U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00–4239

Hydrologic and Water-Quality

Characterization and Modeling of the

Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County,

Kentucky

In cooperation with the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan

Sewer District
COVER ILLUSTRATION: Shaded-relief image of landforms in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

Jefferson County, Kentucky.
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Hydrologic and Water-Quality

Characterization and Modeling of the

Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County

Kentucky

By Gary R. Martin, Phillip J. Zarriello, and Allison A. Shipp

Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4239

In cooperation with the Louisville and Jefferson County

Metropolitan Sewer District

Louisville, Kentucky

2001
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only an

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from:

District Chief, Kentucky District U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services

Water Resources Division Box 25286

9818 Bluegrass Parkway Denver, CO 80225–0286

Louisville, KY 40299–1906
Con

CONTENTS

Abstract......................................................................................................................................................

Introduction................................................................................................................................................

Previous Studies.........................................................................................................................................

Description of Study Area .........................................................................................................................

Climate..............................................................................................................................................

Geology ............................................................................................................................................

Physiography ....................................................................................................................................

Soils ..................................................................................................................................................

Land Use...........................................................................................................................................

Hydrology.........................................................................................................................................

Methods of Data Collection and Analysis.................................................................................................

Historical Data..................................................................................................................................

Field Data .........................................................................................................................................

Sampling Design .....................................................................................................................

Instrumentation and Equipment ..............................................................................................

Sampling Procedures ...............................................................................................................

Laboratory Data................................................................................................................................

Quality-Assurance Data....................................................................................................................

Ancillary Hydrologic Data ...............................................................................................................

Meteorological Data .........................................................................................................................

Geographical Data ............................................................................................................................

Statistical, Mathematical, and Graphical Analysis...........................................................................

Descriptive Statistics ...............................................................................................................

Estimated Missing Values........................................................................................................

Box Plots .................................................................................................................................

Loads and Yields .....................................................................................................................

Analysis and Summary of Hydrologic Conditions....................................................................................

Precipitation......................................................................................................................................

Potential Evapotranspiration.............................................................................................................

Wastewater-Treatment-Plant Effluents .............................................................................................

Discharge.................................................................................................................................

Suspended Solids.....................................................................................................................

Total Phosphorus (TP) .............................................................................................................

Total Orthophosphate (TPO4)..................................................................................................

Streamflow........................................................................................................................................

Water Quality....................................................................................................................................

Instream-Constituent Load Estimates...............................................................................................

Model-Simulation Approach and Programs ..............................................................................................

Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF).......................................................................

Pervious Land Segments (PERLND) ......................................................................................

Impervious Land Segments (IMPLND) ..................................................................................

Reaches and Reservoirs (RCHRES)........................................................................................

Hydrologic Response Units (HRU).........................................................................................

Expert System HSPEXP for Model Calibration...............................................................................
iv Contents

Program GENSCN for Simulation of Scenarios.................................................................................... 

Model Development ........................................................................................................................................ 

Model Elements and Selected Parameters ............................................................................................. 

Hydrologic Response Units (HRU)............................................................................................... 

Analysis and Classification of Basin Characteristics........................................................... 

Land Use and Land Cover .......................................................................................... 

Soils ............................................................................................................................ 

Land Slope .................................................................................................................. 

Definition and Adjustment................................................................................................... 

Prevalence of the Hydrologic Response Units............................................................ 

Hydrologically Effective and Ineffective Impervious Areas ...................................... 

Other Adjustment Factors ........................................................................................... 

Reaches and Reservoirs (RCHRES) ............................................................................................. 

Base-Flow Losses.......................................................................................................................... 

Lower Zone Evapotranspiration Parameter (LZETP)................................................................... 

Model Input and Output Files ................................................................................................................ 

Simulation of Streamflow................................................................................................................................ 

Calibration and Verification ................................................................................................................... 

Calibration Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 

Modifications of Model Parameters and Elements ....................................................................... 

Results of Model Streamflow Calibration and Verification .......................................................... 

Total, Annual, and Seasonal Water Budgets ........................................................................ 

Daily Discharge.................................................................................................................... 

Stormflow Volumes and Peak Discharges............................................................................ 

Calibration Storms ...................................................................................................... 

Verification Storms...................................................................................................... 

Nonuniform Storms .................................................................................................... 

Comparison of Simulated and Measured Discharge Near the Mouth of Chenoweth Run ........... 

Sensitivity Analysis................................................................................................................................ 

Discharge Characteristics of the Hydrologic Response Units ...................................................... 

Parameter Values........................................................................................................................... 

Simulation of Water Quality............................................................................................................................ 

Sediment................................................................................................................................................. 

Total Orthophosphate (TPO4) ................................................................................................................ 

Model Applications and Limitations............................................................................................................... 

Summary and Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 

References Cited ............................................................................................................................................. 

Appendix 1: Results of analyses of field blanks for sampling in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

Jefferson County, Kentucky, in 1996–97............................................................................................ 

Appendix 2: Results of analyses of paired water samples collected by use of automatic samplers

and manual, cross-sectionally integrated sampling, Chenoweth Run Basin,

Jefferson County, Kentucky................................................................................................................ 

Appendix 3: Arc Macro Language (AML) program for definition of Hydrologic Response

Units (HRU’s), hru.aml ..................................................................................................................... 

Appendix 4: Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics

measured at selected locations in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County,

Kentucky, 1991–97 ............................................................................................................................. 

Appendix 5: Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) file .......................................... 
Co

FIGURES

1. Map showing location of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky..................

2. Map showing location of the Chenoweth Run Basin and nearby data-collection stations........

3. Graphs showing monthly normal temperature and precipitation (1961–90) at

Standiford Field, Louisville, Kentucky .....................................................................................

4. Graph showing annual precipitation at Standiford Field, 1988–97...........................................

5-9. Maps showing:

5. Generalized geology of Jefferson County, Kentucky .........................................................

6. Generalized soils of the Chenoweth Run Basin..................................................................

7. Locations of the streamflow-gaging, water-quality-monitoring, and rainfall-gaging

stations, and wastewater-treatment plants in the Chenoweth Run Basin............................

8. Rain-gage locations and the Thiessen polygons used to assess areal rainfall

distribution in and near the Chenoweth Run Basin ............................................................

9. Approximate locations of the long-term precipitation, evaporation, and

streamflow-gaging stations in Kentucky and Indiana, used or referenced in

the study..............................................................................................................................

10. Scatterplot and regression for daily mean discharges at the Jeffersontown

Wastewater-Treatment Plant (WWTP) and Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane,

Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998 ....................................................................................................

11. Hydrographs of daily mean discharge at the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment

Plant and at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998 ....................................................................................................

12. Circular-chart record of 7-day through-plant effluent discharge from Jeffersontown

Wastewater-Treatment Plant......................................................................................................

13-27. Graphs showing:

13. Sample and mean hourly percentages of daily mean effluent discharge at the

Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant........................................................................

14. Comparison and regression relations of total phosphorus concentrations to daily

effluent discharge, and total phosphorus concentrations to bypassed-wastewater

discharge from the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant, during the model

calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ...............................................................

15. Comparison and regression relations of total phosphorus concentrations to total

orthophosphate concentrations, and total orthophosphate concentrations to

effluent discharged from the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant (WWTP),

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998...................................

16. Comparison and regression relations of total phosphorus concentrations to total

orthophosphate concentrations, and total orthophosphate concentrations to

bypassed-wastewater discharge upstream from the Jeffersontown WastewaterTreatment Plant, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 .......

17. Daily mean discharge and discharge on sampling dates at Chenoweth Run at

Ruckriegel Parkway and at Gelhaus Lane, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998..............................................................................................

18. Flow duration and discharge on sampling dates at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel

Parkway and at Gelhaus Lane, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998..............................................................................................
vi Contents

19. Daily range in discharge, water temperature, specific conductance, pH, and

dissolved-oxygen concentration at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway,

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ........................................ 

20. Daily range in discharge, water temperature, specific conductance, pH, and

dissolved-oxygen concentration at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, during the

model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.......................................................... 

21. Hourly air temperature at Standiford Field, and observed and estimated hourly

water temperatures, Chenoweth Run Basin.............................................................................. 

22. Diurnal dissolved-oxygen concentration, pH, and discharge patterns and oxygen

saturation at selected times at selected sites, Chenoweth Run Basin: (A) Ruckriegel

Parkway and (B) Gelhaus Lane................................................................................................ 

23. Distribution of total suspended-solids concentrations at sampling sites in the

Chenoweth Run Basin, during 1988–97................................................................................... 

24. Distribution of total phosphorus concentrations at sampling sites in the

Chenoweth Run Basin, during 1991–97................................................................................... 

25. Total phosphorus concentrations at selected sites during selected moderate- and

low-flow periods in the Chenoweth Run Basin ........................................................................ 

26. Comparison and regression relations of total phosphorus concentrations and

total orthophosphate concentrations at selected sites in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

during 1996–97......................................................................................................................... 

27. Comparison of total suspended-solids, total phosphorus, and total orthophosphate

concentrations and discharge at streamflow-gaging stations in the Chenoweth Run Basin..... 

28. Schematic of the Hydrologic Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) model of flow in a

pervious land segment..................................................................................................................... 

29. Map showing model subbasin and stream-reach designations for the Chenoweth Run

Basin ............................................................................................................................................... 

30. Graph showing approximate Chenoweth Run low-water profile based on 2-foot

contour-interval data ....................................................................................................................... 

31. Map showing areas draining to ponds and small lakes in the Chenoweth Run Basin.................... 

32. Map showing distribution of land covers in the Chenoweth Run Basin......................................... 

33. Graph showing estimated infiltration rates and lower-zone storages of the soil series

and soil-series groups defined for modeling the Chenoweth Run Basin ........................................ 

34. Map showing distribution of soil-series groups defined for modeling the Chenoweth Run

Basin ............................................................................................................................................... 

35. Map showing distribution of land slopes in the Chenoweth Run Basin ......................................... 

36-53. Graphs showing:

36. Observed and simulated monthly mean discharge hydrographs at Chenoweth Run

at Ruckriegel Parkway and at Gelhaus Lane, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998 ................................................................................................... 

37. Comparison of observed and simulated hourly, daily, and monthly mean discharges

in the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period, February 1996–

January 1998............................................................................................................................. 

38. Observed and simulated daily mean discharge at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel

Parkway, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998......................... 

39. Observed and simulated daily mean discharge at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane,

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ........................................ 

40. Flow-duration curves with observed and simulated daily mean discharge at

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway and at Gelhaus Lane, during the model

calibration period, February 1996–January 1998..................................................................... 
Con

41. Discharge during selected storms at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway, during

the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ..............................................

42. Discharge during selected storms at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, during the

model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ....................................................

43. Comparison of the observed and simulated flow volumes in inches of water on the

basin for the calibration, verification, and nonuniform storms in the Chenoweth

Run Basin............................................................................................................................

44. Comparison of the observed and simulated peak discharges for the calibration,

verification, and nonuniform storms in the Chenoweth Run Basin ....................................

45. Simulated surface runoff, interflow, and base flow for 17 types of pervious land

surfaces (PERLND) and 2 types of impervious land surfaces (IMPLND) in the

Chenoweth Run Basin: (A) Average monthly flow; (B) High-flow month,

March 1997; and (C) Low-flow month, July 1997 .............................................................

46. Comparison of the monthly ESTIMATOR suspended-solids loads and the monthly

Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF)-simulated suspended-sediment

loads in the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998..............................................................................................

47. Hourly suspended-solids and suspended-sediment loads and 5-minute discharge

and sampling discharge during selected storms, Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel

Parkway, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ...................

48. Hourly suspended-solids and suspended-sediment loads and 5-minute discharge

and sampling discharge during selected storms, Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane,

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998...................................

49. Comparison of total estimated suspended-solids loads and Hydrological Simulation

Program—Fortran (HSPF)-simulated suspended-sediment loads for selected

storms in the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998..............................................................................................

50. Comparison of the monthly ESTIMATOR total orthophosphate loads and the

monthly Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF)-simulated total

orthophosphate loads in the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration

period, February 1996–January 1998 .................................................................................

51. Hourly total orthophosphate loads and 5-minute discharge and sampling discharge

during selected storms, Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway, during the model

calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ...............................................................

52. Hourly total orthophosphate loads and 5-minute discharge and sampling discharge

during selected storms, Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, during the model

calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ...............................................................

53. Comparison of total estimated total orthophosphate loads and Hydrological

Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF)-simulated total orthophosphate loads for

selected storms in the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998..............................................................................................
viii Contents

TABLES

1. Land-use distribution at selected locations in the Chenoweth Run Basin ......................................... 

2. Land-cover characteristics at selected locations in the Chenoweth Run Basin ................................. 

3. Chemical constituents and physical properties analyzed for water samples collected

in the Chenoweth Run Basin, 1988–98.............................................................................................. 

4. Water-quality-sampling sites in the Chenoweth Run Basin used in the study................................... 

5. Time-series data compiled for hydrologic analysis and calibration of the model

for Chenoweth Run Basin .................................................................................................................. 

6. Methods used by the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District

laboratory for analysis of water-quality samples collected in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

1988–98.............................................................................................................................................. 

7. Initially designated land-use and land-cover classes in the Chenoweth Run Basin........................... 

8. Combined land-use/land-cover classes in the Chenoweth Run Basin ............................................... 

9. Percentage areal coverages of the basin by the rain gages based on Thiessen polygons

at selected locations in the Chenoweth Run Basin............................................................................. 

10. Statistical summary of the rainfall data collected at selected locations in and near the

Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ............ 

11. Statistical summary of storm rainfall at selected locations in and near the Chenoweth

Run Basin, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ............................... 

12. Mean nutrient concentrations in municipal wastewaters ................................................................... 

13. Estimated typical hourly through-plant effluent-discharge rates at the Jeffersontown and

Chenoweth Hills Wastewater-Treatment Plants in the Chenoweth Run Basin .................................. 

14. Estimated annual total suspended-solids loads in wastewater-treatment-plant effluents in the

Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ............ 

15. Influent and effluent phosphorus concentrations reported for the Jeffersontown

Wastewater-Treatment Plant............................................................................................................... 

16. Estimated annual total phosphorus loads in wastewater-treatment-plant effluents in the

Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ............ 

17. Statistical summary of observed and estimated daily mean effluent total orthophosphate

(TPO4) concentrations at the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant ........................................ 

18. Estimated annual total orthophosphate loads in wastewater-treatment-plant effluents in the

Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ............ 

19. Annual water budget for the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration

period, February 1996–January 1998................................................................................................. 

20. Base-flow measurements in the Chenoweth Run Basin, in 1995....................................................... 

21. Reported total suspended-solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus concentrations in flows

from point and nonpoint sources in the United States ....................................................................... 

22. Estimated annual loads and yields of total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and total

orthophosphate in the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998............................................................................................................. 

23. Annual suspended-solids yields estimated by several statistical methods at selected sites

in Jefferson County, Kentucky ........................................................................................................... 

24. Reported total phosphorus yields from selected nonpoint sources in North America....................... 

25. Annual total phosphorus yields estimated by several statistical methods at selected sites in

Jefferson County, Kentucky ............................................................................................................... 

26. Estimated loads of total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and total orthophosphate during

sampled storm periods in the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998............................................................................................................. 
Con

27. Computer code structure of Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) components

used for modeling the Chenoweth Run Basin ..............................................................................

28. Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) parameters used to model the

Chenoweth Run Basin ..................................................................................................................

29. Description of the soil-series groups defined for modeling the Chenoweth Run Basin...............

30. Hydrologic response units simulated in the Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran

(HSPF) model of the Chenoweth Run Basin................................................................................

31. Estimates of the percentages of impervious land covers that are hydrologically effective

in the Chenoweth Run Basin ........................................................................................................

32. Relative depth-area-volume relation used for the pond reaches and reservoirs (RCHRES)

in the Chenoweth Run Basin model .............................................................................................

33. Simulated water budget and measured rainfall and streamflow in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ............................................

34. Statistics for the criteria used in the calibration of streamflow using the Hydrological

Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) model applied in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.............................................

35. Model-calibration statistics for hourly, daily, and monthly streamflows at the two

streamflow-gaging stations in the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration

period, February 1996–January 1998 ...........................................................................................

36. Precipitation and streamflow data for selected calibration storms at streamflow-gaging

stations in the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998 .......................................................................................................

37. Model-calibration statistics for the volume and peak streamflow during storm periods

at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998 .......................................................................................................

38. Model-calibration statistics for the volume and peak streamflow during storm periods

at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998 .......................................................................................................

39. Comparison of simulated and measured discharge at Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road,

Jefferson County, Kentucky..........................................................................................................

40. Sensitivity of simulated-flow characteristics to changes in selected model parameters

expressed as a percentage change relative to the base calibration at Chenoweth Run at

Ruckriegel Parkway, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998...........

41. Sensitivity of simulated-flow characteristics to changes in selected model parameters

expressed as a percentage error relative to the observed flow characteristics at

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998 .......................................................................................................

42. Sensitivity of simulated-flow characteristics to changes in selected model parameters

expressed as a percentage change relative to the base calibration at Chenoweth Run

at Gelhaus Lane, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.................

43. Sensitivity of simulated-flow characteristics to changes in selected model parameters

expressed as a percentage error relative to the observed flow characteristics at Chenoweth

Run at Gelhaus Lane, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 .........

44. Simulated suspended-sediment yields by model hydrologic response unit in the Chenoweth

Run Basin, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998..........................

45. Annual ESTIMATOR suspended-solids loads and Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran

(HSPF)-simulated suspended-sediment loads in the Chenoweth Run Basin, during the

model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ..............................................................
x Contents

46. Estimated suspended-solids loads and Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran

(HSPF)-simulated suspended-sediment loads for selected storms in the Chenoweth Run

Basin, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ....................................... 

47. Simulated total orthophosphate yields by model hydrologic response unit in the Chenoweth

Run Basin, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ............................... 

48. Annual ESTIMATOR total orthophosphate loads and Hydrological Simulation Program—

Fortran (HSPF)-simulated total orthophosphate loads in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 .................................................. 

49. Estimated total orthophosphate loads and Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran

(HSPF)-simulated total orthophosphate loads for selected storms in the Chenoweth Run

Basin, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998 ....................................... 

CONVERSION FACTORS, VERTICAL DATUM, AND ABBREVIATIONS

CONVERSION FACTORS

Multiply By To obtain

acre 4,047 square meter

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter

square inch (in2

) 6.452 square centimeter

inch per hour (in/h) 0.0254 meter per hour

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

square foot (ft2

) 0.09290 square meter

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

foot per mile (ft/mi) 0.1894 meter per kilometer

square mile (mi2) 2.590 square kilometer

cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second

gallon per day (gal/d) 0.003785 cubic meter per day

million gallons per day (Mgal/d) 0.04381 cubic meter per second

ounce, avoirdupois (oz) 28.35 gram

pound, avoirdupois (lb) 0.4536 kilogram

pound per acre (lb/acre) 1.121 kilograms per hectare

pound per acre per day (lb/acre)/d 1.121 kilogram per hectare per day

ton per day (ton/d) 0.9072 metric ton per day

ton per acre per year (ton/acre)/yr 2.243 metric ton per hectare per year

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit ( ̊F) may be converted to degrees Celsius ( ̊C) as follows:

 ̊C = ( ̊F - 32) / 1.8

VERTICAL DATUM

Sea level: In this report “sea level” refers to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of

1929)—a geodetic datum derived from a general adjustment of the first-order level nets of both the

United States and Canada, formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929.
Con

ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations are used in this report.

Abbreviation Description

CV Coefficient of variation

GIRAS Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis System

HRU Hydrologic response unit

HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran

IMPLND Impervious land segment

KDOW Kentucky Division of Water (of the Department for Environmental

Protection KNREPC)

KNREPC Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet

LOJIC Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium

LOWESS Locally weighted scatterplot smooth

MSD Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

PERLND Pervious land segment

RCHRES Reaches and reservoirs

UCI User-control input

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WWTP Wastewater-treatment plant

cm Centimeter

CN- Cyanide

g Gram

L Liter

mg/L Milligrams per liter

mL Milliliter

mm Millimeter

N Nitrogen

NH3 Ammonia

NH4

+ Ammonium

NO3 Nitrate

TN Total nitrogen

P Phosphorus

pH Negative log (base-10) of the hydrogen ion activity, in moles per liter

PO4 Orthophosphate

TP Total phosphorus

TPO4 Total orthophosphate

μS/cm Microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius

< Less than

≤ Less than or equal
Abstract 

Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and

Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson

County, Kentucky

By Gary R. Martin, Phillip J. Zarriello, and Allison A. Shipp

Abstract

Rainfall, streamflow, and water-quality

data collected in the Chenoweth Run Basin

during February 1996–January 1998, in

combination with the available historical

sampling data, were used to characterize

hydrologic conditions and to develop and

calibrate a Hydrological Simulation

Program—Fortran (HSPF) model for

continuous simulation of rainfall, streamflow,

suspended-sediment, and total-orthophosphate

(TPO4)transport relations. Study results provide

an improved understanding of basin hydrology

and a hydrologic-modeling framework with

analytical tools for use in comprehensive waterresource planning and management.

Chenoweth Run Basin, encompassing

16.5 mi2 in suburban eastern Jefferson County,

Kentucky, contains expanding urban

development, particularly in the upper third of

the basin. Historical water-quality problems

have interfered with designated aquatic-life and

recreation uses in the stream main channel

(approximately 9 mi in length) and have been

attributed to organic enrichment, nutrients,

metals, and pathogens in urban runoff and

wastewater inflows.

Hydrologic conditions in Jefferson

County are highly varied. In the Chenoweth Run

Basin, as in much of the eastern third of the

county, relief is moderately sloping to steep.

Also, internal drainage in pervious areas is

impeded by the shallow, fine-textured subsoils

that contain abundant silts and clays. Thus,

much of the precipitation here tends to move

rapidly as overland flow and (or) shallow

subsurface flow (interflow) to the stream

channels.

Data were collected at two streamflow

gaging stations, one rain gage, and four wate

quality-sampling sites in the basin.

Precipitation, streamflow, and, consequently

constituent loads were above normal during 

data-collection period of this study. Nonpoin

sources contributed the largest portion of the

sediment loads. However, the three wastewa

treatment plants (WWTP’s) were the source 

the majority of estimated total phosphorus (T

and TPO4 transport downstream from the

WWTP’s.

HSPF, a hydrologic model capable of

simulating mixed-land-use basins, includes la

surface, subsurface, and instream waterquantity- and water-quality-modeling

components. The HSPF model was used to

represent several important hydrologic featu

of the Chenoweth Run Basin including

(1) numerous small lakes and ponds, through

which approximately 25 percent of the basin

drains; (2) potential seasonal ground-waterseepage losses in stream channels;

(3) contributions from WWTP effluents and

bypass flows; and (4) the transport and

transformations of sediments and nutrients.

The HSPF model was calibrated and

verified for flow simulation on the basis of

measured total, annual, seasonal, monthly,

daily, hourly, and 5-minute-interval storm

discharge data. The occurrence of numerous

storms during the study period permitted a sp

sample procedure to be used for a model

verification on the basis of storm volumes an
2 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

peaks. Total simulated and observed discharge

during the model calibration period differed by

approximately -5.4 percent at the upper gaging

station and 3.1 percent at the lower station. The

model results for the total and annual water

balances were classified as very good on the

basis of the calibration criteria reported in other

modeling studies. The model had correlation

coefficients ranging from 0.89 to 0.98 for hourly

to monthly mean flows, respectively. The

coefficients of model-fit efficiency for daily and

monthly discharge simulations were near the

excellent range (exceeding 0.97). However, the

model was calibrated for a comparatively short

24-month period during which flows were

above normal. Increased model error might be

expected during an extended period of nearnormal flows.

The model was calibrated for simulation

of sediment and TPO4 transport. The simulated

mean-annual load (over 24 months) ranged from

-33 to -28 percent of the estimated sediment

load and within +/- 1 percent of the estimated

TPO4 load at the two streamflow-gaging

stations. Sediment load was undersimulated,

particularly during the year of major flooding

(1997). Stream discharge and the sediment and

TPO4 loads tended to be oversimulated during

the smallest storms sampled during summer and

early fall low-flow periods. Annual and annual

mean errors indicated a fair sediment simulation

(25 to 35 percent error) and a good

TPO4 simulation (20 to 30 percent error).

Percentage errors in simulation of individual

storm sediment and TPO4 loads were generally

much larger than percentage errors in annual

and total loads.

INTRODUCTION

Chenoweth Run Basin (16.5 mi2) is a rapidly

urbanizing tributary to Floyds Fork in suburban

eastern Jefferson County in north-central Kentucky

(fig. 1). Alterations in water use, land use, and land

cover associated with urbanization can drastically

alter and adversely affect the hydrologic character

of a drainage basin. As land is developed, there is,

in general, a decrease in the amount of pervious

land area available for infiltration of precipitation.

Increases in the magnitude and frequency of peak

discharges during periods of flooding as a

consequence of urbanization have been well

documented (Leopold, 1968; Sauer and others,

1983). An increase in the types and amounts of

contaminants entering waterways also generally

occurs with urbanization, which often has resulted

in degradation of water quality.

Water quality downstream from many

urbanized locations in Jefferson County has

historically been adversely affected by a variety of

point and nonpoint sources of contaminants,

including wastewater-treatment plants; land

dedicated to a variety of industrial, commercial,

residential, and agricultural uses; and leachates

from septic tanks and landfills. Most of the

contaminants are anthropogenic in origin and

include organic debris, sediments, nutrients,

petroleum products, and potentially toxic

chemicals, such as heavy metals and pesticides.

Water-quality conditions are such that the Jefferson

County Board of Health has recommended avoiding

contact recreation in all streams in Jefferson County

for protection of public health (Louisville and

Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District,

2000).

Water-quality problems in the Chenoweth

Run Basin have been reported by several agencies,

including the Kentucky Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet

(KNREPC)—Division of Water (KDOW), the

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan

Sewer District (MSD), and the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) (Logan and others, 1986; Leist and

others, 1991; Louisville and Jefferson County

Metropolitan Sewer District 1990, 1991, 1994, and

1996; Evaldi and others, 1993; Evaldi and Moore,

1994a and 1994b). The KDOW has previously

listed 9 mi of Chenoweth Run as not meeting

criteria for either aquatic-life or swimming uses

because of organic enrichment, nutrients, metals,

and pathogens discharged in urban runoff and

wastewaters (Kentucky Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet, 1994).
INTRODUCTION 

Louisville

Chenoweth

85 37 30 °¢2

85 37 30 °¢2

38 22 30 °¢2 38 22 30 °¢2

85 30 ° ¢

85 30 ° ¢

38 15 ° ¢ 38 1

° 

38 07 30 °¢

38 07 30 °¢2

85 45 ° ¢

85 45 ° ¢

85 52 30 °¢2

85 52 30 °¢2

38° 38°

Muddy Fork

Middle For k Beargra k ss Cree

Floyds Fork

C edar Creek

Northern Ditch

Pond Creek

Mill

Cutoff

OHIO RIVER

H arrods Creek

Goose

Creek

South Fork Beargrass

Creek

Run

Southern Di tch

Creek

Mill Cree k

Fern Creek

Û

Û

Û

Û

Û

Û

Ù31W

65

264

265

264

64

71

KENTUCKY

Jefferson County

0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES

02468 10 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

Chenoweth Run Basin

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, digital data,

1:100,000, 1983 Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, Zone 16

Index Map

Pope Lick Long

Run

Middletown

Jeffersontown

Figure 1. Location of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
4 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

MSD is the lead water-resource-management

agency in Jefferson County. MSD’s responsibilities

include wastewater collection, treatment, and

disposal; storm-water management and flood

control; and coordination of industrial-wastepretreatment programs. MSD operates—under

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permits issued by KDOW—wastewaterand storm-water-management facilities in Jefferson

County. MSD operates the three wastewatertreatment plants (WWTP’s) in the Chenoweth Run

Basin. MSD assumed operation of the largest of

these from the original owner/operator, the city of

Jeffersontown, Ky., in September 1990.

MSD has prepared master plans and

developed strategies for effective wastewater and

storm-water management. Components of these

plans include (1) construction of sanitary sewers in

unsewered areas to replace failing septic systems

and (2) procurement and elimination of numerous,

small, inefficient WWTP’s serving individual

developments. Instead, MSD routes wastewaters to

regional treatment facilities, which can be operated

effectively and efficiently.

Since 1988, MSD has conducted, in

cooperation with the USGS, a program for the study

of urban hydrology in Jefferson County. This

program has incorporated systematic datacollection activities, including water-quality

sampling and concurrent discharge measurements at

approximately 25 stream sites countywide (one in

the Chenoweth Run Basin at Gelhaus Lane,

downstream from the three WWTP’s in the basin)

and operation of several streamflow- and rainfallgaging stations. Goals of the program have included

characterization of hydrologic and water-quality

conditions by collection and interpretation of baseline and long-term data that provide a technically

sound, scientific basis for assessing changes in

stream environmental quality over time and in

response to selected water-resource-management

strategies. The interpretive studies have assessed

flood-frequency characteristics and water-qualityconstituent concentrations, trends (if any), and

loads. The studies have permitted identification of

land areas and stream reaches that have, or

contribute to, significant water-quality problems.

Focused studies of selected problematic drainage

basins using a “watershed framework” were

undertaken following the countywide, water-quality

assessments. Development of continuous

hydrologic models for simulations of complex

urban basins, such as Beargrass Creek Basin (Jarrett

and others, 1998) and Chenoweth Run Basin, was

initiated in this latest phase of the urban hydrology

program. The Hydrological Simulation

Program—Fortran (HSPF) model has been applied

previously in agricultural basins (Moore and others,

1988; Chew and others, 1991) and in urban basins

(Dinicola, 1990; Duncker and others, 1995).

This detailed study of hydrologic and waterquality conditions in the Chenoweth Run Basin

began in 1996. The basic study goal was to improve

understanding of the hydrology of the Chenoweth

Run Basin by collection and interpretation of

representative streamflow and water-quality data

and by development of a comprehensive hydrologic

simulation model that would provide resource

managers a reliable tool for prediction of the

probable hydrologic effects of land-use changes and

alternative water-resource-management options. An

HSPF model for continuous simulation of flow,

sediment, and orthophosphate transport was

developed and calibrated to base (existing)

conditions during February 1996–January 1998.

The model defines the conceptual hydrologic

relations between land- and water-use activities and

the corresponding stream-water-quality and waterquantity characteristics, and provides a basis for

assessing the probable results of various possible

scenarios for modifications in the basin.

This report describes the study approach,

methods of data collection and analysis, and the

hydrologic characteristics of the Chenoweth Run

Basin. The report also describes the modeling

approach and the features, capabilities, results of

simulations, and limitations of the Chenoweth Run

Basin HSPF model.

The authors thank Patti Grace-Jarrett, who

facilitated transfer of stream-water- and wastewatersampling results from the MSD laboratory; Kevin

Ruhl, Brian Moore, and Paul Bruenderman, who

coordinated USGS field data-collection work in

Chenoweth Run; David Leist, who provided

KDOW data collected in the Chenoweth Run Basin;

Tom Jobes, of AquaTerra, Inc., who provided

guidance on selected portions of the HSPF model

coding; Jane Poole, who provided geographic

data from the Louisville and Jefferson County

Information Consortium (LOJIC);
PREVIOUS STUDIES 

Michael Callahan, who provided selected data sets

from the National Weather Service; Bonnie Stich

Fink, for preparation of report tables, editing, and

final layout; and Hugh Nelson, who prepared the

report maps.

PREVIOUS STUDIES

Water-quality problems in the Chenoweth

Run Basin have been described in several reports

released by local, state, and federal agencies.

Potential sources of the problems cited in the

reports have included wastewater-treatment plants,

agriculture (including livestock), construction

activities, loss of stream-bank vegetation and

stream-bank erosion, lawn-care and golf-coursemaintenance practices, and storm runoff from urban

and industrial areas.

A KDOW study to determine appropriate

stream-use designations in the Floyds Fork Basin

(Logan and others, 1986) recommended

classification of the main channel and tributaries

under standards for warmwater aquatic habitat and

primary and secondary contact recreation uses. The

study report described adverse effects of constituent

inflows from urban areas on aquatic biota in

Chenoweth Run and on downstream from the

confluence with Floyds Fork. Dense growths of

algae and a sparse tree cover, which would provide

shading to inhibit algal growth, were reported for

Chenoweth Run. High values for dissolved-oxygen

concentration (more than 20 mg/L) and pH (9.2),

indicative of algal activity, were reportedly present

during a low-flow period in 1986.

A series of three MSD reports described

water-quality conditions and the physical, chemical,

and biological data collected in 1989, 1990, 1991,

and 1992 at a network of approximately 25 streamsampling stations in Jefferson County, Ky.,

including one in Chenoweth Run Basin (Louisville

and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District,

1990, 1991, and 1994). These reports indicated that

all streams then being sampled in Jefferson County

were “severely stressed” and had experienced a

general deterioration in water quality associated

with land disturbance and urbanization. Suspendedsolids, nitrogen, and phosphate levels were reported

to be elevated and indicative of pollution problems.

MSD (1990) reported that Chenoweth Run had t

highest annual average of total phosphorus

concentration of the 26 sites sampled in Jefferso

County, Ky., in 1989. Probable sources of these

countywide problems cited in the reports include

variety of point and nonpoint sources of

contaminants, including numerous poorly

performing WWTP’s, failing septic-tank system

and soil erosion and stormwater runoff from urb

and agricultural areas. (Most of the WWTP’s we

small package plants serving individual resident

developments, and most of these plants have sin

been acquired, deactivated, and flows diverted to

regional wastewater-treatment facilities by MSD

Leist and others (1991) reported adverse

effects on Chenoweth Run resulting from

wastewater effluents and storm-water runoff.

During certain periods of the year, wastewater

discharges were reported to dominate streamflow 

Chenoweth Run, resulting in nutrient enrichmen

Soil erosion from construction sites leading to

excess siltation in streams was reported, and exc

fertilization and chemical application to lawns, g

courses, and other areas were reported as possib

causes of nutrient enrichment and other problem

Dissolved-oxygen supersaturation, algal growth

and elevated pH observed in Chenoweth Run we

reported to be indicators of nutrient enrichment. 

1991, KDOW proposed a moratorium on additio

wastewater-treatment facilities in the Chenoweth

Run Basin because of the existing water-quality

problems. It was reported that in 1991, the Jeffer

County government initiated new administrative

procedures for review of development plans in th

Floyds Fork Basin to provide additional protecti

of stream beds and banks from encroachment by 

clearing of natural vegetation and earthwork.

Leist and others (1991) reported low-flow

measurements in the lower reaches of Floyds Fo

near the confluence with Chenoweth Run that

indicated a gain in streamflow, probably caused 

ground-water inflow. Data collection in the prese

study indicated probable losing stream reaches i

Chenoweth Run, which may be supplying these

observed inflows to Floyds Fork. Thus, contrary 

the assumption that the ground-water inflows wo

help dilute nutrient-rich waters coming from

wastewater facilities on the tributaries, such grou
6 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

water inflows may actually be supplied by

wastewater effluents on Floyds Fork tributaries such

as Chenoweth Run (see “Base-Flow Losses”).

(Note: Chenoweth Run is also referred to as

Lower Chenoweth Run in some previous studies

because another stream named Chenoweth Run

enters Floyds Fork upstream at approximately

stream mile 47, which is approximately 23 mi

upstream from the confluence of (lower)

Chenoweth Run and Floyds Fork.)

Statistical summaries of water-quality

characteristics and estimates of constituent loads

and yields at the network of water-quality-sampling

sites in Jefferson County, Ky., were reported by

Evaldi and Moore (1992), Evaldi and others (1993),

and Evaldi and Moore (1994a and 1994b). Median

concentrations of nutrients including total

phosphorus, total orthophosphate, and nitrate

nitrogen in Chenoweth Run were among the highest

values reported for the network. Yields of total

phosphorus, total orthophosphate, suspended solids,

and biochemical oxygen demand in Chenoweth Run

were also among the highest values reported for the

network.

The 1994 Kentucky Report to Congress on

Water Quality (Kentucky Natural Resources and

Environmental Protection Cabinet, 1994) listed

9 mi of Chenoweth Run as not meeting waterquality criteria for either aquatic life or swimming

uses because of organic enrichment, nutrients,

metals, and pathogens in urban runoff and

wastewater effluents.

MSD (1996) described conditions in

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane on the basis of

data collected during 1991–94. Chenoweth Run was

described as severely stressed: the KDOW streamuse designations for warmwater-aquatic habitat and

the primary and secondary contact recreation

designations were not being met. Forty-five percent

of bacteriological sample counts exceeded contact

standards. Quarterly water sampling for analysis of

metals had indicated chronic-criteria violations for

copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc and

acute-criteria violations for chromium, copper,

nickel, and zinc. Quarterly sampling for analysis of

cyanide, pesticides, and herbicides indicated criteria

violations for cyanide and lindane and the presence

of 2,4-D. The data were reported as “clearly

illustrating a significant level of influx of nutrients,

erosional materials and very likely organic

contamination from animal waste and (or) human

sewage.” The report indicated “extremely abundant

growths of filamentous algae develop during

warmer periods.” Excessive growth of algae was

reported to lead to increases in stream pH such that

ammonia toxicity increased. The report indicated

that stream “habitat quality is generally degraded

throughout the county by rapid fluctuations in flow,

removal of riparian communities (the botanical

community adjacent to stream), and

channelization.” Biological-sampling data indicated

that approximately 90 percent of organisms

sampled were species known to be tolerant of poor

water quality, thus indicating a severe level of stress

on aquatic life and elevated contaminant levels in

Chenoweth Run.

Leist (1996), in reference to previous waterquality investigations in the Chenoweth Run Basin

and other basins, reported “The most significant

problems in Chenoweth Run and Floyds Fork

downstream of Chenoweth Run were dense

nuisance growths of algae, causing both aesthetic

problems and water-quality criteria violations for

dissolved oxygen, pH, and ammonia toxicity.

Fueling this algal growth was an excess of nutrients,

with phosphorus considered the nutrient of most

concern.” The primary source of phosphorus during

low and moderate flow was reported to be the

4-Mgal/d capacity Jeffersontown WWTP. The

report indicated the primary source for phosphorus

during high flows was nonpoint sources including

fertilized lawns. On the basis of available

information concerning eutrophication in the basin,

KDOW had imposed a phosphorus-removal

requirement on a proposed wastewater-treatment

facility in the basin, had begun requiring

phosphorus monitoring at the Jeffersontown

WWTP, and had initiated an investigation of the

major sources of nutrients in the Chenoweth Run

Basin (Leist, 1996).

The report also described continuing land

development in the basin, including construction of

a large church complex with a 50-acre parking lot in

the basin headwaters. Much of the urban

development in the basin, including Jeffersontown,

Ky. and the Bluegrass Industrial Park, was located

in the upper portion of the basin, upstream from the

Jeffersontown WWTP. The lower portion of the

basin, downstream from the Jeffersontown WWTP,
PREVIOUS STUDIES 

remained mostly rural in character with some

residential subdivision development in place and

planned for the future.

Despite the continuing development, the

report noted that fish were observed throughout the

stream, including large sport fish (bass and bluegill)

in pools downstream from the WWTP. Ducks were

noted to be routinely present in Chenoweth Run.

Leist (1996) initiated data collection at five

additional sites in the basin for a broad range of

water-quality characteristics during a wide range of

flows from January 1995 through January 1996.

The report described the effects of the

eutrophication process in detail: algae and other

rooted aquatic plants can proliferate where nutrient

concentrations and light intensities are sufficient.

As the algae later die, decomposition can release

foul odors and deplete dissolved oxygen, causing

fish kills. Algal respiration at night, or during

extended periods of cloud cover, can also deplete

dissolved oxygen. It was reported that streams with

low slopes and little riparian tree cover have the

greatest potential for algal blooms. The thick algal

blooms and dissolved-oxygen violations reported

for previous summers did not occur during this

1-year data-collection period, possibly because of

scouring high flows in combination with high

temperatures. Indications of algal activities were

noted by reported sharp increases in dissolvedoxygen concentration occurring after sunrise and

dissolved-oxygen supersaturation. Also reported

were the typical algae-induced changes in pH.

During daylight, as carbon dioxide (CO2) is taken

up during photosynthesis, pH increases; at night, as

CO2 is released in algal respiration, pH decreases.

High pH in combination with elevated temperatures

causes ammonia toxicity for aquatic life. The report

indicated that even a stream with relatively low

nitrogen content might still experience algae

blooms if excess phosphorus is available and

nitrogen-fixing forms of algae, which obtain

nitrogen directly from the atmosphere, are present.

During the January 1995–January 1996 datacollection period, iron and lead concentrations were

in excess of chronic criteria, and iron concentration

was in excess of acute criteria.

Leist (1996) described research (Water

Environment & Technology, 1995) indicating how

shading affects algal communities: when shading is

removed, the type of algal species changes from

those that are eaten by insect larvae and snails to

algal species with no natural predators. The repo

noted that because of uncertainties related to

complexities of the eutrophication process, no

specific state or federal numerical standards had 

been developed for phosphorus (P) in streams. T

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA

was working to develop criteria for nutrients

because of the need to control nutrient enrichme

USEPA had previously suggested a limit of 0.1 m

P/L in streams for control of eutrophication (Uni

States Environmental Protection Agency, 1986).

Leist (1996) recommended (1) a limit of

1 mg P/L for the Jeffersontown WWTP effluent,

which may be lowered in the future if

eutrophication continues to cause water-qualitycriteria violations, as the exact amount of

phosphorus reduction needed at the plant to

eliminate eutrophication problems could not be

discerned from the existing data; (2) restoration 

riparian vegetation for shading from solar radiat

to limit the growth of algae species that have no

natural predators; and (3) control of nonpoint

sources of nutrients and other constituents in the

basin.

An investigation of biological, chemical, a

physical aspects of the eutrophication process in

Chenoweth Run was conducted in conjunction w

the study by Leist (1996). The purposes of this

allied biological investigation were to define

relations, if any, between nutrient concentrations

(nitrate nitrogen, total orthophosphate, and total

phosphorus) and algal biomass and also to asses

the potential effectiveness of reductions of

phosphorus concentrations for control of

eutrophication in Chenoweth Run (Kentucky

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection

Cabinet, 1999). Samples of aquatic plants for

measurement of biomass (chlorophyll a, dry

weight, and ash-free dry weight) were collected

periodically at five sites, all in unshaded reaches

having limestone-bedrock channel bottoms. A

control site was on the main channel, 0.8 mi

upstream from the Jeffersontown WWTP, and th

sampling sites were downstream from the plant 

the main channel. One reference site unaffected 

point sources was located on a relatively

undisturbed tributary downstream from the

Jeffersontown WWTP.
8 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

In April 1995, ideal environmental conditions

(including abundant nutrient levels) led to heavy

nuisance growth of filamentous green alga,

Cladophora glomerata, in the Chenoweth Run main

channel. Nuisance growth of algae was defined as a

chlorophyll a level exceeding approximately

13.9 mg/ft2 (150 mg/m2

). Storms in May 1995,

however, scoured away the benthic-algae growth

that had been established earlier in the spring. No

algal biomass samples collected after the May

storms exceeded the cited nuisance threshold level.

Analysis of the sampling data identified no

statistically significant mathematical correlations of

the biomass measurements with any of the nutrient

concentrations sampled; however, all three biomass

parameters were found to be positively correlated

with dissolved-oxygen concentration and negatively

correlated with water temperature. The primary

abiotic factors that appeared to have affected

biomass were streamflow and temperature.

Increased water temperatures exceeding 20 ̊C that

occurred after the scouring of the substrate in May

1995 may have inhibited algae regrowth later that

year.

Although nutrient concentrations at the

control site upstream from the Jeffersontown

WWTP were much lower than nutrient

concentrations observed downstream from the

plant, the chlorophyll-a level at the control site

remained above the reported nuisance level prior to

the May 1995 storms. The reference site on the

tributary had the lowest nutrient levels and the

lowest biomass of any of the sampling sites—below

any level of concern. Algal uptake of phosphorus

was apparent on the main channel because total

phosphorus concentrations declined progressively

at the series of sampling sites downstream from the

Jeffersontown WWTP. Total phosphorus

concentrations downstream from the plant increased

sharply following the May storms that scoured

away the benthic algae, which was also indicative of

algal consumption of phosphorus preceding the

May storms. Consequently, additional nutrients

were available for export from Chenoweth Run to

Floyds Fork following the May storms.

