Spatial Analysis of a Chesapeake Bay Sub-Watershed: How Land Use and Precipitation Patterns Impact Water Quality in the James River
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Model Setup
2.2. Model Calibration and Validation
2.3. Supplemental Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Land Cover
3.2. Principal Components Analysis
3.3. Correlation Matrix
4. Discussion
4.1. Hydrologic Processes and Land Cover
4.2. Land Cover and Water Quality
4.3. Precipitation and Water Quality
4.4. Nutrient Processes
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
File Name | Parameter Name | James River at Cartersville, VA | Appomattox River at Matoaca, VA |
---|---|---|---|
.bsn | ADJ_PKR (V) | 0.5003 | 1.839 |
CDN (V) | 0.04773 | 0.2907 | |
NPERCO (V) | 0.1705 | 0.01462 | |
PHOSKD (V) | 198.1 | 299.6 | |
PPERCO (V) | 12.28 | 5.08 | |
PRF (V) | 1.221 | 1.54 | |
PSP (V) | 0.2013 | 0.3479 | |
SDNCO (V) | 0.9531 | 0.903 | |
SFTMP (V) | −0.7163 | 0.4914 | |
SMFMN (V) | 3.171 | 1.614 | |
SMFMX (V) | 4.761 | 4.001 | |
SMTMP (V) | −0.3637 | 0.7086 | |
SPCON (V) | 0.009279 | 0.005294 | |
SPEXP (V) | 1.2 | 1.139 | |
TIMP (V) | 0.2855 | 0.3076 | |
SURLAG (V) | 0.01269 | 0.0387 | |
.gw | ALPHA_BF (V) | 0.5583 | 0.608 |
GW_DELAY (V) | 0.2899 | 26.1 | |
GW_REVAP (V) | 0.1399 | 0.07826 | |
GWQMN (V) | 571 | 413.2 | |
RCHRG_DP (V) | 0.048187 | 0.0493795 | |
REVAPMN (V) | 500 | 427.2 | |
.hru | CANMX (V) | 2.857 | 19 |
DEP_IMP (V) | 1653 | 2486 | |
ESCO (V) | 0.9995 | 0.9985 | |
.mgt | CN2 (%) | 0.1483 | 0.08584 |
DDRAIN (V) | 1488 | 930 | |
USLE_P (V) | 1 | 0.01448 | |
.res | NDTARGR (V) | 47 | 22 |
IFLOD1 (V) | 5 | 2 | |
IFLOD2 (V) | 2 | 10 | |
STARG1 (%) | 0.7393 | −0.3043 | |
STARG10 (%) | 0.9392 | 0.2333 | |
STARG11 (%) | 0.8616 | 0.6027 | |
STARG12 (%) | 0.8338 | 0.2239 | |
STARG2 (%) | 0.8168 | −0.6895 | |
STARG3 (%) | 0.3658 | 0.6082 | |
STARG4 (%) | −0.1768 | −0.04029 | |
STARG5 (%) | −0.1942 | 0.6532 | |
STARG6 (%) | −0.4971 | −0.5905 | |
STARG7 (%) | −0.5544 | 0.9391 | |
STARG8 (%) | 0.874 | 0.2851 | |
STARG9 (%) | 0.8311 | 0.3571 | |
.swq | RS2 (V) | 0.01662 | 0.0147 |
RS5 (V) | 0.08881 | 0.09925 | |
.sol | SOL_AWC (%) | −0.003637 | 0.007086 |
.wwq | AI2 (V) | 0.01528 | 0.01492 |
Variable Name | Definition |
---|---|
SUB | Sub-basin number. |
GIS | GIS code reprinted from watershed configuration file (.fig). See explanation of sub-basin command. |
MON | Daily time step: the Julian date; Monthly time step: the month (1–12); Annual time step: 4-digit year; Average annual summary lines: number of years averaged together. |
AREA | Area of the sub-basin (km2). |
PRECIP | Total amount of precipitation falling on the sub-basin during time step (mm H2O). |
SNOMELT | Amount of snow or ice melting during time step (water-equivalent mm H2O). |
PET | Potential evapotranspiration from the sub-basin during the time step (mm H2O). |
ET | Actual evapotranspiration from the sub-basin during the time step (mm). |
SW | Soil water content (mm). Amount of water in the soil profile at the end of the time period. |
PERC | Water that percolates past the root zone during the time step (mm). There is potentially a lag between the time the water leaves the bottom of the root zone and when it reaches the shallow aquifer. Over a long period of time, this variable should equal groundwater |
SURQ | Surface runoff contribution to streamflow during time step (mm H2O). |
GW_Q | Groundwater contribution to streamflow (mm). Water from the shallow aquifer that returns to the reach during the time step. |
WYLD | Water yield (mm H2O). The net amount of water that leaves the sub-basin and contributes to streamflow in the reach during the time step. (WYLD = SURQ + LATQ + GWQ − TLOSS − pond abstractions) |
