE
>	75* AGRICULTURE
>	50* AGRICULTURE
2 75* RANGE
50 RAA . . . MOSTLY RANGE; REMAINDER
PREDOMINANTLY AGRICULTURE
50 RAF . . . MOSTLY RANGE* REMAINDER
PREDOMINANTLY FOREST
75 CL ...» 75% CLEARED UNPRODUCTIVE
50 CL ...» 50S CLEARED UNPRODUCTIVE
URBAN . . . URBAN
MIXED . . . MIXED
NOTE — SEE CATEGORY DEFINITIONS SUBSECTION OF TEXT FOR SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS.
4. GEOLOGY-ORIGIN
10
• •
• •
SEOIMENTARY—MIXED
24 ..
... IGNEOUS-VOLCANIC

li
• •
• •
SEDIMENTARY-MIXED* WITHOUT LIMESTONE
25 ..
... IGNEOUS-VOLCANIC-ACIDIC

12
• •

SEDIMENTARY-LIMESTONE
?6 ..
... IGNEOUS-VOLCANIC-BASIC

13
•
• •
SEDIMENTARY-SANDSTONE
30 ..
... MtTAMORPHIC-MIXED

14
• •
• •
SEDIMENTARY-SHALE
31 ..
... METAMORPHIC-DERIVED FROM
SEDIMtNTARY MIXED
15
• •
• •
SEDIMENTARY-UNDIFFERENTIATED
32 ..
... METAMORPHlC-UERIVED FROM
SEDIMENTARY MIXED
16
• •
• •
SEDIMENTARY-CLAY

WITHOUT limestone

17


SEDIMENTARY-GLAUCONITE OR PHOSPHATE
33 ..
... METAMORPH1C-DERIVED FROM
IGNEOUS



ROCK PRESENT
34 ..
... METAMORPHIC-DERIVED FROM
IGNEOUS PLUTONIC
18


SEDIMENTARY-MARINE SEDIMENTS
35 ...
.. METAMORPHIC-DERIVED FROM
IGNEOUS PLUTONIC-BASIC
20
• •
• •
IGNEOUS-MIXED
36 ...
.. METAMORPHlC-UERIVED FROM
IGNEOUS PLUTONIC-ACIDIC
21
• •
• •
IGNEOUS-PLUTONIC
37 ...
.. METAMOKPHlC-OEHIVED FROM
IGNEOUS VOLCANIC
22
• •
• •
IGNEOUS-PLUTONIC-ACIDIC
38 ...
.. METAMORPHIC-DERIVED FROM
IGNEOUS VOLCANIC-BASIC
23


IGNEOUS-PLUTONIC-BASIC
39 ...
.. METAMORPHIC-DERIVED FROM
IGNEOUS VOLCANIC-ACIDIC
40 ..... MIXED
NOTE — WHERE COMBINATIONS EXIST THE PREDOMINANT TYPE IS SHOWN FIRST.

-------
5. FROM UNPUBLISHED ESTIMATES BY GUY D. SMITH (1975).
6.	CMS/50 KM ..... CUBIC METERS/SECOND/SQUARE KILOMETER.
7.	TAG
1	..... EASTERN REGION
2		 CENTRAL RE&ION
0 	 WESTERN RE6ION
9 	 DATA USED ONLY FOR EXPORT RELATIONSHIPS

-------
1 report no.
EPA-600/3-77-105
~X tTtxeand subtitle	.
Nonpoint Source - Stream Nutrient Level Relationships;
A Nationwide Study
77~AUTHOR(Sr~
James M. Omernik
g PERFORMING ORr; AN I 7 ATI ON NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Research Laboratory-Corval1 is, OR
Office of Research and Development
U.S.Environnental Protection Agency
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
5. REPORT DATE
September 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND m^RESS
same
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BA029
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Einal-- 197?-iq77--lQHs"s^_
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/02
*15. SUPPLEMENTAhV NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
National Eutrophication Survey (NES) data for a nationwide collection of 928 non-
point source watersheds were studied for relationships between macro-drainage area
characteristics (particularly land use) and nutrient levels in streams. Both the tota
and inorganic forms of phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations and loads in streams were
considered.
For both nationwide and regional data sets, significant correlations were found
between general land use and nutrient concentrations in streams. Mean concentrations
were considerably higher in streams draining agricultural watersheds than in streams
draining forested watersheds. The overall relationships and regionalizes of the
relationships and interrelationships with other characteristics are illustrated carto-
graphically and statistically.
Two methods are provided for predicting nonpoint source nutrient levels in streams
one utilizing mapped interpretations of NES nonpoint source data and the other, regiona
mathematical equations and mapped residuals of these equations. Both methods afford a
limited accountability for regional characteristics.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI l ield/Group
Land Use*
Nutri ents*
Watersheds*
Phosphorus*
Ni trogen*
Loadings
Concentrations
Eutrophication
Stream Flow
Animal Unit Density
Soils
Geology
Nonpoint Source Nutrients
02A
02E
04A
04C
05A
05C
05G
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
163
RELEASE TO PUBLIC

20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
gpA Form 2220—1 (Rev. 4—77)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
151


-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY

-------