The report from the biological investigation

indicated that the observed nutrient concentrations,

both before and after the May 1995 storms, were

not limiting algal growth in Chenoweth Run, and

excess nutrients were being exported downstream to

Floyds Fork. The results of other studies were

reported to indicate that nutrient concentrations

were in excess (for aquatic-plant growth

requirements) in Chenoweth Run. The report

indicated that insufficient information was available

(from the study) to determine whether control of

phosphorus releases from the Jeffersontown WWTP

would decrease the potential for nuisance growth of

aquatic plants downstream from the plant. Controls

of nonpoint sources of phosphorus were cited as a

potential additional requirement to effectively limit

excess algal growth during ideal environmental

conditions for such growth. The report indicated

that further studies were needed to determine

accurately what instream nutrient limits would help

maintain benthic-algal biomass at sub-nuisance

levels in Chenoweth Run.

DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA

The Chenoweth Run Basin is in suburban

eastern Jefferson County in north-central Kentucky

(fig. 2). The basin is east of the city of Louisville,

which lies along the banks of the Ohio River in

northwestern Jefferson County. Louisville is the

largest city and most densely populated area of the

State. Parts of the city of Jeffersontown are located

in the upper reaches of the Chenoweth Run Basin.

The population of Jeffersontown was approximately

23,000 in 1990 and an estimated 28,000 in 2000

(Frank Greenwell, Jeffersontown City Hall, oral

commun., 2000).

Chenoweth Run Basin has a drainage area of

16.5 mi2. Chenoweth Run is a tributary to the Ohio

River at a point downstream from Jefferson County,

by way of Floyds Fork and the Salt River.

Chenoweth Run flows about 9 mi to the confluence

at stream-mile 24.2 of Floyds Fork.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 

Louisville

Chenoweth

85 37 30 °¢2

85 37 30 °¢2

38 22 30 °¢2 38 22 30 °¢2

85 30 ° ¢

85 30 ° ¢

38 15 ° ¢ 38 15 ° 

38 07 30 °¢2 38 07 30 °¢2

85 45 ° ¢

85 45 ° ¢

85 52 30 °¢2

85 52 30 °¢2

38° 38°

Muddy Fork

Middle For k Beargra k ss Cree

Floyds Fork

C edar Creek

Northern Ditch

Pond Creek

Mill

Cutoff

OHIO RIVER

H arrods Creek

Goose

Creek

South Fork Beargrass

Creek

Run

Southern Di tch

Creek

Mill Cree k

Fern Creek

A

A

B

C

RG11

RG15

RG17

RG8

RG8

Û

Û

Û

Û

Û

Û

Ù31W

65

264

265

264

64

71

0 2 4 6 8 10 MILES

02468 10 KILOMETERS

EXPLANATION

National Weather Service data-collection

station and identifier

Rain gage and identifier

Chenoweth Run Basin

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, digital data,

1:100,000, 1983 Universal Transverse Mercator

projection, Zone 16

Pope Lick Long

Run

Middletown

Jeffersontown

Figure 2. Location of the Chenoweth Run Basin and nearby data-collection stations, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
10 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Climate

Jefferson County has a moist-continental

climate with distinct seasonal variations and

changeable weather patterns with generally short

periods of extreme conditions. Winter temperatures

are moderate, rarely below 0 ̊F. Typical summer

temperatures are warm and rarely above 100 ̊F

(fig. 3). The weather patterns are variably affected

by the meeting of cold, arctic and continental air

masses arriving from the northwest and warm,

moist air masses moving up the Mississippi and

Ohio Valleys from the southwest. Large amounts of

precipitation have been associated with tropical

cyclones or frontal systems originating from the

primary source of regional precipitation, the

subtropical Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.

Winter precipitation is associated with frontal

activity; however, in summer, convective

thunderstorms produce most of the precipitation.

The thunderstorms can produce intense, shortduration rainfall over small areas; precipitation

intensity is generally higher in the summer than in

other seasons. The dry season occurs during the fall.

The Bermuda High, which normally resides off the

southeastern United States during summer, moves

inland in the fall. In October, the normal position of

the Bermuda High is over Kentucky and Tennessee.

The High suppresses convective activity and

inhibits the movement of fronts (Conner, 1982).

Mean daily minimum and maximum

temperatures were approximately 35 ̊ and 43 ̊F,

respectively, in winter, and 65 ̊ and 85 ̊F,

respectively, in summer during 1961–90. The mean

annual precipitation at Standiford Field at

Louisville during 1961–90 was 44.39 in., ranging

from 32.65 to 59.80 in. annually during this period

(National Climatic Data Center, 2000). Annual

precipitation extremes for the period of record

include the maximum of 63.76 in. in 1996 and a

minimum of 23.88 in. in 1930 (National Weather

Service, 2000). Although precipitation in normal

years is evenly distributed (fig. 3), the storm type

and amount vary somewhat seasonally; mean

seasonal precipitation is about 13.5 in. in spring

(March through May), 11.5 in. in summer (June

through August), 9.6 in. in fall (September through

November), and 9.8 in. in winter (December

through February). The wettest months are

generally March, May, and July, respectively;

October is generally the driest month. Mean annual

snowfall during 1961–90 was 17.5 in. Snows

generally remained on the ground for only a few

days before melting. Annual precipitation for the

period of USGS hydrological data collection in the

Chenoweth Run Basin used in the study (1988–97)

is shown in figure 4.

Geology

Geological characteristics of a basin affect

local hydrology. The extent and type of surficial

deposits determines the amount and rate of

movement of water and constituents in subsurface

storage. Movement of the infiltrated water and

constituents into ground-water flow is controlled by

bedrock characteristics.

The geological characteristics in Jefferson

County and the region in general are highly varied;

consequently, local hydrological characteristics

vary considerably. The geology of Jefferson County

is generally characterized by layered, sedimentary

deposits including limestones, dolomites, and

shales of the Devonian, Silurian, and Ordovician

periods with overlying alluvial and lacustrine

deposits of the Quaternary period in selected areas

(fig. 5). Jefferson County lies on the west flank of

the Cincinnati arch, a regional uplift feature

extending south from Cincinnati, Ohio, into central

Kentucky that was formed following Ordovicianaged deposits; this gives the bedrock formations a

slight dip to the west in the county. Thus, the age of

rocks, which tend to crop out in bands running

north-northeast to south-southwest, tends to

progressively increase from west to east in the

county (Evaldi and others, 1993; McDowell and

others, 1981; and McDowell, 1986).

Bedrock in the Chenoweth Run Basin

consists primarily of Silurian- and Late-Ordovicianage interbedded shales and carbonates (limestones

and dolomites). Residuum of Devonian-age

Sellersburg and Jeffersonville Limestones also may

be present locally, overlying the Silurian-age

Louisville Limestone, but is unmapped. (If this

formation is present, then the thin layers in the

upper and lower parts of the Sellersburg Limestone
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 

Figure 3. Monthly normal temperature and precipitation (1961–90) at

Standiford Field, Louisville, Kentucky.

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec.

0

6

1

2

3

4

5

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

20

100

40

60

80

TEMPERATURE, IN DEGREES FAHRENHEIT

Mean daily maximum

Mean daily minimum

Figure 4. Annual precipitation at Standiford Field, Louisville, Kentucky,

1988–97.

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

60

10

20

30

40

50

PRECIPITATION, IN INCHES

Mean annual precipitation, 44.39 inches, 1961–90
12 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 5. Generalized geology of Jefferson County, Kentucky.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 

containing phosphatic nodules would also likely be

present in the basin.) Quaternary-aged alluvial

deposits formed terraces along the Floyds Fork

valley, and these alluvial deposits extend upstream

to the middle reaches of Chenoweth Run, almost to

Taylorsville Road (Moore and others, 1972).

There is a transition in hydrological

characteristics in Jefferson County, which

corresponds to the variation in the characteristics of

the bedrock formations near the northern and

western boundaries of the Chenoweth Run Basin.

The Silurian- and Late-Ordovician-age interbedded

limestones, dolomites, and shales in the Chenoweth

Run Basin and on farther eastward into Shelby

County, Ky., are more resistant than the Devonianage limestones prominent in the surficial geology to

the west and north in the Beargrass Creek Basin in

Jefferson County (fig. 2). For example, soils tend to

be less than 5 ft thick on Silurian-aged limestones,

while soils up to 25 ft thick may develop on

Devonian-age limestones (Moore and others, 1972).

Small, shallow springs are common on top of

the Waldron Shale and Osgood Formations, which

underlay the Louisville Limestone and Laurel

Dolomite, respectively, in upland areas of the

Chenoweth Run Basin. Some sinkholes supply

underground drainage within the Louisville

Limestone. The Waldron Shale and Osgood

Formations, however, tend to impede the movement

of infiltrated water farther down into ground-water

flow in these upland areas (Moore and others,

1972). Outcrop areas of the Waldron Shale and

Osgood Formations appear to approximately

delineate the eastern limits (near the center of

Jeffersontown and Middletown, Ky., fig. 2) of the

shallow aquifer in the Louisville Limestone that

was rated adequate for a domestic-well-water

supply, which provided at least 100 gal/d. The

bedrock formations eastward of this point in the

basin and farther eastward into Shelby County, Ky.,

(unless situated in a stream valley) were generally

inadequate for a domestic-well-water supply

(Palmquist and Hall, 1960; Hall and Palmquist,

1960). Numerous farm ponds and small lakes

(several of which have been commercialized for

fishing) have been constructed on top of outcrops of

resistant, impermeable formations in Chenoweth

Run (Waldron Shale, Osgood Formation, and the

Saludia Dolomite and Bardstown members of

Drakes Formation) (Moore and others, 1972).

Losses to ground water are, however, not

uncommon where thin, fractured sections of clas

rocks (shales) are intersected in stream channels

Also, bedrock-fracture zones may tend to be

concentrated in and (or) near stream channels in 

geologic setting.

A tendency for regional-regression relatio

to underestimate observed peak-discharge

frequencies in the eastern end of Jefferson Coun

and adjacent counties farther eastward was noted

previously (Martin and others, 1997, p. 25). At

stream sites in Chenoweth Run, Fern Creek, Ced

Creek, and also at rural stream sites farther eastw

in Oldham, Shelby, and Spencer Counties, obser

peak-discharge frequencies were larger than wer

predicted by the best-fit regional urban-peakdischarge regression equations for Jefferson

County. This was indicative of the limited poten

infiltration and storage of precipitation that

consequently leads to generally excessive runoff 

precipitation. An analysis and mapping of avera

annual hydrologic response (ratio of annual dire

runoff to annual precipitation) in the Eastern Uni

States (Woodruff and Hewlett, 1970) indicated a

relation to regional geologic formations, and the

largest values determined (exceeding 24 percent

were in basins located in north-central Kentucky

(Outer Bluegrass area).

Physiography

The Chenoweth Run Basin lies in the Out

Bluegrass physiographic region of Kentucky, as

does most of Jefferson County. Physiographic

regions in Kentucky coincide closely with the

geology. The Outer Bluegrass lies mostly on

limestones, dolomites, and considerable amount

interbedded shales of Late Ordovician and Silur

Age. The relief in the Outer Bluegrass is gently

rolling, except near major streams, where the terr

is dissected and rugged. Soils are deepest over

limestones and thinnest over shales. Some

subsurface solution has occurred in the Outer

Bluegrass, and small sinkholes are fairly commo

however, most of the drainage is on the surface

(McDowell, 1986; Palmquist and Hall, 1961).
14 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Elevation in the Chenoweth Run Basin ranges

from approximately 492 to 775 ft above mean sea

level. Land slopes are steeper in the lower portion of

the basin (in the areas approaching the confluence

with Floyds Fork) than in the upper portion of the

basin (see map on cover).

Soils

The Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Ky.,

(Zimmerman and others, 1966) describes soil

development in the residuum and local alluvium

derived from the sedimentary formations in the

study area. In the level to moderately sloping

upland areas and ridge tops, the soils developed in

combination with a loess (windblown silt) mantle of

variable thickness of up to 3 ft. Some soils that

developed in the nearly level areas have a compact

fragipan, generally from 1 to 3 ft deep, which

impedes infiltration and root growth. Soils on the

steep hillside areas tend to be rocky, readily

erodible (if exposed), and thinner than the upland

soils. Soils in the bottom lands along the small

streams are subject to periodic flooding, but most

are well drained.

The Soil Survey notes the large variability of

soil parent materials (geologic formations) in the

county. Thus, soil textural, chemical, mineralogical,

and hydrological properties likewise vary

significantly across the county. In the Chenoweth

Run Basin, the Soil Survey estimates of the soil

permeabilities ranges from 0.05 to 2 in/h.

Soils in the Chenoweth Run Basin are in the

Crider-Corydon, Russellville-Crider-Dickson, and

Beasley-Fairmount-Russellville soil associations

(fig. 6). The Crider-Corydon and the RussellvilleCrider-Dickson associations developed in residuum

derived from high-grade limestones (Sellersburg,

Jeffersonville, and Louisville limestones) of the

Middle and Early Devonian and Middle Silurian

periods. These soil associations are described as

being well-drained to moderately well-drained at

the surface; nearly level to moderately sloping in

upland areas and ridgetops with typical depths to

bedrock of 5 to 9 ft; and steep, shallow soils (1 to

3 ft deep) on hillsides. Russellville and Dickson,

upland soil series, have a fragipan at a depth of 2 to

2.5 ft.

The Beasley-Fairmount-Russellville

association, in contrast, developed in residuum

derived from thinly bedded limestone and

calcareous shale of the Middle and Early Silurian

and Late Ordovician periods. This association is

described as being moderately well to excessively

well-drained at the surface; gently to moderately

sloping on narrow ridges with typical depths to

bedrock of 4 to 9 ft; and steep, shallow soils (1 to

3.5 ft) on hillsides. The Beasley series has slow to

moderately slow permeability in the lower, finetextured subsoil and a soft, interbedded, calcareous

shale and limestone formation at a depth of about

2 to 4 ft that impedes root growth and infiltration.

The most extensive soils in the basin are the

Beasley and Crider series in the rolling

uplands—each covering approximately 25 percent

of the basin. These series’ provide the most

available-moisture-storage capacity among the soils

in the basin because of the soil depths and the

extensive area covered. Both soil series’ have finegrained texture, with more than 90 percent by

weight in the silt and clay soil-particle-size fraction

(less than 0.00197 in., or 0.05 mm). However, these

soils have different drainage properties because of

the differences in the soil parent materials. The

surface layer and the upper subsoil of the deep,

well-drained Crider soil series developed primarily

in loess, and the lower part of the subsoil developed

primarily in residuum derived from the high-grade

limestones (Sellersburg, Jeffersonville, and

Louisville Limestones of the Middle and Early

Devonian and Middle Silurian periods). The surface

layer and the upper subsoil of the Beasley soil series

developed primarily in loess and limestone

residuum, and the lower part of the subsoil

developed in residuum derived from calcareous

shale (marl) and soft limestones of the Middle and

Early Silurian and Late Ordovician periods. The

Beasley series, thus, has lower moisture-storage

capacity and permeability than the Crider series.

Karst features (sinkholes) have developed in some

areas of both the Beasley and Crider soils.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 

Fishermans

Park

Seatonville

Jeffersontown

Shi s B nk ranch

Razor Branch

La Clara

Lakes

Waggners

Lake

Chenoweth

Run

Jefferson County

STUDY AREA

INDEX MAP

EXPLANATION

Beasley-Fairmont-Russelville association

38 07 30 °¢2

38 14 30 °¢2

85 35 30 °¢2 85 30 ° ¢

0

0

1

1

2

2

3 MILES

3 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 16

Floyds

Fork

Watershed boundary

Crider-Corydon association

Russelville-Crider-Dickson association

Figure 6. Generalized soils of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
16 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Land Use

Chenoweth Run Basin has undergone rapid

urban development in recent years. The upper

(north) third of the basin is the most developed

portion of the basin at present (2000), and it

includes areas of extensive residential, office,

commercial, and light-industrial development in the

city of Jeffersontown. This developed area within

the upper basin includes portions of the Bluegrass

Industrial Park, which extends south from Interstate

64 and contains businesses employing

approximately 33,000 persons (John Cosby,

Jeffersontown Development Council, oral

commun., 2000). Also included is the large

9,100-seat church complex (Van Campen, 1998)

constructed just north of Interstate 64 during the

study data-collection period. Additional economic

and land development spurred by the industrial park

and church complex is anticipated in the future in

and around the basin.

Land development in the lower two-thirds

of the basin, downstream from the

4.0-Mgal/d-capacity Jeffersontown WWTP, has

also been increasing in recent years. Residential

subdivisions have been developed among the

largely rural and agricultural land uses.

The transportation improvements within and

surrounding the basin have facilitated recent landdevelopment activity. Four freeway interchanges

within or bordering the basin on the north, east, and

west sides provide ready vehicular access.

Predominant land uses in the basin are listed

in table 1. Land-cover characteristics in the basin

are shown in table 2. See the section “Lane Use and

Land Cover” for further description of land use in

the basin.

Table 1. Land-use distribution at selected locations in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

[%, percent]

Site

identifier

(figure 7) Location

Drainage

area

(acre)

Singlefamily

residential

%

Multifamily

residential

%

Commercial

%

Industrial

%

Public

and semipublic

%

Parks

and

open

space

%

Vacant or

undeveloped

%

401 Chenoweth Run at

Ruckriegel

Parkway at

Jeffersontown

3,445 32.9 1.8 10.6 24.7 2.7 1.6 25.7

16 Chenoweth Run at

Gelhaus Lane

7,327 42.5 1.3 5.3 12.3 1.7 10.8 26.1

403 Chenoweth Run at

Seatonville

Road

10,580 35.5 .9 3.7 8.5 1.3 9.2 40.9

Table 2. Land-cover characteristics at selected locations in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Site

identifier

(figure 7)

USGS

station

number Location

Drainage

area

(acre)

Total

impervious

area

(percent)

Pervious area

Open

(percent)

Forest

(percent)

401 03298135 Chenoweth Run at

Ruckriegel Parkway

at Jeffersontown

3,445 29.9 58.8 11.3

16 03298150 Chenoweth Run at

Gelhaus Lane

7,327 18.4 71.5 10.1

403 03298160 Chenoweth Run at

Seatonville Road

10,580 13.8 68.5 17.7
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

Hydrology

Streamflow and water-quality conditions

reflect the integrated effects of numerous

environmental processes and factors that affect the

hydrology, including characteristics of the climate,

physiography, geology, soil, and land use. The

principal basin characteristics studied in Chenoweth

Run that affect hydrologic response to precipitation

and evapotranspiration included land use, land

cover, land slope, and soils characteristics. External

inflows and losses of water and constituents are also

relevant to the hydrology of the Chenoweth Run

Basin.

In the Chenoweth Run Basin, as in much of

the eastern third of Jefferson County, relief is

moderately sloping to steep. Also, internal drainage

in the pervious areas is impeded by the fine-textured

subsoils (silts and clays). Thus, much of the

precipitation tends to move rapidly as overland flow

and (or) interflow to the stream channels. Only a

small amount of water infiltrates through the soil

mantle to the underlying limestones (Bell, 1966);

thus, stream base flows are generally low to zero.

Stormflow hydrographs, particularly in the

developed upper third of the basin, have rapidly

rising and receding limbs, and the time lag between

rainfall and streamflow peaks is short. Urban

development has reduced the pervious area

available for the limited potential infiltration of

precipitation. Drain pipes carry runoff from many

impervious areas directly to the stream channels;

frequent scouring stormflows result.

The stream channel in much of the upper

third of the basin is confined by very steep, treelined banks with limited areas of riparian vegetation

beyond the tops of the banks. In the lower twothirds of the basin, downstream from the

Jeffersontown WWTP, stream banks are less steep

than in the upstream third, and riparian vegetation

beyond the tops of banks is also more abundant than

in the upstream third. A tree canopy to shade and

cool the stream is absent in many stream reaches.

The channel bottom is exposed bedrock, except in

pooled segments where sediments are deposited

during peak-flow-recession periods. Main-channel

slopes are moderate, averaging 13 to 18 ft/mi. Some

base-flow seepage losses are possible in the

fractured sections of the channel bottoms.

Three WWTP’s—the Jeffersontown WWT

and two minor plants farther downstream—relea

to the main channel the water, remaining chemic

constituents, and thermal energy discharged from

domestic, commercial, and industrial customers 

the WWTP’s. At times, wastewater effluent mak

up the majority of base flows.

Additional and variable nonpoint-source

areas exist in the basin for chemical constituents

The fine-textured soils are highly susceptible to

erosion when exposed, as is often the case durin

construction activity. Large sediment concentrati

and loads have often been transported during

stormflows. The sediments also carry sorbed

constituents including nutrients and metals. Stre

parking lots, treated turf grasses, pastures, and c

areas also are potentially significant constituentsource areas.

Increased stream-water temperatures

resulting from the runoff from impervious surfac

the loss of riparian tree canopy, and thermal ene

added by the WWTP’s reduces the oxygen-carry

capacity of streams and adversely affects habitat 

aquatic organisms. Oxygen-demanding sedimen

and nutrients further impair stream biological

integrity.

The numerous ponds and small lakes in th

Chenoweth Run Basin also affect streamflow an

water-quality conditions. Approximately 25 perc

of the basin area is drained through these ponds.

This adds detention storage in the basin and dela

and (or) reduces the movement of water and

constituents to some degree, including some

sediments and nonpoint-source nutrients, throug

the basin. Detention storage located in the lower

portion of a basin may, however, tend to locally

increase peak discharges on the main channel

because delayed peaks from the downstream

tributary channel may at times coincide with pea

from the upper portion of the basin.

METHODS OF DATA COLLECTIO

AND ANALYSIS

A large variety of data were gathered to

characterize and model the basin, including wate

quantity, water-quality, meteorological, and

geographical data. Field data collected during th
18 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

study to supplement the historical field data

included several chemical constituents and physical

properties of water (table 3) determined at several

locations (table 4 and fig. 7). Continuous timeseries data (table 5) were either measured directly in

the basin, estimated for the basin, or representative

values were obtained for locations near the basin.

Geographical data were used to develop selected

model elements. In addition, several statistical,

mathematical, and graphical methods were used to

analyze the available data.

Historical Data

Historical sampling data compiled for this

study included data gathered in two systematic

water-quality-monitoring programs; data collected

at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane during 1988–97

as part of a countywide MSD/USGS urbanhydrology program were compiled. Data for the

KDOW Chenoweth Run study (Leist, 1996) were

collected by the USGS during January 1995–

January 1996 at sites CR5, CR4, 402, CR2, and 403

(table 4 and fig. 7) and compiled.

All samples, except selected qualityassurance samples and samples for state-lab tracemetals determinations, were analyzed by the MSD

lab. The historical sampling data were collected by

manual, cross-sectionally integrated, stream-watersampling techniques.

Field Data

Field data collection was designed to

supplement and expand the utility of available data.

A sampling design was developed to meet study

goals by collection of representative samples with

appropriate spatial, temporal, and hydrologic

distribution.

Sampling Design

A variety of field data were needed to

adequately characterize and model the highly

variable streamflow and water-quality conditions in

this mixed-land-use urbanizing basin. Data were

needed to describe spatial, flow-related, and

seasonal variability of water quality. Much of the

historical water-quality data represented single,

discrete water samples that had been collected

during prescheduled sampling trips of routine

monitoring programs. Relatively few samples had

been collected during above-average flows.

Thus, sampling during this data-collection

period was targeted primarily toward storms, when

a large portion of the constituent load is normally

transported. Series of discrete water samples were

to be collected over the duration of the storms in

order to characterize constituent-transport processes

and storm loads. The series of discrete storm

samples were available for development of plots of

constituent concentrations over time and plots of

constituent loads over time.

Four sites were selected for water sampling

during the data-collection period: sites 401, 402, 16,

and 403 (table 4 and fig. 7). Criteria for selecting

the sites included provision of adequate

accessibility, mixing of flow in the sampling reach,

and spatial resolution by including sites located

upstream and downstream from the wastewater

inflows and also a site near the basin outfall at the

confluence with Floyds Fork. Also, it was desirable

to continue use of sites where the historical

sampling data had been collected. Two sites (401

and 16) were selected as locations for collection of

continuous-record streamflow and four-parameter

water-quality data.

The set of constituents analyzed (table 3) was

the same set as was analyzed routinely (monthly) in

the MSD stream-sampling program—pH, alkalinity,

total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, total

volatile suspended solids, biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD),

nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen,

organic nitrogen, total orthophosphate (TPO4), total

phosphorus (TP), and fecal coliform and

streptococcus. A filtered sample for total

phosphorus analysis was also routinely submitted to

the lab. As requested by MSD, samples for metals

and chloride were also submitted to the lab when

enough sample water was available.

The sampling goal was to collect a series of

samples during 3 storms per year distributed

seasonally at each of the 4 sampling sites, for a total

of 12 storm-event samples per year. Also, low-flow

samples were to be collected annually at each of

these four sampling sites.
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

Table 3. Chemical constituents and physical properties analyzed for

water samples collected in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County,

Kentucky, 1988–98

Alkalinity Nickel, total

Arsenic, total Nitrate, total

Barium, total Nitrite, total

Beryllium, total Nitrogen, ammonia, total

Biochemical oxygen demand, 5-day Nitrogen, organic, total

Cadmium, total Oxygen, dissolved

Calcium, total pH

Chemical oxygen demand Phosphorus, dissolved and total

Chloride, dissolved Phosphorus, total orthophosphate

Chromium, total Selenium, total

Copper, total Silver, total

Cyanide, total Specific conductance

Dissolved solids, total Suspended solids, total

Fecal coliform Suspended solids, total volatile

Fecal streptococci Sulfate, dissolved

Iron, total Temperature, air and water

Lead, total Thallium, total

Magnesium, total Zinc, total

Mercury, total

Table 4. Water-quality-sampling sites in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, used in the study

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; WWTP, wastewater-treatment plant]

Site identifier

(figure 7)

USGS

station

number Location Latitude*

*

Degree, minute, and second symbols omitted.

Longitude*

Period of

record

used

CR5 03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson

Trail at Jeffersontown

381205 853341 1995-97

401 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel

Parkway at Jeffersontown

381141 853326 1996-97

CR4 03298138 Jeffersontown WWTP Effluent at

Chenoweth Run

381133 853318 1995-98

402 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville

Road near Jeffersontown

381115 853311 1995-97

CR2 03298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 381003 853305 1995-96

16 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 380936 853232 1988-97

403 03298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville

Road

380758 853131 1996-97
20 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 7. Locations of the streamflow-gaging, water-quality-monitoring, and rainfall-gaging stations,

and wastewater-treatment plants in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky.

Fishermans

Park

Seatonville

Jeffersontown

Vettiner Park and

Golf Course

Road

Hurstbourne

Parkway

Watterson Trail

Taylorsville Road

Û64

Û265

Û265

Billtown Road

Rehl Road

Easum

Road

Gelhaus Lane

Shi s B nk ranch

Razor Branch

La Clara

Lakes

Waggners

Lake

Chenoweth

Run

CR5

401

RG35 CR4

402

CR2

M1

M2

16

403

Tucker Station

Blackacre

State

Nature

Preserve

EXPLANATION

Streamflow-gaging station and number

Rain gage

Water-quality-monitoring station

Wastewater-treatment plant

Watershed boundary

38 07 30 °¢2

38 14 30 °¢2

85 35 30 °¢2 85 30 ° ¢

0

0

1

1

2

2

3 MILES

3 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 16

Floyds

Fork

Bluegrass

Industrial

Park
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

Table 5. Time-series data compiled for hydrologic analysis and calibration of the model for Chenoweth Run Basin

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ft3/sec, cubic feet per second; ---, not applicable; *, indicates data used for model input; WWTP, wastewate

treatment plant; in., inches; NWS, National Weather Service;  ̊C, degrees Celsius; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius

L, milligrams per liter;  ̊F, degrees Fahrenheit; locations shown in figures 2, 3, and 9]

Site identifier

Data type

(units) Location Figure 2 Figure 3

USGS station

number Source

Time

step Period of recor

Discharge (ft3/sec)* Chenoweth Run

at Ruckriegel

Parkway

--- 401 03298135 USGSa 5 minute 01/25/96–02/25/9

Discharge (ft3/sec)* Chenoweth Run

at Gelhaus

Lane

--- 16 03298150 USGS 5 minute 01/25/96–02/25/9

Discharge (ft3/sec)* Jeffersontown

WWTP

--- CR4 03298138 MSDb 1 day 01/25/96–02/25/9

Discharge (ft3/sec)* Chenoweth Hills

WWTP

--- M1 --- MSD 1 day 01/25/96–02/25/9

Discharge (ft3/sec)* Lake of the

Woods

WWTP

--- M2 --- MSD 1 day 01/25/96–02/25/9

Rainfall (in.)* Chenoweth Run

at Ruckriegel

Parkway

RG28a 401 03298135 USGS 5 minute 12/01/95–02/25/9

Rainfall (in.)* Jeffersontown

WWTP

RG35 RG35 --- MSD 15 minute

5 minute

12/01/95–02/25/9

Rainfall (in.) McMahon Fire

Station at

Taylorsville

Road

RG8 --- 381306085363601 USGS, MSD 5 minute 01/15/96–02/25/9

Rainfall (in.) East County

Government

Center at

Shelbyville

Road

RG11 --- 381457085315401 USGS, MSD 5 minute 01/15/96–02/25/9

Rainfall (in.) Fire Station #3 at

Routt Road

RG15 --- 380739085281101 USGS, MSD 5 minute 01/15/96–02/25/9

Rainfall (in.) Cedar Ridge

Camp at Routt

Road

RG17 --- 381044085284201 USGS, MSD 5 minute 01/15/96–02/25/9

Rainfall (in.) Standiford Field A --- --- NWSc

,

MCCd,

NOAAe

1 day 01/01/48–05/13/9

Rainfall (in.) NWS office at

Theiler Lane

C --- --- NWS 1 day 01/01/96–09/30/9

pH,

water temperature

( ̊C)*,

specific conductance

(μS/cm),

dissolved oxygen

(mg/L)

Chenoweth Run

at Ruckriegel

Parkway

--- 401 03218135 USGS 30 minute 01/17/96–09/30/9
22 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

pH,

water temperature

( ̊C)*,

specific conductance

(μS/cm),

dissolved oxygen

(mg/L)

Chenoweth Run

at Gelhaus

Lane

--- 16 03298150 USGS 30 minute 01/24/96–09/18/97

Pan evaporation

(in.)*

Dix Dam,

Danville, Ky.f --- --- --- MCC 1 day 04/01/96–10/31/97

Pan evaporation

(in.)*

Nolin River

Lake, Ky.f --- --- --- MCC 1 day 04/01/96–10/31/97

Pan evaporation

(in.)*

Lake Patoka,

Dubois, Ind.f --- --- --- MCC 1 day 05/01/96–10/31/97

Potential

evapotranspiration

(in.)

Standiford Field A --- --- MCC 1 day 01/01/96–02/25/98

Potential

evapotranspiration

(in.)

Bowman Field B --- --- MCC 1 day 01/01/96–12/16/98

Air temperature ( ̊F)* Standiford Field A --- --- MCC 1 hour 01/01/96–02/25/98

Air temperature ( ̊F) Bowman Field B --- --- MCC 1 day 01/01/96–12/16/98

Dew point

temperature ( ̊F)

Standiford Field A --- --- MCC 1 hour 01/01/96–02/25/98

Dew point

temperature ( ̊F)

Bowman Field B --- --- MCC 1 day 01/01/96–12/16/98

Wind speed

(mile per hour)

 Standiford Field A --- --- MCC 1 hour 01/01/96–02/25/98

Wind speed

(mile per hour)

 Bowman Field B --- --- MCC 1 day 01/01/96–12/16/98

Solar radiation

(Langleys)

Standiford Field A --- --- MCC 1 day 01/01/96–02/25/98

Solar radiation

(Langleys)

Bowman Field B --- --- MCC 1 day 01/01/96–12/16/98

Cloud cover (tenths

of sky)

Standiford Field A --- --- NOAA variable

hourly

01/01/96–02/25/98

a

U.S. Geological Survey (National Water Information System, electronic data)

b

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (Rainfall Database, electronic data)

c

National Weather Service (local forecast office, Louisville, Ky., electronic data)

d

Midwestern Climate Center (Illinois State Water Survey, Champaigne, Ill., electronic data)

e

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, N.C., electronic data)

f

Shown on figure 9

Table 5. Time-series data compiled for hydrologic analysis and calibration of the model for Chenoweth Run

Basin—Continued

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; ft3/sec, cubic feet per second; ---, not applicable; *, indicates data used for model input; WWTP, wastewater

treatment plant; in., inches; NWS, National Weather Service;  ̊C, degrees Celsius; μS/cm, microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius; mg/

Site identifier

Data type

(units) Location Figure 2 Figure 3

USGS station

number Source

Time

step Period of record
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

Instrumentation and Equipment

The two streamflow-gaging stations

(sites 401 and 16, fig. 7) consisted of water-stagerecording devices that provided continuous stage

(5-minute interval) records for use in computation

of continuous discharge. Water-quality monitors at

each streamflow-gaging station provided

continuous (30-minute interval) records of water

temperature, pH, specific conductance, and

dissolved-oxygen concentration. Water-quality

samples were collected by use of standard, manual,

depth-integrating, isokinetic-nozzled samplers

(Edwards and Glysson, 1988; Ward and Harr, 1990)

and also by use of automatic, battery-poweredpump samplers equipped with 24 plastic 1-liter

bottles. Water samples were composited and split

into subsamples for laboratory analysis by use of a

plastic churn splitter. The USGS-operated rainfall

gages were the tipping-bucket type with a

50-in2 opening, the cumulative depth of which was

recorded at 5-minute intervals by a digital data

logger.

Sampling Procedures

Most of the historical water-quality samples

were collected by use of cross-sectionally integrated

sampling procedures. These procedures, originally

developed for obtaining representative suspendedsediment samples (Guy and Norman, 1970;

Edwards and Glysson, 1988; Ward and Harr, 1990;

Shelton, 1994), provided an isokinetic, dischargeweighted, composite sample. Specifically, the

equal-width-increment, equal-transit-rate

(EWI/ETR) sampling procedure was used. The

sampler, oriented parallel to the flow direction, was

lowered from the water surface to the streambed at a

series of sampling positions (“verticals”) that were

equally spaced across the sampling section. The

sampler was lowered and raised at the same vertical

transit rate in each sampling vertical. Because the

volume of water collected at each vertical was

proportional to the stream velocity at each vertical,

and thus, to the flow within each width increment, a

flow-proportioned, composite sample of the stream

cross section was obtained by use of this procedure.

The composite samples were subsampled for

laboratory analyses by use of a plastic churn splitter.

Most of the storm samples collected durin

1996–97 for this study, however, were collected 

use of portable automatic samplers. Use of

automatic samplers was necessitated by the

logistical difficulties of collecting the series of

samples in a small, urbanized basin where discha

during storms was rapidly changing. Sampling a

multiple sites during a given storm was also

planned. Many of the storms sampled began in l

afternoon and continued throughout the night.

The automatic samplers were deployed

in advance of forecasted storms. Samples were

pumped from the stream through a

3/8-in.-internal-diameter vinyl tube secured to a

2-in.-diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe

mounted to a bridge abutment or pier at the

sampling site. The sampling tube extended from

just above the pre-storm water-surface elevation 

the ice-filled automatic sampler that was general

placed at the roadway level along the bridge raili

The samplers were programmed to fill four sets 

six 1-liter bottles—one set of six bottles for each

discrete sample collected at a given time. The

sample sets were pumped automatically at

preprogrammed intervals following activation of 

sampler by a rise of the stream. The total stormrunoff durations, and consequently the sampling

period durations (3, 6, 9, 12, or 15 hours), were

projected on the basis of the latest weather foreca

at the time the samplers were deployed. The

samplers were programmed to pump the sample

more frequently in the early periods of a storm

when concentrations of nonpoint-source

constituents are often higher than in later periods 

a storm. Ideally, there were four individual, discr

sample sets of 6 liters each collected during each

sampled storm. The discrete sample sets (six 1-l

bottles) were composited and subsampled for

laboratory analyses by use of a plastic churn spli

In 1996–97, there were 24 storm-samplin

occasions at the 4 sites, and 79 discrete samples

were collected, which was an average of

3.3 samples per storm. One cross-sectionally

integrated, low-flow sample was collected annua

in September at each of the four sites, for a total 

eight low-flow samples.

Point samples, such as those pumped by

automatic samplers, are often not fully

representative of actual instream water quality,

particularly for sediment-associated constituents
24 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

(Martin and others, 1992). A cross-sectionally

integrated stream-sampling procedure provides a

representative sample of sediment-associated

constituents. To assess the representativeness of the

point samples, several paired point and crosssectionally integrated samples were collected for

comparison. (See “Quality-Assurance Data.”)

Laboratory Data

Laboratory analysis of water constituents

(table 3), except for selected quality-assurance

samples, was provided by the MSD lab. These

samples were analyzed by use of methods approved

by the USEPA (table 6).

Quality-Assurance Data

Quality-assurance data collected with the

field data during the study included equipment

blanks (rinses), split samples, and concurrent

(paired) sampling replicates. Additional qualityassurance data were collected in association with

evaluations of the MSD lab performance.

Equipment blanks, which were made from

de-ionized water and inorganic-free blank water,

were collected to assess potential contamination

introduced during sample collection and processing.

It appears some possible minor low-level

contamination was introduced for selected N and

P species and calcium, barium, copper, iron, zinc,

and magnesium (Appendix 1, coded as station

03123499).

Two split samples were drawn from one

storm sample (March 19, 1996, at 1005 at site 401)

for suspended-sediment analysis by USGS methods

for comparison to the suspended-solids

concentration from the MSD lab. Suspendedsediment concentrations of the split samples were

378 and 401 mg/L, compared to a suspended-solids

concentration of 380 mg/L determined by the MSD

lab. The USGS suspended-sediment concentrations

differed from the MSD suspended-solids

concentration by 0.5 and 5.5 percent, respectively.

Both split samples were 99.6 percent by weight in

the <62 micrometer particle-size fraction. Thus, the

total suspended-solids data collected in this basin

were considered essentially equivalent to

suspended-sediment data as defined by USGS

methods.

Split samples were drawn on two occasions

(September 26, 1996, at 1205 at site 16 and

September 16, 1997, at 1155 at site 16) for

comparison of results for nitrogen and phosphorus

species at the MSD lab and the USGS lab. Results

for total ammonia nitrogen plus organic nitrogen

were 0.66 and 0.68 mg/L, respectively, at the MSD

lab. Results were 0.70 and 0.63 mg/L, respectively,

at the USGS lab. Thus, the results for total ammonia

nitrogen plus organic nitrogen differed by 5.7 and

7.9 percent, respectively, and the mean difference

was 6.8 percent. Results for total phosphorus were

2.0 and 1.6 mg/L, respectively, on the two sampling

dates at the MSD lab. Results for total phosphorus

were 1.8 and 1.54 mg/L, respectively, at the USGS

lab. Thus, the results for total phosphorus differed

by 11.1 and 3.9 percent, respectively, and the mean

difference was 7.5 percent.

The MSD lab was approved by the USEPA

for routine wastewater analyses including BOD and

COD. The MSD lab also has participated in the

USGS Standard Reference Water Sample Program,

which includes approximately 150 labs nationwide.

Results for MSD laboratory analyses for selected

constituents were approved for use in USGS

interpretive studies (Ruhl and Jarrett, 1999). Review

of historical MSD lab data indicated that

determinations for phosphorus species prior to 1991

may not be accurate (Patti Grace-Jarrett, Louisville

and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District,

oral commun., 1998). These early phosphorus data

collected prior to 1991 were, therefore, not used in

this study.

To assess the representativeness of the point

samples collected by use of the automatic samplers,

seven paired (concurrent replicate) point and crosssectionally integrated samples were collected for

comparison (Appendix 2). Comparisons indicated

that the automatic samples underrepresented the

total suspended-solids concentrations. The mean

difference was 17 percent. Consistent differences

were not observed for other sediment-associated

constituents, such as total phosphorus. For load

estimates, the total suspended-solids concentrations

for samples collected by use of the automatic

samplers were increased by 17 percent to

compensate for this apparent bias.
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

Table 6. Methods used by the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District laboratory for analysis o

water-quality samples collected in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1988–98

[USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ---, not available; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Constituent or property (units) Method

USEPA

method

number

Reportin

level

pH and alkalinity:

pH Electrometric, glass electrode 150.1 0.1

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) Electrometric titration to pH 4.5 310.1 1

Dissolved solids and related water-quality

constituents and characteristics:

Dissolved solids (mg/L) Residue on evaporation at 105 degrees Celsius,

dissolved, gravimetric

160.3 .5

Specific conductance, in microsiemens per

centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius

Wheatstone bridge 120.1 10

Calcium, total (mg/L as Ca) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 .01

Magnesium, total (mg/L as Mg) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 .01

Hardness, total (mg/L as CaCO3) Calculation 200.7 ---

Suspended solids:

Suspended solids (mg/L) Residue on evaporation at 105 degrees Celsius,

suspended, gravimetric

160.2 1

Residue, volatile nonfilterable (mg/L) Volatile-on-ignition, suspended, gravimetric 160.4 1

Major metals, trace elements, and miscellaneous

inorganic compounds:

Arsenic, total (μg/l as As) Digestion, graphite furnace, atomic absorption 206.2 5

Barium, total (μg/L as Ba) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 1

Beryllium, total, (μg/L as Be) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 .5

Cadmium, total (μg/L as Cd) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 2

Chromium, total (μg/L as Cr) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 3

Copper, total (μg/L as Cu) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma

200.7 2

Iron, total (μg/L as Fe) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 5
26 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Major metals, trace elements, and miscellaneous

inorganic compounds—continued:

Lead, total (μg/L as Pb) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 20

Mercury, total recoverable (μg/L as Hg) Atomic absorption spectrometric, flameless 245.1 .2

Nickel, total (μg/L as Ni) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 5

Selenium, total (μg/L as Se) Digestion, graphite furnace, atomic absorption 270.2 5

Silver, total (μg/L as Ag) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 6

Zinc, total (μg/L as Zn) Atomic emission spectrometric, inductioncoupled argon plasma200.7 5

Cyanide, total (μg/L as CN) Colorimetric, barbituric acid 335.2 4

Nutrients:

Nitrogen, ammonia, total (mg/L as N) Electrometric, ion-selective electrode 350.3 .01

Nitrogen, nitrate, total (mg/L as N) Cadmium reduction 353.2 .03

Nitrogen, nitrite, total (mg/L as N) Colorimetric, diazotization, automated 354.1 .002

Nitrogen, organic plus ammonia

(mg/L as N)

Titrimetric, digestion-distillation, electrode 351.3 .03

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) Colorimetric, phosphomolybdate 365.2 .003

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, total

(mg/L as P)

Colorimetric, phosphomolybdate 365.2 .003

Dissolved solids and oxygen demand:

Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) Winkler 360.2 ---

Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L) Dissolved oxygen depletion, 5-day at

20 degrees Celsius

405.1 2

Chemical oxygen demand (mg/L) Titrimetric, 0.25 N dichromate oxidation 410.1 2

Fecal-indicator bacteria:

Coliform, fecal (colonies per

100 milliliters)

Membrane filtered, M-FC medium at

44.5 degrees Celsius

None 1

Streptococci, fecal (colonies per

100 milliliters)

Membrane filtered, KF agar at

35 degrees Celsius

None 1

Table 6. Methods used by the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District laboratory for analysis of

water-quality samples collected in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1988–98—Continued

[USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; mg/L, milligrams per liter; ---, not available; μg/L, micrograms per liter]

Constituent or property (units) Method

USEPA

method

number

Reporting

level
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

Ancillary Hydrologic Data

Wastewater-treatment-plant effluent

discharge and quality data were obtained from

MSD. Some of these data were available only at

large time steps (daily and monthly), and data were

sometimes unavailable for selected portions of the

study period. Unavailable values of time series’

needed for basin characterization and modeling

were estimated by interpolation or regression based

on available data or by use of literature values

reported for similar facilities.

Meteorological Data

Several meteorological time series’ (table 5)

were acquired. Rainfall data were collected by the

USGS and MSD; these data were screened

extensively to eliminate any periods of record when

a gage may have been plugged or otherwise

inoperable. Representative meteorological data for

the basin were obtained from the National Weather

Service, the National Climatic Data Center, and the

Midwestern Climate Center. Missing values of

selected time series’ were estimated by

interpolation or averaging procedures. The USGS

METCMP program (Alan Lumb, U.S. Geological

Survey, written commun., 1995) was used to

estimate daily pan evaporation during winter

periods by use of the Penman (1948) equation and

also to disaggregate daily pan evaporation to hourly

values.