SYLD | Sediment yield (metric tons/ha). Sediment from the sub-basin that is transported into the reach during the time step. |
ORGN | Organic N yield (kg N/ha). Organic nitrogen transported out of the sub-basin and into the reach during the time step. |
ORGP | Organic P yield (kg P/ha). Organic phosphorus transported with sediment into the reach during the time step. |
NSURQ | NO3 in surface runoff (kg N/ha). Nitrate transported by the surface runoff into the reach during the time step. |
SOLP | Soluble P yield (kg P/ha). Phosphorus that is transported by surface runoff into the reach during the time step. |
SEDP | Mineral P yield (kg P/ha). Mineral phosphorus attached to sediment that is transported by surface runoff into the reach during the time step. |
LATQ | Lateral flow contribution to streamflow during timestep (mm H2O) |
LAT_Q_NO3 | Lateral flow nitrate contributions to streamflow (kh/ha) |
Precip | SW | SURQ | Sed Yield | ORG N | ORG P | N Surface | Sol P | Sed P | Forest | Hay | Residential | Wetlands | Cultivated Crops |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
86.5583 | 73.3121 | 14.3084 | 0.0020 | 0.0179 | 0.0035 | 0.1452 | 0.0156 | 0.0057 | 86.35% | 9.60% | 1.83% | 0.11% | 1.09% |
98.2000 | 267.9045 | 6.6046 | 0.0025 | 0.0713 | 0.0163 | 0.2129 | 0.0373 | 0.0248 | 77.63% | 13.34% | 4.72% | 0.48% | 1.16% |
83.8167 | 256.3887 | 16.6134 | 0.0077 | 0.0369 | 0.0103 | 0.2229 | 0.0286 | 0.0214 | 68.78% | 15.51% | 6.30% | 3.82% | 1.85% |
95.0500 | 196.6781 | 19.8110 | 0.0244 | 0.1190 | 0.0201 | 0.1736 | 0.0076 | 0.0528 | 45.98% | 7.44% | 14.98% | 7.53% | 8.26% |
69.9750 | 67.9176 | 10.5794 | 0.0015 | 0.0196 | 0.0039 | 0.1218 | 0.0181 | 0.0067 | 84.56% | 10.48% | 4.10% | 0.04% | 0.26% |
68.2000 | 231.8056 | 3.2908 | 0.0012 | 0.0464 | 0.0091 | 0.2201 | 0.0278 | 0.0153 | 72.88% | 18.66% | 6.60% | 0.38% | 0.50% |
65.7667 | 215.7693 | 13.2256 | 0.0053 | 0.0358 | 0.0089 | 0.1831 | 0.0363 | 0.0162 | 65.40% | 16.55% | 9.76% | 4.53% | 2.22% |
70.7500 | 171.2268 | 14.7056 | 0.0051 | 0.0387 | 0.0078 | 0.2516 | 0.0178 | 0.0151 | 37.61% | 3.90% | 19.37% | 14.16% | 10.28% |
100.5750 | 77.4581 | 24.1071 | 0.0033 | 0.0373 | 0.0074 | 0.2234 | 0.0333 | 0.0128 | 84.41% | 10.62% | 4.10% | 0.04% | 0.27% |
98.6833 | 269.2454 | 7.0624 | 0.0027 | 0.1033 | 0.0202 | 0.4305 | 0.0533 | 0.0333 | 72.60% | 18.87% | 6.60% | 0.36% | 0.51% |
100.4250 | 278.7583 | 28.6596 | 0.0118 | 0.0804 | 0.0175 | 0.3768 | 0.0621 | 0.0348 | 64.56% | 17.27% | 9.76% | 4.48% | 2.30% |
121.3083 | 204.1403 | 36.8994 | 0.0151 | 0.1033 | 0.0192 | 0.2424 | 0.0313 | 0.0393 | 37.38% | 4.06% | 19.37% | 14.07% | 10.30% |
75.5000 | 69.3283 | 10.0562 | 0.0013 | 0.0156 | 0.0031 | 0.1138 | 0.0167 | 0.0049 | 84.01% | 11.02% | 4.10% | 0.04% | 0.28% |
84.3083 | 234.5383 | 4.5768 | 0.0019 | 0.0772 | 0.0165 | 0.1992 | 0.0365 | 0.0247 | 71.76% | 19.58% | 6.76% | 0.36% | 0.50% |
93.5083 | 232.5915 | 23.6648 | 0.0100 | 0.0731 | 0.0173 | 0.2285 | 0.0474 | 0.0317 | 63.00% | 18.21% | 10.32% | 4.48% | 2.40% |
95.2667 | 179.5733 | 24.6596 | 0.0470 | 0.2573 | 0.0451 | 0.2809 | 0.0088 | 0.0898 | 36.69% | 3.66% | 20.77% | 13.88% | 10.12% |
96.8833 | 72.1222 | 21.5676 | 0.0030 | 0.0379 | 0.0075 | 0.1932 | 0.0322 | 0.0117 | 85.16% | 8.99% | 4.88% | 0.01% | 0.31% |
108.3667 | 267.8046 | 8.5754 | 0.0032 | 0.1431 | 0.0288 | 0.3384 | 0.0655 | 0.0437 | 73.89% | 16.81% | 7.48% | 0.15% | 0.61% |
104.3667 | 263.4123 | 29.0049 | 0.0151 | 0.1118 | 0.0242 | 0.1959 | 0.0478 | 0.0501 | 65.95% | 17.89% | 9.68% | 3.13% | 1.86% |
110.2667 | 191.9313 | 32.6796 | 0.0416 | 0.1532 | 0.0257 | 0.1808 | 0.0082 | 0.0324 | 35.40% | 8.16% | 23.21% | 12.12% | 6.42% |
97.1917 | 74.4180 | 21.7678 | 0.0031 | 0.0440 | 0.0114 | 0.3588 | 0.0493 | 0.0151 | 84.34% | 10.61% | 4.12% | 0.05% | 0.31% |
101.1083 | 266.7769 | 7.6629 | 0.0028 | 0.1348 | 0.0331 | 0.6522 | 0.0754 | 0.0405 | 68.24% | 22.88% | 6.87% | 0.37% | 0.66% |
94.8417 | 262.8374 | 27.5138 | 0.0108 | 0.0729 | 0.0210 | 0.5935 | 0.0658 | 0.0307 | 60.04% | 20.41% | 10.68% | 4.48% | 2.82% |
116.5833 | 196.6722 | 32.8357 | 0.0375 | 0.1713 | 0.0288 | 0.1808 | 0.0082 | 0.0382 | 35.52% | 4.24% | 21.59% | 13.91% | 10.01% |
Input | Source | Notes | Date Accessed |
---|---|---|---|
Weather | NCDC NWS/NOAA1 PRISM2 NEXRAD3 NEXRAD PRISM corrected | 1961–2010 (Thiessen Polygon) 1981–2015 (gridded) 2005–2015(gridded) 2005–2015(gridded) | October 2010 and July 2017 |
Soil | USDA-NRCS4 | STATSGO | October 2010 |
Land Use | MRLC (Fry)5 | NLCD (2006) and CDL (2011–2012) | October 2010 and January 2015 |
Aerial Deposition | NADP6 | (1980–2010) monthly | October 2010 |
Watershed Boundaries | USGS7 | HUCS 8, 10, and 12 | October 2010 |
Stream Networks | NHDPlus8 | Reduced form | October 2010 |
Elevation | NED9 | 30 m DEM | October 2010 |
Point Sources | USGS10 | Regression of population and SPARROW model outputs | October 2010 |
Management Data | USDA11,12 | CDL (tillage, fertilizer/manure, crop yields) (NRCS field database) and Cropland Management Dataset | January 2015 |
Reservoirs | USACE13 | National Inventory of Dams | October 2010 |
Livestock and Crops | USDA-NASS14 | October 2010 | |
Model | USDA-ARS and Texas A&M | Soil Water Assessment Tool | January 2015 |
Basin—Water Balance | Scenarios | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Description | Range | Units | HAWQS Default | Default |
SFTMP | Snowfall temperature (°C) | −5 to 5 | °C | −0.7163 | −0.7163 |
SMTMP | Snowmelt base temperature (°C) | −5 to 5 | °C | −0.3637 | −0.3637 |
SMFMX | Melt factor for snow on June 21 (mm·H2O/°C-day) | 0 to 10 | mm H2O/°C-day | 4.761 | 4.761 |
SMFMN | Melt factor for snow on December 21 (mm·H2O/°C -day) | 0 to 10 | mm H2O/°C-day | 3.171 | 3.171 |
TIMP | Snowpack temperature lag factor | 0 to 1 | 0.2855 | 0.2855 | |
IPET | Potential evapotranspiration (PET) method [Penman-Monteith/Priestley-Taylor/Hargreaves] | 1 | 1 | ||
ESCO | Soil evaporation compensation factor | 0 to 1 | 0.95 | 0.95 | |
EPCO | Plant uptake compensation factor | 0 to 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Basin—Water Balance | Scenarios | ||||
Variable | Description | Range | Units | HAWQS Default | Default |
ICN | Daily curve number calculation method [Soil moisture/Plant Evapotranspiration] | 0 | 0 | ||
CNCOEF | Plant ET curve number coefficient | 0.5 to 2 | 1 | 1 | |
ICRK | Daily curve number calculation method [No model crack flow/Model crack flow in soil] | 0 | 0 | ||
SURLAG | Surface runoff lag time | 0.01269 to 24 | 0.01269 | 0.01269 | |
Basin—Nutrient Cycling | Scenarios | ||||
Variable | Description | Range | Units | HAWQS Default | Default |
RCN | Concentration of nitrogen in rainfall (mg N/L) | 0 to 15 | mg N/L | 1 | 1 |
CDN | Denitrification exponential rate coefficient | 0 to 3 | 0.04773 | 0.04773 | |
SDNCO | Denitrification threshold water content | 0 to 1 | 0.9531 | 0.9531 | |
NPERCO | Nitrate percolation coefficient | 0 to 1 | 0.1705 | 0.1705 | |
PPERCO | Phosphorus percolation coefficient (10 m3/Mg) | 10 to 17.5 | 10 m3/Mg | 12.28 | 12.28 |
PHOSKD | Phosphorus soil partitioning coefficient (m3/Mg) | 100 to 200 | m3/Mg | 198.1 | 198.1 |
PSP | Phosphorus sorption coefficient | 0.01 to 0.7 | 0.2013 | 0.2013 | |
Basin—Reaches | Scenarios | ||||