Geographical Data

Detailed geographical data for the basin were

obtained from the Louisville and Jefferson County

Information Consortium (LOJIC) in 1996. The

LOJIC data were originally digitized from

1:100-scale aerial imagery. The LOJIC data

included coverages for streams, water bodies, land

uses, roads, buildings, parking lots, tree canopy,

2-ft-interval elevation contours, digital elevation

data, and soils. The LOJIC coverages were

supplemented with USGS 1:250,000-scale

Geographic Information Retrieval and Analysis

System (GIRAS) (Mitchell and others, 1977) landcover data that was used to identify crop, pasture

and forest land in the basin. Where significant

changes in land use had made portions of the lan

use covers obsolete (the Southeast Christian Chu

property and the Saratoga Woods residential

development), recent imagery (spring 1997)

showing the new developments was obtained fro

LOJIC for digitizing and updating the coverages 

for later use in adjustment of the HSPF model

elements.

The geographical data were prepared and

analyzed by use of ARC/INFO and

ARC/INFO-GRID (Environmental Systems

Research Institute, 1991 and 1992). Vector data a

arc polygons were converted into raster-based,

“gridded” data (cell size of 13.1 ft by 13.1 ft or 4 

by 4 m) for the purpose of efficiently combining 

intersecting hydrologically pertinent coverages.

A gridded digital elevation model (DEM) w

developed by use of TOPOGRID (Hutchinson a

Dowling, 1991). The DEM was subsequently us

to develop a continuous land-slope grid coverage 

the basin and also to delineate drainage-area

boundaries for the numerous ponds and small la

in the basin.

Extensive processing of some of the initia

coverages, such as the stream and impervious-ar

features, was required before the coverages were 

a form suitable for use in hydrological modeling

The stream cover was edited to make it continuo

and “flowing” downstream. Several of the origin

LOJIC coverages having hydrological significan

such as the roads, buildings, parking lots, and tre

canopy, were line coverages (vector data) from

which areal information could not initially be

determined. The LOJIC road coverage, for examp

represented the road center lines. To estimate ro

areas, this coverage, in gridded form, was

“expanded” in width on the basis of road class

(residential, collector, arterial, etc.).

The LOJIC coverages for buildings, parki

lots, and tree canopy were sets of unconnected

vectors (arcs) defining the perimeters, or outer

boundaries of these features. A detailed impervio

area polygon cover was formed by combining an

editing the building, parking-lot, and road

coverages. Closed polygons of these three

impervious covers were formed by extending arc

containing disconnected, “dangle” nodes (end

points) and (or) by eliminating short, disconnect
28 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

dangle arcs. Most of the expanded road boundaries

were narrowed to intersect, and thus, eliminate

many dangle nodes at parking-lot entrances. The

impervious-area polygons retained attributes

describing the impervious type (building, parking

lot, and road). The tree-canopy-perimeter coverage

was similarly processed to closed polygons.

Selected combinations of the 7 LOJIC landuse classes, 3 LOJIC impervious classes, and

2 GIRAS land-cover classes (table 7) were

combined manually in a series of steps to create a

gridded land-use/land-cover coverage of 13 basic

classes (table 8). The GIRAS pasture/crop and

forest areas were added to the LOJIC land-use cover

where each area overlaid, or intersected, the LOJIC

vacant/undeveloped and park/open-space land-use

categories only. Also, a buffer area, approximately

50 ft (15 m) in width, was defined around buildings

in the single-family-residential and commercial/

industrial/multifamily-residential land-use

categories only. This buffer was assumed to define

the areal extent of disturbed soils within these landuse categories. The gridded land-use/land-cover

coverage contained seven pervious classes and six

impervious classes as listed in table 8.

A gridded soils coverage was also developed

directly from the soils coverage provided by LOJIC,

which had been digitized from the Jefferson County

Soil Survey (Zimmerman and others, 1966). The

gridded soils, land-use/land-cover, and land-slope

coverages were further processed (classified) and

combined by use of an Arc Macro Language

(AML) program (hru.aml in Appendix 3) to define

key HSPF-model elements, and the hydrologic

response units (HRU). See “Model Development”

for a description of this process.

Statistical, Mathematical, and

Graphical Analysis

Several statistical, mathematical, and

graphical methods were used to analyze data for

this study. Graphical displays were used to analyze

differences among data sets and to describe

relations between variables. Graphical displays

included hydrographs, scatterplots, and duration

curves. The results for statistical analyses included

estimates of associated errors. The HSPF model of

the basin combines and integrates the available

information to simulate hypothesized functional

relations among the variables.

Descriptive Statistics

Water-quality data were described in terms of

percentiles and extreme values during

January 1991–December 1997. Discharge data

during February 1996–January 1998 were presented

as flow-duration curves, which display the daily

mean discharge in terms of the percentage of time a

given discharge was equaled or exceeded during the

period.

Estimated Missing Values

 Missing values of various meteorological

data, water-quality constituent concentrations, and

WWTP discharges were estimated by interpolation

between available data or by use of ordinary leastsquares regressions.

Box Plots

The distributions of selected water-quality

constituents were displayed and compared by use of

box plots (Tukey, 1977), which depict the median,

interquartile range, and extreme values. A box plot

is constructed by drawing a box from the

25th percentile to the 75th percentile; thus, the box

length is the interquartile range. A line is drawn

across the box at the median. Lines (whiskers) are

drawn from the boxes to the ‘adjacent’ values. The

upper adjacent value is the largest data value less

than or equal to the upper quartile plus 1.5 times the

interquartile range. The lower adjacent value is the

smallest data value greater than or equal to the

lower quartile minus 1.5 times the interquartile

range. Values beyond the adjacent values are plotted

individually. Values from 1.5 to 3 times the

interquartile range (outside values) are plotted as an

asterisk. Values more extreme than 3 times the

interquartile range (far outside values) are plotted as

a circle.
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

Table 7. Initially designated land-use and land-cover classes in the Chenoweth Run Basin

[LOJIC, Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium; GIRAS, Geographic Information

Retrieval and Analysis System]

Class Description

LOJIC land uses

1 Single-family residential

2 Multi-family residential

3 Commercial

4 Industrial

5 Public/semi-public

6 Parks/open space

9 Vacant/undeveloped

LOJIC impervious areas

1 Roads

2 Buildings

3 Parking lots

GIRAS land covers

1 Pasture/crop

2 Forest

Table 8. Combined land-use/land-cover classes in the Chenoweth Run Basin

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey]

Classa

Remapped

USGS

classb Description

Pervious areas

10 1 Pasture/crop

11 2 Forest

12 3 Disturbed soils; single-family residential

13 4 Disturbed soils; commercial, industrial, multi-family residential

14 5c Open; single-family residential, public/semi-public, parks/open space

15 5 Open; commercial, industrial, multi-family residential

16 6 Open; vacant, undeveloped

Impervious areas

21 7 Roads; commercial, industrial, multi-family residential

23 7 Buildings; commercial, industrial, multi-family residential

24 7 Parking lots; commercial, industrial, multi-family residential

25 7 Roads; single-family residential, public/semi-public, parks/open space, vacant undeveloped

26 7 Buildings; single-family residential, public/semi-public, parks/open space, vacant undeveloped

27 7 Parking lots; single-family residential, public/semi-public, parks/open space, vacant undevelop

a

Intermediate USGS classes of gridded coverages combined from separate land-use/land-cover classes shown in table 7 formed the inp

grid for the Arc Macro Language program (hru.aml, Appendix 3). bRemapped classes define combined land-use/land cover classes for the hydrologic response units.

c

For example, class 5, open (grass-covered) space outside the hypothetical zone of disturbed soils, were classified the same in

single-family, multi-family, commercial, industrial, and residential areas (developed uses).
30 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Loads and Yields

Loads (mass) and yields (mass per unit

drainage area) of total suspended solids, total

phosphorus, and total orthophosphate were

estimated. Constituent loads discharged from

WWTP’s were estimated as daily mean constituent

concentration multiplied by the daily mean

discharge. Long-term instream loads were

estimated by use of ESTIMATOR, a statistical,

‘rating-curve’ model that uses multiple regression

to relate logarithms of constituent concentration to

logarithms of daily mean discharge and, optionally,

other explanatory variables that are available

continuously (Cohn and others, 1992a; Cohn and

others, 1992b). The regression relation was used to

estimate constituent concentration at times when it

was unknown. Daily constituent loads are estimated

by multiplying estimated daily concentration times

daily mean discharge; monthly and annual loads are

summed from these daily loads. Instructions for the

use of ESTIMATOR (G. Baier, T. Cohn, and

E. Gilroy, U.S. Geological Survey, written

commun., 1995) described details. Storm loads

were estimated as the summation of the incremental

storm runoff volumes times the representative

constituent concentration during the incremental

time period.

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF

HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS

The available hydrologic data for the

Chenoweth Run Basin were compiled, reviewed,

and analyzed for improved understanding of basin

hydrologic conditions and for development of

modeling approaches and components.

Precipitation, potential evapotranspiration,

wastewater effluents, streamflow, and constituent

concentrations, loads, and yields were

characterized.

Precipitation

Most of the precipitation during the datacollection period was rainfall. Measurable snow

totaling 26.3 in. fell in 22 days at the NWS office

(fig. 2) during February 1996–January 1998. Thus,

snowfall accounted for approximately 2 percent of

total precipitation at this location during the datacollection period.

Errors in measurement of rainfall are often

the major source of error in rainfall-runoff

modeling. Rainfall measurement error can arise

from mechanical deficiencies in the rain gage, poor

rainfall capture by the gage, and spatial variability

of rainfall over a basin.

Two rain gages were operated in the basin

during the data-collection period: RG28a operated

by the USGS at the streamflow-gaging station at

Ruckriegel Parkway (site 403) and RG35 operated

by MSD on a building at the Jeffersontown WWTP,

about 500 ft from site 401 (fig. 7). Nearby rain

gages surrounding the basin included RG8, RG11,

RG15, and RG17 (figs. 2 and 8; table 5). On the

basis of Thiessen polygons (fig. 8), rain gage

RG28a provides from 80 to 93 percent coverage of

the basin (table 9), depending upon the point of

interest on the main channel. Continuous

streamflow data were available at the Ruckriegel

Parkway and Gelhaus Lane sites only. Thus, RG28a

provided coverage of 85 and 93 percent,

respectively, of the basin drainage area considering

these two streamflow-gaging stations where model

calibration data were available.

Monthly, quarterly, and annual rainfall totals

and totals for the model calibration period

(February 1996–January 1998) were computed

(table 10). A short period of missing data at RG28a

(part of a day) was estimated using data from RG35.

Faulty or missing data at the rain gages surrounding

the basin were substituted with data from RG28a.

The standard deviation, mean, and coefficient of

variation (CV, standard deviation divided by the

mean) for the totals at RG8, RG11, RG15, RG17

and RG28a were also computed. The largest

variability among the monthly totals at these rain

gages occurred in the spring and summer periods

(April-September). Quarterly, annual, and periodof-record totals were approximately equal at these

rain gages in or near the basin.
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

Table 9. Percentage areal coverages of the basin by the rain gages based on Thiessen polygons at selected

locations in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; RG, rain gage; %, percent; --, not applicable]

Site

identifier

(figure 7)

USGS

station

number Location

Drainage

area

(acre)

Coverages by rain gages

RG 8

(%)

RG 11

(%)

RG 15

(%)

RG 17

(%)

RG 28

(%)

401 03298135 Chenoweth Run at

Ruckriegel Parkway

at Jeffersontown

3,445 0.3 14.3 -- -- 85.4

16 03298150 Chenoweth Run at

Gelhaus Lane

7,327 .1 6.7 -- -- 93.2

403 03298160 Chenoweth Run at

Seatonville Road

10,580 .1 4.6 3.9 11.4 80.0

Figure 8. Rain-gage locations and the Thiessen

polygons used to assess areal rainfall distribution in

and near the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson

County, Kentucky.

RG11

RG8

RG17

RG15

RG28a

Basin

boundary
32 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 10. Statistical summary of the rainfall data collected at selected locations in and near the Chenoweth Run

Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[RG, rain gage; in., inch; NWS, National Weather Service; SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation (SD/mean)]

Rain gage

(see figure 8 and table 5)

Statistics

(columns 2-6)

Year/month

RG28a

(in.)

RG8

(in.)

RG11

(in.)

RG15

(in.)

RG17

(in.)

RG35

(in.)

Standiford

Field

(in.)

NWS

office

(in.)

SD

(in.)

Mean

(in.) CV

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)

1996/02 2.38 2.24 2.18 2.02 3.14 2.36 2.03 2.99 0.438 2.39 0.183

1996/03 5.58 5.5 4.98 5.75 5.66 5.36 4.99 6.54 .302 5.49 .055

Quarterly subtotals: 7.96 7.74 7.16 7.77 8.8 7.72 7.02 9.53 .592 7.88 .075

1996/04 6.22 6.32 6.29 5.04 5.45 6.41 5.65 6.37 .584 5.86 .100

1996/05 10.77 10.92 9.64 9.11 11.32 11.25 9.18 10.98 .933 10.35 .090

1996/06 4.35 3.82 4.53 5.76 4.91 4.25 3.84 5.21 .723 4.67 .155

Quarterly subtotals: 21.34 21.06 20.46 19.91 21.68 21.91 18.67 22.56 .707 20.89 .034

1996/07 5.07 4.88 6.16 5.71 6.69 5.51 2.86 5.11 .752 5.70 .132

1996/08 1.72 2.68 1.01 3.16 2.17 1.85 1.31 2.97 .835 2.15 .389

1996/09 5.64 6.46 6.43 5.64 6.00 6.00 5.66 6.55 .403 6.03 .067

Quarterly subtotals: 12.43 14.02 13.6 14.51 14.86 13.36 9.83 14.63 .943 13.88 .068

1996/10 2.42 2.15 2.17 2.37 2.54 2.6 2.59 2.42 .167 2.33 .072

1996/11 3.74 3.83 3.62 3.61 3.59 4.35 3.35 3.8 .103 3.68 .028

1996/12 5.04 5.24 4.94 5.11 5.51 4.89 4.56 5.47 .220 5.17 .043

Quarterly subtotals: 11.2 11.22 10.73 11.09 11.64 11.84 10.50 11.69 .326 11.18 .029

1997/01 3.88 3.54 3.71 3.95 4.36 4.16 3.35 3.57 .308 3.89 .079

1997/02 3.31 3.37 3.04 3.78 3.76 3.9 3.39 3.75 .316 3.45 .092

1997/03 13.15 12.9 12.99 14.17 16.83 13.33 12.58 17.52 1.658 14.01 .118

Quarterly subtotals: 20.34 19.81 19.74 21.9 24.95 21.39 19.32 24.84 2.194 21.35 .103

1997/04 2.00 1.90 2.00 1.93 2.23 2.13 2.01 2.23 .129 2.01 .064

1997/05 5.23 4.66 6.42 5.24 5.54 5.68 6.01 6.99 .644 5.42 .119

1997/06 9.82 9.70 7.65 10.31 8.14 10.57 8.11 8.15 1.158 9.12 .127

Quarterly subtotals: 17.05 16.26 16.07 17.48 15.91 18.38 16.13 17.37 .678 16.55 .041

1997/07 .68 1.05 1.93 .47 .14 .71 1.74 1.51 .686 .85 .804

1997/08 3.33 1.52 3.98 5.31 5.36 3.52 3.70 4.31 1.590 3.90 .408

1997/09 4.22 4.28 3.28 1.45 2.64 4.52 1.28 2.25 1.182 3.17 .372

Quarterly subtotals: 8.23 6.85 9.19 7.23 8.14 8.75 6.72 8.07 .919 7.93 .116

1997/10 1.35 1.57 1.61 1.6 1.45 1.46 1.41 1.43 .113 1.52 .074

1997/11 3.67 4.11 4.03 4.23 4.08 3.31 3.63 4.34 .211 4.02 .052

1997/12 2.75 2.75 2.88 2.81 2.59 3.19 2.50 3.32 .107 2.76 .039

Quarterly subtotals: 7.77 8.43 8.52 8.64 8.12 7.96 7.54 9.09 .351 8.30 .042

1998/01 3.82 3.79 4.04 3.94 4.13 4.3 2.88 4.68 .144 3.94 .037

Annual subtotal,

02/1996–01/1997:

56.81 57.58 55.66 57.23 61.34 58.99 49.37 61.98 2.147 57.72 .037

Annual subtotal,

02/1997–01/1998:

53.33 51.60 53.85 55.24 56.89 56.62 49.24 60.48 1.997 54.18 .037

Grand total,

02/1996–01/1998:

110.14 109.18 109.51 112.47 118.23 115.61 98.61 122.46 3.762 111.91 .034
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

Totals for the rain gage at the Standiford Field

airport (about 10 mi west of the basin, fig. 2) tended

to be lower than the totals at RG8, RG11, RG15,

RG17, and RG28a. Totals for the NWS office in the

southern part of the county (fig. 2) tended to be

higher than totals measured near the basin. (The

NWS office had a standard rain gage, whereas all

others were tipping-bucket rain gages.) The normal

annual precipitation (the mean for 1961–90) at

Standiford Field was reported as 44.39 in. (National

Climatic Data Center, 2000). The annual mean of

the 24-month total rainfall at Standiford Field

during the model calibration period exceeded the

normal mean by 11 percent (table 10). Similarly, the

wetter-than-normal conditions prevailed in the

Chenoweth Run Basin during the model calibration

period; mean-annual rainfall during the period was

55.07 in., approximately 11 in. above the long-term

normal annual precipitation reported for Standiford

Field. Calender year 1996 was reported as the

wettest on record for Louisville, Ky., by the NWS

(63.76 in. at the NWS office in southern Jefferson

County, fig. 2).

Seventy-nine storms exceeding 0.4 in. at

RG28a were identified (table 11). The standard

deviation, mean, and CV (coefficient of variation)

of the total storm rainfalls were computed; missing

storm data are shown as dashes. CV had a median

of 0.16 and mean of approximately 0.25. The spring

and summer storms had the largest areal variability

in rainfall. A CV value of less than or equal to 0.25

was used to classify the storms that had reasonably

uniform areal distributions of rainfall. CV was less

than or equal to 0.25 for 52 of these 79 storms.

Review of temperature and snowfall records

indicated that storm 5 occurred as rain, changing to

snow, and storm 44 may have occurred on frozen

ground, since the preceding overnight temperature

was 15 ̊F. Thus, 50 rain storms were classified as

uniform in areal distribution (excluding storms 5

and 44). The other 27 storms, which occurred

mostly in spring and summer, were considered to

have nonuniform areal distribution of rainfall.

The 50 storms classified as uniform were

selected for use in model calibration and

verification for the peak-flow periods. A splitsample approach was used to select the storms for

model calibration: the 25 “odd” alternate storms

(1, 3, 5...) taken in chronological order were

selected as the model calibration storms and the

other 25 “even” alternate storms (2, 4, 6...) were

selected as the verification storms (table 11). Th

model calibration and verification storm sets we

compared in terms of rainfall depth, average and

maximum storm intensity, and antecedent 7-day

rainfall. No statistically significant differences

between the model calibration and verification

storms were observed.

One of the model calibration storms

(number 47) spanned the wettest day on record

for the NWS in Louisville, Ky.—March 1,

1997—when 10.48 in. of rain fell at the NWS of

in southern Jefferson County. Widespread floodi

with loss of life occurred in Kentucky during thi

period; one drowning death occurred in Chenow

Run Basin during the flood that resulted from th

storm.

The continuous 5-minute and hourly rainf

time series at RG28a only were used for model

simulations. The 5-minute simulation was used 

comparison of observed and simulated storm

volumes and peaks. The hourly simulation was u

for comparison of hourly, daily, monthly, annual

and total flows and for calibration of suspended

sediment and total orthophosphate transport.

Potential Evapotranspiration

Potential evapotranspiration (PET) for the

model calibration period was estimated by use o

available regional daily pan-evaporation data for 

growing season (fig. 9 and table 5). Daily pan

evaporation was estimated for the winter period 

use of the Penman (1948) equation and daily

meteorological data at Bowman Field (fig. 2 and

table 5). The daily pan evaporation was

disaggregated to hourly values by use of the US

METCMP program. PET was estimated as

0.77 times the hourly disaggregated panevaporation values, based on data presented by

Kohler and others (1959). Total estimated PET f

the February 1996–January 1998 model calibrat

period was 70.30 in.—an annual mean of 35.15 

which was below normal.
34 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 11. Statistical summary of storm rainfall at selected locations in and near the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson

County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[RG, rain gage; in., inch; SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation (SD/mean); --, not available]

Storm

Start

date

End

date

Rain gage

(see figure 8 and table 9) Statistics

RG8

(in.)

RG11

(in.)

RG15

(in.)

RG17

(in.)

RG28a

(in.)

SD

(in.)

Mean

(in.) CV

a

1 02/19/96 02/20/96 1.11 1.10 1.14 1.11 1.17 0.028 1.126 0.025

2 02/27/96 02/28/96 .50 .41 .45 1.40 .68 .411 .688 .598

b

3 03/05/96 03/07/96 1.25 .95 1.67 1.43 1.35 .263 1.330 .198

a

4 03/15/96 03/15/96 1.11 .93 .97 .83 .95 .101 .958 .105

c

5 03/19/96 03/20/96 1.41 1.34 1.47 1.50 1.25 .101 1.394 .073

b

6 03/31/96 04/02/96 1.11 1.07 1.11 .86 .86 .132 1.001 .132

a

7 04/13/96 04/13/96 .64 .65 .55 .47 .50 .081 .562 .144

b

8 04/20/96 04/20/96 1.15 1.04 1.26 1.11 .97 .110 1.106 .100

a

9 04/22/96 04/24/96 1.09 1.42 1.19 1.15 1.70 .251 1.310 .192

10 04/28/96 04/30/96 1.97 1.79 .63 1.45 1.69 .524 1.506 .348

11 05/03/96 05/04/96 .93 .36 .30 -- 1.23 .449 .704 .638

12 05/05/96 05/06/96 -- .54 .88 -- 1.33 .396 .917 .432

b13 05/08/96 05/08/96 -- 1.00 .74 -- .61 .199 .783 .255

14 05/10/96 05/11/96 -- 2.66 1.12 -- 1.33 .835 1.703 .490

a

15 05/14/96 05/16/96 -- .90 .75 -- 1.02 .134 .889 .150

16 05/26/96 05/26/96 -- 1.18 2.40 -- 1.53 .628 1.703 .369

17 05/27/96 05/27/96 -- 1.31 .62 -- 1.29 .393 1.073 .366

18 05/28/96 05/29/96 -- 1.13 1.48 -- 2.02 .448 1.543 .291

b

19 06/02/96 06/02/96 -- .54 .56 -- .53 .014 .544 .027

20 06/06/96 06/07/96 .39 .61 1.28 1.16 .61 .387 .810 .479

21 06/08/96 06/09/96 1.01 1.30 2.39 1.86 1.22 .563 1.555 .362

22 06/10/96 06/11/96 1.23 1.03 .33 .76 .92 .339 .854 .397

23 07/02/96 07/03/96 .90 .62 .40 1.47 1.00 .406 .878 .463

24 07/07/96 07/08/96 .42 1.18 1.04 1.53 .69 .431 .972 .444

a

25 07/14/96 07/15/96 -- 1.94 1.63 1.77 1.61 .154 1.736 .089

26 07/21/96 07/21/96 -- .42 1.20 .68 .56 .340 .715 .476

27 07/29/96 07/29/96 -- 1.07 .01 .30 .62 .454 .499 .909

28 08/08/96 08/08/96 .62 .14 1.32 1.42 .51 .549 .803 .684

29 08/21/96 08/21/96 .56 .00 .00 .23 .67 .310 .291 1.067

b

30 09/09/96 09/09/96 .95 .50 .70 .90 .87 .184 .784 .235

a

31 09/15/96 09/16/96 1.43 1.58 1.56 1.56 1.25 .140 1.476 .095

b

32 09/21/96 09/21/96 .63 .64 .56 .65 .66 .039 .627 .062

a

33 09/27/96 09/29/96 2.72 2.43 2.39 2.60 2.28 .175 2.484 .070

b

34 10/17/96 10/18/96 1.09 1.02 1.11 1.29 1.23 .109 1.147 .095

a

35 11/07/96 11/09/96 .61 .65 .78 .91 .76 .118 .742 .159

b

36 11/25/96 11/26/96 1.31 1.12 1.02 .83 1.05 .174 1.065 .163

a

37 11/29/96 12/01/96 1.35 1.32 1.25 1.29 1.33 .039 1.308 .030

b

38 12/12/96 12/12/96 -- 1.00 1.02 1.19 .96 .102 1.042 .097

a

39 12/16/96 12/18/96 -- 1.92 1.98 2.13 1.88 .110 1.978 .055

b

40 12/23/96 12/24/96 -- 1.14 1.46 1.35 1.26 .136 1.303 .104

a

41 01/04/97 01/06/97 -- .61 .61 .60 .55 .028 .593 .048

42 01/22/97 01/23/97 .45 .40 .57 .69 .86 .185 .593 .311

b

43 01/24/97 01/25/97 .64 .66 .89 .92 .66 .139 .753 .185
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

c

44 01/27/97 01/29/97 1.44 1.53 1.38 1.61 1.33 0.113 1.458 0.078

a

45 02/03/97 02/05/97 1.14 1.16 1.71 1.36 1.24 .234 1.321 .177

b

46 02/26/97 02/26/97 .43 .46 .41 .49 .48 .033 .453 .072

a

47 02/28/97 03/02/97 8.48 8.40 8.85 11.47 8.78 1.286 9.196 .140

b48 03/03/97 03/04/97 .86 .82 .99 1.19 .85 .154 .941 .164

a

49 03/09/97 03/11/97 .47 .41 .55 .53 .46 .057 .483 .118

b

50 03/13/97 03/15/97 .51 .48 .49 .51 .42 .038 .482 .079

a

51 03/18/97 03/19/97 1.95 1.75 2.22 2.31 1.93 .229 2.032 .113

b

52 03/25/97 03/26/97 .52 .59 .69 .76 .53 .104 .618 .168

a

53 03/28/97 03/29/97 .98 1.02 .83 .79 .81 .106 .886 .120

b

54 04/27/97 04/28/97 .45 .47 .54 .57 .50 .049 .507 .097

a

55 05/02/97 05/03/97 1.25 1.19 1.05 1.41 1.20 .130 1.219 .106

b

56 05/08/97 05/09/97 .98 .87 .82 .90 .78 .077 .870 .089

57 05/19/97 05/20/97 .28 .45 .36 .61 .45 .123 .429 .286

58 05/24/97 05/26/97 .99 2.40 1.47 1.41 1.41 .520 1.535 .339

59 05/28/97 05/29/97 .07 .77 .42 .66 .82 .308 .547 .562

a

60 05/30/97 06/02/97 1.24 .93 -- .91 .80 .189 .970 .195

b

61 06/08/97 06/09/97 .92 1.02 1.32 1.14 1.30 .174 1.140 .152

a

62 06/13/97 06/13/97 -- 2.07 -- 2.59 2.18 .275 2.279 .121

63 06/16/97 06/16/97 -- .85 -- 1.64 1.96 .570 1.482 .385

b

64 06/17/97 06/18/97 -- 1.73 -- 1.11 1.43 .310 1.422 .218

65 06/21/97 06/21/97 -- .31 -- .15 1.23 .580 .562 1.033

66 07/23/97 07/24/97 .00 .93 .30 .04 .42 .375 .338 1.110

67 08/09/97 08/09/97 .74 2.49 2.91 3.35 1.89 1.014 2.276 .445

68 08/19/97 08/20/97 .26 .51 .77 .67 .43 .201 .528 .380

69 09/09/97 09/10/97 -- 2.61 .72 1.65 3.37 1.152 2.088 .552

a

70 10/13/97 10/14/97 .75 .67 .74 .58 .57 .085 .662 .129

b71 10/24/97 10/24/97 .63 .71 .77 .74 .64 .062 .697 .089

a

72 11/01/97 11/02/97 .79 .82 .55 .55 .66 .128 .673 .191

b

73 11/13/97 11/14/97 .80 .88 .96 .91 .76 .081 .862 .094

a

74 11/21/97 11/23/97 .55 .53 .69 .7 .52 .089 .599 .148

b

75 11/29/97 12/01/97 1.70 1.55 1.71 1.61 1.52 .086 1.618 .053

a

76 12/09/97 12/10/97 .78 .83 .85 .77 .83 .035 .811 .043

b

77 12/21/97 12/22/97 .65 .70 .63 .67 .62 .033 .654 .050

a

78 12/24/97 12/25/97 .88 .93 1.03 .76 .82 .104 .883 .118

b

79 01/05/98 01/09/98 3.12 3.31 3.03 3.20 3.07 .111 3.146 .036

Mean:

.256

Median

.159

a

Calibration storm.

b

Verification storm.

c

Nonrepresentative storm affected by snow and (or) ice.

Table 11. Statistical summary of storm rainfall at selected locations in and near the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jeffers

County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998—Continued

[RG, rain gage; in., inch; SD, standard deviation; CV, coefficient of variation (SD/mean); --, not available]

Storm

Start

date

End

date

Rain gage

(see figure 8 and table 9) Statistics

RG8

(in.)

RG11

(in.)

RG15

(in.)

RG17

(in.)

RG28a

(in.)

SD

(in.)

Mean

(in.) CV
36 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 9. Approximate locations of the long-term precipitation, evaporation, and streamflow-gaging stations

in Kentucky and Indiana, used or referenced in the study. [see table 5]
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

PET was estimated from the pan-evaporation

data because NWS calculated values of PET at

Standiford Field and Bowman Field appeared

abnormally low in 1997: 28.46 in. at Standiford

Field, which was almost 14 in. below the mean

annual PET (42.2 in.) during the available period of

record (1949–97) and 8.5 in. below the lowest of all

previous annual PET values during the period of

record. NWS calculated PET at Standiford Field

totaled 67.56 in. for the full model calibration

period, February 1996–January 1998, just 2.74 in.

less than the PET estimated from the panevaporation data. These unusually low panevaporation and PET values, though seemingly

contrary to the above-normal rainfall amounts, may

have been a consequence of the unusual intensity

and seasonal distribution of the rainfall in 1997.

Annual moisture delivered in intense, flooding

rainfalls that flowed quickly out of the basin during

storms in certain periods of the year was not

available for evapotranspiration at other times of the

year. Indeed, rainfall in March 1997 accounted for

23 percent of the annual total for 1997, and rainfall

in the months of March, May, and June accounted

for 50 percent of the annual total for 1997

(table 11). A more uniform distribution of rainfall

than this, which would be available for potential

evapotranspiration evenly throughout the growing

season, has been the typical pattern for the region

(fig. 3).

Trends in the regional pan-evaporation data

were not investigated. The paradoxical relation

between increased precipitation and reported

decreasing pan evaporation is discussed further by

Brutsaert and Parlange (1998).

Wastewater-Treatment-Plant

Effluents

Three permitted WWTP’s are in the

Chenoweth Run Basin (fig. 7). Jeffersontown

WWTP, the largest in the basin, had approximately

4,600 residential, 670 commercial, and 40 industrial

sewer-service connections and had a treatment

capacity of 4 Mgal/d. This plant provides

wastewater treatment for the commercial and

industrial customers in the Bluegrass Industrial Park

located in the upper third of the basin. Two small

plants, Chenoweth Hills WWTP and Lake of the

Woods WWTP, serve residential communities

farther downstream. These plants have treatmen

capacities of 0.2 and 0.04 Mgal/d, respectively. A

three plants provide secondary-level (microbial)

treatment of wastewater. MSD assumed

responsibility for operation of these WWTP’s af

acquisition from the original municipal or privat

owner-operators.

The Jeffersontown WWTP had been

identified as a source of excess nutrients

contributing to eutrophication of the stream and h

been subject to periodic capacity exceedences th

cause overflows of untreated or undertreated

wastewater to the stream. Inflows to the plant dur

and following storms were estimated to be two t

four times the design treatment capacity of

4 Mgal/d (Wade, 1999). The Jeffersontown WW

was upgraded following the data-collection perio

for this study; a phosphorus-removal process and 

ultraviolet-disinfectant unit were added. Also, w

was done to reduce the rainwater inflows to the

sanitary-sewer system. Typical nutrient

concentrations associated with municipal

wastewater influent and effluent, as reported by

Thomann and Mueller (1987), are shown in

table 12.

Table 12. Mean nutrient concentrations in municipal

wastewaters

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; --, not available; from Thomann and

Mueller, 1987, p. 391]

Nutrient

form

Influent

(mg/L)

Conventional

secondary

treatment

effluent

(mg/L)

After

phosphor

remova

processe

(mg/L)

Phosphorus (as P)

Total phosphorus

with detergent

5–10 7 1–3

Total phosphorus

without detergent

2–5 4 --

Total

orthophosphate

with detergent

2–5 5 1–2

Nitrogen (as N)

Total nitrogen 50 18 14

Inorganic nitrogen 30 8 7
38 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Discharge

Daily WWTP effluent discharge data were

obtained from MSD by use of monthly dischargemonitoring reports to the KNREPC–KDOW. At the

Jeffersontown WWTP, total effluent discharge

included (1) the through-plant flow released by the

principal effluent pipe and (2) bypass flow at an

overflow point approximately 1,000 ft upstream

from the principal effluent pipe. Bypass flows

occurred during and following rain storms of about

0.5 in. or greater when infiltration and inflows to the

sanitary-sewer system caused the WWTP inflow

capacity to be exceeded. As a consequence, some

untreated wastewater bypassed the WWTP and was

discharged directly to the stream. Bypass flows,

though not directly measured at the plant, were

estimated to have occurred at a constant rate of

7.74 ft3

/s (5 Mgal/d) (Cliff Bristow, Louisville and

Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, oral

commun., 1998) for the bypass periods (59 days)

listed in the monthly discharge-monitoring reports.

Measured daily through-plant flows were not

available at the Jeffersontown WWTP for the period

July 2–October 7, 1997, during a repair of the

effluent-flow meter. Therefore, daily through-plant

flow during this period of missing data was

estimated on the basis of regressions relating

observed daily through-plant flow to daily

mean flow at the streamflow-gaging station

downstream from the WWTP’s at Gelhaus Lane

(figs. 10 and 11).

Figure 10. Scatterplot and regression for daily mean discharges at the

Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant (WWTP) and Chenoweth Run at

Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998.

1 10 100 1,000 10,000

DAILY MEAN DISCHARGE FOR CHENOWETH RUN AT GELHAUS LANE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1

100

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

DAILY MEAN DISCHARGE FOR JEFFERSONTOWN WWTP,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Effluent flow = 10**(0.663*(logQ)**0.527) when Q is less than 7.08

= 2.22*Q**0.309 when Q is greater than or equal to 7.08,

where Q is the discharge at Gelhaus Lane
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 39

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A 

1996 1997 

0

20

5

1015

DAILY MEAN DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A 

1996 1997 

08

246

DAILY RAINFALL, IN INCHES

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A 

1996 1997 

1

10,000

2

5

102050

100200500

1,0002,0005,000

DAILY MEAN DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

JEFFERSONTOWN WASTEWATER-TREATMENT PLANT

(THROUGH-PLANT FLOW)

RAINGAGE 35 AT JEFFERSONTOWN WASTEWATER-TREATMENT PLANT

CHENOWETH RUN AT GELHAUS LANE

+-----ESTIMATE

BY REGRE

Figure 11. Daily mean discharge at the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant and at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, Jeffersocalibration period, February 1996–January 1998.
40 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Continuous through-plant effluent-discharge

records at the Jeffersontown WWTP were

incomplete and such continuous records were

unavailable at one of the minor WWTP’s.

Representative hourly WWTP effluent flow rates

were needed for developing the basin hydrologic

model; therefore, hourly through-plant effluent

flows were estimated by use of the daily throughplant flows and estimates of the typical hourly

distribution of the daily through-plant flows. The

typical hourly distribution of the total daily

through-plant flows were estimated by averaging

the observed hourly distributions of flow

(figs. 12 and 13) during selected, representative,

dry-weather flow periods at the Jeffersontown and

Chenoweth Hills WWTP’s (table 13). Continuousflow-meter records were not available for the Lake

of the Woods WWTP; therefore, the hourly

distributions of daily flow observed at Chenoweth

Hills were assumed adequately representative for

the Lake of the Woods WWTP, as well.

Figure 12. Circular-chart record of 7-day throughplant effluent discharge from Jeffersontown

Wastewater-Treatment Plant, Jefferson County,

Kentucky.

Figure 13. Sample and mean hourly percentages of daily mean effluent

discharge at the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant, Jefferson

County, Kentucky.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

TIME, IN HOURS

0

200

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

HOURLY PERCENTAGE OF DAILY MEAN EFFLUENT DISCHARGE RATE

Mean

Sample
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

In the case of the two minor WWTP’s, the

reported total daily flows were based on once-a-d

observations of flow rate, which varies during ea

day. The reported total daily flows were adjusted

systematically (generally decreased) to compens

for the variation in the time of day at which the

single daily observation of flow was made.

Suspended Solids

Effluent loadings of total suspended solids

(considered essentially equivalent to suspended

sediment in this study) were estimated by use of

relevant wastewater-discharge and water-quality

sampling data. At the Jeffersontown WWTP,

periodic total suspended-solids analyses

(299 samples) of the effluent were available

throughout the model calibration period. Both

influent and effluent suspended-solids

concentrations indicated only a weak correlation

with the daily effluent discharge rate; therefore,

daily suspended-solids concentrations were

estimated by linear interpolation of concentratio

between the available sampling dates. Total

suspended-solids effluent loads were estimated a

the interpolated solids concentration times the da

flow. Estimated through-plant total suspendedsolids loads ranged between 0.0006 to 1.28 ton/d

and averaged 0.064 ton/d. Estimated bypass load

from the Jeffersontown WWTP ranged between

0.04 to 2.54 ton/d and averaged 0.96 ton/d durin

the 59 days that bypass flows were reported to h

occurred.

At the two smaller WWTP’s, monthly tota

suspended-solids sample concentrations and

loading estimates were available from MSD

discharge-monitoring reports. Daily total

suspended-solids loadings were estimated as a

uniform daily average of the reported monthly

loads. For model application, hourly total

suspended-solids loadings were estimated as a

uniform hourly average of the estimated daily lo

The combined annual and mean-annual

model calibration period estimated loadings of to

suspended solids in the WWTP effluents were

determined (table 14).

Table 13. Estimated typical hourly through-plant effluentdischarge rates at the Jeffersontown and Chenoweth Hills

Wastewater-Treatment Plants in the Chenoweth Run

Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Time

(hour)

Percentage of daily mean discharge rate

Jeffersontown Chenoweth Hills

1 68 65

2 52 41

3 45 37

4 43 34

5 45 35

6 51 68

7 66 154

8 91 145

9 110 121

10 125 114

11 128 100

12

(noon)

136 104

13 138 100

14 136 89

15 127 97

16 122 104

17 118 101

18 117 118

19 117 128

20 117 123

21 118 143

22 117 153

23 113 133

24

(midnight)

100 93
42 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Total Phosphorus (TP)

The Jeffersontown WWTP daily throughplant and bypassed TP loads were estimated by use

of the approximately bimonthly, 24-hourcomposite-sample (approximately 200 mL drawn

every 15 minutes) data reported by MSD (table 15).

To obtain daily through-plant TP load estimates

from the bimonthly samples, the 45 bimonthly

sample concentrations were regressed with the daily

WWTP effluent discharge. The effluent TP

concentrations were inversely correlated (r2 = 0.43)

with the log of effluent discharge (Q). That is, when

effluent discharge increased, the TP concentration

decreased, probably because of dilution. Daily

TP concentrations were calculated as

TP = 10.71 - 3.91 Log Q (fig. 14). Errors calculated

as the difference between discharge-regressionestimated TP concentrations and observed TP

concentrations indicate a mean error of 16 percent

and a root mean square error of 53 percent.

Estimated daily through-plant effluent TP loads

ranged from 23 to 70 lb P/d and averaged 62 lb P/d.

TP concentration in the bypassed flow was

estimated from three influent samples that were

available when bypass flows were reported to have

occurred. Daily TP load estimates during periods of

bypassed flow (QB) were calculated by the relation

TP = 6.39-2.34Log QB (fig. 14), which also

indicates an inverse relation between TP

concentration and discharge. Estimated daily

bypass TP loads ranged from 7.5 to 45 lb P/d and

averaged 34 lb P/d during the 59 days bypass flows

that were reported to have occurred during

March 1996–February 1998.

Phosphorus sampling data were unavailable

for the minor WWTP’s. Therefore, effluent TP

loads were estimated by use of a typical TP effluent

concentration (5.7 mg/L) for WWTP’s of similar

treatment level (Thomann and Mueller, 1987;

Hammer, 1975; and Leist and others, 1990).

Estimated daily minor WWTP effluent TP loads

ranged from 0.98 to 28 lb P/d at Chenoweth Hills

and 0.26 to 4.8 lb P/d at Lake of the Woods.

TP loads averaged 6.7 lb P/d at Chenoweth Hills

and 0.99 lb P/d at Lake of the Woods.

The combined annual and mean-annual

model calibration period estimated loadings of total

phosphorus in the WWTP effluents were

determined (table 16).

Total Orthophosphate (TPO4)

The Jeffersontown WWTP daily throughplant and bypassed TPO4 loads were also estimated

by use of the phosphorus-sampling data reported by

MSD (table 15). In 1996, only TP concentrations

were reported, but 22 samples of both TP and TPO4

reported in 1997–98 indicated these constituents

were highly correlated (r2 = 0.97). Thus, TP

concentrations were used to estimate by regression

the TPO4 concentrations for the samples collected

in 1996 (TPO4 = TP * 0.99 - 0.19) (fig. 15). A large

portion (approximately 90 percent) of the total

phosphorus content for the Jeffersontown WWTP

Table 14. Estimated annual total suspended-solids loads in wastewater-treatment-plant effluents in the Chenoweth

Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[WWTP, wastewater-treatment plant]

Jeffersontown WWTP

Period

Through-plant

(tons)

Bypass

(tons)

Chenoweth

Hills

WWTP

(tons)

Lake of the

Woods

WWTP

(tons)

Total

(tons)

02/1996-01/1997 25.4 19.5 3.92 0.55 49.3

02/1997-01/1998 18.5 25.0 3.58 .62 47.7

Mean 21.9 22.3 3.75 .58 48.5
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

Table 15. Influent and effluent phosphorus concentrations reported for the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Pl

Jefferson County, Kentucky

[ft3/s, cubic foot per second; mg/L, milligrams per liter; P, phosphorus; --, not available; *, outlier, not used in regressions]

Date

Effluent

daily

 discharge

(ft3/s x hours)

Influent Effluent

Total

phosphorus

(mg/L as P)

Total

orthophosphate

(mg/L as P)

Total

phosphorus

(mg/L as P)

Total

orthophospha

(mg/L as P)

02/07/1996 105.09 -- -- 2.12 --

02/22/1996 163.02 -- -- 1.19 --

03/07/1996 201.63 -- -- 1.38 --

03/22/1996 258.82 1.54 -- 1.31 --

04/05/1996 157.07 2.73 -- 1.30 --

04/19/1996 123.65 2.35 -- 1.69 --

05/08/1996 259.19 2.64 -- .96 --

05/21/1996 -- 4.80 -- *.10 --

06/06/1996 110.29 5.90 -- 2.51 --

06/20/1996 99.15 5.28 -- 2.66 --

07/08/1996 106.20 4.91 -- 3.69 --

07/19/1996 88.75 6.29 -- 3.11 --

08/07/1996 62.01 5.05 -- 2.21 --

08/21/1996 49.02 6.15 -- 3.69 --

09/06/1996 53.10 7.24 -- 4.21 --

09/19/1996 96.55 3.63 -- 2.27 --

10/08/1996 105.46 5.00 -- 3.61 --

10/21/1996 100.63 4.37 -- 2.89 --

11/07/1996 176.38 4.65 -- 3.85 --

11/21/1996 112.51 5.04 -- 4.03 --

12/06/1996 124.03 3.50 -- 2.63 --

12/19/1996 167.84 3.73 -- 1.31 --

01/07/1997 137.02 3.59 2.97 2.19 2.14

01/22/1997 236.54 5.04 2.96 3.25 3.18

02/06/1997 179.73 *38.4 *11.4 3.26 3.26

02/21/1997 137.77 3.72 2.82 2.50 2.15

03/06/1997 297.07 2.41 1.65 1.53 1.11

03/21/1997 176.01 1.89 1.74 1.35 --

04/07/1997 119.57 3.63 2.24 1.76 1.52

04/21/1997 142.59 3.05 1.80 2.14 1.48

05/07/1997 93.95 5.91 4.44 3.01 3.01

05/22/1997 108.06 5.23 3.84 3.65 3.34

06/05/1997 114.74 3.50 2.28 2.54 2.32

06/19/1997 180.10 1.12 .613 .725 .680

07/08/1997 88.96 7.73 5.57 3.90 3.41

07/21/1997 77.21 7.41 5.24 3.56 3.51

08/07/1997 70.67 8.02 5.05 4.43 4.19

08/21/1997 97.04 4.41 2.16 2.71 2.55

09/05/1997 81.27 5.72 4.55 2.41 2.41

10/07/1997 62.70 6.14 4.78 4.65 4.46

10/21/1997 89.12 6.01 3.90 3.43 3.25

11/06/1997 82.06 7.21 4.76 3.83 2.10

11/20/1997 84.29 6.36 3.34 2.59 2.17

12/05/1997 113.63 3.59 2.04 1.06 1.05

01/08/1998 206.09 .99 .61 .59 .45

01/22/1998 128.85 4.63 2.57 1.92 1.51
44 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 16. Estimated annual total phosphorus loads in wastewater-treatment-plant effluents in the Chenoweth Run

Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[WWTP, wastewater-treatment plant; lb, pound; P, phosphorus]

Jeffersontown WWTP

Period

Through-plant

(lb as P)

Bypass

(lb as P)

Chenoweth

Hills

WWTP

(lb as P)

Lake of the

Woods

WWTP

(lb as P)

Total

(lb as P)

02/1996-01/1997 25,200 796 2,320 399 28,700

02/1997-01/1998 24,100 853 2,670 331 28,000

Mean 24,600 824 2,500 365 28,300

Figure 14. Comparison and regression relations of total phosphorus concentrations to daily

effluent discharge, and total phosphorus concentrations to bypassed-wastewater discharge

from the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the

model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.