Variable | Description | Range | Units | HAWQS Default | Default |
IRTE | Calibration coefficient used to control impact of the storage time constant for normal flow [Variable storage/Muskingum] | 0 | 0 | ||
MSK_COL1 | Calibration coefficient used to control impact of the storage time constant for normal flow | 0 to 10 | 0 | 0 | |
MSK_COL2 | Calibration coefficient used to control impact of the storage time constant for low flow | 0 to 10 | 3.5 | 3.5 | |
Basin—Reaches | Scenarios | ||||
Variable | Description | Range | Units | HAWQS Default | Default |
MSK_X | Weighting factor controlling relative importance of inflow rate and outflow rate in determining water storage in reach segment | 0 to 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
TRANSRCH | Fraction of transmission losses from main channel that enter deep aquifer | 0 to 1 | 0 | 0 | |
EVRCH | Reach evaporation adjustment factor | 0.5 to 1 | 1 | 1 | |
IDEG | Channel degradation code [Channel dimension updated No/Yes] | 0 | 0 | ||
PRF | Peak rate adjustment factor for sediment routing in the main channel | 0 to 2 | 1.221 | 1.221 | |
SPCON | Linear parameter for calculating the maximum amount of sediment that can be re-entrained during channel sediment routing | 0 to 0.01 | 0.001 | 0.001 | |
SPEXP | Exponent parameter for calculating sediment re-entrained in channel sediment routing | 1 to 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.2 | |
IWQ | In-stream water quality code [In-stream nutrient and pesticide No/Yes] | 1 | 1 | ||
ADJ_PKR | Peak rate adjustment factor for sediment routing in the sub-basin (tributary channels) | 0.5 to 2 | 0.5003 | 0.5003 |
GIS File | Resource | Link |
---|---|---|
HUC Shapefile | USDA Geospatial Data Gateway | [27] https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx?order=QuickState (accessed on October 2019) |
Enhanced 1992 Land Cover | USGS | [16] https://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/nlcde92.xml (accessed on December 2019) |
2001 Land Cover | National Land Cover Database | [28] https://www.mrlc.gov/data?f%5B0%5D=category%3Aland%20cover (accessed on December 2019) |
2004 Land Cover | National Land Cover Database | [28] https://www.mrlc.gov/data?f%5B0%5D=category%3Aland%20cover (accessed on December 2019) |
2008 Land Cover | National Land Cover Database | [28] https://www.mrlc.gov/data?f%5B0%5D=category%3Aland%20cover (accessed on December 2019) |
2011 Land Cover | HAWQS | [13] https://hawqs.tamu.edu/ (accessed on January 2020) |
2016 Land Cover | National Land Cover Database | [28] https://www.mrlc.gov/data?f%5B0%5D=category%3Aland%20cover (accessed on December 2019) |
Class\Value | Classification Description |
---|---|
Water | |
11 | Open Water: areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover of vegetation or soil. |
Developed | |
21 | Developed, Open Space: areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20% of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. |
22 | Developed, Low Intensity: areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20% to 49% percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. |
23 | Developed, Medium Intensity: areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50% to 79% of the total cover. These areas most commonly include single-family housing units. |
24 | Developed High Intensity: highly developed areas where people reside or work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses, and commercial/industrial areas. Impervious surfaces account for 80% to 100% of the total cover. |
Barren | |
31 | Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay): areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits, and other accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15% of total cover. |
Forest | |
41 | Deciduous Forest: areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 m tall, and making up more than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change. |
42 | Evergreen Forest: areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 m tall, and making up more than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. |
43 | Mixed Forest: areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 m tall, and making up more than 20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species make up more than 75% of total tree cover. |
Shrubland | |
52 | Shrub/Scrub: areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 m tall with shrub canopy typically making up more than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage, and trees stunted from environmental conditions. |
Herbaceous | |
71 | Grassland/Herbaceous: areas dominated by gramanoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally making up more than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing. |
Planted/Cultivated | |
81 | Pasture/Hay: areas of grasses, legumes, or grass–legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for more than 20% of total vegetation. |
82 | Cultivated Crops: areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, as well as perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for more than 20% of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled. |
Wetlands | |
90 | Woody Wetlands: areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for more than 20% of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water. |
95 | Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands: Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for more than 80% of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water. |
Component | Value (in mm) | Percentage of Hydrological Budget (Water Balance) |
---|---|---|
Evaporation and Transpiration | 584.4 | 50.5% |
Surface Runoff | 342.08 | 29.6% |
Lateral Flow | 124.75 | 10.8% |
Return Flow | 43.05 | 3.7% |
Percolation | 59.33 | 5.1% |
Recharge | 2.94 | 0.3% |
Total | 1156.55 | 100.0% |
Variable | Initial | Extraction |
---|---|---|
PRECIP | 1.000 | 0.864 |
SW | 1.000 | 0.781 |
SURQ | 1.000 | 0.794 |
Sed Yield | 1.000 | 0.855 |
ORGN | 1.000 | 0.842 |
ORGP | 1.000 | 0.892 |
N Surface | 1.000 | 0.669 |
Sol P | 1.000 | 0.888 |
Sed P | 1.000 | 0.805 |
Forest | 1.000 | 0.922 |
Hay | 1.000 | 0.879 |
Residential | 1.000 | 0.926 |
Wetlands | 1.000 | 0.908 |
Cultivated Crops | 1.000 | 0.907 |
Variable | Component | ||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Forest | −0.951 | −0.127 | |
Residential | 0.935 | −0.107 | 0.202 |
Wetlands | 0.903 | −0.238 | 0.190 |
Cultivated Crops | 0.898 | −0.266 | 0.171 |
Sed Yield | 0.848 | 0.357 | |
ORGN | 0.765 | 0.394 | 0.320 |
Sed P | 0.728 | 0.458 | 0.257 |
ORGP | 0.668 | 0.589 | 0.316 |
Sol P | −0.430 | 0.825 | 0.152 |
N Surface | 0.794 | 0.187 | |
SW | 0.347 | 0.793 | −0.178 |
Hay | −0.462 | 0.764 | −0.286 |
PRECIP | 0.256 | 0.276 | 0.850 |
SURQ | 0.407 | −0.199 | 0.767 |
References
- Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Virginia Water Resources Plan. October 2015. Available online: https://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/SWRP/App%20B%20James%20River%20Basin%20Summary.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). Discover the Chesapeake, Watershed. 2019. Available online: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/watershed (accessed on 1 May 2019).