100

DAILY EFFLUENT DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND*HOURS

0

1

2

3

4

5

100

DAILY BYPASS DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND*HOURS

0

1

2

3

4

5

TP=10.71-3.91LogQ

N=45 TP=6.39-2.34LogQb

N=3

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Figure 15. Comparison and regression relations of total phosphorus concentrations to total

orthophosphate concentrations, and total orthophosphate concentrations to effluent

discharged from the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant (WWTP), Jefferson County,

Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.

0 1 2 3 4 5

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0

1

2

3

4

5

100

DAILY WWTP DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND*HOURS

0

1

2

3

4

5

TPO4=0.99TP-0.19

N=22

TPO4=9.82-3.61LOGQ

N=45

TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

effluent was the orthophosphate form (table 15).

Also, effluent sampling data collected in 1995

indicated that dissolved phosphorus concentration

was on average about 94 percent of the total

phosphorus concentration. Thus, most of the

phosphorus content of this wastewater was typically

in the dissolved orthophosphate form.

To obtain daily through-plant TPO4 load

estimates from the bimonthly samples, the

45 bimonthly sample concentrations were regressed

with the daily WWTP effluent discharge. The

effluent TPO4 concentrations were moderately

inversely correlated (r2 = 0.39) with the log of

effluent discharge (Log Q). That is, when effluent

discharge increased, the TPO4 concentration

decreased, probably because of dilution. Daily

TPO4 concentrations were calculated as

TPO4 = 9.82 - 3.61 Log Q (table 17 and fig. 15).

Errors calculated as the difference between

discharge-regression-estimated TPO4

concentrations and observed TPO4 concentrations

(including the “observed” TPO4 concentrations

estimated by regression with TP) indicate a mean

error of 19 percent and a root mean square error of

57 percent. Estimated daily effluent TPO4 loads

ranged from 22 to 68 lb P/d and averaged 60 lb P/d.

TPO4 concentration in the bypassed flow was

estimated from three influent samples that were

available when bypass flows were reported to have

occurred. One of the influent samples was obtained

in 1996 when TPO4 was not analyzed. The influent

TPO4 concentration for this sample was estimated

from the relation of 23 influent samples of both TP

and TPO4 reported in 1997–98. Again, influent

TPO4 concentrations are highly correlated

(r2 = 0.90) with influent TP concentrations

(TPO4 = TP * 0.68 - 0.05) (fig. 16). Daily TPO4

load estimates during periods of bypassed flow (Q

were calculated by the relation

TPO4 = 3.93 - 1.43 Log QB (fig. 16), which also

indicates an inverse relation between TPO4

concentration and discharge. Estimated daily

bypass TPO4 loads ranged from 6.8 to 30 lb P/d 

averaged 25 lb P/d during the 59 days bypass flo

that were reported to have occurred during

March 1986–February 1998.

Phosphorus sampling data were unavailab

for the minor WWTP’s. Therefore, effluent TPO

loads were estimated by use of a typical TPO4

effluent concentration (5.5 mg/L) for WWTP’s o

similar treatment level (Thomann and Mueller,

1987; Hammer, 1975; and Leist and others, 1990

Estimated daily minor WWTP effluent TPO4 loa

ranged from 0.95 to 27 lb P/d at Chenoweth Hill

and 0.25 to 4.6 lb P/d at Lake of the Woods. TPO

loads averaged 6.5 lb P/d at Chenoweth Hills an

0.96 lb P/d at Lake of the Woods.

The combined annual and mean-annual

model calibration period estimated loadings of to

orthophosphate in the WWTP effluents were

determined (table 18).

Streamflow

The water budget (table 19) at the Ruckrie

Parkway and Gelhaus Lane sites on Chenoweth R

reflects the wetter-than-normal conditions during

much of the 24-month data-collection period.

Table 17. Statistical summary of observed and estimated daily mean effluent total orthophosphate (TPO4)

concentrations at the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Statistic

Through-plant effluent

(in milligrams per liter)

Bypass effluent

(in milligrams per liter)

Observeda Estimated Observed Estimated

Number 45 763 3 59

Mean 2.32 2.32 1.16 1.54

Minimum .45 .22 .61 .66

Maximum 4.46 4.11 1.75 3.93

a

TPO4 concentrations for 22 samples were estimated by regression with total phosphorus concentrations.
46 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 18. Estimated annual total orthophosphate loads in wastewater-treatment-plant effluents in the Chenoweth

Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[WWTP, wastewater-treatment plant; lb, pound; P, phosphorus]

Jeffersontown WWTP

Period

Through-plant

(lb as P)

Bypass

(lb as P)

Chenoweth

Hills

WWTP

(lb as P)

Lake of the

Woods

WWTP

(lb as P)

Total

(lb as P)

02/1996-01/1997 22,000 595 2,240 386 25,200

02/1997-01/1998 21,500 658 2,580 319 25,100

Mean 21,800 626 2,410 352 25,200

Table 19. Annual water budget for the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model

calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[WWTP, wastewater-treatment plant; ---, not applicable; percentages reflect combined inflows to the basin as precipitation and wastewater

effluents]

Period

Rainfall

(inches)

WWTP

effluent

(inches)

Total streamflow

Estimated

evapotranspiration

and other losses

Inches Percent Inches Percent

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

02/1996–01/1997 56.81 --- 34.71 61 22.10 39

02/1997–01/1998 53.33 --- 35.60 67 17.73 33

Mean 55.07 --- 35.16 64 19.91 36

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

02/1996–01/1997 56.81 7.23 36.06 56 27.98 44

02/1997–01/1998 53.33 6.79 35.34 59 24.78 41

Mean 55.07 7.01 35.70 58 26.38 42

Figure 16. Comparison and regression relations of total phosphorus concentrations to total

orthophosphate concentrations, and total orthophosphate concentrations to bypassedwastewater discharge upstream from the Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant, Jefferson

County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.

0 2 4 6 8 10

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0

2

4

6

8

10

100

DAILY BYPASS DISCHARGE,

IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND*HOURS

0

1

2

3

4

5

TPO4=0.68TP-0.05

N=23

TPO4=3.93-1.43LOG QB

N=3

TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

Mean-annual rainfall during the period was

55.07 in., approximately 11 in. above the long-term

normal annual precipitation reported for Standiford

Field. The WWTP inflows to the stream (an

interbasin transfer of water supplies withdrawn from

the Ohio River) contributed the equivalent of about

7 in. of water on the basin annually, or

approximately 20 percent of all the water that

entered the basin upstream from the Gelhaus Lane

site. The WWTP’s provided the majority of flow in

the stream at times during low-flow periods. The

relative proportions of water leaving the basin as

streamflow and evapotranspiration (about 60 percent

as streamflow and 40 percent as evapotranspiration

and other losses) were almost reversed from the

normal proportions for this region, which are about

40 percent as streamflow and 60 percent as

evapotranspiration).

Though rainfall and discharge were above

normal for much of the period, there were wide

variations in the flow regime (figs. 17 and 18). The

record flood discharges in March 1997 (which

scoured much of the bedrock main-channel bottom

clean) were followed by low base flows in late

summer and early fall of 1997. Urban development

and the associated impervious land cover, which

was most dense in the upper portion of the basin

upstream from the gage at Ruckriegel Parkway,

will, in the absence of storm-water-control

measures, typically tend to increase the volumes

and rates of streamflow during storms (compared to

predevelopment conditions), and streamflow

recession and base flows may consequently be

decreased.

Base-flow measurements available in the

basin (table 20) indicated possible losing-stream

conditions during low-flow periods. Some baseflow losses were hypothesized and represented in

the calibrated basin model (see “Base-Flow

Losses”).

Water Quality

Water quality can be described in several

ways, and it is affected by many factors. Althoug

this study focused primarily on aspects of

sedimentation and eutrophication processes in th

Chenoweth Run Basin, many other physical and

chemical characteristics (table 3) were determin

for water samples. Data compilation included

approximately 8,500 physical- and chemicalparameter determinations for discrete water samp

collected at seven sampling sites (fig. 7) during

1988–97. Data were also compiled for over

230,000 continuous-record determinations of

stream temperature, specific conductance, pH, a

dissolved-oxygen concentration measurements

made at 30-minute intervals at the Ruckriegel

Parkway and Gelhaus Lane sites during 1996–9

A total of 103 discrete environmental wate

samples were collected in 1996–97 over a wide

range of flows in each season of the year at the f

sampling sites on the main channel (fig. 7). The

distribution of samples collected in 1996–97 at t

two gaging stations is shown in figures 17 and 1

During the full sampling period, which extends

back to 1988 at Gelhaus Lane, water-quality

samples have been collected for daily mean

discharges of 117 ft3

/s at Ruckriegel Parkway an

approximately 300 ft3

/s at Gelhaus Lane. These

sampled discharges exceed flow durations of

2 percent and 1 percent, respectively, at these sit

A statistical summary (Appendix 4) indica

large variability in some measurements, several

orders of magnitude of variation in selected case

Much of this variability in water quality derives

from variations of the influx of the water, chemi

constituents, and solar radiation into the stream.

Daily variations of discharge, water temperature

specific conductance, pH, and dissolved-oxygen

concentration at the Ruckriegel Parkway and

Gelhaus Lane sites for February 1996–

September 1997 are shown in figures 19 and 20.
48 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A 

1996 1997 

0.2

2,000

0.5

125

102050

100200500

1,000

DAILY MEAN DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 0.2

2,000

0.5

125

102050

100200500

1,000

DISCHARGEDISCHARGE ON SAMPLING DATE

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

Figure 17. Daily mean discharge and discharge on sampling dates at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway and at Gelhau

Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

Table 20. Base-flow measurements in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, in 1995

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; HHMM, hours and minutes on 24-hour clock; ft3/s, cubic foot per second; ---, not applicable]

Site

identifier

(figure 7)

USGS

station

number Location

Stream

mile

Drainage

area

(acres)

July 11, 1995 September 5, 199

Time

(HHMM)

Discharge

(ft3/sec)

Time

(HHMM)

Discha

(ft3/se

CR5 03298129 Chenoweth Run at

Old Watterson Trail

at Jeffersontown

6.012 2,862 0840 0.76 1040 0.13

CR4 03298138 Jeffersontown WWTP

effluent at

Chenoweth Run

5.219 --- 0940 4.66 0930 3.98

402 03298140 Chenoweth Run at

Taylorsville Road

near Jeffersontown

4.870 4,150 1045 4.47 1150 4.02

CR2 03298145 Chenoweth Run at

Easum Road

3.309 6,523 1135 4.65 1155 3.58

16 03298150 Chenoweth Run at

Gelhaus Lane

2.456 7,327 1020 3.42 --- ---

403 03298160 Chenoweth Run at

Seatonville Road

.111 10,580 1225 3.09 1355 1.81

0.01

1,000

0.02

0.05

0.1

0.2

0.5

1

2

5

10

20

50

100

200

500

DAILY MEAN DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99

PERCENTAGE OF TIME INDICATED DISCHARGE IS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99

Sampling discharge duration

Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

Figure 18. Flow duration and discharge on sampling dates at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

and at Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–

January 1998.
50 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky Figure 19. Daily range in discharge, water temperature, specific conductance, pH, and dissolved-oxygen concentration at Chenoweth 

County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 

1996 

0.1

10,000

1

10

100

1,000

CUBIC FEET

PER SECOND

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 

1996 

0

40

20

DEGREES CELSIUS

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 

1996 

0

3,000

1,0002,000

MICROSIEMENS PER

CENTIMETER

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 

1996 

6

12

8

10

STANDARD PH UNITS

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 

1996 

0

25

5

101520

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Specific

conductance

Water temperature

Discharge

pH

Dissolved-oxygen concentration
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 51 Figure 20. Daily range in discharge, water temperature, specific conductance, pH, and dissolved-oxygen concentration at Chenoweth 

County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 

1996 1

0.1

10,000

1

10

100

1,000

CUBIC FEET

PER SECOND

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 

1996 1

0

40

20

DEGREES CELSIUS

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 

1996 1

0

3,000

1,0002,000

MICROSIEMENS PER

CENTIMETER

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 

1996 1

6

12

8

10

STANDARD PH UNITS

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A 

1996 1

0

25

5

101520

MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Specific

conductance

Water temperature

Discharge

pH

Dissolved-oxygen concentration
52 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Stream water temperature was measured at

the Ruckriegel Parkway and Gelhaus Lane sites at

30-minute intervals from January 24, 1996, to

September 19, 1997, excluding periods of missing

record (March 1-10, 1997, at Ruckriegel Parkway;

July 16-23, 1997, at Gelhaus Lane; and after

September 19, 1997, at both sites). Transformations

of nutrients in streams are dependent upon water

temperature; therefore, the periods of missing

record were estimated by linear regression with air

temperature for use in the water-quality modeling

(see “Simulation of Water Quality”). Hourly

average water temperature was determined for

model input. Air temperature was a strong predictor

of water temperature at both sites (r2 of 0.85 and

0.88, respectively, at Ruckriegel Parkway and

Gelhaus Lane). The regression equation was

adjusted using the difference between predicted

values and adjacent observed values for short

periods of missing record. After September 19,

1997, the estimated stream temperature was

smoothed by a 24-hour running average of

temperature values. On average, measured water

temperatures at the Gelhaus Lane site were 0.8 ̊F

warmer than at the Ruckriegel Parkway site,

probably because of thermal energy in wastewater

inflows downstream from the Ruckriegel Parkway

site. Air temperature and observed and estimated

stream water temperature during the model

calibration period are shown in figure 21.

Specific conductance, a measure of the ability

of water to conduct an electrical current, is related

to the types and concentrations of solids dissolved

in water. Mean and median values of the

continuous-record, daily mean specific conductance

were 600 and 615 μS/cm, respectively, at the

Ruckriegel Parkway site, and 598 and 608 μS/cm,

respectively, at the Gelhaus Lane site. Specific

conductance of natural waters typically reach

maximal values during base-flow periods (owing to

the background, geologic sources of the dissolved

solids in ground water), and values are minimal (by

dilution) during high-flow periods. In the urban

setting of the Chenoweth Run Basin, maximal

values of specific conductance were in winter storm

periods (figs. 19 and 20), probably because of

inflows of chloride in snow melt and (or) storm

water following road-salt applications. Typical

concentrations of chloride in rivers of North

America are reported to range from 5.75 to

24 mg/L, in comparison to seawater chloride

concentrations of 19,000 mg/L (Hem, 1989). None

of the reported chloride-sample concentrations of

the 83 samples collected in Chenoweth Run

exceeded the KDOW warmwater-aquatic-habitat

criteria for chloride concentration (600 mg/L). The

maximum reported chloride concentration was

475 mg/L at the Ruckriegel Parkway site on

March 19, 1996.

Diurnal patterns in dissolved-oxygen

concentration and pH during low to moderate flows

in spring 1996 show indications of the effects of

aquatic-plant respirational and photosynthetic

activity commonly associated with eutrophication

of water bodies (fig. 22). At night, plant respiration

(which proceeds continuously, night and day)

consumes dissolved oxygen and releases carbon

dioxide, which in turn lowers pH as carbonic acid is

formed from water and the released carbon dioxide.

The minimum dissolved-oxygen concentration is

typically reached in the early morning hours before

dawn. During daylight periods, aquatic-plant

photosynthesis consumes carbon dioxide (which

raises pH) and produces a sharp increase in

dissolved-oxygen concentration. Maximum

dissolved-oxygen concentrations are typically

reached around mid-day. Pure oxygen is produced

within the water column by the aquatic-plant

photosynthesis. In comparison, the oxygen content

of the atmosphere at the water surface where

reaeration occurs is 21 percent. These oxygen-rich

conditions during photosynthesis can lead to

oxygen supersaturation with dissolved-oxygen

concentrations of 150 to 200 percent of the

saturation concentration not uncommon (Thomann

and Mueller, 1987).

Suspended-solids and suspended-sediment

concentrations were essentially equivalent for this

study basin. Two suspended-sediment subsamples

were drawn from the churn splitter when a paired

suspended-solids subsample also was drawn.

Concentrations for the two suspended-sediment

subsamples were within 5.5 percent of the

concentration of the suspended solids. Almost all

of these two suspended-sediment samples

(99.6 percent by weight) were in the clay/silt size

fractions less than 0.00244 in. (0.062 mm) particle

size.
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 53 Figure 21. Hourly air temperature at Standiford Field, Louisville, Kentucky, and observed and estimated hourly water temperatures, C

Jefferson County, Kentucky.

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A 

1996 1997 

-10

110

0

20406080

100

DEGREES FAHRENHEIT

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A 

1996 1997 

-10

110

0

20406080

100

DEGREES FAHRENHEIT

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A 

1996 1997 

-10

110

0

20406080

100

DEGREES FAHRENHEIT

Water temperature, Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway, Jeffersontown, Kentucky

Water temperature, Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane near Fern Creek, Kentucky

Air temperature at Standiford Field, Louisville, Kentucky
54 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 22. Diurnal dissolved-oxygen concentration, pH, and discharge patterns and oxygen saturation at

selected times at selected sites, Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky: (A) Ruckriegel Parkway

and (B) Gelhaus Lane.

0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400

7 8 9 10 April 1996

6

20

8

10

12

14

16

18

PH, IN STANDARD UNITS

DISSOLVED OXYGEN, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

50

100

150

200

DISSOLVED-OXYGEN SATURATION, IN PERCENT

pH Dissolved oxygen Percent saturation

10

20

15

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET

 PER SECOND

Discharge

2

8

4

6

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET

 PER SECOND

Discharge

0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400

7 8 9 10

April 1996

6

20

8

10

12

14

16

18

PH, IN STANDARD UNITS

DISSOLVED OXYGEN, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

50

100

150

200

DISSOLVED-OXYGEN SATURATION, IN PERCENT

pH Dissolved oxygen Percent saturation

(A) Ruckriegel Parkway

(B) Gelhaus Lane
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

The flows coming from the abundant

impervious surfaces in the upper portion of the

basin may generally have low suspended-sediment

(soils) loads initially, and thus have relatively large

sediment-load-carrying and scouring capacity when

entering the channels. Eroded sediments can

(1) reduce channel capacity and reservoir capacity

when deposited, (2) have deleterious effects on

aquatic life, (3) introduce a dissolved-oxygendemanding substance, and (4) provide a transport

vehicle for nutrients and some metals, such as

phosphorus and iron, respectively. Differences in

the distribution of suspended solids shown in

(fig. 23) most likely result from the different

sampling periods for each site, rather than actual

differences in sediment yield over the basin. Many

of the suspended-solids samples at Ruckriegel

Parkway, Taylorsville Road, and Seatonville Road

were collected during high-flow conditions during

1996–97, whereas the majority of the samples at the

other sites were collected during low and moderate

flows.

Eutrophication is the excessive growth of

aquatic plants caused by enrichment of a water

body with nutrients such that water quality is

adversely affected and water use is thus impaired.

The major nutrients contributing to eutrophication

are nitrogen and phosphorus. Potential sources of

these nutrients include municipal and industrial

wastewater, agricultural and urban runoff,

atmospheric deposition, and geologic formations

and the overlying soils. Some reported

concentrations of total suspended solids, total

nitrogen, and total phosphorus from point and

nonpoint sources are shown in table 21.

Approximately one fourth of the earth’s nearsurface nitrogen content is contained in the crustal

rocks and approximately three fourths is in the

atmosphere (Hem, 1989). Most of the atmosphere is

nitrogen. Nitrogen content of the hydrosphere and

biosphere is much smaller than that of the crust and

atmosphere.

The nitrogen cycle includes several complex

chemical and biological processes that transfer

nitrogen between the lithosphere, atmosphere,

hydrosphere, and biosphere. Nitrogen fixation

refers to the several energy-intensive processes by

which N2 gas is transformed in oxidation state to

other nitrogen compounds. Biological fixation of

nitrogen is done by blue-green algae and related

organisms that draw energy from photosynthesis

and also by certain species of bacteria. Productio

of synthetic fertilizers such as ammonia and oth

nitrogen compounds is a significant component 

total world-wide nitrogen fixation (Hem, 1989).

Nitrification refers to the process by which bacte

convert nitrogen in reduced forms (ammonium a

organic nitrogen) into nitrite and nitrate.

Denitrification refers to the processes by which

certain bacteria reduce nitrate and nitrite to nitro

oxide or nitrogen gas.

Nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere, genera

in part during combustion of fossil fuels, underg

chemical transformations leading to nitrogen as

nitrate, which is available for deposition on earth

The atmospheric nitrate lowers the pH of

precipitation. Ammonia nitrogen is generally in

rainfall as well.

The major nitrogen-containing compound

water include nitrate (NO3

-

), organic nitrogen,

nitrite (NO2

-

), and ammonium (NH4

+) (Hem, 19

p. 124-126). Nitrite, an unstable transition

compound in the conversion of organic nitrogen 

ammonium to nitrate and in the conversion of

nitrate to nitrogen gas, is generally present in low

concentrations in natural waters. Other forms of

nitrogen, such as cyanide (CN-

), may be present 

industrial wastewaters.

There are substantial differences in chemi

properties among the various nitrogen species. T

cation ammonium is strongly absorbed on miner

surfaces. The anion nitrate is soluble, relatively

stable under variable conditions, and thus is read

transported in water. Nitrite and organic species 

nitrogen, which are unstable in aerated water, ar

often indicators (along with ammonium) of

wastewater inflows (Hem, 1989, p. 124).

Extensive sampling data were not availabl

on concentrations of nutrients from particular

nonpoint-source types in the basin, such as

atmospheric depositions and lawn treatments.

However, four samples of ponded water remaini

in drainageways in industrial and commercial ar

of the basin collected on March 6, 1997, followin

major storm had concentrations ranging from 0.

to 1.88 mg/L nitrate as nitrogen and 0.05 to

0.28 mg/L ammonia nitrogen as nitrogen

(B. Nichols, Louisville and Jefferson County

Metropolitan Sewer District, written commun.,

1996).
56 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 23. Distribution of total suspended-solids concentrations at sampling sites in

the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during 1988–97.

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STATION NUMBER

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

TOTAL SUSPENDED-SOLIDS CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Watterson TrailRuckriegel Parkway

Jeffersontown WastewaterTreatment Plant

Taylorsville RoadEasum RoadGelhaus LaneSeatonville Road

EXPLANATION

Far-outside values

Outside values

Upper adjacent value

75 percentile

Median

25 percentile

Lower adjacent value

03298129

03298135

03298138

03298140

03298145

03298150

03298160
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

Estimated national background

concentrations of nitrogen including atmospheric

depositions were reported to be 1.0 mg/L for total

nitrogen, 0.6 mg/L of nitrate as nitrogen, and

0.1 mg/L ammonia as nitrogen (U.S. Geological

Survey, 1999, p. 34). Waters with nitrogen

concentrations exceeding these national background

concentrations are considered to have been affected

by human activities. Typical total nitrogen

concentrations in wastewater influent and

conventional-secondary-treatment effluent are

reported as 50 and 18 mg/L, respectively (Thomann

and Mueller, 1987, p. 391). Simple national

regression models to estimate mean total nitrogen

concentrations (Omernik, 1977) discharged from

basins with combined percentage urban area plus

percentage agricultural area ranging from 0 to

100 percent provide estimates of 0.57 to 3.69 mg/L

mean total nitrogen concentrations.

The major phosphorus-containing

compounds in water include orthophosphate

(PO4

3-) and other phosphate-containing compounds

(H3PO4, H2PO4

-

, HPO4

2-) (Hem, 1989, p. 126).

Hem suggests that other forms of dissolved

phosphorus are unstable phosphates that will

eventually revert to orthophosphate. The inorganic

compounds of phosphorus have relatively low

solubility in water, which favors precipitation and

adsorption to soils and sediments. These chemical

and physical characteristics and uptake by aquatic

plants limit concentrations of phosphorus in

solution in natural waters to generally no more than

a few tenths of a milligram per liter

(Hem, 1989, p. 126). Particulate forms of

phosphorus constitute about 95 percent of the to

transported in rivers (Meybeck, 1982). Hem also

reported that the total extractable phosphorus

concentrations in natural waters have little or no

relation to the dissolved-phosphorus concentratio

Though phosphorus is not very mobile in

soils and sediments, use of phosphate fertilizers

may potentially increase the content of phospho

in drainage from fertilized fields and lawns. Run

from both phosphate-fertilized and unfertilized

lawns on soils that have elevated phosphorus

fertility (greater than 20 lb/acre of available

phosphorus) has been reported to contain elevate

phosphorus concentrations (greater than 1 mg

available P/L) (Barten, 1999). Further, eroded so

can add significant quantities of suspended

phosphates to streams.

Where dissolved phosphorus exceeds a few

tenths of a milligram per liter, human activities a

likely the contributor. Given the low solubility o

phosphorus and tendency to precipitate and adso

to sediments and the role of phosphorus in

eutrophication, dissolved phosphorus added

through disposal of waste or leaching of fertilize

lands may not remain available for long periods

The dissolved and total phosphorus content of

streams will thus tend to decline naturally during

transport downstream (barring additional

phosphorus inflows along the stream).

Geologic formations were suggested as a

potentially significant “background” source for

nutrients in Kentucky by Thomas and

Crutchfield (1974). These data indicated a strong

relation between geology and the phosphorus

content of streams and a partial relation between

geology and the nitrogen (nitrate) content of

streams. Plum Creek Basin, primarily in pasture

land nearby in neighboring Shelby and Spencer

Counties, Kentucky, was reported to lie in a

“medium” phosphate Ordovician limestone, whi

is similar in character to the Ordovician limeston

in the Chenoweth Run Basin. The mean “mediu

phosphorus level among the streams sampled in 

“medium” phosphate Ordovician limestone was

approximately 0.1 mg P/L.

Estimated national background

concentrations of total phosphorus including

atmospheric depositions were reported to be

0.1 mg/L as phosphorus (U.S. Geological Surve

1999, p. 34). Again, waters with nutrient

Table 21. Reported total suspended-solids,

total nitrogen, and total phosphorus concentrations

in flows from point and nonpoint sources in the

United States

[mg/L, milligrams per liter; from Thomann and Mueller, 1987,

table 1.3, p. 22]

Total

suspended

solids

(mg/L)

Total

nitrogen

(mg/L)

Total

phosphorus

(mg/L)

Municipal

wastewater

influent

300 50 10

Combinedsewer

overflow

410 9 3

Urban runoff 610 2.3 .5
58 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

concentrations exceeding these national background

concentrations are considered to have been affected

by human activities. For comparison, typical total

phosphorus concentrations in wastewater influent

and conventional-secondary-treatment-plant

effluent are reported as 5 to 10 and 7 mg/L,

respectively (Thomann and Mueller, 1987, p. 391).

Simple national regression models to estimate mean

total phosphorus concentrations (Omernik, 1977)

discharged from basins with combined percentage

urban area plus percentage agricultural area ranging

from 0 to 100 percent provide estimates ranging

from 0.020 to 0.133 mg/L total phosphorus

concentrations. The four samples of ponded water

remaining in drainageways in industrial and

commercial areas of the basin collected on March 6,

1997, following a major storm had concentrations

ranging from 0.03 to 0.33 mg/L total phosphorus

(B. Nichols, Louisville and Jefferson County

Metropolitan Sewer District, written commun.,

1996).

The factors controlling eutrophication are

extremely complex, and the nutrient that limits

aquatic-plant growth depends on the characteristics

of the nutrient source in relation to the

characteristics of the receiving water body. Excess

phosphorus is generally thought to cause

eutrophication in freshwater, while excess nitrogen

is generally thought to cause eutrophication in

saltwater (U.S. Geological Survey, 1999). Relative

amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus available for

plant uptake (the nitrogen/phosphorus ratio), as well

as the relative amounts of point and nonpoint

nutrient inflows (which can change with flow

regime), also control which nutrient actually most

limits plant growth in a particular stream reach.

Small upland streams that are dominated by point

sources tend to be nitrogen-limited; however, such

streams can become phosphorus-limited if

phosphorus is removed at the point source

(Thomann and Mueller, 1987, p 402).

A phosphorus-removal process was added to

the Jeffersontown WWTP during 1998–99. This

study focused on the transport of phosphorus and

various aspects of the phosphorus cycle in

Chenoweth Run.

The distribution of total phosphorus

concentrations at sampling sites in the Chenoweth

Run Basin during 1991–97 are shown in figure 24.

Note a significant increase in concentrations

beginning at the Jeffersontown WWTP effluent and

continuing downstream.

Total phosphorus concentrations at the

sampling sites during selected moderate and lowflow periods are shown in figure 25. The

progressive decline in total phosphorus

concentrations observed downstream from the

Jeffersontown WWTP is consistent with biological

uptake.

The total orthophosphate concentration was

not determined by the laboratory for approximately

one-half the samples collected during 1996–97.

This necessitated estimation of TPO4

concentrations for several stream water samples on

the basis of TP concentrations for use in loads

estimates, which were needed for calibration of the

HSPF PO4 simulation.

At the Ruckriegel Parkway sampling station

(site 401) during 1996–97, 16 of 27 TPO4 sample

concentrations (59 percent) were unavailable;

however, 2 of the 27 TPO4 samples were paired

automatic and cross-sectionally integrated samples.

Therefore, 15 of 25 TPO4 sample concentrations

(60 percent) were estimated by ordinary

least-squares regression against TP

(TPO4 = 0.258*TP 0.959; r2 = 0.66, n = 11; see

fig. 26). This relation indicated that, at this site

where nonpoint sources were dominant, generally

about one fourth to one third of TP is TPO4. In

contrast, the Jeffersontown WWTP data had

indicated that a large portion (approximately

90 percent) of TP in the effluent was in the form of

TPO4 (table 15).

At the Gelhaus Lane sampling station

(site 16) during 1996–97, 8 of 40 TPO4 sample

concentrations (20 percent) were unavailable;

however, three of these values were for paired

automatic samples. Therefore, 5 of 37 TPO4 sample

concentrations (14 percent) were estimated by

ordinary least-squares regression against TP

(TPO4 = 0.667*TP 0.799; r2 = 0.77, n = 32; see

fig. 26).
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

Figure 24. Distribution of total phosphorus concentrations at sampling sites in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

Jefferson County, Kentucky, during 1991–97.

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

Note: Sampling period 1991-97

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Watterson TrailRuckriegel Parkway

Jeffersontown WastewaterTreatment Plant

Taylorsville RoadEasum RoadGelhaus LaneSeatonville Road

03298129

03298135

03298138

03298140

03298145

03298150

03298160

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STATION NUMBER
60 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 25. Total phosphorus concentrations at selected sites during selected moderate- and

low-flow periods in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky.

03298135032981400329815003298160

0

1

2

3

03298135032981400329815003298160

0

1

2

3

September 26, 1996 September 16, 1997

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STATION NUMBER

Ruckriegel Parkway

Taylorsville Road

Gelhaus LaneSeatonville RoadRuckriegel Parkway

Taylorsville Road

Gelhaus LaneSeatonville Road

Figure 26. Comparison and regression relations of total phosphorus concentrations and total

orthophosphate concentrations at selected sites in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County,

Kentucky, during 1996–97.

0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION, IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

0.1 1.0 10.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATION,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

Ruckriegel Parkway

TPO =0.258TP 4

0.959

Gelhaus Lane

TPO =0.667TP 4

0.799

N = 11 N = 32
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

The relation of constituent concentration to

discharge (fig. 27) is generally indicative of the type

of constituent source: decreasing constituent

concentration with increasing discharge (dilution) is

typical for point sources and increasing constituent

concentration with increasing discharge is typical

for nonpoint sources. For total suspended solids,

nonpoint sources dominated at the Ruckriegel

Parkway and Gelhaus Lane sites. For total

phosphorus and total orthophosphate, nonpoint

sources were dominant at the Ruckriegel Parkway

site, and point sources, though supplemented by

nonpoint sources, were dominant at the Gelhaus

Lane site. Notice also that at the Gelhaus Lane site,

the upper end of the constituent concentrationdischarge relation (where most constituent transport

occurs) was almost entirely defined by storm waterquality-sampling data collected in 1996–97 for this

study, despite the extensive but mostly routine,

prescheduled sampling here during 1988–95.

Water-quality samples have been collected for daily

mean discharges of 117 ft3/s at Ruckriegel Parkway

and approximately 300 ft3/s at Gelhaus Lane. These

sampled discharges exceed flow durations of

2 percent and 1 percent, respectively, at these sites.

Instream-Constituent Load

Estimates

Long-term instream constituent loads were

estimated for suspended solids, total phosphorus,

and total orthophosphate by use of

ESTIMATOR—a statistical, regression-based, loadestimating program. ESTIMATOR generated daily

constituent-load estimates (which were aggregated

to monthly and annual loads) based on the daily

mean discharges and a linear-regression relation

between the sampling discharge and available

water-quality-sampling data (fig. 27) at the two

streamflow-gaging stations in the basin (Ruckriegel

Parkway, site 401 and Gelhaus Lane, site 16, fig. 7).

Note the large variability in sample concentrations

in relation to discharge in figure 27 (a variation of

one order of magnitude), which is not uncommon

for small basins having variable constituent source

areas and a relatively short period of sampling d

This large variability compounds the uncertainty 

the loads estimates.

The varied, curvilinear relation of total

suspended solids, total phosphorus, and total

orthophosphate concentrations to discharge at th

Gelhaus Lane site necessitated a piecewise-linea

regression approach for the loads-estimating

relation. Separate linear regressions were done

using 20 ft3

/s as a break point between a low-flo

regression and a high-flow regression. The

ESTIMATOR loads and yields for total suspend

solids, total phosphorus, and total orthophospha

are shown in table 22.

The estimated annual suspended-solids yie

during the model calibration period of over

4 (ton/acre)/yr were much larger than other repor

suspended-solids yields that may be representati

for average streamflow conditions. Agricultural 

forested areas were reported by Thomann and

Mueller (1987) to yield 0.71 and 0.11 (ton/acre)

of total suspended solids, respectively. Similar

suspended-solids yields (approximately 0.05 to

0.7 (ton/acre)/yr) were estimated by Evaldi and

Moore (1992 and 1994b) by use of a variety of

statistical methods at selected sites in Jefferson

County, Kentucky, including small drainage bas

with relatively homogeneous residential,

commercial, and industrial land uses (table 23).

Other studies have reported larger yields than th

for other basins in the region. Flint (1983) repor

an average yield of 1.16 (ton/acre)/yr considerin

data from eight sediment-discharge stations in th

Bluegrass Region of Kentucky. Measured yields 

4.59 and 2.34 (ton/acre)/yr were reported for lon

term sediment-discharge stations in approximate

1 and 32 mi2

 basins, respectively, on rural Plum

Creek in neighboring Shelby and Spencer Count

Ky. (Anttila, 1970). Therefore, the ESTIMATOR

suspended-solids loads and yields were deemed

representative during this period, considering th

above-normal precipitation, and the high level o

construction activity and land disturbance in the

basin. The WWTP’s were a minor source of the

total suspended solids (sediment) transported

(tables 14 and 22).
62 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 27. Comparison of total suspended-solids, total phosphorus, and total orthophosphate

concentrations and discharge at streamflow-gaging stations in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County,

Kentucky.

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

Ruckriegel Parkway, 1996-97 Gelhaus Lane, 1991-97

Ruckriegel Parkway, 1996-97 Gelhaus Lane, 1991-97

Ruckriegel Parkway, 1996-97 Gelhaus Lane, 1991-97

EXPLANATION

Routine sample Storm sample Lowess smooth

OBSERVED DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE,

IN MILLIGRAMS PER LITER

(Note: Includes estimated orthophosphate concentrations)
ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 

Table 22. Estimated annual loads and yields of total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and total orthophosphate 

the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–

January 1998

[lb, pound; P, phosphorus; --, not applicable]

Period

Total suspended solids Total phosphorus Total orthophosphate

Tons Ton/acre

Percentage

of load

estimated

beyond

range of

sampled

discharge lb as P lb as P/acre

Percentage

of load

estimated

beyond

range of

sampled

discharge lb as P lb as P/acre

Percenta

of load

estimate

beyond

range o

sampled

discharg

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

02/1996-01/1997 6,150 1.78 -- 6,210 1.80 -- 1,820 0.529 --

02/1997-01/1998 23,300 6.77 -- 11,600 3.37 -- 3,360 .975 --

Mean 14,700 4.27 73.3 8,900 2.58 54.0 2,590 .752 53.7

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

02/1996-01/1997 17,700 2.42 -- 43,900 6.00 -- 28,400 3.88 --

02/1997-01/1998 42,400 5.79 -- 43,300 5.91 -- 27,100 3.70 --

Mean 30,100 4.10 54.1 43,600 5.96 11.4 27,800 3.79 7.7

Table 23. Annual suspended-solids yields estimated by several statistical methods at selected sites in Jefferson

County, Kentucky

[--, not applicable; reported in Evaldi and Moore, 1992 and 1994b]

Site

Drainage

area

(acres)

Estimated

percent

impervious

Predominate land use

(percent of basin area)

 Range of estimated annual

yields

Minimum

(ton/acre)

Maximum

(ton/acre)

South Fork Beargrass Creek

tributary at Buechel

97 40 Residential (82 percent) 0.168 0.426

Hite Creek tributary at

O’Bennon

108 21 Industrial (58 percent) .100 .247

Middle Fork Beargrass Creek

tributary at St. Matthews

134 35 Residential (80 percent) .157 .384

Northern Ditch tributary at

Okolona

44 46 Industrial (76 percent) .168 .483

Big Run Tributary at Pleasure

Ridge Park

84 69 Residential (51 percent)

commercial (46 percent)

.168 .703

Middle Fork Beargrass Creek

tributary at Hurstbourne

Acres

180 64 Residential (50 percent)

 commercial (50 percent)

.168 .656

Long Run at State

Highway 1531

15,168 14 Agricultural (75 percent) .077 .248

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus

Lane

7,327 18 Mixed .116 .344

All sites, all methods -- -- -- .053 .703
64 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Estimated total phosphorus yields from

nonpoint sources located upstream from the

Ruckriegel Parkway station (table 22) were

consistent with other reported total phosphorus

yields. As noted previously, Thomas and

Crutchfield (1974) reported “medium” background

phosphorus concentrations of approximately

0.1 mg P/L in the nearby Plum Creek Basin of the

Outer Bluegrass Region of Kentucky. This

concentration was approximately one third the

concentration reported for “high” background levels

in Cave Creek Basin in Fayette County in the Inner

Bluegrass Region of Kentucky. Thomas and

Crutchfield (1974) reported a yield for Cave Creek

Basin of approximately 1 lb P/acre during the

January–May periods in 1971–72. This would

equate to an annual yield of approximately

1.5 lb P/acre/yr, assuming that two-thirds of annual

runoff occurred in the January–May period. A

background annual total-phosphorus yield of one

third of that for Cave Creek would thus be

approximately 0.5 lb P/acre/yr. Phosphorus yields

reported for 13 central Kentucky streamflow-gaging

stations in mostly rural basins averaged

0.63 lb P/acre/yr and ranged from 0.188 to

2.22 lb P/acre/yr (Garcia and Crain, 1998).

Reported generalized mean total phosphorus yields

(Thomann and Mueller, 1987) (table 24) ranged

from 0.18 to 0.89 lb P/acre/yr, depending upon the

nonpoint-source characteristics. The reported

annual TP yields from urban areas ranged from 0.09

to 8.9 lb P/acre/yr. Total phosphorus yields

estimated by Evaldi and Moore (1992 and 1994b)

by use of a variety of statistical methods at the

selected sites in Jefferson County including small

drainage basins with relatively homogeneous

residential, commercial, and industrial land uses

ranged from approximately 0.5 to 8 lb/acre/yr

(table 25). Evaldi and Moore (1994b) estimates of

TPO4 annual yields in Jefferson County ranged

from 0.378 to 4.72 lb/acre.

The total phosphorus and total

orthophosphate loads estimated at Ruckriegel

Parkway, in combination with loads estimated for

wastewater effluents, were consistent with the

cumulative loads estimated at the Gelhaus Lane

site.

The WWTP’s were the source of the majority

of TP and TPO4 transported in the basin. The load

estimates indicated that roughly 65 percent (23,300

of 43,600 lb as P annually) of the TP and 90 percent

(25,200 of 27,800 lb as P annually) of the TPO4

load at the Gelhaus Lane site during the

February 1996–January 1998 model calibration

period may have been attributable to the WWTP

effluents (see tables 14, 18, and 22).

Storm-load estimates were made by use of the

series of discrete water-quality samples collected

during selected storms at the two streamflow-gaging

stations. The instantaneous streamflow and

constituent concentration for the discrete water

samples were used to estimate hourly and total

storm loads. Estimated total storm loads for total

suspended solids, total phosphorus, and total

orthophosphate at the Ruckriegel Parkway and

Gelhaus Lane sites are shown in table 26.

MODEL-SIMULATION APPROACH

AND PROGRAMS

The HSPF model provides the capability to

simulate several relevant processes affecting

streamflow and water quality in the Chenoweth Run

Basin. The model provides the capability to

compute a suitable mass balance (water and

constituents) for the basin. Features of HSPF and

supporting software, HSPEXP and GENSCN, are

described in the following sections.

Table 24. Reported total phosphorus yields

from selected nonpoint sources in North America

[--, not available; from Thomann and Mueller, 1987, p. 394]

Type

Approximate

mean

(pound/acre

per year)

Approximate

range

(pound/acre

per year)

Forest, natural 0.36 0.009 – 0.80

Atmospheric rainfall

dry fallout

.18

.71

.07 – .9

--

Urban .89 .09 – 8.9

Agricultural, general .45 .09 – 4.5
MODEL-SIMULATION APPROACH AND PROGRAMS 

Table 25. Annual total phosphorus yields estimated by several statistical methods at selected sites in Jefferson

County, Kentucky

[lb, pound; --, not applicable; reported in Evaldi and Moore, 1992 and 1994b]

Site

Drainage

area

(acres)

Estimated

percent

impervious

Predominate land use

(percent of basin area)

Estimated annual total

phosphorus yields

Minimum

(lb/acre)

Maximum

(lb/acre)

South Fork Beargrass Creek tributary at Buechel 97 40 Residential (82 percent) 0.704 1.78

Hite Creek tributary at O’Bennon 108 21 Industrial (58 percent) .667 1.04

Middle Fork Beargrass Creek tributary at

St. Matthews

134 35 Residential (80 percent) .701 1.61

Northern Ditch tributary at Okolona 44 46 Industrial (76 percent) .690 2.02

Big Run Tributary at Pleasure Ridge Park 84 69 Residential (51 percent)

commercial (46 percent)

.686 2.93

Middle Fork Beargrass Creek tributary at

Hurstbourne Acres

180 64 Residential (50 percent)

commercial (50 percent)

.700 2.73

Long Run at State Highway 1531 15,168 14 Agricultural (75 percent) .506 3.25

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lanea 7,327 18 Mixed .710 4.50

All sites, all methods -- -- -- .506 7.75

a

Affected by point sources.