- National Park Service (14 December 2018). Chesapeake Bay, National Treasure. Available online: https://www.nps.gov/chba/learn/nature/national-treasure.htm (accessed on 1 May 2019).
- Ambrose, R.B.; Wool, T.A.; Barnwell, T.O. Development of Water Quality Modeling in the United States. Environ. Eng. Res. 2009, 14, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University, USDA. SWAT 2012 Model Documentation. 2012. Available online: https://swat.tamu.edu/docs/ (accessed on 1 October 2019).
- Meng, H.; Sexton, A.M.; Maddox, M.C.; Sood, A.; Brown, C.W.; Ferraro, R.R.; Murtugudde, R. Modeling Rappa-hannock River Basin using SWAT-Pilot for Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2010, 26, 795–806. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Q. Synthesis of nutrient and sediment export patterns in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: Complex and non-stationary concentration-discharge relationships. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 618, 1268–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ryberg, K.R.; Blomquist, J.D.; Sprague, L.A.; Sekellick, A.J.; Keisman, J. Modeling drivers of phosphorus loads in Chesapeake Bay tributaries and inferences about long-term change. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616–617, 1423–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shields, C.A.; Band, L.E.; Law, N.; Groffman, P.; Kaushal, S.S.; Savvas, K.; Fisher, G.T.; Belt, K.T. Streamflow distribution of non-point source nitrogen export from urban-rural catchments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chanat, J.G.; Yang, G. Exploring Drivers of Regional Water-Quality Change Using Differential Spatially Referenced Regression—A Pilot Study in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Water Resour. Res. 2018, 54, 8120–8145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.; Gassman, P.W.; Srinivasan, R.; Cui, Y.; Arritt, R. Analysis of alternative climate datasets and evapotranspiration methods for the Upper Mississippi River Basin using SWAT within HAWQS. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720, 137562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yen, H.; Daggupati, P.; White, M.J.; Srinivasan, R.; Gossel, A.; Wells, D.; Arnold, J.G. Application of Large-Scale, Multi-Resolution Watershed Modeling Framework Using the Hydrologic and Water Quality System (HAWQS). Water 2016, 8, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HAWQS. HAWQS v1.0: Inputs. Texas A&M AgriLife Research; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2017; Available online: https://hawqs.tamu.edu/content/docs/HAWQS-Input-Data-base-Citation.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).
- Srinivasan, R. Advanced SWAT Workshop and Training Manual; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakagaki, N.; Price, C.V.; Falcone, J.A.; Hitt, K.J.; Ruddy, B.C. Enhanced National Land Cover Data 1992 (NLCDe 92). Edition: Version 1.1, June 2010: Addition of Auxiliary and Layer file. USGS, Reston, VA. 2010. Available online: https://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?nlcde92 (accessed on 1 January 2020).
- Geert van den Berg, R. SPSS Factor Analysis—Beginners Tutorial. 2020. Available online: https://www.spss-tutorials.com/spss-factor-analysis-tutorial/ (accessed on 1 June 2020).
- Song, C.; Zhang, X.; Liu, X.; Sui, Y.; Li, Z. Impact of long term fertilization on soil water content in Haploborolls. Plant Soil Environ. 2010, 56, 408–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gellis, A.C.; Hupp, C.R.; Pavich, M.J.; Landwehr, J.M.; Banks, W.S.; Hubbard, B.E.; Langland, M.J.; Ritchie, J.C.; Reuter, J.M. Sources, Transport, and Storage of Sediment in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008–5186. 2009. 95p. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5186/ (accessed on 1 April 2021).