Table 26. Estimated loads of total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and total orthophosphate during sampled

storm periods in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998

[lb, pound; P, phosphorus]

Period Total

suspended

solids

(tons)

Total

phosphorus

(lb as P)

Total

orthophosphate

(lb as P)

Begin

(Julian date/time)

End

(Julian date/time)

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

19960208/1700 19960209/0100 0.82 3.92 3.90

19960319/0500 19960319/1100 91.5 175 74.9

19960606/2200 19960606/2300 4.25 4.65 1.12

19960702/1500 19960703/0100 21.1 29.5 3.77

19961022/2300 19961023/0500 .28 .95 .26

19961125/1000 19961125/2400 80.9 95.5 25.3

19970127/1800 19970128/0400 159 96.0 25.6

19970519/1600 19970520/0300 .15 2.29 .57

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

19960208/2300 19960209/0700 3.79 29.8 27.8

19960319/0500 19960319/1300 368 828 384

19960702/1600 19960703/0200 82.5 280 76.4

19961018/0100 19961018/0900 107 229 211

19970122/1300 19970122/1600 12.0 36 27.7

19970529/0200 19970529/1200 42.6 181 121
66 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Hydrological Simulation

Program—Fortran (HSPF)

HSPF, version 11, was selected for modeling

the Chenoweth Run Basin. HSPF, which is an

extension and refinement of the Stanford Watershed

Model IV (Crawford and Linsley, 1966), was

developed by the USEPA for use as a waterresources-planning and management tool (Bicknell

and others, 1993). HSPF was first published in 1980

and the current revision became available in 1997.

HSPF is a versatile model capable of

simulating hydrologic features and processes in

mixed-land-use basins, both urban and rural. HSPF

includes land surface, subsurface, and instream

water-quantity- and water-quality-modeling

components. The HSPF model was used to

represent several important hydrologic features and

processes of the Chenoweth Run Basin:

(1) numerous small lakes and ponds, through which

approximately 25 percent of the basin drains

(2) potential seasonal ground-water-seepage loss in

stream channels, (3) contributions from WWTP

effluents and bypass flows, and (4) the transport and

transformations of sediments and nutrients.

HSPF is a continuous, lumped-parameter,

conceptual hydrologic model. It provides a

continuous water and mass balance by tracking

precipitation and water-quality constituents through

the conceptual pathways of the hydrologic cycle

based on the principles of conservation of mass.

HSPF is composed of a series of computational

routines that separately model key processes in the

hydrologic cycle; it represents the hydrologic cycle

as an interconnected series of storage (and

processing) segments with fluxes of water and

constituents between the various storages. Storages

and fluxes are controlled by the system inputs and

user-supplied parameter values. HSPF parameters

have a physical meaning in terms of the conceptualprocess models. Though some parameters are

directly measurable, most are estimated during

model calibration.

Requirements for meteorological time-series

data input depend upon the modeling goal. The flow

model is driven by input of precipitation and

potential evapotranspiration time-series data;

additional meteorological data are needed for

detailed water-quality simulations. Generally, 3 to

6 years of data are desired for calibration of HSPF;

however, satisfactory calibrations have been done

with less data (Viessman and others, 1977). The

output of HSPF is continuous streamflow and

concentration (or load) of water-quality constituents

at a user-specified time interval. Time intervals for

simulation can range from 1 day to 1 minute. The

model user must specify all input-output time-series

linkages between HSPF program modules.

Continuous-simulation models permit

modeling significant basin processes for a full range

of the streamflow regime during the data-collection

period. The relative importance of various processes

and factors varies considerably with streamflow;

processes that significantly affect water-quality

conditions at low flows may have relatively

insignificant effects on water-quality conditions

during high flows. For assessment of peak-flow

characteristics, continuous-simulation models can

provide a more realistic evaluation of antecedent

soil-moisture conditions than is generally possible

with event-based models.

The hierarchical, block structure of HSPF has

three primary application modules. The first

primary module simulates movements and

processing of water, sediment, and other waterquality constituents in pervious land segments

(PERLND’s). The second primary module

simulates movement of water and constituents on

impervious land segments (IMPLND’s). The third

primary module simulates hydrologic routing,

sediment transport, and chemical-constituent

transport and biochemical processes in stream or

mixed-reservoir segments (RCHRES’s). Each of

these modules contains secondary modules; the

secondary modules contain subroutines, which may

in turn contain subordinate subroutines. Some of the

subordinate subroutines may contain subsidiary

subroutines (table 27). The definitions of the HSPF

model parameters used in the Chenoweth Run Basin

model are shown in table 28.
MODEL-SIMULATION APPROACH AND PROGRAMS 

Table 27. Computer code structure of Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF)

components used for modeling the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Primary module Secondary module Subroutine

Subordinate

subroutine

Subsidiary

subroutine

PERLND PWATER ICEPT

SURFAC DISPOS DIVISN

UZINF

PROUTE

INTFLW

UZONE UZONES

LZONE

GWATER

EVAPT ETBASE

EVICEP

ETUZON ETUZS

ETAGW

ETLZON

SEDMNT DETACH

SOSED1

ATTACH

PQUAL QUALSD

QUALOF

IMPLND IWATER RETN

IROUTE

EVRETN

SOLIDS ACCUM

SOSLD2

IQUAL WASHSD

WASHOF

RCHRES HYDR ROUTE DEMAND

SOLVE

NOROUTE FNDROW

AUXIL

SHEAR

ADCALC

SEDTRN COHESV ADVECT

DBEXCH

SANDLD TOFFAL

RQUAL OXRX ADVECT

SINK

OXBEN

OXREA

BODDEC

NUTRX ADVECT

BENTH

ADDSNU

ADVNUT

DECBAL
68 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 28. Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) parameters used to model the Chenoweth Run

Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

[--, not applicable; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand]

Secondary

module Parameter Units Description

Pervious Land (PERLND)

Water balance

Interception storage

PWATER CEPSC inch Interception storage capacity of plants

CEPS inch Initial interception storage

Surface and subsurface storages

UZSN inch Upper-zone nominal storage. An index to the amount

of depression and surface-layer storage of a

pervious area.

LZSN inch Lower-zone nominal storage. An index to the

soil-moisture-holding capacity.

SURS inch Initial surface storage

IFWS inch Initial interflow storage

UZS inch Initial upper-zone storage

LZS inch Initial lower-zone storage

AGWS inch Initial active-ground-water storage

Evapotranspiration

FOREST -- Fraction winter forest transpiration

LZETP -- Lower-zone evapotranspiration. An index to the

density of deep-rooted vegetation on a pervious

area.

AGWETP -- Fraction of available potential evapotranspiration

demand that can be met with stored ground water.

Simulates evapotranspiration from phreatophytes,

in general.

BASETP -- Fraction of available potential evapotranspiration

demand that can be met with ground-water outflow.

Simulates evapotranspiration from riparian

vegetation.

Recession rates

KVARY 1/inch Ground-water outflow modifier. An index of how

much effect recent recharge has on ground-water

outflow.

AGWRC 1/day Ground-water recession parameter. An index of the

rate at which ground water drains from the land.

IRC 1/day Interflow recession parameter. An index of the rate at

which shallow subsurface flow drains from the land.

GWVS inch Index to ground-water slope

Infiltration

INFILT inch/hour Infiltration capacity. An index to the infiltration

capacity at the soil surface, and an indirect index of

the percolation rate from the bottom of soil zone.

INFILD -- Ratio of the maximum to mean infiltration rate of a

pervious area. Accounts for the degree of variations

in the infiltration capacity.
MODEL-SIMULATION APPROACH AND PROGRAMS 

Infiltration—Continued

INFEXP -- Infiltration equation exponent. Controls the rate at

which infiltration decreases with increasing soil

moisture.

INTFW -- Interflow index. In combination with INFILT, an index

to the amount of water that infiltrates and flows as

shallow subsurface runoff.

DEEPFR -- Fraction of ground water that does not discharge to the

surface within the boundaries of the modeled area

Overland flow

LSUR foot Average length of the overland-flow plane

SLSUR -- Average slope of the overland-flow plane

NSUR -- Average roughness of the overland-flow plane

Soil erosion

SEDMNT SMPF -- Management factor to account for use of erosion

control practices

KRER complex Coefficient of the soil detachment equation

JRER complex Exponent of the soil detachment equation

AFFIX 1/day Fraction by which detached sediment decreases daily

through soil compaction

COVER -- Fraction of land surface shielded by vegetation or

mulch from erosion by direct rainfall impact

NVSI pound/acre-day Rate at which sediment enters detached-sediment

storage from the atmosphere

KSER complex Coefficient of the detached-sediment washoff equation

JSER complex Exponent of the detached-sediment washoff equation

KGER complex Coefficient of the soil-matrix scour equation

JGER complex Exponent of the soil-matrix scour equation

Orthophosphate flux

PQUAL SQO pound/acre Initial constituent storage on surface

POTFW pound/ton Potency factor of sediment in washoff

POTFS pound/ton Potency factor of scoured sediment

ACQOP pound/acre-day Accumulation rate of constituent on surface

SQOLIM pound/acre Maximum storage of constituent on surface

WSQOP inch/hour Rate of surface runoff to remove 90 percent of stored

constituent in one hour

Impervious Land (IMPLND)

Water balance

IWATER LSUR foot Average length of the overland-flow plane

SLSUR -- Average slope of the overland-flow plane

NSUR -- Average roughness of the overland-flow plane

RETSC inch Retention storage capacity of impervious areas

Table 28. Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) parameters used to model the Chenoweth Run

Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky—Continued

[--, not applicable; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand]

Secondary

module Parameter Units Description
70 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Water balance—Continued

RETS inch Initial retention storage

SURS inch Initial overland-flow storage

Sediment washoff

SOLIDS KEIM complex Coefficient of the solids washoff equation

JEIM complex Exponent of the solids washoff equation

REMSDP 1/day Fraction of solids removed on each day without runoff

ACCSDM ton/acre-day Solids accumulation rate

SLDS ton/acre Initial storage of solids

Orthophosphate flux

IQUAL SQO pound/acre Initial constituent storage on surface

POTFW pound/ton Potency factor of sediment in washoff

ACQOP pound/acre-day Accumulation rate of constituent on surface

SQOLIM pound/acre Maximum storage of constituent on surface

WSQOP inch/hour Rate of surface runoff to remove 90 percent of stored

constituent in one hour

Reaches and Reservoirs (RCHRES)

Water balance

HYDR FTABNO -- Number of the F-table that contains the RCHRES

geometric and hydraulic properties

LEN mile Length of the reach

DELTH foot Drop in water elevation within the stream reach

STCOR foot Correction in the reach depth to calculate stage

KS -- Weighting factor for flow routing

DB50 millimeter Median diameter of bed sediment

ADCALC CRRAT -- Ratio of maximum velocity to mean velocity in reach

cross section under typical flow conditions

Sediment transport

SEDTRN BEDWID foot Width of the streambed

BEDWRN foot Depth of the streambed

POR -- Porosity of the streambed

D inch Effective diameter of the sediment particle

W inch/second Settling velocity of the sediment particle in still water

RHO gram/cubic centimeter Density of the sediment particle

KSAND complex Coefficient of the HSPF sand-load equation

EXPSND complex Exponent of the HSPF sand-load equation

TAUCD pound/square foot Critical bed shear stress for sediment deposition

TAUCS pound/square foot Critical bed shear stress for sediment scour

M pound/square foot-day Erodibility coefficient of the sediment

BEDDEP foot Initial thickness of the bed material

Table 28. Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) parameters used to model the Chenoweth Run

Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky—Continued

[--, not applicable; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand]

Secondary

module Parameter Units Description
MODEL-SIMULATION APPROACH AND PROGRAMS 

Sediment transport—Continued

SSAND milligrams per liter Initial concentration of sand in suspension

SSILT milligrams per liter Initial concentration of silt in suspension

SCLAY milligrams per liter Initial concentration of clay in suspension

FRACSAND -- Initial fraction by weight of sand in bed material

FRACSILT -- Initial fraction by weight of silt in bed material

FRACCLAY -- Initial fraction by weight of clay in bed material

Oxygen balance

RQUAL SCRVEL foot/second Velocity above which the effects of scouring on

benthal release rates will be considered

SCRMUL -- Multiplier to increase benthal releases during scour

KBOD20 1/hour Unit BOD decay rate at 20 degrees Celsius

TCBOD -- Temperature-correction coefficient for BOD decay

KODSET foot/hour Rate of BOD settling

SUPSAT -- Allowable dissolved-oxygen supersaturation

multiplier

ELEV foot RCHRES elevation above sea level

BENOD milligram/square meter-hour Benthal oxygen demand at 20 degrees Celsius

TCBEN -- Temperature-correction coefficient for benthal oxygen

demand

EXPOD -- Exponential factor in the dissolved-oxygen term of the

benthal-oxygen-demand equation

BRBOD(1) milligram/square meter-hour Benthal release of BOD at high oxygen concentration

BRBOD(2) milligram/square meter-hour Increment to benthal release of BOD under anaerobic

conditions

EXPREL -- Exponential factor in the dissolved-oxygen term of the

benthal-BOD-release equation

TCGINV -- Temperature-correction coefficient for surface-gas

invasion

DOX milligrams per liter Initial dissolved-oxygen concentration

BOD milligrams per liter Initial BOD concentration

SATDO milligrams per liter Initial dissolved-oxygen-saturation concentration

Orthophosphate balance

BRPO4(1) milligram/square meter-hour Benthal release rate of orthophosphate, as phosphorus

under aerobic condition

BRPO4(2) milligram/square meter-hour Benthal release rate of orthophosphate, as phosphorus

under anaerobic condition

ANAER milligrams per liter Concentration of dissolved oxygen below which

anaerobic conditions exist

BPO4(1) milligrams per kilogram Constant bed concentration of orthophosphate, as

phosphorus, adsorbed to sand

Table 28. Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) parameters used to model the Chenoweth Run

Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky—Continued

[--, not applicable; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand]

Secondary

module Parameter Units Description
72 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Orthophosphate balance—Continued

BPO4(2) milligrams per kilogram Constant bed concentration of orthophosphate, as

phosphorus, adsorbed to silt

BPO4(3) milligrams per kilogram Constant bed concentration of orthophosphate, as

phosphorus, adsorbed to clay

ADPOPM(1) milliliter per gram Partition coefficient of orthophosphate, as phosphorus,

adsorbed to sand

ADPOPM(2) milliliter per gram Partition coefficient of orthophosphate, as phosphorus,

adsorbed to silt

ADPOPM(3) milliliter per gram Partition coefficient of orthophosphate, as phosphorus,

adsorbed to clay

PO4 milligrams per liter Initial concentration of dissolved orthophosphorus, as

phosphorus

PHVAL pH units Initial value of pH

SPO4(1) milligrams per kilogram Initial concentration of orthophosphate, as

phosphorus, adsorbed to sand

SPO4(2) milligrams per kilogram Initial concentration of orthophosphate, as

phosphorus, adsorbed to silt

SPO4(3) milligrams per kilogram Initial concentration of orthophosphate, as

phosphorus, adsorbed to clay

Table 28. Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) parameters used to model the Chenoweth Run

Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky—Continued

[--, not applicable; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand]

Secondary

module Parameter Units Description

Pervious Land Segments (PERLND)

Flow over and through pervious land

segments are modeled in the PERLND secondary

module PWATER. The conceptualized movement

of water overland and through the upper, lower, and

ground-water zones of pervious land segments is

illustrated in figure 28. Unsteady overland flow is

routed using a modified kinematic-wave

formulation. The Manning and continuity

equations are used with average overland-flowplane length, slope, and roughness estimates to

continuously (at each time step) calculate surface

detention storage, from which the overland-flow

rate is calculated. The potential infiltration rate is

computed as an empirical function of soil moisture.

Actual infiltration depends upon rainfall excess

remaining after subtracting interception losses

from precipitation. Rainfall excess is available for

surface detention, infiltration, or runoff. Infiltrated

moisture can move to four subsurface storage

reservoirs: upper-zone storage, lower-zone storage,

active-ground-water storage, and inactive-groundwater storage. The upper-zone storage includes

storage in surface depressions, surface vegetation,

ground litter, and the shallow root zone in the upper

few inches of soil. Moisture may leave the surfacedetention/upper-zone storage by

evapotranspiration, overland flow, interflow, or

percolation to the lower zone. The lower zone

extends a few feet to the depth of deep-rooted

vegetation, which evapotranspires a portion of the

moisture stored there. Active-ground-water storage

feeds stream base flows during periods of no

rainfall. Inactive or deep ground-water storage does

not flow to the stream and is considered lost from

the system.

Sediment erosion in pervious land segments

is simulated in the PERLND secondary module

SEDMNT. The processes modeled include

sediment detachment from the soil matrix by

rainfall, washoff of detached sediment, and scour

of the soil matrix by overland flow and sediment

reattachment.
MODEL-SIMULATION APPROACH AND PROGRAMS 

To Stre

Actual ET

Potential ET

Precipitation

Temperature

Radiation

Wind, Dewpoint

Snowmelt

Interception

Storage

Overland Flow

Interflow Upper Zone

Storage

Ground-water

Storage

Lower Zone

Storage

Deep or Inactive

Ground water

ET

ET

ET

ET

ET

-CEPSC*

LZSN*

-LZETP*

AGWETP*

DEEPFR*

INFILT*

-UZSN*

-INTFW*

LSUR*

SLSUR*

-NSUR*

-IRC*

AGWRC*

BASETP*

Direct

Infiltration

Delayed

Infiltration

2

3

5

4

1

*

CEPSC

ET

INFILT

LSUR

NSUR

INTFW

UZSN

IRC

LZSN

LZETP

DEEPFR

BASETP

AGWETP

AGWRC

SLSUR

Interception storage

Evapotranspiration

Infiltration

Length of overland flow pa

Roughness of overland flow 

Interflow

Upper zone nominal storag

Interflow recession constant

Lower zone nominal storag

Lower zone evapotranspirat

Inactive ground water

Baseflow evapotranspiration

Ground-water evapotranspir

Ground-water recession con

Slope of overland flow path

Model flow direction

2 Parameter

Model decision point

Storage

Output

Input

Process

Order taken to meet ET demand

EXPLANATION

Figure 28. Schematic of the Hydrologic Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) model of flow in a pervious land

segment.
74 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Outflows of other water-quality constituents

from pervious land segments can be simulated using

simple relations to water and (or) sediment yield in

the PERLND secondary module PQUAL. For this

study, dissolved and sediment-associated

orthophosphate yields from pervious land segments

were simulated with PQUAL. Detailed simulation

of nutrient, pesticide, and tracer constituents can

also be done in available PERLND agri-chemical

secondary modules; however, additional data

including soil temperatures are needed for these

detailed simulations.

Impervious Land Segments (IMPLND)

The processes of surface detention,

evaporation, and overland flow on impervious

surfaces are modeled in the IMPLND secondary

module IWATER by functional relations similar to

those used for pervious surfaces. Solids (sediment)

accumulation and removal from impervious land

segments was simulated by use of the SOLIDS

secondary module, which uses equations based on

those in the NPS Model (Donigian and Crawford,

1976). Outflows of water-quality constituents from

impervious land segments were simulated using

simple relations to water and (or) sediment yield in

the IQUAL secondary module. Thus, IQUAL was

used to simulate dissolved and sediment-associated

orthophosphate yields from impervious land

segments. Model parameters estimated for this

simulation of impervious surfaces included potency

factors for the constituent in solids (mass/mass) and

the constituent accumulation and washoff rates.

Reaches and Reservoirs (RCHRES)

Channel and mixed-reservoir flow is routed in

the RCHRES secondary module HYDR using a

modified kinematic-wave model with Manning’s

equation. This is a “hydrologic” or “storage”

routing method that does not account for

momentum. No assumption is made regarding

shape of the RCHRES (may be an open or closed

channel, or a completely mixed lake), but a fixed

relation between depth, surface area, and volume is

needed for routing flow in HYDR.

Each RCHRES is composed of two nodes, or

end points, and a single one-dimensional zone

between the nodes. Mass-flux rates and depths are

associated with nodes; mass-storage volumes are

associated with zones. (HSPF land segments consist

of zones only.) Each RCHRES has one inflow gate

that receives inflows from upstream RCHRES and

local sources. Each RCHRES has up to five outflow

gates. Other fluxes, such as precipitation and

evaporation, affect the RCHRES, but do not pass

through the gates. All inflows to RCHRES are

assumed to enter at the upstream end of RCHRES

prior to routing downstream through the RCHRES.

Nodes for the Chenoweth Run Basin were located,

where possible, such that tributary inflows were at

the upstream end of the RCHRES.

HSPF simulation of the transport, deposition,

and scour of inorganic sediment in channels and

mixed reservoirs is done in the RCHRES secondary

module SEDTRN. Noncohesive sediment (sand)

transport can be simulated in one of three alternate

methods (Toffaleti, Colby, or an “input power

function” method). Cohesive sediment (silts and

clays) transport simulation includes two steps:

(1) advective transport of entrained particles and

(2) deposition and scour of particles based on bed

shear stress. The sediment transport simulation

requires input of data on sediment diameter, settling

velocity, density, erodibility, and shear stress for

deposition and scour. Sand, silt, and clay transport

is modeled separately, thus armoring is not

modeled. HSPF assumes sediment scour and

deposition do not affect channel hydraulic

characteristics, and bed-load transport is not

modeled.

Detailed simulation of constituents involved

in biochemical transformations in channels and

mixed reservoirs is done in the RCHRES secondary

module RQUAL. RQUAL allows users to

selectively simulate various constituents and

processes. Oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD), and total orthophosphate content were

simulated for this study. Stream temperature data

were input for the RQUAL simulation; the

simulation was evaluated by comparison to

estimated loadings of total orthophosphate at

selected points in the basin. Obtaining a complete

and satisfactory simulation of relevant constituents

using RQUAL can be extremely complicated

because of the complexity of the physical, chemical,

and biological factors that affect the state of an

individual water body.
MODEL-SIMULATION APPROACH AND PROGRAMS 

Hydrologic Response Units (HRU)

Hydrologic response units (HRU’s) are

conceived as land segments with areally uniform

properties that produce a similar hydrologic and

water-quality response to a given precipitation and

evapotranspiration input. (HRU’s may also be

distinguished on the basis of features that are

expected to affect yields of various water-quality

constituents.) The HRU’s permit detailed

accounting for, and model representation of, the

spatial variability of hydrologic characteristics and

yields of various water-quality constituents in a

basin. Each particular HRU is defined by use of a

unique set of HSPF land-segment parameters and

meteorologic time series. Particular HRU’s are not

necessarily contiguous, but rather may be scattered

throughout a drainage basin in a mosaic pattern

composed of all the HRU types defined for the basin

model.

PERLND’s, IMPLND’s, and RCHRES’s are

the basic elements of the HSPF model. In this study,

each HRU represented unique land covers, as

described in further detail in “Hydrological

Response Units.” HRU’s are linked to RCHRES and

RCHRES’s are linked to other RCHRES’s within

the SCHEMATIC block of the HSPF user-control

input (UCI) file (Appendix 5). The appropriate

HRU’s are linked to a corresponding RCHRES to

represent subbasins, and RCHRES’s are linked

together to represent the entire basin hydrography.

Expert System HSPEXP for Model

Calibration

The expert system for calibration of

streamflow in HSPF (HSPEXP) (Lumb and others,

1994) was used to aid in model calibration. After

each model is run, statistical measures of flowsimulation error are calculated by the expert system

and provided to the user. The user is also provided

advice concerning options for adjusting parameters

and an explanation of the advice. The user may

select a parameter-adjustment option and make the

appropriate changes in the HSPF parameters in the

model UCI file (working inside or outside the

HSPEXP shell). The model is then run again; th

iterations continue until the errors reach an

acceptable level.

The HSPEXP software was developed to

assist less-experienced modelers with calibration 

a basin model and facilitate the interaction betw

the modeler and the modeling process not provid

by mathematical optimization schemes (Lumb a

others, 1994). The advice provided by the exper

system is based on a set of rules that use statistic

measures and subjective judgments provided by 

user that recognize the relative sensitivity of the

model parameters on the rainfall-runoff simulati

The calibration is a non-unique solution, meanin

that essentially the same model results can be

produced with another set of model parameter

values. The calibration goal is to have reasonabl

approximation to the process modeled while

retaining realistic and representative parameter

values.

Program GENSCN for Simulatio

of Scenarios

An interactive computer program,

GENeration and analysis of model simulation

SCeNarios (GENSCN) (Kittle and others, 1998)

is a tool for creation of model-simulation scenar

analysis of results of the scenarios, and compari

of scenarios. GENSCN enables analysis and

management of voluminous input and output to

complex river-basin models that are used to

simulate water quantity and quality for numerou

scenarios of changes in land use, land-use

management practices, and water-management

operations. HSPF and other hydrologic-modelin

tools have been ported to GENSCN.

A Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF model

implementation in GENSCN was developed and

used for water-quality calibrations (after the

streamflow was calibrated in HSPEXP). The

Chenoweth Run Basin GENSCN/HSPF model, 

present, contains the base calibration for water

quantity and quality for the period February 199

January 1998. Development of actual alternative

basin-management scenarios was beyond the sco

of this study. The Chenoweth Run Basin
76 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

GENSCN/HSPF model does, however, provide a

ready tool for development and analysis of

alternative basin-management scenarios.

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The HSPF model of Chenoweth Run Basin

was developed by defining a set of unique model

elements, which include the HRU’s and RCHRES’s.

Basin-segmentation procedures were used to create

model elements that have approximately

homogeneous characteristics. Initial model

parameter values were estimated for each element.

The model elements were then specified and linked

within the HSPF UCI file (Appendix 5). Associated

time-series input-output files were prepared for the

HSPF model execution.

Detailed geographic data were used to define

the model elements and selected model parameters.

ARC/INFO and ARC/INFO-GRID were used to

prepare base gridded coverages of land use/land

cover, soils, and land slope; TOPOGRID was used

to prepare a digital elevation model (DEM) as

described in “Methods of Data Collection and

Analysis: Geographical Data.” A description of the

hydrological analysis of this geographic

information follows.

Basin segmentation, or partitioning,

establishes the areal boundaries of the model

elements. Basin segmentation may be based on

variations in many basin characteristics, such as

meteorology, physiography, land use/land cover,

soils, and stream channels. The initial basin

segmentation required the definition of RCHRES

boundaries and delineation of the subbasins that

drain to each RCHRES. Basin segmentation

continued further in the process of defining the

HRU’s.

The basin was segmented, by use of a

1:24,000-scale topographic map, into 23 subbasins

draining to 14 channel reaches with significant

storage volume (fig. 29). Considerations in defining

RCHRES’s included provision of (1) reach lengths

with mean-flow travel times that approximate the

minimum model-simulation time step used, which

was 5 minutes; (2) approximately uniform,

homogeneous channel properties, such as slope

(fig. 30) and conveyance within the reaches; and

(3) nodes at stream gages, water-quality-sampling

sites, inflows from external sources, and outflows to

external sinks.

Drainage areas were also delineated

(segmented out) for the numerous ponds and small

lakes in the basin (fig. 31). About 25 percent of the

whole basin drains through these ponds and small

lakes, which therefore may have significant

hydrological effects. In the nine subbasins where

combined pond-drainage area exceeded 10 percent

of the total subbasin area, these multiple, dispersed

ponds were represented as single, composite ‘pond’

RCHRES (nos. 15-23) through which the combined

pond-drainage-area runoff was routed prior to

routing through a channel RCHRES (nos. 1-14).

The basin was not further segmented on the

basis of the rain-gage Thiessen-polygon boundaries

(fig. 8), because RG28a alone provided coverage of

approximately 90 percent of the drainage area to the

two calibration points at Ruckriegel Parkway and

Gelhaus Lane (table 9). Thus, RG28a rainfall was

applied to the entire basin.

Model Elements and Selected

Parameters

Model elements and the initial values of the

associated model parameters were developed and

estimated by use of observed, measurable basin

characteristics, when possible. The procedures used

to define the model elements and initial parameter

values are described in this section.

Hydrologic Response Units (HRU)

Basin characteristics and classes were

selected for defining HRU’s that permit model

representation of processes that affect both the

quantity and quality of water in the basin. Nineteen

different HRU’s were developed.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

Shi s B nk ranch

Razor Branc

C

h

henoweth

Run

EXPLANATION

Watershed boundary

Subbasin boundary

38 07 30 °¢2

38 14 30 °¢2

85 35 30 °¢2 85 30 ° ¢

0

0

1

1

2

2

3 MILES

3 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 16

Floyds

Fork

1

2

3

4 5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

1b

1a

2a

1c

2b

5a

5b

6a

6b

8a

8b

8c

9a

9b

10a

10b

Figure 29. Model subbasin and stream-reach designations for the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson

County, Kentucky.
78 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky Figure 30. Approximate Chenoweth Run low-water profile based on 2-foot contour-interval data. 

Shinks Branch 

Razor Branch confluence Gelhaus Lane (Site 16) Easum Road (Site CR2) Taylorsville Road (Site 402) Jeffersontown Wastewater-Treatment Plant (Site CR4) Ruckriegel Parkway (Site 401) Old Watterson Trail (Site CR5)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 

DISTANCE UPSTREAM FROM MOUTH, IN MILES

480680500520540560580600620640660

ELEVATION, IN FEET ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 1

Main-channel reaches
MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

Shi s B nk ranch

Razor Branch

La Clara

Lakes

Waggners

Lake

Chenoweth

Run

0

0

1

1

2

2

3 MILES

3 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 16

EXPLANATION

Watershed boundary

Pond

Drainage area to ponds

Subbasin boundary

38°13'30" 38°13'30"

38°08'30" 38°08'30"

85°30'30"

85°30'30"

85°34'30"

85°34'30"

Figure 31. Areas draining to ponds and small lakes in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

Jefferson County, Kentucky.
80 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Analysis and Classification of Basin

Characteristics

 Available geographic data were compiled

and analyzed in terms of three hydrologically

relevant basin characteristics—land use/land cover,

soils, and land slope. The HRU’s were defined, as

described in the following sections, on the basis of

seven land-use/land-cover classes, three soil classes,

and two land-slope classes.

Land Use and Land Cover

The types of land use and land cover in a

basin significantly affect hydrologic response.

Thirteen basic land-use/land-cover classes (table 8)

were defined from the original geographical data

sets. These included agricultural areas (pasture/crop

and forest); nonagricultural, open, primarily grasscovered areas; and impervious areas.

The nonagricultural open areas were

distinguished by the associated land uses and the

degree of possible man-made alterations, including

soil disturbances and lawn treatment. These classes

permit representation of the effects of possible soil

disturbance (compaction, regrading, etc.) and varied

lawn-treatment practices. A zone of disturbed soils

was assumed to exist within a buffer approximately

50 ft (15 m) in width around buildings in the singlefamily-residential and commercial/industrial/

multifamily-residential land-use categories only.

Different HRU’s can be hypothesized and

represented; land inside the 50-ft buffer can be

assumed to have lower infiltration rates and waterstorage capacity and also higher lawn-treatment

rates than otherwise similar areas within the same

land-use/land-cover class located outside this 50-ft

buffer.

Impervious areas were distinguished by type

(roads, buildings, and parking lots) and associated

land uses. Impervious classes defined on the basis

of land-use categories included (1) commercial/

industrial/multi-family impervious, and (2) singlefamily-residential and other impervious areas in the

public/semi-public, parks/open space, vacant/

undeveloped land-use categories. Different

constituent-accumulation rates may be

hypothesized and modeled for these two different

impervious classes.

The 13 basic land-use/land-cover classes

were simplified and consolidated (remapped) into

7 land-use/land-cover classes by use of ARC/INFOGRID prior to combining these with coverages of

other basin characteristics of interest—the soils and

land slopes. (See program hru.aml in Appendix 3).

The seven land-use/land-cover classes included

pasture/crop, forest, open vacant/undeveloped uses,

open developed uses, open single-family

residential-use areas having disturbed soils, open

commercial/industrial/multifamily-residential use

areas having disturbed soils, and impervious

(fig. 32). The proportion of pervious area (open and

forested) and total impervious area in the basin was

shown in table 2.

Soils

For definition of the HRU’s, soils were

grouped on the basis of estimated drainage

properties of each of the 18 soil series’ in the basin.

The HSPF soil parameter INFILT (table 28) was

estimated as the (limiting) minimum permeability

for each soil series as listed in the soil survey of

Jefferson County. UZSN was estimated as the

product of the average depth of the topsoil horizon

and the available-water capacity in the topsoil.

LZSN was estimated as the product of the average

depth to the seasonally high water table

(unsaturated zone) and the average available-water

capacity in the subsoil. The K-means clusteranalysis technique (Hartigan, 1975; Wilkinson and

others, 1996) was used to help distinguish the soil

series’ that have similar infiltration and storage

characteristics. The cluster analysis was done for

various numbers of groups with and without

transformation (log base 10) and with and without

standardizing the parameter values. Three soilseries clusters were identified using the transformed

and standardized INFILT and LZSN parameters for

the 7 soil series’ that comprise at least 3 percent of

the basin area (table 29 and fig. 33). These three

groups of the seven primary soil series’ were

distinguished primarily on the basis of the INFILT

value. UZSN was not a significant discriminator

among the groups and was not used in the final

clustering. The remaining minor soils were

classified into the three groups with the most similar

INFILT value, as shown in table 29 and figure 33.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

Saratoga

Woods

Residential Area

Commercial/Industrial Area

0

0

1

1

2

2

3 MILES

3 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 16

EXPLANATION

Watershed boundary

38°13'30" 38°13'30"

38°08'30" 38°08'30"

85°30'30"

85°30'30"

85°34'30"

85°34'30"

Pasture/crop

Forest

Open, vacant/undeveloped uses

Open, developed uses

Open, single-family residential, disturbed soils

Open, commercial/industrial/multifamily

residential, disturbed soils

Impervious

Figure 32. Distribution of land covers in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
82 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 29. Description of the soil-series groups defined for modeling the

Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

[UZSN, upper-zone nominal storage; LZSN, lower-zone nominal storage; INFILT, infiltration

capacity; *, indicates the primary soils used in the final clustering; --, not applicable]

Jefferson

County soil

series

Percentage of

basin area

Estimated

UZSN

(inches)

Estimated

LZSN

(inches)

Estimated

INFILT

(inches per

hour)

Soils-series group 1

Beasley* 24.5 0.62 8.40 0.05

Dickson* 4.4 .88 3.42 .05

Ginat 1.1 .05 .72 .05

Guthrie 1.0 .88 1.32 .05

Lawrence 2.1 .88 1.32 .05

Otway 1.6 .08 2.52 .05

Russellville* 13.5 .88 5.70 .05

Taft .3 .66 1.32 .05

Woolper 1.3 .57 5.25 .05

Subtotal: 49.9 -- -- --

Areally

weighted

mean:

-- .70 6.30 .05

Soils-series group 2

Captina .9 1.10 3.15 .20

Corydon* 6.6 .66 4.20 .20

Crider* 24.5 .88 10.5 .20

Lindside 2.4 .88 1.32 .20

Subtotal: 34.3 -- -- --

Areally

weighted

mean:

-- .84 8.47 .20

Soils-series group 3

Ashton .5 .88 13.2 .80

Elk .7 .88 12.3 .80

Fairmount* 5.5 .40 2.16 2.00

Huntington* 3.1 .78 5.46 .80

Newark 2.1 1.10 1.32 .80

Subtotal: 11.9 -- -- --

Areally

weighted

mean:

-- .67 3.97 1.35

Note: Made land, rock land, and water bodies cover the remaining 3.9 percent of the basin.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

0.03 3 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2

SOIL INFILTRATION (INFILT), IN INCHES PER HOUR

0.5

20

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

LOWER ZONE STORAGE (LZSN), IN INCHES

Ashton

Elk

Huntington

Newark

Fairmount

Crider

Corydon

Captina

Lindside

Beasley

Russellville

Woolper

Dickson

Lawrence &

Guthrie

Ginat

Otway

EXPLANATION

MAJOR SOILS; soils that comprise at

least 3 percent of the basin area. These

soils together comprise about 82 percent

of the basin

Elk SOIL SERIES (Table 29)

GROUPS; defined by cluster analysis of

the major soils

MINOR SOILS; soils that comprise less

than 3 percent of basin area. Minor soils

were grouped with the major soils

represented by the same symbol shape

AREALLY WEIGHTED MEAN of major

soils in a group

AREALLY WEIGHTED MEAN of all soils

in a group

Taft

Figure 33. Estimated infiltration rates and lower-zone storages of the soil series and soil-series groups defined for

modeling the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky.

Areally weighted average values of UZSN, LZSN,

and INFILT were calculated for each soil-series

group. These calculated values served as a guide for

estimating initial HSPF soil-related parameter

values for each HRU. The areal distribution of the

soil-series groups is shown in figure 34.

Land Slope

Land slope was generally steeper in the lower

half of the basin than in the upper half (see the

shaded-relief map on cover). A 13.1 ft by 13.1 ft

(4 m by 4m) continuous land-slope grid was

computed from the LOJIC digital elevation data.

Two slope classes were selected: less than or equal

to 5 percent and greater than 5 percent.

Approximately 40 to 45 percent of the basin has a

land slope of less than or equal to 5 percent. The

areal distribution of the two slope classes are shown

in figure 35.

Definition and Adjustment

The model HRU’s are selected geographic

intersections (combinations) of the seven land-u

land-cover classes, three soil classes, and two sl

classes. Processing the gridded land-use/land-co

soils, and land-slope coverages by use of

ARC/INFO-Grid (program hru.aml, Appendix 3

generated the combined grid consisting of the

existent combinations of the seven land-use/land

cover classes, three soil classes, and two land slo

classes (table 30). There were 36 different

hypothetical basin-characteristic combinations f

pervious HRU’s (6 covers * 3 soils * 2 slopes). T

impervious land use/land cover was restricted to

only two classes (commercial/industrial/

multifamily-residential land uses and single-fam

residential and other land uses), and the impervi

areas were not differentiated in terms of slope.
84 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Shi s B nk ranch

Razor Branch

La Clara

Lakes

Waggners

Lake

Chenoweth

Run

0

0

1

1

2

2

3 MILES

3 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 16

EXPLANATION

Watershed boundary

Group1-infiltration 0.05 inches/hour

storage 0.7 to 9 inches

Group 2-infiltration 0.2 inches/hour

storage 1.5 to 11 inches

Group 3-infiltration 0.8 to 2.0 inches/hour

storage 1.5 to 12 inches

Subbasin boundary

38°13'30" 38°13'30"

38°08'30" 38°08'30"

85°30'30"

85°30'30"

85°34'30"

85°34'30"

Figure 34. Distribution of soil-series groups defined for modeling the Chenoweth

Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

Shi s B nk ranch

Razor Branch

La Clara

Lakes

Waggners

Lake

Chenoweth

Run

0

0

1

1

2

2

3 MILES

3 KILOMETERS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000, 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator projection, Zone 16

EXPLANATION

Watershed boundary

Less than or equal to 5 percent slope

Greater than 5 percent slope

Subbasin boundary

38°13'30" 38°13'30"

38°08'30" 38°08'30"

85°30'30"

85°30'30"

85°34'30"

85°34'30"

Figure 35. Distribution of land slopes in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson

County, Kentucky.
86 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 30. Hydrologic response units simulated in the Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) model of the

Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

[%, percentage of drainage area at point of interest; >, greater than; The open, developed uses hydrologic response unit includes open areas

assumed undisturbed in the land uses designated as residential, commercial, industrial, public, semipublic, parks, and open space in the

Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium (LOJIC) coverages]

Chenoweth Run at

Ruckriegel

Parkway

Chenoweth Run at

Gelhaus Lane

Chenoweth Run at

Seatonville Road

Hydrologic

response

unit Acres % Acres % Acres % Description

Pervious hydrologic response units

1 76 2.2 124 1.7 244 2.3 Pasture/crop, low-permeability soils, 0 to 5 percent

slope

2 20 .6 121 1.6 548 5.2 Pasture/crop, low-permeability soils, > 5 percent slope

3 49 1.4 177 2.4 431 4.1 Pasture/crop, moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slope

4 5 .2 41 .6 306 2.9 Pasture/crop, high-permeability soils, > 5 percent

slope

5 79 2.3 128 1.7 242 2.3 Forested, low-permeability soils, 0 to 5 percent slope

6 126 3.7 290 4.0 930 8.8 Forested, low-permeability soils, > 5 percent slope

7 164 4.8 228 3.1 252 2.4 Forested, moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slope

8 21 .6 93 1.3 445 4.2 Forested, high-permeability soils, > 5 percent slope

9 174 5.0 431 5.9 459 4.3 Open, vacant/undeveloped uses, low-permeability

soils, 0 to 5 percent slopes

10 201 5.8 452 6.2 592 5.6 Open, developed uses, low-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slopes

11 124 3.6 834 11.4 1,238 11.7 Open, developed uses, low-permeability soils,

> 5 percent slopes

12 217 6.3 726 9.9 823 7.8 Open, developed uses, moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slopes

13 159 4.6 371 5.0 404 3.8 Open, developed uses, moderate-permeability soils,

> 5 percent slopes

14 55 1.6 239 3.3 363 3.4 Open, developed uses, high-permeability soils,

> 5 percent slopes

15 367 10.6 861 11.7 972 9.2 Open single-family residential, disturbed lowpermeability soils, all slopes

16 423 12.3 726 9.9 777 7.3 Open single-family residential, disturbed moderatepermeability soils, 0 to 5 percent slopes

17 465 13.5 547 7.5 547 5.2 Open commercial/industrial/multi-family residential,

disturbed moderate-permeability soils, 0 to

5 percent slopes

Subtotal: 2,725 79.1 6,389 87.2 9,573 90.5

Impervious hydrologic response units

1 237 6.9 425 5.8 495 4.7 Single-family residential/parks/public/vacant

hydrologically effective impervious areas, all slopes

2 483 14.0 512 7.0 512 4.8 Commercial/industrial/multi-family residential

hydrologically effective impervious areas, all slopes

Subtotal: 720 20.9 937 12.8 1,007 9.5

Total: 3,445 100 7,327 100 10,580 100
MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

Thus, there were a total of 38 different hypothetical

HRU’s from which the final set of primary HRU’s

for modeling were selected and specified.

Adjustments of the hypothetical HRU

categories and areas were made on the basis of the

HRU prevalence in the basin, the hydrological

effectiveness of the impervious areas, and other

factors, such as land uses and land treatments that

were not reflected in the original geographic data

used to generate the initial set of hypothetical

HRU’s.

Drainage areas of each HRU to each of the

two streamflow-gaging stations and the entire basin

area are summarized in table 30. The areas listed in

table 30 reflect the HRU adjustments described in

the following sections.

For appropriate HSPF model routing of water

and constituents through the basin, consistent with

the basin-segmentation procedure, areas of each

HRU were determined for the portion of each

subbasin that drains (1) directly to the subbasin

channel and (2) to the ponds (but only in cases

where more than 10 percent of the subbasin area

drains to ponds). These HRU areas, which were

grouped by subbasin in the UCI file (Appendix 5),

serve as areal “weightings” that specify the relative

frequency of each HRU within each subbasin.

Prevalence of the Hydrologic Response Units

Some of the hypothetical HRU’s were not

present in the basin in hydrologically significant

amounts. About one-half of the pervious

hypothetical HRU’s individually represented less

than 2 percent of the basin area; therefore, these

hypothetical HRU’s were not included in the set of

primary HRU’s represented in the model. Areas of

the pervious hypothetical HRU’s covering less than

2 percent of the basin were shifted, or added, to

other similar pervious HRU’s that were selected, in

order of priority, on the basis of similarity in

(1) land-use/land-cover, (2) soils characteristics,

and (3) slope. Seventeen primary pervious HRU’s

(table 30) remained after this consolidation

procedure.