- Díaz, M.F.; Bigelow, S.; Armesto, J.J. Alteration of the hydrologic cycle due to forest clearing and its consequences for rainforest succession. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 244, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.-L.; Zhang, G.-L. Water infiltration in urban soils and its effects on the quantity and quality of runoff. J. Soils Sediments 2011, 11, 751–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowrance, R.; Altier, L.S.; Newbold, J.D.; Schnabel, R.R.; Groffman, P.; Denver, J.M.; Correll, D.L.; Gilliam, J.W.; Robinson, J.L.; Brinsfield, R.B.; et al. Water Quality Functions of Riparian Forest Buffers in Chesapeake Bay Watersheds. Environ. Manag. 1997, 21, 687–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dauer, D.M.; Weisberg, S.B.; Ranasinghe, J.A. Relationships between Benthic Community Condition, Water Quality, Sediment Quality, Nutrient Loads, and Land Use Patterns in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 2000, 23, 80–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) (2019): Ecohealth Report Cards. Available online: https://ecoreportcard.org/report-cards/chesapeake-bay/indicators/ (accessed on 1 January 2020).
- Noe, G.B.; Cashman, M.J.; Skalak, K.; Gellis, A.; Hopkins, K.G.; Moyer, D.; Hupp, C. Sediment dynamics and implications for management: State of the science from long-term research in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2020, 7, e1454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majsztrik, J.C.; Lea-Cox, J.D. Water Quality Regulations in the Chesapeake Bay: Working to More Precisely Estimate Nutrient Loading Rates and Incentivize Best Management Practices in the Nursery and Greenhouse Industry. HortScience 2013, 48, 1097–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Geospatial Data Gateway. 2019. Available online: https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGOrder.aspx?order=QuickState (accessed on 1 December 2019).
- Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC). National Land Cover Database. 2019. Available online: https://www.mrlc.gov/data?f%5B0%5D=category%3Aland%20cover (accessed on 1 December 2019).
- University of Virginia (UVA) Climatology Office, Virginia Potential Evapotranspiration, Annual Precipitation, and Annual Precipitation Minus Potential Evapotranspiration. Available online: https://climate.virginia.edu/va_pet_prec_diff.htm (accessed on 8 August 2020).
Name | James River at Cartersville, VA | Appomattox River at Matoaca, VA |
---|---|---|
USGS Station ID | 2035000 | 2041650 |
Latitude | 37.67 | 37.23 |
Longitude | −78.09 | −77.48 |
HUC | 02080205 | 02080207 |
Calibration Years | 1983–2001 | 1983–2001 |
Parameter | Name | James River at Cartersville | Appomattox River at Matoaca |
---|---|---|---|
Flow | COE (NS) | 0.76 | 0.65 |
PBIAS | −18.37 | −16.49 | |
Calibration Years | 1983–2001 | 1983–2001 | |
Total Suspended Solids | COE (NS) | −0.02 | −0.09 |
PBIAS | 91.42 | 89.16 | |
Calibration Years | 1983–2001 | 1983–2001 | |
Total Nitrogen | COE (NS) | 0.63 | 0.65 |
PBIAS | −3.97 | 7.61 | |
Calibration Years | 1983–2001 | 1983–2001 | |
Total Phosphorus | COE (NS) | n/a | 0.59 |
PBIAS | n/a | −43.25 | |
Calibration Years | n/a | 1983–2001 |
Performance Rating | COE | PBIAS Streamflow | PBIAS Sediment | PBIAS TN and TP |
---|---|---|---|---|
Very Good | 0.75 < NS | PBIAS < ±10 | PBIAS < ±15 | PBIAS < ±25 |
Good | 0.65 < NS < 0.75 | ±10 < PBIAS < ±15 | ±15 < PBIAS < ±30 | ±25 < PBIAS < ±40 |
Satisfactory | 0.50 < NS < 0.65 | ±15 < PBIAS < ±25 | ±30 < PBIAS < ±55 | ±40 < PBIAS < ±70 |
Unsatisfactory | NS < 0.5 | PBIAS > ±25 | PBIAS > ± 55 | PBIAS > ± 70 |
Land Cover Category | 02080201–Upper James | 02080203–Upper Middle | 02080205–Lower Middle | 02080206–Lower James | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 1992 | 2016 | 1992 | 2016 | 1992 | 2016 | 1992 | 2016 |
Forest | 86.35% | 84.34% | 77.63% | 68.24% | 68.78% | 60.04% | 45.98% | 35.52% |
Hay | 9.60% | 10.61% | 13.34% | 22.88% | 15.51% | 20.41% | 7.44% | 4.24% |
Residential | 1.83% | 4.12% | 4.72% | 6.87% | 6.30% | 10.68% | 14.98% | 21.59% |
Wetlands | 0.11% | 0.05% | 0.48% | 0.37% | 3.82% | 4.48% | 7.53% | 13.91% |
Cultivated Crops | 1.09% | 0.31% | 1.16% | 0.66% | 1.85% | 2.82% | 8.26% | 10.01% |
Total | 98.98% | 99.44% | 97.35% | 99.02% | 96.27% | 98.42% | 84.19% | 85.26% |
Component | Total Eigenvalues | % Variance | Cumulative Variance |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 7.273 | 51.951 | 51.951 |
2 | 3.536 | 25.26 | 77.211 |
3 | 1.123 | 8.021 | 85.232 |
Variable | PRECIP | SW | SURQ | Sed Yield | ORGN | ORGP | N Surface | Sol P | Sed P | Forest | Hay | Residential | Wetlands | Cultivated Crops |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PRECIP | 1.000 | |||||||||||||
SW | 0.242 | 1.000 | ||||||||||||
SURQ | 0.623 ** | −0.051 | 1.000 | |||||||||||
Sed Yield | 0.458 * | 0.118 | 0.644 ** | 1.000 | ||||||||||
ORGN | 0.595 ** | 0.411 * | 0.344 | 0.802 ** | 1.000 | |||||||||
ORGP | 0.600 ** | 0.536 ** | 0.294 | 0.684 ** | 0.967 ** | 1.000 | ||||||||
N Surface | 0.266 | 0.467 * | −0.030 | −0.112 | 0.251 | 0.445 * | 1.000 | |||||||
Sol P | 0.208 | 0.506 * | −0.151 | −0.472 * | −0.047 | 0.179 | 0.777 ** | 1.000 | ||||||
Sed P | 0.503 * | 0.490 * | 0.347 | 0.709 ** | 0.921 ** | 0.920 ** | 0.275 | 0.044 | 1.000 | |||||
Forest | −0.347 | −0.347 | −0.555** | −0.796 ** | −0.662 ** | −0.585 ** | −0.028 | 0.344 | −0.617 ** | 1.000 | ||||
Hay | −0.168 | 0.559 ** | −0.447* | −0.509 * | −0.188 | 0.012 | 0.513 * | 0.779 ** | −0.102 | 0.461 * | 1.000 | |||
Residential | 0.376 | 0.235 | 0.609 ** | 0.839 ** | 0.671 ** | 0.569 ** | −0.043 | −0.400 | 0.584 ** | −0.982 ** | −0.540 ** | 1.000 | ||
Wetlands | 0.304 | 0.138 | 0.634 ** | 0.782 ** | 0.555 ** | 0.447 * | −0.109 | −0.471 * | 0.505 * | −0.958 ** | −0.647 ** | 0.965 ** | 1.000 | |
Cultivated Crops | 0.303 | 0.089 | 0.563 ** | 0.748 ** | 0.560 ** | 0.440 * | −0.125 | −0.515 ** | 0.535 ** | −0.934 ** | −0.708 ** | 0.926 ** | 0.970 ** | 1.000 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Delia, K.A.; Haney, C.R.; Dyer, J.L.; Paul, V.G. Spatial Analysis of a Chesapeake Bay Sub-Watershed: How Land Use and Precipitation Patterns Impact Water Quality in the James River. Water 2021, 13, 1592. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13111592
Delia KA, Haney CR, Dyer JL, Paul VG. Spatial Analysis of a Chesapeake Bay Sub-Watershed: How Land Use and Precipitation Patterns Impact Water Quality in the James River. Water. 2021; 13(11):1592. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13111592
Chicago/Turabian StyleDelia, Kristina A., Christa R. Haney, Jamie L. Dyer, and Varun G. Paul. 2021. "Spatial Analysis of a Chesapeake Bay Sub-Watershed: How Land Use and Precipitation Patterns Impact Water Quality in the James River" Water 13, no. 11: 1592. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13111592