Prevalent HRU’s in the upper third of the

basin at Ruckriegel Parkway included the effective

impervious areas, IMPLND’s 1 and 2

(approximately 21 percent), open space in singlefamily-residential use with disturbed soils,

PERLND’s 15 and 16 (22.9 percent), and open

space in commercial/industrial/multifamilyresidential use with disturbed soils, PERLND 17

(13.5 percent). Further downstream, the proporti

of basin area that is in the disturbed-soil and

impervious HRU’s declined. At the Seatonville

Road site, for example, effective impervious are

was approximately 10 percent of basin area; HR

with disturbed soils, PERLND’s 15, 16 and 17,

were approximately 22 percent of basin area; op

space with low-permeability soil and slopes

exceeding 5 percent, PERLND 11, was

approximately 12 percent of basin area; and

forested area with low-permeability soil and slop

exceeding 5 percent, PERLND 6, was

approximately 9 percent of basin area.

Hydrologically Effective and

Ineffective Impervious Areas

Hydrologically effective impervious areas

yield runoff directly to the basin drainage netwo

The proportion of the total impervious area that w

hydrologically effective was estimated. The

estimated percentage of the impervious types

(roads, buildings, and parking lots) that were

hydrologically effective were assumed to vary b

land-use classification as shown in table 31. A

similar approach has been used in other studies

(Dinicola, 1990; Jarrett and others, 1998; Alley a

Veenhuis, 1983).

Table 31. Estimates of the percentages of impervious

land covers that are hydrologically effective in the

Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

[LOJIC, Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium]

LOJIC

land-use

classification

Impervious

type

Percentage

hydrologically

effective

Single family:

Roads 80

Buildings 20

Multi-family:

Roads 90

Buildings 80

Parking 90

Commercial and industrial:

Roads 95

Buildings 90

Parking 95

Public, park and vacant:

Roads 70

Buildings 40

Parking 40
88 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Conversely, hydrologically ineffective

impervious areas convey runoff to nearby pervious

areas. A significant proportion of roof tops in lowand moderate-density development is often

hydrologically ineffective. The estimated

hydrologically ineffective impervious areas were

therefore subtracted from the total subbasin

impervious area and shifted (added) to pervious

HRU areas within the same subbasin.

The hydrologically ineffective impervious

areas were added to selected pervious HRU’s that

have limited storage and infiltration capacity

(PERLND’s 15, 16, and 17). This indirectly

simulated the effect of additional runoff from

impervious areas flowing onto an adjacent pervious

area, which would have diminished water storage

and infiltration capacities because of the additional

water added to the precipitation falling directly onto

the pervious area. The hydrologically ineffective

impervious area was shifted, or allocated, to

PERLND’s 15, 16, and 17 within a subbasin in

proportion to the relative proportion of each of these

HRU’s within the subbasin. For example, if there

was an equal area of PERLND’s 15, 16, and 17 in a

subbasin, then equal portions (one third) of the total

hydrologically ineffective impervious area in the

subbasin would be shifted to each of these three

HRU’s.

For improved fit during calibration of flow,

hydrologically effective impervious areas in

subbasins upstream from the Ruckriegel Parkway

site were reduced an additional 10 percent and also

shifted in like fashion to PERLND’s 15, 16, and 17.

Note that the total impervious area upstream from

the Ruckriegel Parkway site was estimated to be

approximately 30 percent of the drainage area

(table 2), and the final effective impervious area at

this site after model calibration was estimated to be

approximately 21 percent of the drainage area

(table 30).

Other Adjustment Factors

A change in land use that was not reflected in

the original LOJIC geographic data set obtained in

1996 for use in the study occurred at the Saratoga

Woods residential development (fig. 32) in

subbasin 9b (fig. 29). Recent (spring 1997), aerial

imagery of the area was obtained from LOJIC to

supplement the original data. Approximately 400

new houses in the development were counted on the

aerial imagery. Consequently, an adjustment of one

quarter acre per house was made by shifting

100 acres from PERLND’s 9 and 11 to PERLND 15

(table 30). The 100 acres was subtracted from these

HRU’s in proportion to the relative amounts of each

of these HRU’s that was measured in this subbasin.

In addition, 2,500 ft2

 of impervious area (rooftops

and driveways) per house were added by shifting

5 acres from PERLND 11 to IMPLND 1. (Roads

within the development were already included in

the impervious HRU areas.)

An adjustment of HRU’s was also made for

representation of more intensive land-disturbance

and land-treatment activities likely at Vittner Golf

Course in subbasin 10a (fig. 29) than was assumed

typical for the open, developed-uses set of HRU’s

(PERLND’s 10-14). One-hundred-fifty acres of

these five PERLND’s, which were subtracted from

each of these HRU’s in proportion to the relative

amounts of each of these HRU’s that were measured

in this subbasin, were shifted to PERLND’s 15-17.

Seventy-five percent (112.5 acres) was shifted to

PERLND’s 15 and 16 in proportion to the relative

amounts of each of these two HRU’s that were

measured in this subbasin. The remaining

25 percent (37.5 acres) was shifted to PERLND 17.

Reaches and Reservoirs (RCHRES)

Stream reach and reservoir (RCHRES)

boundaries were defined as part of basin

segmentation. The Chenoweth Run Basin was

segmented into 23 subbasins with 14 actual

RCHRES—11 in the main channel and 3 in the

major tributary channels (fig. 29). In addition, nine

composite, ‘pond’ RCHRES’s were added to

simulate the hydrologic effects of the numerous,

dispersed small lakes and ponds in the basin. Each

RCHRES had unique channel geometry and

conveyance that was described in a function table

(FTABLE) in the HSPF UCI file (Appendix 5). The

FTABLES specified stage, surface area, storage,

and discharge characteristics of a channel or

reservoir.

The Channel Geometry Analysis Program

(CGAP) by Regan and Schaffranek (1985) was used

to define the average, stage-dependent storagedischarge characteristics for the 14 actual main- and

tributary-channel RCHRES’s. CGAP computations
MODEL DEVELOPMENT 

required channel cross-section and roughness

information. A series of channel cross sections

spaced at approximately 200 to 300 ft were

developed for each RCHRES from the LOJIC 2-ft

contour-interval maps. Estimates of channel

roughness (Manning’s “n” value) were made using

procedures by Arcement and Schneider (1989) and

“n” values estimated previously for indirect

discharge measurements in Chenoweth Run.

Runoff in Chenoweth Run, particularly

downstream from the Ruckriegel Parkway site, is

influenced by numerous, but generally small, lakes

and ponds (hereafter referred to as ponds). The

LOJIC water-bodies coverage includes 248 ponds

in the basin with an average surface area of

0.45 acres, ranging in size from less than 0.01 to

4.43 acres; drainage areas to these ponds were

delineated (fig. 31). Total drainage area to ponds

was 2,660 acres, about 25 percent of the whole

basin drainage area.

The ponds were too numerous to represent

individually in the model; therefore, they were

represented in the model by composite pond

RCHRES’s that were intended to reflect the

combined water and constituent storage and

discharge characteristics of all the ponds within a

subbasin. A pond RCHRES was included for each

subbasin where drainage area to ponds was greater

than 10 percent of the total subbasin area. The

normal surface area of each pond RCHRES was

estimated as the summation of the surface areas of

all ponds within a subbasin. The normal volume of

each pond RCHRES was estimated as 40 percent of

the normal depth (12 ft assumed) times the surface

area at normal depth. A typical, relative pond deptharea-volume relation (table 32) was assumed

representative for each pond RCHRES. Mean

10-year and 100-year peak discharges were

estimated separately for the drainage areas of the

small pond RCHRES’s (16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 23)

and the large pond RCHRES’s (15, 18, and 19).

Low flood-storage volume was assumed for the

ponds. Thus, pond RCHRES hypothetical outflows

specified in the FTABLES were set equal to

approximately two-thirds of the estimated

10-year peak flow at a hydraulic head of 2 ft (stage

of 14 ft) and at least equal to the estimated mean

100-year peak flow at a hydraulic head of 4 ft (stage

of 16 ft). Pond drainage areas for subbasins 13, 12,

11, 10b, 10a, 9b, 9a, 8a, and 1a (fig. 29) drain to

pond RCHRES 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, an

23, respectively, as detailed in the UCI file,

Appendix 5.

Base-Flow Losses

Available base-flow discharge measureme

in Chenoweth Run (table 20) indicated a possibi

for seasonal ground-water-seepage losses in the

main channels. Discharge measurements during

base flows in the Beargrass Creek Basin indicate

base-flow losses occurred there also (Ruhl and

Jarrett, 1999). Such losses were hypothesized an

incorporated into the model by use of the multip

outflow-gate feature of HSPF. Two outflow gate

were included for RCHRES’s 4 to 10, 12, and 14

the first outflow gate removed seepage water fro

the channel (and entirely out of the system), and 

second outflow gate routed the remaining flow to

downstream RCHRES’s.

During low-flow calibration, the target tot

channel seepage losses were up to 0.5 ft3/s upstre

from Ruckriegel Parkway, 1.5 to 2.0 ft3

/s from

Ruckriegel Parkway to Gelhaus Lane, and the sa

lineal loss rate continuing downstream from

Gelhaus Lane as was assumed to exist between

Table 32. Relative depth-area-volume relation

used for the pond reaches and reservoirs (RCHRES

in the Chenoweth Run Basin model

Depth

(in feet)

Depth

divided by

12 feet

Area

divided by

area at

12 feet

depth

Volume

divided b

volume a

12 feet

depth

00 0 0

6 .5 .79 .33

7 .583 .84 .43

8 .667 .89 .55

9 .75 .92 .66

10 .833 .94 .76

11 .917 .97 .89

12 1 1 1

13 1.083 1.02 1.11

14 1.167 1.05 1.25

15 1.25 1.07 1.37

16 1.33 1.1 1.5
90 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Ruckriegel Parkway and Gelhaus Lane. A constant

seepage-loss rate was assumed during June–

November, except in October, when it increased

50 percent until October 30. Also, the base seepage

loss rate was increased 50 percent during

July–October 1998; at all other times the assumed

seepage-loss rate was effectively zero. The seepage

loss was implemented in HSPF as an outflowdemand time series (DSN 72) with a base value of

1 ft3

/s that was multiplied by weighting factors (see

UCI file, Appendix 5) to provide a uniform lineal

loss rate for each stream segment and the desired

total loss in each segment. The combined base-flow

loss after flow calibration was 0.37 ft3/s in

RCHRES’s 4-6 upstream from Ruckriegel Parkway,

1.82 ft3

/s in RCHRES’s 7-10 between Ruckriegel

Parkway and Gelhaus Lane, and 1.37 ft3/s in

RCHRES’s 10 and 12 downstream from Gelhaus

Lane.

As noted in the ‘Previous Studies‘ section,

the gains in base flows observed in Floyds Fork near

Chenoweth Run may be fed by base-flow losses in

Chenoweth Run. Detailed base-flow seepage

measurements are needed to confirm and refine the

assumed seepage-loss rates.

Lower Zone Evapotranspiration

Parameter (LZETP)

Evapotranspiration from lower-zone storage

is limited by the amount of deep-rooted vegetation.

This limit on evapotranspiration was represented in

the model by a deep-rooted-vegetation densityindex parameter, LZETP, which ranges in value

from 0 to 1. Initial estimates of LZETP were

calculated for each PERLND HRU by combining a

gridded tree-canopy cover (developed from the

LOJIC tree-canopy line coverage) with the HRU

grid. The tree-canopy cover was also merged with

the GIRAS cover of forest type to distinguish

deciduous trees from evergreen trees, where

possible. The deciduous and evergreen proportions

were used to estimate variable monthly LZETP

values.

Note that the spatial distribution of the forest

HRU was not delineated by use of the LOJIC treecanopy coverage. The forest-HRU distribution was

determined directly from the GIRAS land-use/landcover data. The forest areas delineated by use of the

GIRAS data did have large values of LZETP

estimated by use of the LOJIC tree-canopy cover.

Model Input and Output Files

Time-series data (table 5) that were used in

the HSPF model were entered into ANNIE (Flynn

and others, 1995), a watershed-data-management

system designed to create files accessible directly

from the HSPF model and other supporting

applications, such as METCMP, HSPEXP and

GENSCN; ANNIE also provides interactive access

to manage, transform, plot, and analyze time-series

data.

The UCI file (Appendix 5) controls execution

of the HSPF model by specifying the program

modules (table 27) and associated model

parameters (table 28) to use. Appropriate linkages

among the model elements (PERLND’s,

IMPLND’s, and RCHRES’s) and time-series data

(source to target and input to output) must be

explicitly specified in the UCI file.

SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW

The HSPF model had to be calibrated for

precipitation and runoff before it could be used to

simulate sediment or chemical constituents. The

streamflow-calibration process included steps to

adjust appropriate model parameters to obtain

representative discharges during a wide range of

hydrologic conditions during the 24-month period

February 1996–January 1998. Selected discharge

data not used in the calibration process was used in

model verification. Effluent discharges from the

WWTP’s in the basin were added to natural

discharge: the Jeffersontown WWTP discharges

into RCHRES 8, the Chenoweth Hills WWTP

discharges into RCHRES 9, and the Lake of the

Woods WWTP discharges into RCHRES 10

(fig. 29). (Note: The Chenoweth Hills WWTP is

located in subbasin 10a; however, the effluent is

pumped over to Reach 9 at a point approximately

3,000 ft downstream from Taylorsville Road.)
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Calibration and Verification

Initial parameter values affecting discharge

(table 28) were calculated from physical

characteristics of the basin to the extent possible, as

described in “Model Development.” Initial values

for parameters that were not physically measurable

were estimated from literature values. A trial-anderror, iterative process was then used to modify the

initial model parameter values. ‘Guidelines for

HSPF calibration’ (Donigian and others, 1984) and

the expert system for HSPF, HSPEXP (Lumb and

others, 1994), were used to aid in model discharge

calibration. In general, the model was calibrated to

annual and seasonal water budgets for the

calibration period, then adjusted to improve stormrunoff-volume and peak-discharge simulations

while maintaining the annual and seasonal water

balances. The quality of the model calibration trials

was judged by use of a combination of graphical

and statistical means.

Model testing (verification) can be considered

an extension of the model calibration process. The

purpose of verification is to assure the model

adequately represents all conditions that can affect

model results. One commonly used verification

procedure is to split the available data into two

independent data sets—one set is used in model

calibration and the other set in model verification.

Continuous streamflow data was unavailable prior

to February 1996, which limited the available data

to a 24-month period. A 3- to 5-year period of

calibration data is optimal to provide a

representative variety of hydrologic conditions for

model calibration, although satisfactory calibrations

have been achieved with less data (Viessman and

others, 1977). The 24-month study data-collection

period included a wide range of streamflows, from

record floods to moderately low base flows. The

available continuous 24-month data were not split

into independent sets, because this would have

unduly limited the period of calibration. A suffici

number of storms were available, however, to sp

storms into two groups for storm-runoff-volume

and peak-discharge calibration and verification.

Characteristics of these storms were described in

“Analysis and Summary of Hydrologic Conditio

Precipitation.”

Calibration Criteria

Various error measures were used to evalu

the quality of the model flow calibration. The exp

system for calibration of flow in HSPF (HSPEX

automatically computes errors in (1) total runoff

volumes for the calibration period, (2) the mean 

the low-flow-recession rates, (3) the mean of the

lowest 50 percent of daily mean discharge, (4) th

mean of the highest 10 percent of daily mean

discharge, (5) flow volume for selected storms,

(6) seasonal volume difference, and (7) runoff

volume for selected summer storms.

The quality of the calibration for the total,

annual, and monthly water balances was assesse

on the basis of the percentage error. Donigian an

others (1984) rate an annual or monthly waterbalance error of less than 10 percent as very goo

10 to 15 percent as good, and 15 to 25 percent a

fair.

The difference between simulated and

observed discharge was reported by three statisti

(1) the correlation coefficient, (2) the coefficient 

model-fit efficiency (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970), a

(3) the percentage of the calibration time periods 

which the simulation error was less than 10 and

25 percent. In some instances, the difference

between simulated and observed discharge was

reported as the actual difference in discharge or 

percent difference.
92 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

The correlation coefficient, C, is calculated as

, (1)

and the coefficient of model-fit efficiency, E, is

calculated as

, (2)

where

Qoi is the observed discharge volume for

time period i,

Qsi is the simulated discharge volume for

time period i,

Qo is the average observed discharge

volume,

Qs is the average simulated discharge

volume, and

N is the number of time periods in the

calibration period.

C

Qo ( ) i – Qo x Qs ( ) i – Qs

i = 1

N

∑

Qo ( ) i – Qo 2

i = 1

N

∑ x Qs ( ) i – Qs 2

i = 1

N

∑

1 2/ = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E

Qo ( ) i – Qo 2 Qoi Qsi ( ) – 2

i = 1

N

– ∑

i = 1

N

∑

Qo ( ) i – Qo 2

i = 1

N

∑

= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional error statistics computed to compare simulated and observed flows included

Mean absolute error, average = , (3)

Mean absolute error, percent = , (4)

Root mean square error, average = , (5)

Root mean square error, percent = , (6)

Bias, average = , (7)

Bias, percent = , (8)

, (9)

, (10)

where

S is the simulated discharge, in ft3/s,

O is the observed discharge, in ft3

/s, and

N is the number of discharge values in the sample.

Σ[ ] ( ) S O– ⁄ N

100 Σ ( ) S O–

O -------------------- ⁄ N

     

×

Σ ( ) S O– 2 [ ] ⁄ N

100 Σ S O–

O-------------     2

× ⁄ N

Σ[ ] ( ) S O– ⁄ N

100 × Σ{ } [ ] ( ) S O– ⁄ O ⁄ N

Standard error of estimate, average =

[ ] N N ⁄ ( ) – 1 ( ) Root mean square error, average 2 ( ) Bias, average 2

× [ ] –

Standard error of estimate, percent =

[ ] N N ⁄ ( ) – 1 ( ) Root mean square error, percent 2 ( ) Bias, percent 2

× [ ] –
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Hydrographs and scatterplots showing

simulated and observed monthly, daily, and

stormflows were prepared. Also, flow-duration

curves of daily simulated and observed flows were

plotted. These graphs were reviewed to identify

biases during specific time periods and parts of the

flow regime.

Modifications of Model Parameters and

Elements

As described by Duncker and others (1995)

and Donigian and others (1984), HSPF calibration

is facilitated by the structure of the model wherein

the annual balance is most affected by one set of

parameters (LZETP, DEEPFR, LZSN, and

INFILT), the seasonal balance is most affected by

another set (UZSN, BASETP, KVARY, and

CEPSC), and the stormflow is most affected by still

another set (INFILT, INTFW, and IRC). Note the

BASETP parameter, which controls evaporation

losses from base flows, was set to zero. Nonzero

BASETP values caused diurnal fluctuations in

simulated flows that were inconsistent with the

observed flows.

HSPF is a continuous simulation model, and

thus, the calibration of the hydrologic processes

occurring between storms is necessary to correctly

simulate flows during storms. This is largely done

by adjusting the parameter values for HRU’s

representing pervious areas (PERLND’s). The

PERLND properties have a relatively large effect on

the annual and seasonal water balances (when

compared to the IMPLND properties). Seventeen

PERLND types, which varied by land use/land

cover, soil, and slope (table 30), were simulated.

PERLND’s stored water later released as base

flow (slow-responding, consistent ground-water

flow), as interflow (fast responding ground-water

flow), or as surface runoff (in the same fashion as

impervious runoff). Precipitation runoff from

PERLND’s is controlled by the soil-storage and

infiltration properties. Initial values for UZSN,

LZSN, and INFILT were estimated from soils data

as described previously in “Model Development.”

Storage properties of disturbed soils (PERLND’s 15

to 17) were decreased by about one-half or more of

the values for similar soils in an undisturbed

PERLND; the decreased storage capacity forces

precipitation to exit sooner as surface runoff.

Calibrated UZSN values ranged from a winter lo

of 0.10 in. in a disturbed commercial PERLND

(no. 17) to an autumn high of 0.98 in. in forested

PERLND’s (nos. 5 to 8). Calibrated LZSN value

ranged from 2.05 to 5.76 in. Calibrated INFILT

values ranged from 0.028 to .356 in/h.

Water held in soil storage (including

interception storage) is also available for

evaporation, which is lost at a rate constrained b

the potential evapotranspiration rate (PET).

Evapotranspiration is limited by the amount of

deep-rooted vegetation, which is indexed by the

dimensionless LZETP value and was estimated

from the tree-canopy data. The proportion of

deciduous and evergreen trees was used to adjus

LZETP monthly; calibrated LZETP values range

from a summer high of 0.14 to 0.98 in. and a win

low of 0.12 to 0.89 in.

Many of the parameters affecting PERLN

were assigned monthly values to improve the

agreement between the simulated and observed

seasonal runoff. Calibrated PERLND parameter

values are shown in the HSPF UCI file in

Appendix 5.

Parameters describing impervious areas

(IMPLND) that drain directly to channels

(hydrologically effective impervious areas) have

little effect on the annual hydrologic and season

water balance because there are no storage

components except for interception storage

(calibrated values ranged from 0.01 to 0.03 in.);

however, IMPLND’s have a large effect on the

magnitude and timing of stormflow. The amount 

hydrologically effective impervious area estimat

for the urbanized area upstream from the gage a

Ruckriegel Parkway was lowered an additional

10 percent (as described previously) to improve 

model calibration.

Results of Model Streamflow Calibrati

and Verification

Statistical comparison of observed and

simulated water balances for time periods rangin

from hourly to the entire model calibration perio

were reported for the simulations at a 1-hour tim

step. The simulations at a 1-hour time step were

also used during the water-quality simulations.
94 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Results comparing stormflow volumes and peak

discharges were reported for the simulations at a

5-minute time step, because these represented the

actual instantaneous peaks in the observed 5-minute

discharge data better than the hourly simulations.

The following sections describe the simulated

discharges in relation to observed discharges at the

Ruckriegel Parkway and Gelhaus Lane gages

(fig. 7).

Total, Annual, and Seasonal Water Budgets

Simulated interflow was on average

approximately 20 and 27 percent of the simulated

HRU outflow at Ruckriegel Parkway and Gelhaus

Lane, respectively (table 33). The simulated

ground-water-flow contribution to simulated HRU

outflow was approximately equal to the simulatedinterflow contributions at each station.

Approximately 60 percent of the simulated HRU

outflow at Ruckriegel Parkway was from surface

runoff. In contrast, approximately 47 percent of the

simulated HRU outflow at the Gelhaus Lane gage

(which had a lower development density than at the

upstream gage) was from surface runoff. The

above-normal rainfall during the model calibration

period probably caused the large proportion of

simulated HRU outflows that were generated from

surface runoff. The WWTP flows, representing

imported water from the Ohio River, was

approximately 7 in. of water on the basin at Gelhaus

Lane, or 20 percent of the total observed discharge

during the model calibration period. Estimated

base-flow losses were 1.6 percent of total observed

discharge at Ruckriegel Parkway and 4.4 percent of

total observed discharge at Gelhaus Lane.

Total simulated and observed discharge

during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998, differed by

approximately -5.4 percent at Ruckriegel Parkway

and 3.1 percent at Gelhaus Lane. Annually (in the

year ending in January), the difference between the

simulated and observed discharge for this period

ranged from -5.2 to -5.6 percent at Ruckriegel

Parkway and 1.1 to 5.0 percent at Gelhaus Lane

(tables 33 and 34). The model results for the total

and annual water balances were classified as very

good on the basis of the criteria suggested by

Donigian and others (1984).

Table 33. Simulated water budget and measured rainfall and streamflow in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[WWTP, wastewater-treatment plant; ---, not applicable; all values are in inches on the watershed]

Simulated Measured

Period

Measured

rainfall

EvapotranspirationSurface

runoff Interflow

Groundwater

flow

WWTP

effluent

Channel

loss

Total

streamflow

Total

streamflow

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

02/1996-01/1997 56.81 24.01 19.08 7.33 6.85 --- 0.51 32.91 34.71

02/1997-01/1998 53.33 19.90 20.48 6.47 7.08 --- .62 33.61 35.60

Mean 55.07 21.96 19.78 6.90 6.96 --- .56 33.26 35.16

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

02/1996-01/1997 56.81 26.92 13.5 9.01 7.87 7.23 1.41 36.46 36.06

02/1997-01/1998 53.33 22.34 15.56 7.93 8.24 6.79 1.74 37.12 35.34

Mean 55.07 24.63 14.53 8.47 8.06 7.01 1.58 36.79 35.70
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Table 34. Statistics for the criteria used in the calibration of streamflow using the Hydrological Simulation

Program—Fortran (HSPF) model applied in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky,

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[--, not available]

Observed Simulated

Percent Error

(simulated/

observed-1)

(percent)

Suggested

default

criteria1

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

Total flow, in inches 70.33 66.52 -5.4 10.0

Total highest 10 percent flows, in inches 44.87 42.62 -5.0 15.0

Total lowest 50 percent flows, in inches 4.59 4.12 -10.3 10.0

Total storm volume, in inches 22.05 21.01 -4.7 20.0

Average storm peaks, in cubic feet per second 402 352 -12.5 --

Summer flow volume, in inches 13.07 13.75 5.2 30

Winter flow volume, in inches 16.12 14.3 -11.3 30

Summer storm volume, in inches 1.51 1.96 234.5 50

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

Total flow, in inches 71.40 73.58 3.1 10.0

Total highest 10 percent flows, in inches 41.55 40.41 -2.7 15.0

Total lowest 50 percent flows, in inches 7.66 8.61 12.4 10.0

Total storm volume, in inches 19.63 20.23 3.1 20.0

Average storm peaks, in cubic feet per second 599 541 -9.7 --

Summer flow volume, in inches 13.60 14.63 7.6 30.0

Winter flow volume, in inches 17.62 17.32 -1.7 30.0

Summer storm volume, in inches 1.54 1.77 211.8 50.0

1

Lumb and others (1994), p. 56, 58.

2Summer storm volume error minus total storm volume error.

Simulated monthly discharge generally

approximated the observed monthly discharge at

both gages as indicated in figures 36 and 37 and by

the error statistics reported in table 35. Monthly, the

difference between the simulated and observed

discharge for the model calibration period ranged

from -26 to 75 percent at Ruckriegel Parkway and

-28 to 86 percent at Gelhaus Lane. Errors in

monthly simulated discharge were less than

10 percent at both gages during approximately

one-half of the model calibration period. The

largest relative differences between simulated an

observed discharge generally occurred during th

fall (September and October), possibly indicatin

seepage losses are larger than estimated for this

time of year.
96 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 36. Observed and simulated monthly mean discharge hydrographs at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

and at Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.

F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J

1996 1997 1998

0

150

50

100

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

0

80

20

40

60

Observed

Simulated

0

15

5

10

PRECIPITATION,

IN INCHES

Ruckriegel Parkway

Gelhaus Lane
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Figure 37. Comparison of observed and simulated hourly, daily, and monthly mean discharges in

the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998.

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

1 10 100

1

10

100

Ruckriegel Parkway

Ruckriegel Parkway

Ruckriegel Parkway

A. Hourly mean discharge

B. Daily mean discharge

C. Monthly mean discharge

OBSERVED DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

SIMULATED DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0 Gelhaus Lane

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0 Gelhaus Lane

1 10 100

1

10

100

Gelhaus Lane
98 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 35. Model-calibration statistics for hourly, daily, and monthly streamflows at the two streamflow-gaging

stations in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998

[ft3/s, cubic foot per second]

Hourly streamflow Daily streamflow Monthly streamflow

Ruckriegel

Parkway

Gelhaus

Lane

Ruckriegel

Parkway

Gelhaus

Lane

Ruckriegel

Parkway

Gelhaus

Lane

Number of periods 17,544 17,544 731 731 24 24

Minimum (ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

.18

.31

1.19

.93

.29

.32

2.20

2.21

1.48

1.99

3.80

5.61

Maximum (ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

3,580

2,010

4,350

3,470

868

792

1,590

1,530

64.2

53.1

119

121

Mean (ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

13.9

13.1

30.1

31.0

13.9

13.1

30.1

31.0

13.9

13.1

30.0

30.9

Standard deviation (ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

69.1

61.8

108

111

42.4

38.7

77.7

76.4

13.7

11.9

27.8

26.9

Coefficient of model-fit

efficiency

.79 .86 .95 .96 .95 .96

Correlation coefficient .89 .93 .98 .98 .98 .98

Percentage of periods

when the difference

between simulated and

observed average

streamflow was less than

10 percent

17.5 24.9 19.0 28.2 45.8 50.0

Percentage of periods

when the difference

between simulated and

observed average

streamflow was less than

25 percent

40.4 55.9 46.4 59.2 79.2 62.5

Mean absolute error:

Average (ft3/s)

Percent

5.63

55.9

10.2

40.1

3.56

41.0

7.27

29.9

1.83

17.4

3.49

21.1

Root mean square error:

Average (ft3

/s)

Percent

31.6

199

39.8

108

9.27

68.6

16.3

45.6

2.85

23.4

5.10

30.6

Bias:

Average (ft3/s)

Percent

-.75

14.3

.92

20.2

-.75

7.1

.90

14.5

-.74

3.9

.91

15.0

Standard error of estimate:

Average (ft3/s)

Percent

31.6

198

39.8

106

9.25

68.3

16.3

43.3

2.87

24.1

5.24

27.8
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Daily Discharge

Observed and simulated daily mean discharge

hydrographs at Ruckriegel Parkway and Gelhaus

Lane are shown in figures 38 and 39, respectively.

In general, the simulated daily discharge matches

the observed daily discharge (figs. 37 and 40). The

average difference (bias) between simulated and

observed daily discharge was -0.75 and 0.90 ft3/s at

Ruckriegel Parkway and Gelhaus Lane, respectively

(table 35). Errors in simulated daily discharge were

less than 25 percent at both gages during

approximately one-half of the model calibration

period. The largest absolute difference between

simulated and observed daily discharge occurred

during high-flow periods and ranged from -99 to

69 ft3

/s at Ruckriegel Parkway and -99 to 147 ft3/s

at Gelhaus Lane. The model somewhat

overestimates daily discharge at low flows (fig. 37),

as was the case for monthly discharges. Percentage

differences between the simulated and observed

daily discharge ranged from -74 to 798 percent at

Ruckriegel Parkway and -52 to 295 percent at

Gelhaus Lane. The largest percentage differences

between simulated and observed flows resulted

during periods of lowest flow and during fall

storms.

Duncker and others (1995) summarized

model-application results in terms of the correlation

coefficient and the coefficient of model-fit

efficiency. Applications of HSPF and the Stanford

Watershed Model were reported to have had

correlation coefficients ranging from .8 to .98 and

coefficients of model-fit efficiency ranging from .93

to .98 considering daily or monthly flows. The

Chenoweth Run HSPF model had correlation

coefficients ranging from 0.89 to 0.98 for hourly to

monthly mean flows, respectively. The coefficients

of model-fit efficiency for daily and monthly

discharge simulations for the Chenoweth Run Basin

HSPF model (table 35) approach the excellent

range (exceeding 0.97) as defined by James and

Burgess (1982). However, the model was calibra

for a comparatively short 24-month period durin

which flows were above normal. Increased mode

error might be expected during an extended peri

of near-normal flows.

Stormflow Volumes and Peak Discharge

Twenty-five storm events for model

calibration and 25 storms for model verification

were randomly selected from storms considered 

have uniform precipitation over the basin (see

“Analysis and Summary of Hydrologic Conditio

Precipitation.”) Comparisons of the model

calibration and verification storms in terms of

rainfall depth, average and maximum intensities

and antecedent 7-day rainfall indicated no

statistically significant differences. The storm se

that included the record February 28–March 2,

1997 storm was used for model calibration beca

of the low recurrence frequency of this storm.

Simulated storm volumes and peak discharges fo

the model calibration and verification storms we

also compared to observed discharges for 27 stor

that were considered to have highly variable

precipitation over the basin (nonuniform storms)

general, precipitation characteristics are similar

among calibration, verification, and nonuniform

storms with the exception that the storm intensit

are generally twice as large for the nonuniform

storms as for the calibration and verification stor

Nonuniform storms are mostly convective type

summer storms; hence, summer storms are not w

represented in the model calibration and verificat

storms because of the uneven rainfall distributio

over the basin.
100 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 38. Observed and simulated daily mean discharge at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel

Parkway, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–

January 1998.

F M A M J J A S O N D J

1997 1998

0.2

2,000

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

1,000

DAILY MEAN DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

F M A M J J A S O N D J

1996 1997

0.2

2,000

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

1,000 Observed

Simulated

February 1, 1996 to January 31, 1997

February 1, 1997 to January 31, 1998
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Figure 39. Observed and simulated daily mean discharge at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane,

Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.

F M A M J J A S O N D J

1997 1998

0.2

2,000

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

1,000

DAILY MEAN DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

F M A M J J A S O N D J

1996 1997

0.2

2,000

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

1,000 Observed

Simulated

February 1, 1996 to January 31, 1997

February 1, 1997 to January 31, 1998
102 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

0.01

1,000

0.02

0.05

0.1

0.2

0.5

1

2

5

10

20

50

100

200

500

DAILY MEAN DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99

PERCENTAGE OF TIME INDICATED DISCHARGE WAS EQUALED OR EXCEEDED

1 2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99

Observed discharge

Simulated discharge

Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

Figure 40. Flow-duration curves with observed and simulated daily mean discharge at Chenoweth Run

at Ruckriegel Parkway and at Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration

period, February 1996–January 1998.

Comparisons of observed and simulated stormflow

volumes and peak discharges of selected model

calibration and verification storms are shown in

table 36. Hydrographs of observed and simulated

flows for selected calibration storms are shown in

figures 41 and 42.

Calibration Storms

Storm Volume—Simulated storm volumes

were similar to observed storm volumes at both

gages (fig. 43) with the exception of fall storms

which tend to be overpredicted at both sites,

particularly for low-magnitude fall storms. Errors

in simulated storm volumes also tend to be larger at

the Gelhaus Lane gage than at the Ruckriegel

Parkway gage for fall storms of all magnitudes.

The standard error of estimate of the simulated

storm volume was 30.1 percent at Ruckriegel

Parkway (table 37) and 41.5 percent at Gelhaus

Lane (table 38). The error of the simulated storm

volume ranged from -35 to 100 percent at

Ruckriegel Parkway and from -31 to 100 percent at

Gelhaus Lane.

Peak Discharge—Simulated storm peak

discharges were also similar to observed peak

discharges at both gages (fig. 44). Peak discharge is

overpredicted at both sites for low-magnitude fall

storms (particularly, October 14, 1997 and

November 10, 1997). The standard error of

estimate of the simulated storm peak discharge was

45.9 percent at Ruckriegel Parkway and

63.6 percent at Gelhaus Lane (tables 37 and 38).

The errors of the simulated storm peak discharge

ranged from -44 to 127 percent at Ruckriegel

Parkway and from -46 to 260 percent at Gelhaus

Lane. Note the coefficient of model-fit efficiency

values are sensitive to the magnitude of the

simulation error (equation 2). Thus, a large

difference between observed and simulated

discharge for a major storm can significantly affect

this statistic.
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 103

Table 36. Precipitation and streamflow data for selected calibration storms at streamflow-gaging stations in the Chenoweth Run B

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1988

[ft3/s, cubic foot per second]

Flow volume 

Storm

number

Beginning

date

Ending

date

Observed

precipitation

(inches)

Observed

(inches)

Simulated

(inches)

Difference

(inches)

Difference

(percent)

Observed

(ft3/s)

Si

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

7 04/13/1996 04/13/1996 0.50 0.12 0.10 -0.02 -16.7 154 9 04/22/1996 04/24/1996 1.70 1.03 1.15 .12 11.6 443 

25 07/14/1996 07/15/1996 1.61 .65 .80 .15 23.1 536 39 12/16/1996 12/18/1996 1.89 1.46 1.35 -.11 -7.3 438 47 02/28/1997 03/02/1997 8.78 8.80 7.51 -1.29 -14.6 4,680 251 03/18/1997 03/19/1997 1.93 1.44 1.24 -.20 -13.9 631 55 05/02/1997 05/03/1997 1.20 .57 .54 -.03 -5.6 384 62 06/13/1997 06/13/1997 1.48 .47 .81 .34 72.3 608 76 12/09/1997 12/10/1997 .83 .38 .37 -.01 -2.6 228 

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

7 04/13/1996 04/13/1996 .50 .13 .09 -.04 -30.8 225 9 04/22/1996 04/24/1996 1.70 1.51 1.18 -.33 -21.8 1,180 

25 07/14/1996 07/15/1996 1.61 .37 .67 .30 81.1 594 39 12/16/1996 12/18/1996 1.89 1.41 1.37 -.04 -2.8 856 47 02/28/1997 03/02/1997 8.78 7.12 7.38 -.26 -3.6 4,810 451 03/18/1997 03/19/1997 1.93 1.51 1.21 -.30 -19.9 1,330 55 05/02/1997 05/03/1997 1.20 .52 .45 -.07 -13.5 617 62 06/13/1997 06/13/1997 1.48 .67 .72 .05 7.5 1,480 76 12/09/1997 12/10/1997 .83 .31 .33 .02 6.5 273 
104 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 41. Discharge during selected storms at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway, Jefferson

County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.

DATE-TIME

0

0.5

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

2400 1200 2400 1200 2400 1200 2400

5 6 7

March 1996

0

300

100

200

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

DATE-TIME

0

0.2

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

DATE-TIME

0

1

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

DATE-TIME

0

0.2

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

DATE-TIME

0

0.5

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

2400 1200 2400 1200 2400 1200 2400

5 6 7

March 1996

0

300

100

200

Observed

Simulated

2400 1200 2400 1200 2400 1200 2400

27 28 29

May 1996

0

4,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

2400 0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400

14 15

July 1996

0

600

200

400

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

2400 1200 2400 1200 2400 1200 2400

28 1 2

February March

1997

0

5,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

2400 0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400

2 3

May 1997

0

500

100

200

300

400

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

2400 0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400

9 10

September 1997

0

2,500

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Storm 3 Storms 17-18

Storm 25 Storm 47

0

0.2

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

Storm 55 Storm 69
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

DATE-TIME

0

0.2

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

DATE-TIME

0

1

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

DATE-TIME

0

0.2

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

DATE-TIME

0

0.5

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

DATE-TIME

0

0.2

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

DATE-TIME

0

0.5

RAINFALL,

IN INCHES

2400 1200 2400 1200 2400 1200 2400

5 6 7

March 1996

0

600

200

400

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Observed

Simulated

2400 1200 2400 1200 2400 1200 2400

27 28 29

May 1996

0

5,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

2400 0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400

14 15

July 1996

0

1,000

200

400

600

800

DISCHARGE,, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

2400 1200 2400 1200 2400 1200 2400

28 1 2

February March

1997

0

5,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

2400 0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400

2 3

May 1997

0

800

200

400

600

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

2400 0800 1600 2400 0800 1600 2400

9 10

September 1997

0

4,000

1,000

2,000

3,000

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

Storm 3 Storms 17-18

Storm 25 Storm 47

Storm 55 Storm 69

Figure 42. Discharge during selected storms at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson County,

Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.
106 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 43. Comparison of the observed and simulated flow volumes in inches of water on the basin for

the calibration, verification, and nonuniform storms in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County,

Kentucky.

0.10 1.00 10.00

0.10

1.00

10.00

0.10 1.00 10.00

0.10

1.00

10.00

0.10 1.00 10.00

0.10

1.00

10.00

0.10 1.00 10.00

0.10

1.00

10.00

0.10 1.00 10.00

0.10

1.00

10.00

0.10 1.00 10.00

0.10

1.00

10.00

Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

A. Calibration storms

B. Verification storms

C. Nonuniform storms

OBSERVED VOLUME, IN INCHES

SIMULATED VOLUME, IN INCHES
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Table 37. Model-calibration statistics for the volume and peak streamflow during storm periods at Chenoweth Ru

Ruckriegel Parkway, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 19

[in., inch; ft3/s, cubic foot per second]

Volume Peak

Calibration

storms

Verification

storms

Nonuniform

storms

Calibration

storms

Verification

storms

Nonuniform

storms

Number of periods 25 25 27 25 25 27

Minimum (in. or ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

.07

.10

.08

.12

.07

.10

28.3

48.2

28.3

49.1

24.4

49.0

Maximum (in. or ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

8.80

7.51

2.28

2.04

1.74

1.82

4,680

2,600

1,560

832

2,870

3,220

Mean (in. or ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

.88

.85

.53

.50

.55

.59

477

432

300

292

582

737

Standard deviation (in. or ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

1.69

1.44

.51

.43

.45

.49

893

529

312

218

620

857

Coefficient of model-fit efficiency .97 .91 .82 .74 .69 .54

Correlation coefficient .94 .96 .92 .92 .85 .91

Percentage of periods when the

difference between simulated and

observed average streamflow was

less than 10 percent

32.0 32.0 22.2 40.0 32.0 25.9

Percentage of periods when the

difference between simulated and

observed average streamflow was

less than 25 percent

80.0 64.0 48.1 64.0 56.0 44.4

Mean absolute error:

Average (in. or ft3

/s)

Percent

.13

20.2

.10

22.8

.13

28.5

164

29.9

86.8

29.2

234

47.2

Root mean square error:

Average (in. or ft3/s)

Percent

.28

29.8

.15

31.0

.19

36.7

446

45.7

170

37.1

413

73.7

Bias:

Average (in. or ft3/s)

Percent

-.04

7.2

-.03

4.9

.04

11.9

-44.4

12.1

-8.1

14.7

154

31.4

Standard error of estimate:

Average (in. or ft3

/s)

Percent

.29

30.1

.15

30.6

.19

36.1

462

45.9

177

35.5

397

68.5
108 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 38. Model-calibration statistics for the volume and peak streamflow during storm periods at Chenoweth Run at

Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[in., inch; ft3/s, cubic foot per second]

Volume

(inches)

Peak

(ft3/s)

Calibration

storms

Verification

storms

Nonuniform

storms

Calibration

storms

Verification

storms

Nonuniform

storms

Number of periods 25 25 27 25 25 27

Minimum (in. or ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

.05

.09

.04

.10

.06

.08

27.1

65.5

43.0

63.6

33.4

65.3

Maximum (in. or ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

7.12

7.38

2.39

2.02

1.50

1.89

4,810

4,620

1,540

1,130

2,450

4,610

Mean (in. or ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

.79

.82

.51

.49

.50

.55

652

614

432

389

708

938

Standard deviation (in. or ft3/s)

Observed

Simulated

1.38

1.41

.54

.46

.40

.48

955

920

408

308

639

1,240

Coefficient of model-fit efficiency .99 .91 .74 .98 .87 -.24

Correlation coefficient .99 .96 .91 .99 .96 .94

Percentage of periods when the

difference between simulated and

observed average streamflow was

less than 10 percent

40.0 20.0 33.3 36.0 16.0 22.2

Percentage of periods when the

difference between simulated and

observed average streamflow was

less than 25 percent

68.0 64.0 48.1 56.0 40.0 59.2

Mean absolute error:

Average (in. or ft3/s)

Percent

.11

30.3

.11

37.1

.12

26.2

104

35.1

105

36.5

334

36.4

Root mean square error:

Average (in. or ft3/s)

Percent

.16

44.3

.16

54.7

.20

32.9

139

62.3

144

51.6

699

51.5

Bias:

Average (in. or ft3/s)

Percent

.03

19.3

-.02

21.0

.05

14.6

-38.0

12.2

-42.7

16.0

230

19.3

Standard error of estimate:

Average (in. or ft3/s)

Percent

.16

41.5

.16

52.6

.20

30.6

134

63.6

143

51.1

686

49.6
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Figure 44. Comparison of the observed and simulated peak discharges for the calibration,

verification, and nonuniform storms in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky.

100 1000

100

1000

100 1000

100

1000

100 1000

100

1000

100 1000

100

1000

100 1000

100

1000

100 1000

100

1000

Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

A. Calibration storms

B. Verification storms

C. Nonuniform storms

OBSERVED PEAK DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

SIMULATED PEAK DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
110 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Verification Storms

Storm Volume—Simulated storm volumes for

verification storms were also similar to observed

volumes at both gages (fig. 43) with the exception

of fall storms, which tended to be overpredicted at

both sites, particularly for low-magnitude fall

storms. Errors of the simulated storm volumes also

tended to be larger at the Gelhaus Lane gage than at

the Ruckriegel Parkway gage for fall storms of all

magnitudes. The standard error of estimate of the

simulated storm volume was 30.6 percent at

Ruckriegel Parkway and 52.6 percent at Gelhaus

Lane. The error of the simulated storm volume

ranged from -36 to 82 percent at Ruckriegel

Parkway and from -42 to 150 percent at Gelhaus

Lane.

Peak Discharge—Simulated verification

storm peak discharges were also similar to observed

peak discharges at both gages (fig. 44). Peak

discharge was overpredicted at both gages for lowmagnitude fall storms (particularly, October 14,

1997 and November 10, 1997). The standard error

of estimate of the simulated storm peak discharge

was 35.5 percent at Ruckriegel Parkway and

51.1 percent at Gelhaus Lane. The error of the

simulated storm peak discharge ranged from -47 to

74 percent at Ruckriegel Parkway and from -42 to

168 percent at Gelhaus Lane.

Nonuniform Storms

Storm Volume—Simulated storm volumes for

nonuniform storms were also similar to observed

volumes at both gages (fig. 43). The error in the

simulated storm volume for nonuniform storms

increased in comparison to calibration and

verification storms at both gages. This probably

reflects the increased error in measurement of

rainfall over the basin associated with the

nonuniform rainfall distribution. The standard error

of estimate of the simulated storm volume was

36.1 percent at Ruckriegel Parkway and

30.6 percent at Gelhaus Lane. The error of the

simulated storm volume ranged from -63 to

86 percent at Ruckriegel Parkway and from -39 to

80 percent at Gelhaus Lane.

Peak Discharge—Simulated nonuniform

storm peak discharges were also similar to observed

peak discharges at both gages (fig. 44). Peak

discharge was overpredicted at both sites for

low-magnitude storms. The standard error of

estimate of the simulated storm peak discharge was

68.5 percent at Ruckriegel Parkway and

49.6 percent at Gelhaus Lane. The error of the

simulated storm peak discharge ranged from -61 to

262 percent at Ruckriegel Parkway and from -60 to

129 percent at Gelhaus Lane. Note that errors in

simulation of large peak discharges for some

nonuniform storms resulted in a negative coefficient

of model-fit efficiency (see table 38 and equation 2.)

Comparison of Simulated and Measured

Discharge Near the Mouth of

Chenoweth Run

During the model calibration period, four

discharge measurements were made near the mouth

of Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road (fig. 7).

These measurements provided an indication of the

flow-model fit including the lower third of the basin

downstream from the Gelhaus Lane gage.

Simulated and measured discharges were fairly

close (table 39). Discharge measurements made on

September 16, 1996, were made during a storm

recession. Simulated discharge during this storm

was overpredicted, but matched the measured

discharge within 1 hour.

Table 39. Comparison of simulated and measured

discharge at Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road,

Jefferson County, Kentucky

[ft3/s, cubic foot per second]

Date Time

Discharge (ft3/s)

Measured Simulated

09/16/1996 1100 57.0 82.6

09/16/1996 1150 54.9 65.1

09/26/1996 1300 3.10 5.07

09/16/1997 1245 5.79 3.67
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis describes the effect of

changes in the individual model input elements and

parameter values on the resulting simulated

hydrological processes. Evaluation of parameters to

which the model is sensitive requires an

understanding of the relative effect of each HRU on

the various flow components. An iterative process,

whereby the value of a given input parameter is

varied while all others parameters are held constant,

indicates the degree to which that parameter affects

the model results.

Discharge Characteristics of the

Hydrologic Response Units

The simulated amount of surface runoff,

interflow, and base flow from each of the

2 IMPLND’s and 17 PERLND’s on average during

the model calibration period (February 1996–

January 1998), in a month of low flow and in a

month of high flow are shown in figure 45.

IMPLND’s have only a surface-flow

component. Runoff from IMPLND’s occurs when

precipitation exceeds interception and surface

storage; thus, the timing and magnitude of runoff

from an IMPLND is in direct response to the timing

and magnitude of precipitation. Losses through

evaporation (averaging about 6 percent of total

annual precipitation) were limited to water retained

in these storage components. Consequently, during

average and high-flow periods, a given IMPLND

will generate more runoff than a given PERLND

(fig. 45). Runoff values for the two types of

IMPLND’s were nearly identical whether on an

average monthly basis, a wet month, or a dry

month. This indicates that runoff from IMPLND’s

were insensitive to the differences defined for each

IMPLND type.

Average simulated monthly surface runoff

ranged from about 3 percent of total runoff for

PERLND’s with highly permeable soils (nos. 4, 8,

and 14 in table 30) to about 24 percent for those

with poorly permeable soils on slopes greater than

5 percent (nos. 2, 6, and 11). Surface runoff from

PERLND’s characterized as disturbed soils, which

also received surface runoff from adjacent

impervious surfaces (nos. 15, 16, and 17), had the

largest surface-runoff component of any PERLN

(averaged 62 percent of total discharge). Averag

monthly base flow was roughly inversely

proportional to surface runoff; it was least in

PERLND’s with disturbed soils and largest in

PERLND’s with the deepest, most well-drained

soils. Base flow ranged from 15 to 84 percent of

total discharge. Average monthly interflow was a

least in PERLND’s with disturbed soils and larg

in PERLND’s with the deepest, most well-drain

soils and ranged from 8 to 53 percent of total

discharge.

During the July 1997 low-flow period

(0.68 in. precipitation), simulated base flow

accounted for 75 to 100 percent of the total

discharge. Base flow was largest from the deepe

most well-drained soils (nos. 4, 8, and 14) and le

on shallow, poorly drained soils (nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 

11, 15, and 17). Surface runoff occurred only on

disturbed PERLND’s (nos. 15, 16, and 17) durin

July 1997 and only to an appreciable extent

(18 percent of total discharge) on the disturbed,

commercial PERLND (no. 17). Surface runoff fr

PERLND’s 15 and 16 were about 1 percent of th

total discharge in July 1997. Interflow accounted 

less than 1 and up to 7 percent of total discharge

Losses through evapotranspiration during this

period ranged from 114 to 616 percent of total

precipitation for all PERLND’s. Evaporation los

were mostly from lower-zone storage; losses we

largest in deep, forested soils and smallest in

shallow, disturbed soils. Therefore, under dryweather conditions, discharge was most sensitive 

model parameters that affect evapotranspiration 

base flow.

During the March 1997 high-flow period

(13.15 in. precipitation), simulated base flow

accounted for 6 to 53 percent of the total dischar

from PERLND’s. The relative contribution to ba

flow was similar to that for dry-weather conditio

Surface runoff occurred on all PERLND’s durin

March 1997 and accounted for 3 to 89 percent o

the total discharge. Surface runoff was largest fo

PERLND’s with disturbed soils (nos. 15, 16, and

17) and poorly drained soils (nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, a

11), and least in PERLND’s with the deepest, m

well-drained soils (nos. 4, 8, and 14).
112 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 45. Simulated surface runoff, interflow, and base flow for 17 types of pervious land surfaces (PERLND) and

2 types of impervious land surfaces (IMPLND) in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky: (A) Average

monthly flow; (B) High-flow month, March 1997; and (C) Low-flow month, July 1997. [Note: Hydrologic response units

are defined in table 30.]

0

5

1

2

3

4

0

14

2

4

6

8

10

12

RUNOFF, IN INCHES

A. Average monthly flow

B. High-flow month, March 1997

C. Low-flow month, July 1997

Average

Precipitation,

Precipitation 0.68 inches

PERLND’s

IMPLND’s

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i1 i2

MODEL HYDOLOGICAL RESPONSE UNIT

0

2.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

EXPLANATION

Base flow Interflow Surface flow

Agricultural Forested Open Disturbed

open

Precipitation,

Residential

Commercial

13.15 inches

0.68 inches

precipitation,

4.59 inches
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Interflow was the largest component of total

discharge, except from PERLND’s with poorly

drained and disturbed soils and accounted for 5 to

60 percent of the total discharge. Losses through

evapotranspiration during this period ranged from

12 to 19 percent of total precipitation. Total

discharge from any of the PERLND’s during this

high-flow period nearly equalled runoff from

IMPLND’s, because evapotranspiration losses were

small, and subsurface storage was at or near

capacity. Thus, under wet-weather conditions,

discharge was most sensitive to parameters that

affect surface flow and interflow.

Parameter Values

The response of the model to a specified

change in a parameter value indicates the relative

effect of that parameter on simulated discharge. The

sensitivity analysis used only constant changes in

parameter values, and the values were applied

equally over seasons and among the HRU’s. The

following paragraphs summarize the sensitivity of

the model discharge characteristics (listed in

tables 40-43) to changes in selected PERLND

parameters.

Model sensitivity to 10 PERLND parameters

was examined by doubling, then halving the

calibrated parameter value and measuring the effect

on the various PERLND discharge components

(tables 40 and 42) and on (1) the total flow volume,

(2) high- and low-flow distribution, (3) total storm

volume, (4) seasonal and summer flow, (5) summer

storm volume, and (6) peak stormflow (tables 41

and 43). The active-ground-water recession rate

(AGWRC) parameter was decreased by 50 percent

but was not increased because the calibrated value

was near the maximum allowed value. The effect of

altering the base (calibrated) parameter values was

expressed in tables 40 and 42 as percentage changes

in the water fluxes and storages from the base

values. The effect of altering the calibrated values

was expressed in tables 41 and 43 as the revised

percentage errors for comparison to the percentage

errors as calibrated.

The following paragraphs summarize the

sensitivity of the model discharge characteristics to

selected model parameters.

Total flow volume was most sensitive to

changes in the upper-zone storage (UZSN) and

evapotranspiration from the lower-zone soil

(LZETP), which in turn was affected by the

available lower-zone storage (LZSN). Total flow

volume was also moderately affected by

interception storage (CEPSC) and the activeground-water recession rate (AGWRC).

50-percent low flow and 10-percent high

flow1 were inversely proportional in that a chang

value that decreased low flows increased high flo

and a change that increased low flows decreased

high flows. These terms were most sensitive to t

active-ground-water recession rate (AGWRC), a

moderately sensitive to interflow-recession

coefficient (IRC), lower-zone storage (LZSN), a

infiltration rate (INFILT).

Seasonal and summer flow volumes were

most sensitive to soil infiltration rate (INFILT),

which controlled the amount of water that draine

to the subsurface, and by upper- and lower-zone 

storage (UZSN and LZSN), which determined th

availability of water for evapotranspiration. Acti

ground-water recession rate (AGWRC) then

regulated the rate at which water that percolated

down from upper- and lower-zone storages was

released from active-ground-water storage.

Peak stormflow was affected most strongly 

infiltration rate (INFILT), interflow (INTFLW), a

upper-zone storage (UZSN) and, to a lesser exte

surface roughness (NSUR), length of the overlan

flow surface (LSUR), lower-zone storage (LZSN

and evapotranspiration from the lower-zone soil

(LZETP).

Interflow and surface runoff as a percenta

of the total flow were most affected by interflow

(INTFLW) and soil infiltration rate (INFILT)

(tables 40 and 42).

The calibrated parameter values appear to

yield the least overall model error. Changes in

selected PERLND parameters, however, improv

model fit for some runoff characteristics, but

degraded model fit for other runoff characteristic

(tables 41 and 43).

150-percent flow is the flow that is equaled or exceede

50 percent of the time (low flow), and 10-percent flow is th

flow that is equaled or exceeded 10 percent of the time (hig

flow).
114 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 40. Sensitivity of simulated-flow characteristics to changes in selected model parameters expressed as a

percentage change relative to the base calibration at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway, Jefferson County,

Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

Streamflow Pervious storage Evapotranspiration

Parametera Total

flow

Surface

runoff

Interflow

Base

flow

Upper

zone

Lower

zone

Ground

water Total

Interception

Upper

zone

Lower

zone

Ground

water Total

Base

calibrationb 66.52 39.56 13.80 13.93 0.61 4.27 1.31 6.21 8.16 25.17 8.03 0.79 43.91

CEPSC (2x) -1.1 -.4 -.9 -3.4 1.7 1.0 -2.6 .4 45.7 -9.1 -7.6 -10.1 1.7

CEPSC (0.5x) .8 .3 .4 2.4 -1.0 -.5 1.4 -.2 -28.2 5.6 4.4 5.1 -1.1

INFILT (2x) .7 -11.9 -4.3 41.4 -9.2 3.4 24.1 6.5 .0 -7.5 11.0 11.4 -2.1

INFILT (0.5x) -.2 12.7 -5.7 -31.4 7.1 -3.8 -22.4 -6.7 .0 5.6 -8.6 -10.1 1.5

LZSN (2x) -4.3 -6.1 -17.2 14.0 -6.3 73.9 6.9 51.6 .0 -5.6 5.9 8.9 -2.0

LZSN (0.5x) 1.8 8.9 15.7 -32.3 7.1 -28.5 -30.8 -25.3 .0 5.2 -5.9 -10.1 1.7

UZSN (2x) -5.7 -5.8 -14.2 3.2 112.0 3.2 3.4 13.9 .0 15.5 -11.1 -16.5 6.6

UZSN (0.5x) 6.1 5.4 14.8 -1.0 -54.3 -3.7 -1.6 -8.2 .0 -18.8 13.3 20.3 -8.0

INTFW (2x) .3 -12.5 40.7 -3.3 -1.0 -.7 -2.2 -1.0 .0 -.9 .7 1.3 -.3

INTFW (0.5x) -.4 12.2 -41.8 4.7 1.5 1.1 3.6 1.5 .0 1.2 -1.0 -2.5 .4

IRC (2x) .0 .0 -.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

IRC (0.5x) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 -.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

LZETP (2x) -5.1 -5.1 -11.5 1.5 -9.0 -12.6 .3 -9.5 .0 -8.3 73.0 7.6 8.7

LZETP (0.5x) 3.0 4.5 9.9 -8.2 7.3 12.9 -4.0 8.7 .0 5.6 -47.4 -8.9 -5.6

NSUR (2x) -.2 -3.1 6.2 1.7 .4 .3 .6 .4 .0 .5 -.2 -1.3 .2

NSUR (0.5x) .2 2.9 -5.8 -1.6 -.4 -.3 -.7 -.4 .0 -.5 .4 .0 -.2

LSUR (2x) -.2 -3.1 6.2 1.7 .4 .3 .6 .4 .0 .5 -.2 -1.3 .2

LSUR (0.5x) .2 2.9 -5.7 -1.6 -.4 -.3 -.7 -.4 .0 -.5 .4 .0 -.2

KVARY (2x) .5 .0 .0 2.1 .0 .0 -20.4 -4.3 .0 .0 .1 -2.5 .0

KVARY (0.5x) -.3 .0 .0 -1.6 .0 .0 15.2 3.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

AGWRC (0.5x) 3.3 -.1 -.6 13.0 -.7 -.7 -98.6 -21.4 .0 -.4 3.6 -62.0 -.7

N (0.8x) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

N (1.2x) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

a

INFILT, soil infiltration rate; LZSN, lower zone nominal storage; UZSN, upper zone nominal storage; INTFW, interflow parameter; IRC,

interflow recession parameter; LZETP, lower zone evapotranspiration; CEPSC, interception storage; NSUR, Manning’s roughness coefficient for

overland flow plane; LSUR, length of the overland flow plane; KVARY, ground-water recession-rate behavior; AGWRC, ground-water recession

rate relative to previous day’s rate; n, Manning’s roughness coefficient for channels; (x), indicates the constant multiplied by the parameter value.

bBase calibration, base line for the calibrated model in inches of water on the watershed.
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Table 41. Sensitivity of simulated-flow characteristics to changes in selected model parameters expressed as a

percentage error relative to the observed flow characteristics at Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway, Jefferson

County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

Percent error

Parametera

Total flow

volume

50-percent

lowest flow

10-percent

highest flow

Seasonal

volumeb

Summer storm

volume

Average

storm pea

Base

calibrationc -5.4 -10.3 -5.0 16.2 35.0 -12.5

CEPSC (2x) -6.5 -15.1 -5.4 14.9 34.0 -12.8

CEPSC (0.5x) -4.7 -7.2 -4.8 16.8 35.4 -12.5

INFILT (2x) -4.8 20.2 -10.7 20.9 31.9 -21.5

INFILT (0.5x) -5.6 -36.4 .8 12.4 39.4 -3.8

LZSN (2x) -9.5 -2.4 -10.7 20.8 36.1 -17.6

LZSN (0.5x) -3.7 -38.6 1.3 8.7 37.5 -5.6

UZSN (2x) -10.8 -6.6 -11.9 14.0 27.8 -19.4

UZSN (0.5x) .3 -11.3 .9 19.9 41.1 -7.3

INTFW (2x) -5.1 -12.0 -6.8 16.3 31.2 -20.8

INTFW (0.5x) -5.8 -7.6 -2.7 16.5 38.1 -5.2

IRC (2x) -5.5 31.1 -12.2 16.7 34.5 -13.8

IRC (0.5x) -5.4 -14.2 -1.7 16.2 36.5 -11.1

LZETP (2x) -10.2 -15.9 -10.0 14.8 23.6 -17.0

LZETP (0.5x) -2.6 -14.2 -1.2 13.7 38.3 -8.7

NSUR (2x) -5.6 -9.2 -6.2 16.1 33.0 -17.6

NSUR (0.5x) -5.3 -11.6 -4.0 16.3 37.0 -8.0

LSUR (2x) -5.6 -9.2 -6.2 16.1 33.0 -17.6

LSUR (0.5x) -5.3 -11.6 -4.0 16.3 37.0 -8.0

KVARY (2x) -5.0 -14.8 -4.4 14.2 35.0 -12.5

KVARY (0.5x) -5.7 -7.4 -5.4 17.5 35.5 -12.5

AGWRC (0.5x) -2.3 -77.8 3.3 2.5 37.3 -11.1

N (0.8x) -5.5 -10.5 -5.1 16.2 35.0 -8.0

N (1.2x) -5.4 -10.0 -5.0 16.3 35.0 -16.2

a

INFILT, soil infiltration rate; LZSN, lower zone nominal storage; UZSN, upper zone nominal storage; INTFW, interflow parameter;

IRC, interflow recession parameter; LZETP, lower zone evapotranspiration; CEPSC, interception storage; NSUR, Manning’s roughness coe

cient for overland flow plane; LSUR, length of the overland flow plane; KVARY, ground-water recession-rate behavior; AGWRC, groundwater recession rate relative to previous day’s rate; n, Manning’s roughness coefficient for channels; (x), indicates the constant multiplied by

the parameter value.

bAbsolute value of difference between summer flow volume error and winter flow volume error.

c

Base calibration, base line for the calibrated model as a percentage difference from the observed flow characteristics.
116 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 42. Sensitivity of simulated-flow characteristics to changes in selected model parameters expressed as a

percentage change relative to the base calibration at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson County, Kentucky,

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

Streamflow Pervious storage Evapotranspiration

Parametera Total

flow

Surface

runoff

Interflow

Base

flow

Upper

zone

Lower

zone

Ground

water Total

Interception

Upper

zone

Lower

zone

Ground

water Total

Base

calibrationb 73.58 29.06 16.93 16.10 0.77 4.98 1.76 7.54 9.24 28.74 9.34 0.92 49.26

CEPSC (2x) -1.1 -.3 -.8 -3.6 1.6 1.1 -2.6 .4 43.2 -9.2 -7.8 -8.7 1.6

CEPSC

(0.5x)

.7 .2 .3 2.4 -.9 -.5 1.5 -.1 -26.7 5.3 4.4 5.4 -1.0

INFILT (2x) .7 -16.5 -7.1 40.7 -9.2 3.2 24.4 6.9 .0 -7.8 11.1 13.0 -2.2

INFILT

(0.5x)

-.1 18.9 -3.8 -30.8 7.1 -3.6 -22.5 -6.9 .0 5.9 -8.9 -8.7 1.6

LZSN (2x) -4.5 -8.4 -18.3 14.0 -6.4 72.8 7.6 49.1 .0 -6.1 6.4 9.8 -2.2

LZSN (0.5x) 1.9 13.1 17.1 -33.0 7.1 -27.3 -30.2 -24.3 .0 5.5 -6.5 -8.7 1.8

UZSN (2x) -5.4 -9.0 -14.4 3.4 110.9 3.2 3.3 14.2 .0 13.8 -10.9 -15.2 5.7

UZSN (0.5x) 5.8 6.4 14.9 -.9 -54.1 -3.8 -1.4 -8.3 .0 -17.5 13.4 21.7 -7.2

INTFW (2x) .3 -17.2 33.9 -3.1 -1.0 -.7 -2.2 -1.0 .0 -.9 .9 2.2 -.4

INTFW

(0.5x)

-.4 18.2 -37.7 4.7 1.5 1.1 3.5 1.6 .0 1.2 -1.2 -1.1 .4

IRC (2x) .0 .0 -.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 3.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

IRC (0.5x) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 -.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

LZETP (2x) -5.4 -6.7 -12.5 .9 -9.6 -13.4 -.1 -9.9 .0 -8.6 74.3 9.8 9.2

LZETP

(0.5x)

3.2 6.3 10.8 -8.0 7.5 13.5 -4.5 8.6 .0 5.9 -48.7 -8.7 -6.0

NSUR (2x) -.2 -4.6 5.8 1.4 .4 .3 .7 .4 .0 .5 -.3 .0 .2

NSUR (0.5x) .2 4.4 -5.6 -1.3 -.4 -.3 -.7 -.4 .0 -.5 .3 1.1 -.2

LSUR (2x) -.2 -4.6 5.8 1.4 .4 .3 .7 .4 .0 .5 -.3 .0 .2

LSUR (0.5x) .2 4.4 -5.6 -1.3 -.4 -.3 -.7 -.4 .0 -.5 .3 1.1 -.2

KVARY (2x) .5 .0 .0 2.5 .0 .0 -20.4 -4.8 .0 .0 .0 -1.1 .0

KVARY

(0.5x)

-.4 .0 .0 -1.8 .0 .0 15.3 3.6 .0 .25 .0 1.1 .0

AGWRC

(0.5x)

3.6 -.1 -.5 14.9 -.6 -.6 -98.8 -23.5 .0 -.4 3.3 -62.0 -.8

N (0.8x) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

N (1.2x) .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0

a

INFILT, soil infiltration rate; LZSN, lower zone nominal storage; UZSN, upper zone nominal storage; INTFW, interflow parameter;

IRC, interflow recession parameter; LZETP, lower zone evapotranspiration; CEPSC, interception storage; NSUR, Manning’s roughness

coefficient for overland flow plane; LSUR, length of the overland flow plane; KVARY, ground-water recession-rate behavior; AGWRC,

ground-water recession rate relative to previous day’s rate; n, Manning’s roughness coefficient for channels; (x), indicates the constant multiplied by the parameter value.

b

Base calibration, base line for the calibrated model in inches of water on the watershed.
SIMULATION OF STREAMFLOW 

Table 43. Sensitivity of simulated-flow characteristics to changes in selected model parameters expressed as a

percentage error relative to the observed flow characteristics at Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson Count

Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

Percent error

Parametera

Total flow

volume

50-percent

lowest flow

10-percent

highest flow

Seasonal

volumeb

Summer storm

volume

Average

storm pea

Base

calibrationc 3.1 12.4 -2.7 9.3 11.8 -9.7

CEPSC (2x) 1.9 8.7 -3.1 7.8 10.4 -10.2

CEPSC (0.5x) 3.7 14.8 -2.5 9.9 12.4 -9.7

INFILT (2x) 3.8 36.2 -9.6 15.0 9.2 -23.1

INFILT (0.5x) 2.9 -7.6 4.1 4.6 16.1 2.6

LZSN (2x) -1.6 19.5 -9.9 14.3 14.1 -17.1

LZSN (0.5x) 5.0 -8.7 5.2 .2 12.7 .1

UZSN (2x) -2.5 14.8 -10.5 7.9 6.1 -17.6

UZSN (0.5x) 9.0 12.7 4.2 12.6 17.4 -3.8

INTFW (2x) 3.4 11.4 -3.9 9.3 7.6 -21.6

INTFW (0.5x) 2.6 14.2 -.9 9.4 15.6 .6

IRC (2x) 3.0 41.6 -13.2 10.3 13.4 -12.7

IRC (0.5x) 3.1 9.5 1.5 9.0 12.5 -7.3

LZETP (2x) -2.5 7.2 -8.6 9.4 2.5 -16.2

LZETP (0.5x) 6.4 9.8 2.1 6.1 14.9 -4.3

NSUR (2x) 2.9 13.4 -3.8 9.1 8.9 -15.2

NSUR (0.5x) 3.2 11.5 -1.6 9.3 14.3 -4.8

LSUR (2x) 2.9 13.4 -3.8 9.1 8.9 -15.2

LSUR (0.5x) 3.2 11.5 -1.6 9.3 14.4 -4.8

KVARY (2x) 3.6 8.9 -2.0 6.6 11.8 -9.7

KVARY (0.5x) 2.6 14.9 -3.2 10.8 12.4 -9.7

AGWRC (0.5x) 6.7 -38.1 9.8 8.9 13.7 -7.3

N (0.8x) 3.0 12.3 -2.8 9.1 11.8 -5.3

N (1.2x) 3.1 12.7 -2.7 9.3 11.9 -14.7

a

INFILT, soil infiltration rate; LZSN, lower zone nominal storage; UZSN, upper zone nominal storage; INTFW, interflow parameter;

IRC, interflow recession parameter; LZETP, lower zone evapotranspiration; CEPSC, interception storage; NSUR, Manning’s roughness coef

cient for overland flow plane; LSUR, length of the overland flow plane; KVARY, ground-water recession-rate behavior; AGWRC, groundwater recession rate relative to previous day’s rate; n, Manning’s roughness coefficient for channels; (x), indicates the constant multiplied by

the parameter value.

bAbsolute value of difference between summer flow volume error and winter flow volume error.

c

Base calibration, base line for the calibrated model as a percentage difference from the observed flow characteristics.
118 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

SIMULATION OF WATER QUALITY

Water-quality simulations included those for

contribution of suspended sediment and TPO4 from

point and nonpoint sources and transport of these

constituents through the basin. The model provides

a rudimentary simulation of TPO4 yield and

transport, as only selected instream processes

affecting TPO4 were simulated. Simulation of TPO4

in HSPF required data on temperature, sediment,

dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD). Temperature data were input from observed

and estimated data. Dissolved-oxygen and BOD

simulation in HSPF were activated within the

OXRX subroutine of the RCHRES secondary

module RQUAL (table 27).

The water-quality-calibration process

included steps to adjust appropriate model

parameters to obtain representative total constituent

loads and yields from the four major classes of

pervious land use and the two classes of impervious

land use (table 30). Calibration included landsurface and instream calibration phases. Instream

processes affecting nutrients are extremely complex

because of the numerous physical, chemical, and

biological factors that affect nutrient concentrations.

The calibrations were based on comparisons of

simulated and estimated constituent loads during

the whole 24-month calibration period, annually,

monthly, and selected storm periods (see estimated

loads in tables 22 and 26).

First-order transformations of nutrients in

RCHRES are dependent upon water temperature.

Water temperature measured at the Ruckriegel

Parkway and Gelhaus Lane gaging sites was used in

the model. Missing periods of stream-water

temperature were estimated by regression against

air temperature. (See “Analysis and Summary of

Hydrologic Conditions: Water Quality.”)

Alternatively, missing stream temperature data

could be estimated using the RCHRES secondary

module HTRCH, which requires data for solar

radiation, cloud cover, dewpoint temperature, air

temperature, and wind speed.

Sediment

Calibration of sediment concentrations and

loads follows the calibration of flow and precedes

the calibration of other water-quality constituents.

Simulations of suspended-sediment transport were

made by use of the HSPF secondary modules

SEDMNT for PERLND’s, SOLIDS for IMPLND’s,

and SEDTRN for RCHRES (table 27). Suspendedsolids loading from the three WWTP’s, a minor

source of suspended solids compared to nonpoint

sources, were directed to the appropriate RCHRES.

(The Jeffersontown WWTP flows into RCHRES 8,

the Chenoweth Hills WWTP flows into RCHRES 9,

and the Lake of the Woods WWTP flows into

RCHRES 10.) The processes of detachment of

sediment from the soil matrix and washoff of this

sediment are simulated in SEDMNT on the basis of

rainfall intensity, surface runoff, and the model

parameters that control the accumulation,

detachment, and transport of soils. SEDMNT also

simulates production of sediment through gully or

rill erosion by scour of the soil matrix. PERLND’s

were assumed in the model to be an infinite source

of sediment. An erosion-related vegetative-cover

factor (FACTOR) was varied monthly and by HRU

type (see the HSPF UCI file in Appendix 5).

SOLIDS determines the sediment available

for washoff from IMPLND’s by use of a userdefined net-accumulation rate (which varied

monthly) and the transport parameters. Solids

removal that may occur independent of flow, such

as by street sweeping, was set to zero.

One goal of sediment calibration was

attaining an approximate balance between the

accumulation and generation of sediment particles

and the washoff or transport of sediment, such that

sediment storage on the land surface will not be

continually increasing or decreasing during the

model calibration period. (Donigian and others,

1984). The sediment calibration was achieved by

first adjusting the load from PERLND’s and

IMPLND’s to match observed loads at the

Ruckriegel Parkway and Gelhaus Lane sites. Once a

reasonable match between simulated and observed

loads was obtained, the soil detachment was

approximately balanced with the soil washoff for

each PERLND. Solids accumulation and washoff

from IMPLND’s was adjusted to match simulated
SIMULATION OF WATER QUALITY 

and observed loads at the Ruckriegel Parkway site,

which had the largest percentage of impervious area

of any of the sampling sites in the basin (total

impervious area was about 30 percent).

The open, developed HRU’s have the highest

suspended-sediment yield, whereas yields from

forested HRU’s are about an order of magnitude

lower than these (table 44). Suspended-sediment

yields are about 50 percent higher for most HRU’s

in 1997 compared to yields in 1996, because of the

March 1997 flood.

The suspended-sediment load from

PERLND’s and IMPLND’s is transported,

deposited, and scoured in the RCHRES by

SEDTRN. Transport, deposition, and scour

processes in the RCHRES are functions of the

sediment size, settling velocity, density, and

erodibility, the bed depth, and the critical shear

stress for scour and deposition. RCHRES sediment

transport is computed separately for each sediment

size fraction—sand, silt, and clay—whereas

transport of sediments from the land surfaces is

simulated as total suspended sediment. The particlesize distribution of the suspended-sediment yield

from land surfaces was set to the average size

distribution reported by Flint (1983) for similar,

nearby basins in the Bluegrass Region—1.6 percent

sand, 37.4 percent silt, and 61 percent clay.

During the adjustment of sediment loads from

PERLND’s and IMPLND’s, the pond RCHRES’s

(nos. 15-23) sediment parameters were set such that

all sand, most silt, and some clay-size particles were

deposited. During this adjustment process, the

channel RCHRES’s (nos. 1-14) sediment

parameters were set such that overland cohesive

sediment loads (silt and clay) would “wash

through” the RCHRES. RCHRES’s 1-14 sediment

parameters were later adjusted to allow sediment

deposition and scour after satisfactory overland

sediment loads were obtained. This improved the

match between simulated and observed loads during

some storms. Sediment deposition generally occurs

during minor storms and at the beginning and end

of major storms. The deposited sediment was then

available for scour during major storms, and thu

the total sediment load transported during the pe

flow period of the storm was increased to improv

the simulation of the storm loads.

Sediment deposition and scour for silt and

clays in channels is largely controlled by the bed

shear stress (TAU), the values of the shear-stress

threshold below which deposition occurs (TAUC

and the shear-stress threshold above which scou

occurs (TAUCS). Over time, the deposition and

scour in channels should balance. Initial values o

TAU were determined by examining the modelcalculated TAU values for several reaches; value

TAUCD, and correspondingly TAUCS, were the

adjusted to balance deposition with scour. This

usually entailed an upward adjustment of these

values because, in general, the cessation of surfa

runoff from PERLND’s stopped the inflow of

sediment at the same time that the TAUCD

threshold was reached. The deposition and scour 

sand-size particles was determined by the Toffal

method for the pond RCHRES’s (nos. 15-23) an

by a power function for channel RCHRES’s

(nos. 1-14).

Annual and mean-annual loads of simulat

total suspended sediment and estimated total

suspended solids are shown in table 45. The mea

annual simulated suspended-sediment loads rang

from -33 to -28 percent of the estimated meanannual suspended-solids loads at the Ruckriegel

Parkway and Gelhaus Lane sites. Sediment load

was undersimulated during the year of major

flooding (1997), in particular. Comparisons of

simulated and estimated monthly loads (fig. 46)

indicate a tendency to oversimulate during mont

of low sediment transport. Annual and mean-ann

errors provided a fair sediment simulation (25 to

35 percent error), based on criteria suggested by

Donigian and others, (1984).
120 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 44. Simulated suspended-sediment yields by model hydrologic response unit in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[<, less than; >, greater than]

Hydrologic

response unit Description

Sediment yield

(ton/acre/year)

12-month

period

ending

01/1997

12-month

period

ending

01/1998 Average

Pervious hydrologic response units

1 Pasture/crop, low-permeability soils, 0 to 5 percent

slope

3.74 5.47 4.60

2 Pasture/crop, low-permeability soils, >5 percent

slope

4.01 5.52 4.76

3 Pasture/crop, moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slope

3.26 4.67 3.96

4 Pasture/crop, high-permeability soils, >5 percent

slope

2.10 3.70 2.90

5 Forested, low-permeability soils, 0 to 5 percent slope .170 .433 .302

6 Forested, low-permeability soils, >5 percent slope .217 .426 .322

7 Forested, moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slope

.106 .188 .147

8 Forested, high-permeability soils, >5 percent slope .054 .105 .080

9 Open, vacant/undeveloped uses, low-permeability

soils, 0 to 5 percent slopes

3.93 5.59 4.76

10 Open, developed uses, low-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slopes

8.67 10.6 9.64

11 Open, developed uses, low-permeability soils,

>5 percent slopes

8.66 10.5 9.58

12 Open, developed uses, moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slopes

8.50 10.0 9.25

13 Open, developed uses, moderate-permeability soils,

>5 percent slopes

8.57 10.0 9.28

14 Open, developed uses, high-permeability soils,

>5 percent slopes

8.32 9.61 8.96

15 Open single-family residential, disturbed

low-permeability soils, all slopes

3.84 5.16 4.50

16 Open single-family residential, disturbed moderatepermeability soils, 0 to 5 percent slopes1.32 1.93 1.62

17 Open commercial/industrial/multi-family

residential, disturbed moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slopes

1.55 2.26 1.90

Impervious hydrologic response units

1 Single-family residential/parks/public/vacant

hydrologically effective impervious areas, all

slopes

.789 .799 .794

2 Commercial/industrial/multi-family residential

hydrologically effective impervious areas, all

slopes

.823 .740 .782
SIMULATION OF WATER QUALITY 

Table 45. Annual ESTIMATOR suspended-solids loads and Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran

(HSPF)-simulated suspended-sediment loads in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky,

during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

Period

Measured

rainfall

(inches)

Estimator

suspended-solids

load

Simulated

suspended-sediment

load Difference

Tons Ton/acre Tons Ton/acre Percent

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

02/1996-01/1997 56.81 6,150 1.78 7,790 2.26 27.0

02/1997-01/1998 53.33 23,300 6.77 11,900 3.46 -48.9

Mean 55.07 14,700 4.27 9,850 2.86 -33.0

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

02/1996-01/1997 56.81 17,700 2.42 16,400 2.23 -7.8

02/1997-01/1998 53.33 42,400 5.79 26,700 3.65 -37.0

Mean 55.07 30,100 4.10 21,500 2.94 -28.3

Figure 46. Comparison of the monthly ESTIMATOR suspended-solids loads and the monthly

Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF)-simulated suspended-sediment loads in the

Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998.

1 10 100 1000 10000

1

10

100

1000

10000

1 10 100 1000 10000

1

10

100

1000

10000 Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

ESTIMATED LOAD, IN TONS

SIMULATED LOAD,

IN TONS
122 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Observed total suspended-solids

concentrations were reported for 9 storms at the

Ruckriegel Parkway site and 6 storms at the

Gelhaus Lane site; these storms represented a total

of 23 and 27 samples, respectively, at the 2 sites.

Comparisons of simulated and estimated storm

loads are shown in table 46 and figures 47–49.

Discharge and also the sediment loads tended to be

oversimulated during the smallest storms sampled

during summer and early fall low-flow periods.

Percentage errors in simulation of individual storm

sediment loads were, as would be expected,

generally much larger than percentage errors in

annual and mean-annual loads.

Table 46. Estimated suspended-solids loads and Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF)-simulated

suspended-sediment loads for selected storms in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the

model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

Period

Observed

flow

(acre-feet)

Simulated

flow

(acre-feet)

Load

Difference

Begin

(Julian

date/time)

End

(Julian

date/time)

Estimated

suspended

solids

(tons)

Simulated

suspended

sediment

(tons) Tons Percent

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

19960208/1700 19960209/0100 11.0 18.5 0.82 15.0 14.2 1,730

19960319/0500 19960319/1100 125 98.6 91.5 95.9 4.4 4.8

19960606/2200 19960606/2300 8.15 6.82 4.25 6.88 2.63 61.9

19960702/1500 19960703/0100 53.7 75.5 21.1 87.7 66.6 316

19961022/2300 19961023/0500 6.18 19.5 .28 19.8 19.5 6,960

19961125/1000 19961125/2400 123 111 80.9 134.0 53.1 65.6

19970127/1800 19970128/0400 160 104 159 90.0 -69 -43.4

19970519/1600 19970520/0300 11.8 27.9 .15 19.0 18.8 12,600

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

19960208/2300 19960209/0700 16.6 21.4 3.79 8.71 4.92 130

19960319/0500 19960319/1300 274 203 368 246 -122 -33.2

19960702/1600 19960703/0200 58.5 101 82.5 176 93.5 113

19961018/0100 19961018/0900 74.0 142 107 226 119 111

19970122/1300 19970122/1600 28.0 16.5 12.0 19.1 7.1 59.2

19970529/0200 19970529/1200 137 116 42.6 56.4 13.8 32.4
SIMULATION OF WATER QUALITY 

Figure 47. Hourly suspended-solids and suspended-sediment loads and 5-minute discharge and sampling

discharge during selected storms, Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during

the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.

0600 0800 1000 1200

19

March 1996

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

200

50

100

150

1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 0200

2 3

July 1996

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

200

50

100

150

Discharge

Simulated sediment

Estimated solids

Sampling discharge

2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600

23

October 1996

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

200

50

100

150

CUMMULATIVE SOLIDS AND SEDIMENT LOADS, IN TONS

1200 1600 2000 2400

25 26

November 1996

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

200

50

100

150

1800 2000 2200 2400 0200 0400

27 28 January 1997

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

200

50

100

150

1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 0200 0400

19 20 May 1997

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

200

50

100

150
124 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 48. Hourly suspended-solids and suspended-sediment loads and 5-minute discharge and sampling

discharge during selected storms, Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the

model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998.

2400 0200 0400 0600 0800

9

February 1996

0

400

100

200

300

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

0600 0800 1000 1200 1400

19

March 1996

0

400

100

200

300

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

Simulated sediment 700

Estimated solids

Discharge

Sampling discharge

1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 0200

2 3

July 1996

0

400

100

200

300

CUMULATIVE SOLIDS AND SEDIMENT LOADS, IN TONS

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

0200 0400 0600 0800 1000

18

October 1996

0

400

100

200

300

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

1300 1400 1500 1600 1700

22

January 1997

0

400

100

200

300

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200

29

May 1997

0

400

100

200

300

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700
SIMULATION OF WATER QUALITY 

Figure 49. Comparison of total estimated suspended-solids loads and Hydrological Simulation

Program—Fortran (HSPF)-simulated suspended-sediment loads for selected storms in the

Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998.

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

ESTIMATED LOAD, IN TONS

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0 Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

SIMULATED LOAD, IN TONS

Total Orthophosphate (TPO4)

The simulation of TPO4 included

representation of point and nonpoint sources, as

well as some instream processes, including settling

of suspended TPO4, adsorption and de-adsorption

of PO4 on suspended sediments, and release of PO4

by benthic organisms and BOD decay. TPO4 hourly

point-source-load estimates were included as direct

inflows to three main-channel RCHRES. The

Jeffersontown WWTP flows into RCHRES 8, the

Chenoweth Hills WWTP flows into RCHRES 9,

and the Lake of the Woods WWTP flows into

RCHRES 10. (See WWTP flow and sediment

inputs.)

TPO4 yields from pervious areas were

simulated with the HSPF general water-quality

secondary module, PQUAL, in the PERLND

module. PQUAL accounts for a buildup and

washoff of a constituent as a dissolved fraction on

the surface and the entrainment of a constituent

associated with sediment erosion as a suspended

fraction. The quantity of a dissolved constituent

available for washoff is controlled by the amount of

surface flow and a user-defined accumulation rate

(ACQOP), maximum storage limit (AQOLIM), and

a washoff-susceptibility term (WSQOP). The

quantity of a suspended constituent is directly

proportional to the quantity of detached and scoured

soils simulated by SEDMNT (as previously

described) and a potency factor associated with

each sediment source (POTFW for detached soil

and POTFS for scoured soil). Phosphorus can al

be input as atmospheric wet or dry deposition;

however, this was not simulated explicitly becau

local information on atmospheric sources of TPO

was not available. The atmospheric source

contribution was, however, represented in the

general constituent accumulations.

The PERLND accumulation rates (ACQO

ranged from 0.0001 to 0.0002 lb TPO4 /acre/d, t

upper storage limit (AQOLIM) ranged from 0.00

to 0.006 lb TPO4 /acre and the storedorthophosphate washoff-susceptibility factor

(WSQOP) ranged from 1.9 to 5.4 in/h. Washoff

potency factors for detached sediment (POTFW

ranged from 0.008 to 0.82 lb TPO4 /ton sedimen

and the potency factor for scoured sediment

(POTFS) ranged from 0.008 to 0.062 lb TPO4 /t

sediment. Generally, the largest values for these

terms were associated with disturbed PERLND’

Specific parameter values for each HRU are give

in the PQUAL input block of the HSPF UCI file 

Appendix 5. As calibrated, average annual TPO4

yields for pervious areas (table 47) ranged from

0.001 to 1.36 lb/acre, for the forest and singlefamily-residential HRU’s, respectively.
126 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Table 47. Simulated total orthophosphate yields by model hydrologic response unit in the Chenoweth Run Basin,

Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[<, less than; >, greater than]

Hydrologic

response unit Description

Total orthophosphate yield

(pound/acre/year)

12-month

period

ending

01/1997

12-month

period

ending

01/1998 Average

Pervious hydrologic response units

1 Pasture/crop, low-permeability soils, 0 to 5 percent

slope

0.183 0.243 0.213

2 Pasture/crop, low-permeability soils, >5 percent

slope

.201 .247 .224

3 Pasture/crop, moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slope

.152 .212 .182

4 Pasture/crop, high-permeability soils, >5 percent

slope

.096 .168 .132

5 Forested, low-permeability soils, 0 to 5 percent slope .004 .006 .005

6 Forested, low-permeability soils, >5 percent slope .007 .006 .006

7 Forested, moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slope

.002 .003 .002

8 Forested, high-permeability soils, >5 percent slope .001 .001 .001

9 Open, vacant/undeveloped uses, low-permeability

soils, 0 to 5 percent slopes

.278 .387 .332

10 Open, developed uses, low-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slopes

.611 .716 .664

11 Open, developed uses, low-permeability soils,

>5 percent slopes

.610 .712 .661

12 Open, developed uses, moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slopes

.596 .690 .643

13 Open, developed uses, moderate-permeability soils,

>5 percent slopes

.603 .690 .646

14 Open, developed uses, high-permeability soils,

>5 percent slopes

.582 .669 .626

15 Open single-family residential, disturbed

low-permeability soils, all slopes

1.21 1.50 1.36

16 Open single-family residential, disturbed moderatepermeability soils, 0 to 5 percent slopes.564 .683 .624

17 Open commercial/industrial/multi-family residential,

disturbed moderate-permeability soils,

0 to 5 percent slopes

1.00 1.21 1.11

Impervious hydrologic response units

1 Single-family residential/parks/public/vacant

hydrologically effective impervious areas, all

slopes

.599 .599 .599

2 Commercial/industrial/multi-family residential

hydrologically effective impervious areas, all

slopes

.571 .510 .544
SIMULATION OF WATER QUALITY 

These represent hypothesized yields within the

model framework, as no HRU-scale sampling was

done as part of this study.

(HSPF provides an option for detailed

simulation of TPO4 flux in soil layers of pervious

areas by use of the PHOS secondary module of

PERLND; however, additional soils data (such as

soil temperature) are needed for these detailed

simulations.)

TPO4 yields from impervious areas were

simulated by use of the HSPF general water-quality

secondary module, IQUAL, in the IMPLND

module. Similar to PQUAL, this secondary module

simulates accumulation and washoff of dissolved

constituents and washoff of constituents associated

with sediment, which was simulated in the SOLIDS

secondary module of IMPLND. The accumulation

rate (ACQOP) was 0.001 lb TPO4/d. The stored

orthophosphate washoff-susceptibility factor

(WSQOP) was 5.4 in/h for both IMPLND types.

The upper storage limit (SQOLIM) ranged from

0.045 lb TPO4/acre on IMPLND1 to 0.035 lb

TPO4/acre on IMPLND2. All values for these terms

are given in the IQUAL input block of the HSPF

UCI file in Appendix 5. The simulated average

annual TPO4 yields for impervious areas (table 47)

were approximately 0.5 lb TPO4/acre for both

IMPLND’s.

All mass transfers in HSPF must be explicitly

specified in the UCI input files. Yields of suspended

and dissolved TPO4 from PERLND’s and

IMPLND’s were directed to appropriate RCHRES

input members in the MASS-LINK block of the

UCI file. Suspended PO4 from PERLND’s and

IMPLND’s was proportioned so that 10 percent was

associated with sand-size particles, 20 percent with

silt-size particles, and 70 percent with clay-size

particles. A number of studies have indicated that

fine-grain sediments provide the main bonding sites

for adsorption of phosphorus (White, 1981; Raush

and Schreiber, 1981; Carter and others, 1974;

Brown and others, 1981). These studies indicate

that phosphorus bonding with clay-size particles is

about twice that for an equivalent mass of sand-size

particles.

Although a number of transformations of PO4

can occur in the stream reaches (RCHRES), only a

partial set of these possible transformations was

modeled for this study. The modeled

transformations included settling of suspended

TPO4, adsorption and de-adsorption of PO4 on

suspended sediments, and release of PO4 by bent

organisms and BOD decay. Other transformation

of PO4 that could be simulated, but were not,

included uptake and release by phytoplankton an

zooplankton, and benthic-algae uptake. These

additional processes could be incorporated with

additional data.

Changes of soluble phosphorus to an

absorbed phase (adsorption) and from an adsorb

phase to a dissolved phase (de-adsorption) was

simulated in HSPF with a linear-equilibrium

isotherm defined by the user-supplied adsorption

coefficient (Kd in NUT-ADSPARM block) for e

of the three size fractions—sand, silt, and clay. I

the calibrated model, PO4 partition coefficients

(Kd) ranged from 400 to 900 mL/g; values were

higher for the silt/clay fractions than for the sand

size fractions.

Release of soluble PO4 by benthic organis

is directly proportional to user-defined release ra

under aerobic and anaerobic conditions (BRPO(

and BRPO4(2) respectively, in the NUT-BENPAR

block) and benthal scour (SCRVEL and SCRUM

in the RQUAL SCOUR-PARMS block). Aerobi

and anaerobic conditions are determined by the

current simulated value of dissolved oxygen in t

OXRX module and the user-defined threshold va

that determines which condition exists (ANAER 

the NUT-BENPARM section of the HSPF UCI fi

BOD-decay release of soluble PO4 was a

function of the total BOD decay determined in t

OXRX module and a stoichiometric conversion

factor. A number of interconnected subordinate

subroutines in the OXRX module (table 27) and

their respective parameter values (table 28) affec

the BOD decay. No other user-defined paramete

values were required to adjust the BOD-decay

release of soluble PO4.

Suspended PO4 was routed to the next

downstream reach for each size fraction for all

RCHRES including those with two outflow gate

(The first outflow gate was used to simulate grou

water-seepage losses and the second outflow gat

was used to simulate the remaining main-channe

flow downstream to the next RCHRES). Thus, th

were assumed to be no losses of the suspended P

in the ground-water-seepage. Dissolved PO4 wa

routed to the next downstream reach only for tha

portion associated with the main-channel flow (t
128 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

is, through the second outflow gate, for the

RCHRES with two outflow gates), and the

dissolved PO4 associated with ground-water

seepage was lost from the system.

TPO4 loads were calibrated to the annual

TPO4 loads estimated at the Ruckriegel Parkway

and Gelhaus Lane sites by use of ESTIMATOR.

The simulated mean-annual TPO4 load for the

model calibration period differed from the

ESTIMATOR load by -1.3 percent at the Ruckriegel

Parkway site and 0.8 percent at the Gelhaus Lane

site (table 48). Annual and mean-annual errors

provided a good TPO4 simulation (20 to 30 percent

error), based on criteria suggested by Donigian and

others (1984). Simulated monthly TPO4 loads were

generally in good agreement with the ESTIMATOR

monthly loads (fig. 50), but loads were

oversimulated for low-flow months, as was also the

case for flows and sediment. (ESTIMATOR is not

considered to provide very reliable estimates for

time steps less than 1 year, particularly for small

drainage areas and short periods of record.)

Agreement on HSPF-simulated and TPO4

storm loads estimated directly from the discrete

samples collected during individual storms was

variable (see table 49 and figs. 51–53). There was a

tendency to oversimulate loads at the Ruckriegel

Parkway site, particularly for the smaller storms.

Discharge and also the sediment and TPO4 loads

tended to be oversimulated during the smallest

storms sampled during summer and early fall lowflow periods. Percentage errors in simulation of

individual storm TPO4 loads were, as expected,

generally much larger than percentage errors in

annual and total loads.

On average, the simulated suspended fraction

of the TPO4 load was 57 percent at the Ruckriegel

Parkway site and 10 percent at the Gelhaus Lane

site. The proportion of suspended PO4 to dissolved

PO4 was greater in the reaches upstream from the

Jeffersontown WWTP than the proportion just

downstream from the Jeffersontown WWTP.

Moving downstream from the Jeffersontown

WWTP, the proportion of suspended PO4 to

dissolved PO4 continued to rise. This might be

expected because the available soluble PO4 will

adsorb to suspended sediments.

Table 48. Annual ESTIMATOR total orthophosphate loads and Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran

(HSPF)-simulated total orthophosphate loads in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during

the model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[lb, pound; P, phosphorus]

Period

Measured

rainfall

(inches)

Estimator total

orthophosphate load

Simulated total

orthophosphate load Difference

lb as P

lb as

P/acre lb as P

lb as

P/acre Percent

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

02/1996-01/1997 56.81 1,820 0.529 2,360 0.685 29.5

02/1997-01/1998 53.33 3,360 .975 2,750 .799 -18.1

Mean 55.07 2,590 .752 2,560 .742 -1.3

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

02/1996-01/1997 56.81 28,400 3.88 28,200 3.84 -1.0

02/1997-01/1998 53.33 27,100 3.70 27,800 3.80 2.7

Mean 55.07 27,800 3.79 28,000 3.82 .8
SIMULATION OF WATER QUALITY 

Table 49. Estimated total orthophosphate loads and Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF)-simulate

total orthophosphate loads for selected storms in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during 

model calibration period, February 1996–January 1998

[lb, pound; P, phosphorus]

Period

Observed

flow

(acre-feet)

Simulated

flow

(acre-feet)

Total orthophosphate load

Difference

Begin

(Julian

date/time)

End

(Julian

date/time)

Estimated

(lb as P)

Simulated

(lb as P) lb as P Percent

Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway

19960208/1700 19960209/0100 11.0 18.5 3.90 8.77 4.87 125

19960319/0500 19960319/1100 125 98.6 74.9 37.1 -37.8 -50.5

19960606/2200 19960606/2300 8.14 6.82 1.12 1.63 .51 45.5

19960702/1500 19960703/0100 53.7 75.5 3.77 28.4 24.6 652

19961022/2300 19961023/0500 6.18 19.5 .26 5.22 4.96 1,910

19961125/1000 19961125/2400 123 110 25.3 47.6 22.3 88.1

19970127/1800 19970128/0400 160 104 25.6 24.6 -1.0 -3.9

19970519/1600 19970520/0300 11.8 27.9 .57 9.29 8.72 1,530

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane

19960208/2300 19960209/0700 16.6 21.4 27.8 28.2 -.6 -2.2

19960319/0500 19960319/1300 274 203 384 107.0 -277 -72.1

19960702/1600 19960703/0200 58.5 101 76.4 76.8 .4 .5

19961018/0100 19961018/0900 74 142 211 81.3 -130.0 -61.6

19970122/1300 19970122/1600 27.9 16.5 27.7 14.0 -13.7 -49.4

19970529/0200 19970529/1200 137 116 121 62.3 -58.7 -48.5

Figure 50. Comparison of the monthly ESTIMATOR total orthophosphate loads and the monthly

Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF)-simulated total orthophosphate loads in the

Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period, February 1996–

January 1998.

10 100 1000 10000

10

100

1000

10000

10 100 1000 10000

10

100

1000

10000

Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

ESTIMATED LOAD, IN POUNDS AS PHOSPHORUS

SIMULATED LOAD,

IN POUNDS AS PHOSPHORUS
130 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 51. Hourly total orthophosphate loads and 5-minute discharge and sampling discharge during selected

storms, Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998.

0600 0800 1000 1200

19

March 1996

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

80

20

40

60 Discharge

Simulated

Estimated

Sampling

1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 0200

2 3

July 1996

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

80

20

40

60

2400 0100 0200 0300 0400 0500 0600

23

October 1996

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

80

20

40

60

CUMULATIVE TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE LOAD, IN POUNDS AS PHOSPHORUS

1200 1600 2000 2400

25 26

November 1996

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND

0

80

20

40

60

1800 2000 2200 2400 0200 0400

27 28 January 1997

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

80

20

40

60

1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 0200 0400

19 20 May 1997

500

0.7

1

2

3

4

5

7

10

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

0

80

20

40

60

discharge
SIMULATION OF WATER QUALITY 

Figure 52. Hourly total orthophosphate loads and 5-minute discharge and sampling discharge during selected

storms, Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998.

2400 0200 0400 0600 0800

9

February 1996

0

400

100

200

300

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700 Simulated

Estimated

Discharge

Sampling discharge

0200 0400 0600 0800 1000 1200

29

May 1997

0

400

100

200

300

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

1300 1400 1500 1600 1700

22

January 1997

0

400

100

200

300

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

0200 0400 0600 0800 1000

18

October 1996

0

400

100

200

300

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 0200

2 3

July 1996

0

400

100

200

300

CUMMULATIVE TOTAL ORTHOPHOSPHATE LOAD, IN POUNDS AS PHOSPHORUS

10

1,000

20

30

40

50

70

100

200

300

400

500

700

0600 0800 1000 1200 1400

19

March 1996

0

400

100

200

300

100

1,000

150

200

250

300

400

500

600

700

800

900
132 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Figure 53. Comparison of total estimated total orthophosphate loads and Hydrological Simulation

Program—Fortran (HSPF)-simulated total orthophosphate loads for selected storms in the

Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky, during the model calibration period,

February 1996–January 1998.

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

ESTIMATED ORTHOPHOSPHATE, IN POUNDS AS PHOSPHORUS

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0 Ruckriegel Parkway Gelhaus Lane

SIMULATED ORTHOPHOSPHATE,

IN POUNDS AS PHOSPHORUS

There was no sampling data showing the

actual suspended and dissolved fractions of TPO4;

however, data for total and dissolved phosphorus

were available. Sampling data (19 samples) for this

study indicated that, on average, the suspended

fraction makes up approximately three-fourths of

the TP concentration at the Ruckriegel Parkway

site; however, only one fourth to one third of TP is

TPO4 at the Ruckriegel Parkway site. Twenty

water samples collected for this study indicated

approximately half of TP concentration was in the

suspended fraction at the Gelhaus Lane site.

Generally, approximately half of TP is TPO4 at the

Gelhaus Lane site. (See the regression relations

developed between TP and TPO4 in “Water

Quality.”) The large majority of the Jeffersontown

WWTP effluent was in the dissolved

orthophosphate form.

MODEL APPLICATIONS AND

LIMITATIONS

The model of the Chenoweth Run Basin

described in this report can help managers,

planners, and engineers examine the complexities

of the basin hydrology and, thus, support

comprehensive water-resource-management

decisions in the basin. Such analyses are facilitated

by the implementation of the HSPF model within

GENSCN, which provides a tool for development

and comparison of various alternative basindevelopment scenarios that can be defined by

unique sets of water-resource-management

operations and modeled basin characteristics.

The model can be used to assess the

hydrological consequences of changes in the landuse/land-cover and (or) water-storage

characteristics of the basin. Magnitudes of the

effects of such changes on discharge and water

quality may be assessed.

Flood frequency may be estimated through

long-term simulation (record extension) by use of

historical meteorological data with the calibrated

model. Furthermore, estimates of peak-discharge

frequency could be used to delineate floodways.

Perhaps with additional data on tributary

flows, the model could also be used to examine the

normal timing of inflows to the main channel from

the many tributary subbasins within Chenoweth

Run. Timing of subbasin inflows are important for

determination of the effects of storm-water

detention facilities on peak discharges.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The model calibration data were limited to a

2-year period when precipitation and streamflow

were well above average. Although some periods of

moderately low base flows were included, extended

periods of low base flows were not. Also, base-flowseepage losses in the main channel were

hypothesized and included in the model, but such

losses have not been confirmed and quantified by

field measurements. Applications of the model for

simulations of extended low base flows may

therefore be less accurate than moderate- and highflow simulations.

Calibration of the model for simulation of

TPO4 transport was rudimentary. Components of

TPO4 processing most critical to transport during

moderate and high-flow portions of the model

calibration period were considered. Biological

uptake of TPO4 was not modeled; therefore, not all

linkages between instream TPO4 concentrations

and algal growth were represented in the model.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Rainfall, streamflow, and water-quality data

collected in the Chenoweth Run Basin in Jefferson

County, Ky., during February 1996–January 1998,

and the available historical hydrological data

collected in the basin beginning in February 1988,

were used to characterize existing (base) hydrologic

conditions and to calibrate a Hydrological

Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF) model for

continuous simulation of rainfall, streamflow,

suspended-sediment, and total-orthophosphate

transport relations. Chenoweth Run Basin,

encompassing 16.5 mi2 in suburban eastern

Jefferson County, includes areas of expanding urban

development, particularly in the upper third of the

basin, which contains a large industrial park and a

new 9,100-seat church complex. Long-standing

problems in meeting water-quality criteria for either

of the state-designated aquatic-life or swimming

uses in the approximately 9-mi-long main channel

had been attributed to organic enrichment, and the

presence of nutrients, metals, and pathogens in

urban-runoff and wastewater inflows. Study results

provided an improved understanding of the

complexities of the basin hydrology and a basin

modeling framework with analytical tools for use 

comprehensive water-resource planning and

management.

The 2-year field data-collection (model

calibration) period was designed to supplement a

expand the utility of the available historical

streamflow and water-quality data, most of whic

represented individual water samples collected a

discharge measurements made during low-tomoderate flows in routine monitoring programs. 

this study, stream-water sampling was targeted

primarily toward stormflows to adequately

characterize the highly variable hydrologic

conditions of this mixed-land-use, urbanizing ba

Spatial, flow-related, and seasonal variability of

water quality was represented by the collection o

series of discrete water samples during 3 storms

each year, distributed seasonally at each of

4 sampling sites on the main channel, for a total 

12 storm-sampling events per year. In 1996–97,

24 storms were sampled at the 4 sites; 79 discret

water samples were collected, which provided a

average of 3.3 samples per storm. Also, one low

flow sample was collected annually in Septembe

each of the four sites. Constituents and propertie

analyzed included pH, alkalinity, total dissolved

solids, total suspended solids, total volatile

suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), nitrat

nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen,

organic nitrogen, total orthophosphate (TPO4), to

phosphorus (TP), and fecal coliform and

streptococcus. A filtered sample for total

phosphorus analysis was also routinely submitte

for laboratory analysis. As requested by Louisvi

and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer Distri

(MSD), samples for analysis of metals and chlor

also were collected when enough sample water w

available. Two streamflow-gaging stations (one

upstream and one downstream) near the single

major wastewater-treatment plant (WWTP)

(4-Mgal/d capacity) and two minor WWTP’s in 

basin provided continuous, 5-minute-interval

records of stream stage (water level) for use in
134 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

computation of continuous discharge. Water-quality

monitors at each streamflow-gaging station

provided continuous, 30-minute-interval records of

water temperature, pH, specific conductance, and

dissolved-oxygen concentration. The two

streamflow-gaging stations were also among the

four water-quality-sampling sites, one of which was

located upstream from the WWTP’s.

Several types of other pertinent data,

including meteorological, geographical, and

WWTP-effluent data, were compiled and analyzed

for the study. Rainfall was recorded at 5-minute

intervals at one gage in the basin and at four other

gages surrounding the basin. Mean annual

precipitation in the basin (55.07 in.) averaged

approximately 11 in. above the normal annual

amount (44.39 in.) at a nearby long-term rain gage

in 1996-97; record rainfalls (63.76 in. in 1996 and

10.48 in. on March 1, 1997) and flooding occurred.

Hydrological characteristics and the

underlying surficial geological characteristics are

highly varied in Jefferson County. In the Chenoweth

Run Basin, as in much of the eastern third of

Jefferson County and adjacent counties to the east

within the Outer Bluegrass Physiographic Region of

Kentucky, relief is moderately sloping to steep.

Also, internal drainage in pervious areas here is

impeded by the shallow (generally less than 5 ft

deep), fine-textured subsoils that include abundant

silts and clays. Thus, much of the precipitation here

tends to move rapidly as overland flow and (or)

interflow to the stream channels, and relatively little

water infiltrates through the soil mantle to the

underlying bedrock.

Seepage losses to ground water are not

uncommon where thin, fractured sections of clastic

rocks (shales) are intersected by stream channels.

Bedrock-fracture zones tend to be concentrated in

and (or) near stream channels in this geological

setting. Some seepage losses in the main channel

were hypothesized and modeled for base-flow

periods.

Approximately 60 percent of the abovenormal precipitation left the Chenoweth Run Basin

as streamflow during the data-collection period, and

approximately 40 percent of precipitation left the

basin as evapotranspiration and other losses, such as

to the ground water by channel losses. Typically,

this distribution would be reversed; approximately

40 percent would leave as streamflow and the

remaining 60 percent would leave as

evapotranspiration and other losses.

The WWTP’s provide secondary (biological)

treatment of wastewaters from domestic,

commercial, and industrial customers. At times,

wastewater effluent makes up the majority of base

flows in the main channel. Bypass flows occurred at

the major WWTP during and following rain storms

of approximately 0.5 in. or greater, when infiltration

and inflows to the sanitary-sewer system caused the

WWTP-inflow capacity to be exceeded. As a

consequence, some untreated wastewater bypassed

the WWTP and was discharged directly to the

stream. Bypass flows, though not directly measured

at the plant, were estimated to have occurred at a

constant rate of 7.74 ft3

/s (5 Mgal/d) for the bypass

periods (59 days) during the data-collection period.

Overall, wastewater inflows constituted some 14 in.

of water on the basin, or approximately 20 percent

of flow measured, at the gaging station downstream

from the WWTP’s during the data-collection

period.

Additional and variable nonpoint sources also

exist for chemical constituents. The fine-textured

soils are highly susceptible to erosion when

exposed, as is often the case during construction

activity. Large concentrations and loads of sediment

have often been transported during stormflows. The

sediments also carry sorbed constituents including

nutrients and metals. Streets, parking lots, treated

turf grasses, pastures, and crop areas also are

potentially significant constituent-source areas.

Increased stream-water temperatures

resulting from the runoff from impervious surfaces,

the loss of riparian tree canopy, and thermal energy

added by the WWTP’s reduces the oxygen-carrying

capacity of streams and thereby adversely affects

habitat for aquatic organisms. Oxygen-demanding

organic materials, sediments, and nutrients further

impair aquatic habitat.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The numerous ponds and small lakes

constructed on the resistant upland bedrock

formations also affect streamflow and water-quality

conditions. Approximately 25 percent of the basin

area is drained through these ponds. This additional

detention storage delays and (or) reduces the

movement of water and constituents through the

basin to some degree, including the sediments and

nonpoint-source nutrients.

The water-quality-sampling and discharge

data were used to estimate loads from point and

nonpoint sources of suspended sediments, TP, and

TPO4. Above-average suspended-sediment loads

and yields (exceeding 4 ton/acre) were estimated for

the data-collection period; nonpoint sources

contributed the largest portion of the sediment

loads. The WWTP’s were the source of most of the

estimated TP and TPO4 transported in the basin.

The load estimates indicated that roughly

65 percent (23,300 of 43,600 lb as P annually) of

the TP load and 90 percent (25,200 of 27,800 lb as

P annually) of the TPO4 load at the streamflowgaging station downstream from the WWTP’s

during the February 1996–January 1998 datacollection period may be attributable to the WWTP

effluents.

The 4-Mgal/d major WWTP was upgraded

following the data-collection period for this study; a

phosphorus-removal process and an ultravioletdisinfectant unit were added. Also, work was done

to reduce the rainwater inflows to the sanitary-sewer

system that had previously caused overflows of

untreated or undertreated wastewater to the stream.

The HSPF model was used to represent

several important hydrologic features of the

Chenoweth Run Basin: (1) numerous small lakes

and ponds, (2) potential seasonal ground-waterseepage loss in stream channels, (3) contributions

from WWTP effluents and bypass flows, and (4) the

transport and transformations of sediments and

nutrients. The model was calibrated and verified for

flow simulation on the basis of measured total,

annual, seasonal, monthly, daily, hourly, and

5-minute-interval storm discharge data. The

numerous storms permitted a split-sample

procedure to be used for a model verification on the

basis of storm volumes and peaks. Total simulat

and observed discharge during the model

calibration period differed by approximately

-5.4 percent at the upper streamflow-gaging stati

and 3.1 percent at the lower station. The model

results for the total and annual water balances w

classified as very good on the basis of the sugges

calibration criteria. The model had correlation

coefficients ranging from 0.89 to 0.98 for hourly 

monthly mean flows, respectively. The coefficien

of model-fit efficiency for daily and monthly

discharge simulations approach the excellent ran

(exceeding 0.97). However, the model was

calibrated for a comparatively short 24-month

period during which flows were above normal.

Increased model error might be expected during 

extended period of near-normal flows.

The model was calibrated for simulation o

sediment and TPO4 transport on the basis of

estimated constituent loads. The overall mass

balance was within -33 percent for sediment and

+/- 1 percent for TPO4. Sediment was

undersimulated during the major-flood year (199

Close agreement between simulated and observe

total loads of TPO4 was obtained; however, the

model tended to oversimulate discharge and also 

sediment and TPO4 loads during the smallest

storms sampled during summer and early fall low

flow periods.

The model developed in the study describ

in this report can be applied to assessments or

evaluation of several water-related issues or

activities in the Chenoweth Run Basin, including

• Estimates of flood frequency through lo

term simulation (record extension) by 

of historical meteorological data with 

calibrated model.

• Predictions of the timing of inflows to th

main channel from the many tributary

subbasins within Chenoweth Run may 

made with additional data collection o

tributary inflows.

• Development and analysis of alternative

basin- and water-resource-managemen

scenarios.
136 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

The model calibration data were limited to a

2-year period when precipitation and streamflow

were well above the long-term averages. Although

some periods of moderately low base flows were

included, extended periods of low base flows were

not. Also, base-flow-seepage losses in the main

channel were hypothesized and included in the

model, but such losses have not been confirmed and

quantified by field measurements. Applications of

the model simulations of extended low base flows

may therefore be less accurate than those for

moderate and high flows.

Calibration of the model for simulation of

TPO4 transport was rudimentary. Components of

TPO4 processing most critical to transport during

moderate- and high-flow parts of the model

calibration period were considered. Biological

uptake of TPO4 was not modeled; therefore, not all

linkages between instream TPO4 concentrations

and algal growth were represented in the model.

Additional refinement and extension of the

HSPF-model application is suggested. Base-flowseepage losses in the main channel could be

confirmed and accurately quantified by

investigation of surface- and ground-water relations

in the basin area. Water-quality sampling of

stormflows from small drainage areas (HRU-scale)

are needed to establish definitive relations between

specific land uses and nutrient yields in the basin.

Capabilities of the water-quality model could be

extended to assess questions concerning factors

controlling algal growth and options for minimizing

any future nuisance algal growth if additional waterquality and biological (algal) data were collected

and the model were further calibrated for related

constituents including dissolved oxygen, BOD,

inorganic N, and plankton. Post-audit testing of the

model would enable comparison of model

predictions to actual water-quality conditions

following implementation of any constituentcontrol strategies.

REFERENCES CITED

Alley, W.A., and Veenhuis, J.E., 1983, Effective

impervious area in urban runoff modeling: Journal of

Hydrological Engineering, ASCE, v. 109, no. 2,

February 1983, p. 313–319.

Anttila, P.W., 1970, Sedimentation in Plum Creek

Subwatershed No. 4, Shelby County, North-Central

Kentucky—Sedimentation in small drainage basins:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply

Paper 1798-G, 54 p.

Arcement, G.J., Jr., and Schneider, V.R., 1989, Guide for

selecting Manning’s roughness coefficients for

natural channels and flood plains: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2339, 38 p.

Barten, J.M., 1999, Effects of residential lawn fertilizers

on runoff water quality, in Conference on Enhancing

the States’ Lake Management Programs, 12th,

Chicago, Ill., 1999, Proceedings: Chicago, Ill.,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p. 15.

Bell, E.A., 1966, Summary of hydrologic conditions of

the Louisville area Kentucky: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1819-C, 36 p., 6 pls.

Bicknell, B.R., Imhoff, J.C., Kittle, J.L., Jr., Donigian,

A.S., Jr., Johanson, R.C., 1993, Hydrological

Simulation Program—FORTRAN User’s Manual

for Release 10: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, EPA/600/R-93174, 660 p.

Brown, M.J., Boondurant, J.A., and Brockway, C.E.,

1981, Ponding surface drainage water for sediment

and phosphorus removal: Transactions of the

American Society of Agricultural Engineers,

p. 1478–1481.

Brutsaert, W., and Parlange, M.B., 1998, Hydrologic

cycle explains the evaporation paradox: Nature,

v. 396, November 5, 1998, p. 30.

Carter, D.L., Brown, M.J., Robbins, C.W., and Bondurant,

J.A., 1974, Phosphorus associated with sediments in

irrigation and drainage water for two large tracts in

southern Idaho: Journal of Environmental Quality,

v. 3, no. 3, p. 287–291.

Chew, C.Y., Moore, L.W., and Smith, R.H., 1991,

Hydrological simulation of Tennessee’s North

Reelfoot Creek watershed: Journal of the Water

Pollution Control Federation, v. 63 p. 10-16.

Cohn, T.A., Caulder, D.L., Gilroy, E.J., Zynjuk, L.D.,

and Summers, R.M., 1992a, The validity of a simple

statistical model for estimating fluvial constituent

loads—an empirical study involving nutrient loads

entering Chesapeake Bay: Water Resources

Research, v. 28, no. 9, p. 2,353–2,363.
References cited 

Cohn, T.A., Gilroy, E.J., and Baier, W.G., 1992b,

Estimating fluvial transport of trace constituents

using a regression model with data subject to

censoring, in Proceedings of the Section on

Statistics and the Environment: Boston, Mass.,

American Statistical Association, August 9–13,

1992, p. 142–151.

Conner, Glen, 1982, Monthly, seasonal, and annual

precipitation in Kentucky 1951–1980: Kentucky

Climate Center Publication Number 25, Bowling

Green, Ky., Western Kentucky University, 30 p.

Crawford, N.H., and Linsley, R.K., 1966, Digital

simulation in hydrology—Stanford Watershed

Model IV: Stanford, Calif., Stanford University,

Department of Civil Engineering, Technical

Report 39, 210 p.

Dinicola, R.S., 1990, Characterization and simulation of

rainfall-runoff relations for headwater basins in

western King and Snohomish Counties, Washington:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources

Investigations Report 89-4052, 52 p.

Donigian, A.S., Jr., and Crawford, N.H., 1976, Modeling

nonpoint pollution from the land surface: Athens,

Ga., Environmental Research Laboratory,

EPA 600/3-76-083, 280 p.

Donigian, A.S., Jr., Imhoff, J.C., Bicknell, B.R., and

Kittle, J.L., Jr., 1984, Application guide for

hydrological simulation program—FORTRAN

(HSPF): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

EPA/600/3-84-065, 177 p.

Duncker, J.J., Vail, T.J., and Melching, C.S., 1995,

Regional rainfall-runoff relations for simulation of

streamflow for watersheds in Lake County, Illinois:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources

Investigations Report 95-4023, 71 p.

Edwards, T.K., and Glysson, G.D., 1988, Field

methods for measurement of fluvial sediment:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-531,

118 p.

Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 1991,

ARC/INFO User’s Guide, Cell-based Modeling with

GRID—Analysis, display and management:

Redlands, Calif. [variously paged].

_____1992, ARC/INFO User’s Guide, Cell-based

Modeling with GRID 6.1, Supplement—Hydrologic

and distance modeling tools: Redlands, Calif.

[variously paged].

Evaldi, R.D., Burns, R.J., and Moore, B.L., 1993, Water

quality of selected streams in Jefferson County,

Kentucky, 1988–91: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 92-4150, 177 p.

Evaldi, R.D., and Moore, B.L., 1992, Stormwater data 

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–92:

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 92-63

82 p.

_____1994a, Techniques for estimating the quantity 

quality of storm runoff from urban watersheds o

Jefferson County, Kentucky: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Resources Investigations

Report 94-4023, 70 p.

_____1994b, Yields of selected constituents in base fl

and stormflow in urban watersheds of Jefferson

County, Kentucky, 1988–92: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Resources Investigations

Report 94-4065, 70 p.

Flint, R.F., 1983, Fluvial sedimentation in Kentucky:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources

Investigations Report 83-4152, 75 p.

Flynn, K.M., Hummel, P.R., Lumb, A.M., and Kittle, J

Jr., 1995, User’s manual for ANNIE, version 2, 

computer program for interactive hydrologic dat

management: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 95-4085, 211 p

Garcia, Rene, and Crain, A.S., 1998, Loads and yield

sediment and water-quality constituents in Kentu

streams: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File

Report 98-411, 60 p.

Guy, H.P., and Norman, V.W., 1970, Field methods fo

measurements of fluvial sediment: U.S. Geologi

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources

Investigations, book 3, chap. C2, 59 p.

Hall, F.R., and Palmquist, W.N., Jr., 1960, Availabilit

ground water in Anderson, Franklin, Shelby,

Spencer and Woodford Counties, Kentucky:

U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigatio

Atlas HA-24, 3 sheets, scale 1:125,000.

Hammer, M.J., 1975, Water and waste-water technolo

New York, Wiley, 502 p.

Hartigan, J.A., 1975, Clustering algorithms: New Yo

Wiley, 351 p.

Hem, J.D., 1989, Study and interpretation of the chem

characteristics of natural water (3d ed.):

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 225

263 p., 4 pls. in pocket.

Hutchinson, M.F., and Dowling, T.I., 1991, A contine

hydrological assessment of a new grid-based

elevation model of Australia: Hydrological

Processes, v. 5, p. 45–58.

James, L.D., and Burgess, S.J., 1982, Selection,

calibration and testing of hydrologic models, in

Hydrologic Modeling of Small Watersheds:

American Society of Agricultural Engineers, p. 
138 Hydrologic and Water-Quality Characterization and Modeling of the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Jarrett, G.L., Downs, A.C., and Grace-Jarrett, P.A., 1998,

Continuous hydrologic simulation of runoff for the

Middle Fork and South Fork of the Beargrass Creek

Basin in Jefferson County, Kentucky:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources

Investigations Report 98-4182, 20 p.

Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet, 1994, The 1994 Kentucky report

to Congress on water quality: Frankfort, Ky.,

Division of Water, 318 p.

_____1999, Chenoweth Run drainage—biological and

water quality investigation: Frankfort, Ky., Division

of Water, Ecological Support Section, Technical

Report No. 53, 15 p.

Kittle, J.L., Jr., Lumb, A.M., Hummel, P.R., Duda, P.B.,

and Gray, M.H., 1998, A Tool for the Generation

and Analysis of Model Simulation Scenarios for

Watersheds (GenScn): U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4134,

152 p.

Kohler, M.A., Nordenson, T.J., Baker, D.R., 1959,

Evaporation maps for the United States:

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Weather

Bureau, Technical Paper No. 37, 13 p.

Leist, David, 1996, Water quality study of Chenoweth

Run: Frankfort, Ky., Division of Water, 67 p.

Leist, David, VanArsdall, T., Balassa, J., and Wiley, T.,

1990, Water quality study of Harrods Creek:

Frankfort, Ky., Division of Water, 31 p.

_____1991, Water quality study of Floyds Fork:

Frankfort, Ky., Division of Water, 31 p.

Leopold, L.B., 1968, Hydrology for urban and land-use

planning—a guidebook on the hydrological effects

of urban land use: U.S. Geological Survey

Circular 554, 18 p.

Logan, R.W., Beck, G.V., Call, S.M., Houp, R.E., Miller,

L.G., Mills, M.R., Porter, S.D., Metzmeier, Lythia,

Schneider, C.C., and Walker, D.K., 1986, Floyds

Fork drainage biological and water quality

investigation for stream use designation: Frankfort,

Ky., Kentucky Department for Environmental

Protection, Division of Water, Technical Report

No. 3, 152 p.

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer

District, 1990, An appraisal of water quality

conditions in streams of Jefferson County, Kentucky,

1989 data: Louisville, Ky., Louisville and Jefferson

County Metropolitan Sewer District, 124 p.

_____1991, An appraisal of water quality conditions in

the streams of Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1990

data: Louisville, Ky., Louisville and Jefferson

County Metropolitan Sewer District, 121 p.

_____1994, An appraisal of water quality conditions in

streams of Jefferson County, Kentucky, with

1991/1992 data: Louisville, Ky., Louisville and

Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District,

280 p.

_____1996, A preliminary report on the stream quality of

Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane, Jefferson County,

Kentucky: Louisville, Ky., Louisville and Jefferson

County Metropolitan Sewer District, Stormwater

Department, Stream Program, 13 p.

_____2000, Water-quality report 2000: Louisville, Ky.,

Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan

Sewer District, 29 p.

Lumb, A.M., McCammon, R.B., and Kittle, J.L., Jr.,

1994, Users manual for an expert system (HSPEXP)

for calibration of the hydrological simulation

program—FORTRAN: U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4168,

102 p.

Martin, G.R., Smoot, J.L., and White, K.D., 1992, A

comparison of surface-grab and cross sectionally

integrated stream-water-quality sampling methods:

Washington, D.C., Water Environment Research,

v. 64, no. 7, p. 866–876.

Martin, G.R., Ruhl, K.J., Moore, B.L., and Rose, M.F.,

1997, Estimation of peak-discharge frequency of

urban streams in Jefferson County, Kentucky:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources

Investigations Report 97-4219, 40 p.

McDowell, R.C., ed., 1986, The geology of Kentucky—A

text to accompany the geologic map of Kentucky:

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1151-H,

76 p.

McDowell, R.C., Grabowski, G.J., Jr., and Moore, S.L.,

1981, Geologic map of Kentucky: U.S. Geological

Survey, scale 1:250,000, 4 sheets.

Meybeck, Michel, 1982, Carbon, nitrogen and

phosphorus transport by world rivers: American

Journal of Science, v. 282, p. 401–450.

Mitchell, W.B., Guptil, S.C., Anderson, K.E., Fegeas,

R.C., and Hallam, C.A., 1977, GIRAS—A

geographic information retrieval and analysis system

for handling land use and land cover data:

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1059,

16 p.

Moore, F.B., Kepferle, R.C., and Peterson, W.L., 1972,

Geologic map of the Jeffersontown Quadrangle,

Jefferson County, Kentucky: U.S. Geological Survey

Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-999, scale 1:24,000.

Moore, L.W., Matheny, H., Tyree, T., Sabatini, D., and

Klaine, S., 1988, Agricultural runoff modeling in a

small west Tennessee watershed: Journal of the

Water Pollution Control Federation, v. 60,

p. 242–249.
References cited 

Nash, J.E., and Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970, River flow

forecasting through conceptual models, Part 1—A

discussion of principles: Journal of Hydrology, v. 10,

p. 282–290.

National Climatic Data Center, 2000, accessed August 21,

2000, at URL http://mcc.sws.uiuc.edu/Summary/

Data/154954.txt.

National Weather Service, 2000, Local, daily and

monthly climatological data, accessed August 21,

2000, at URL http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/

climate.htm.

Omernik, J.M., 1977, Nonpoint source—Stream nutrient

level relationships—A nationwide study: Corvallis,

Oreg., Corvallis ERL, ORD, USEPA,

EPA-600/3-77-105, 151 p., 5 pls.

Palmquist, W.N., Jr., and Hall, F.R., 1960, Availability of

ground water in Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham

Counties, Kentucky: U.S. Geological Survey

Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-22, 3 sheets,

scale 1:125,000.

_____1961, Reconnaissance of ground-water resources in

the Blue Grass Region Kentucky: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1533, 39 p, 3 pls.

Penman, H.L., 1948, Natural evaporation from open

water, bare soils, and grasses, in Proceedings of the

Royal Society of London: ser. A, v. 193, no. 10032,

p. 120–145.

Raush, D.L., and Schreiber, J.D., 1981, Sediment and

nutrient trap efficiency of a small flood detention

basin reservoir: Journal of Environmental Quality,

v. 10, no. 3, p. 288–293.

Regan, R.S., and Schaffranek, R.W., 1985, A computer

program for analyzing channel geometry:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources

Investigations Report 85-4335, 49 p.

Ruhl, K.J., and Jarrett, G.L., 1999, Processes affecting

dissolved-oxygen concentrations in the Lower

Reaches of Middle Fork and South Fork Beargrass

Creek, Jefferson County, Kentucky: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Resources Investigations

Report 98-4218, 53 p.

Sams, J.I., III, and Witt, E.C., III, 1995, Simulation of

streamflow and sediment transport in two surfacecoal-mined basins in Fayette County, Pennsylvania:

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources

Investigations Report 92-4093, 52 p.

Sauer, V.B., Thomas, W.O., Jr., Stricker, V.A., and

Wilson, K.V., 1983, Flood characteristics of urban

watersheds in the United States: U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Supply Paper 2207, 63 p.

Shelton, L.R., 1994, Field guide for collecting and

processing stream-water samples for the National

Water-Quality Assessment Program: U.S.

Geological Survey Open-File Report 94-455, 42 p.

Thomann, R.V., and Mueller, J.A., 1987, Principles o

surface water quality modeling and control:

New York, HarperCollinsPublishers Inc., 644 p

Thomas, G.W., and Crutchfield, J.D., 1974, Nitratenitrogen and phosphorus contents of streams

draining small agricultural watersheds in Kentuc

Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 3, no. 1,

p. 46–49.

Tukey, J.W., 1977, Exploratory data analysis: Readin

Mass., Addison-Wesley, 506 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Qualit

criteria for water: EPA-440/5-86-001, 475 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 1999, The Quality of Our

Nation’s Waters—Nutrients and Pesticides:

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1225, 82 p.

Van Campen, Todd, 1998, New church seems big as 

creation: Lexington, Ky., Lexington Herald-Lea

December 19, 1998, p. C1, C4.

Viessman, Warren, Jr., Knapp, J.W., Lewis, G.L.,

Harbaugh, T.E., 1977, Introduction to Hydrolog

(2d ed.): New York, Harper & Row, Publishers, I

704 p.

Wade, Scott, 1999, Sewage-plant upgrade nearly

done—Chenoweth Run water quality should

improve: Louisville, Ky., The Courier-Journal,

Metro Edition, March 11, 1999, p. B2.

Ward, J.R., and Harr, C.A, eds., 1990, Methods for th

collection and processing of surface-water and b

material samples for physical and chemical analy

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-14

71 p.

Water Environment & Technology, 1995, Shade Clea

Streams: Water Environment & Technology,

December 1995, p. 58.

White, E.M., 1981, Possible clay concentrations effe

on soluble phosphate contents of runoff:

Environmental Science and Technology, v. 15,

no. 12, p. 1726–1731.

Wilkinson, L., Blank, G., and Gruber, C., 1996, Desk

data analysis with SYSTAT: Englewood Cliffs, N

Prentice-Hall, 798 p.

Woodruff, J.F., and Hewlett, J.D., 1970, Predicting an

mapping the average annual hydrologic response 

the eastern United States: Water Resources

Research, v. 6, no. 5, p. 1312–1326.

Zimmerman, W.H., Ross, J.C., Fehr, J.P., Wilson, B.L

Carroll, D.T., and Luttrell, C.D., 1966, Soil surve

Jefferson County, Kentucky: U.S. Department o

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, ser. 196

no. 11, 137 p.
APPENDIXES
Appendix 1. Results of analyses of field blanks for sampling in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentu

in 1996–97

Appendix 

WATER-QUALITY DATA

 PH PH

 WATER WATER SPE- 

 WHOLE WHOLE CIFIC 

 OXYGEN, FIELD LAB CON- TEMPER- 

 DIS- (STAND- (STAND- DUCT- ATURE 

 DATE STATION NUMBER DATE TIME SOLVED ARD ARD ANCE WATER 

 (MG/L) UNITS) UNITS) (US/CM) (DEG C) 

 (00300) (00400) (00403) (00095) (00010) 

 FEB 1996

 08... 03123499 960208 1600 -- -- -- -- -- 

 MAR

 19... 03123499 960319 0915 -- -- -- -- -- 

 19... 03123499 960319 1115 -- -- -- -- -- 

 JUL

 03... 03123499 960703 1215 -- -- 5.8 5 -- 

 SEP

 26... 03123499 960926 0800 -- -- 7.9 -- -- 

 JUN 1997

 09... 03123499 970609 1000 7.2 7.0 7.8 2 -- 

 SEP

 16... 03123499 970916 0820 7.2 7.0 7.8 2 20.5 

 MAGNE- ANC

 SIUM, UNFLTRD CHLO- NITRO- NITRO- NITRO- NITRO- NITRO- PHOS-

 TOTAL TIT 4.5 RIDE, GEN, GEN, GEN, GEN, GEN, PHORUS 

 RECOV- LAB DIS- AMMONIA NITRATE ORGANIC AMMONIA NITRITE DIS- 

 ERABLE (MG/L SOLVED TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SOLVED 

 DATE (MG/L AS (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L 

 AS MG) CACO3) AS CL) AS N) AS N) AS N) AS NH4) AS N) AS P) 

 (00927) (90410) (00940) (00610) (00620) (00605) (71845) (00615) (00666) 

 FEB 1996

 08... .54 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 MAR

 19... .42 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 19... .04 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 JUL

 03... .07 3.0 .50 .090 .090 .03 .12 -- .001 

 SEP

 26... .01 71 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 JUN 1997

 09... -- 240 .05 .010 <.100 .03 .01 .002 .010 

 SEP

 16... -- -- .05 .010 <.100 .03 .01 .002 .010 

 OXYGEN OXYGEN RESIDUE FECAL STREP- 

 DEMAND, DEMAND, RESIDUE RESIDUE TOTAL COLI- TOCOCCI BARIUM, 

 BIO- CHEM- FIXED AT 105 AT 105 FORM FECAL, TOTAL 

 CHEM- ICAL NON DEG. C, DEG. C, 24-HR KF AGAR ARSENIC RECOV- 

 ICAL, (HIGH FILTER- DIS- SUS- MEM.FIL (COLS. TOTAL ERABLE 

 DATE 5 DAY LEVEL) ABLE SOLVED PENDED (COLS./ PER (UG/L (UG/L 

 (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) 100 ML) 100 ML) AS AS) AS BA) 

 (00310) (00340) (00540) (00515) (00530) (31613) (31673) (01002) (01007) 

 FEB 1996

 08... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 2 

 MAR

 19... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <5 <1 

 19... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- <5 <1 

 JUL

 03... .3 2 4 192 5 K7.00 K10 <5 <1 

 SEP

 26... .2 -- .500 24 2 -- -- <5 1 

 JUN 1997

 09... .2 2 1 254 2 K2.00 K2 -- -- 

 SEP

 16... .2 2 -- 254 -- K2.00 K2 -- -- 
Appendix 1. Results of analyses of field blanks for sampling in the Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentuck

in 1996–97—Continued

142 Appendix 1

 CHRO-

 CADMIUM MIUM, COPPER, IRON, LEAD, MERCURY NICKEL, SILVER, Z

 WATER TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SELE- TOTAL T

 UNFLTRD RECOV- RECOV- RECOV- RECOV- RECOV- RECOV- NIUM, RECOV- R

 TOTAL ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE TOTAL ERABLE E

 DATE (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (

 AS CD) AS CR) AS CU) AS FE) AS PB) AS HG) AS NI) AS SE) AS AG) A

 (01027) (01034) (01042) (01045) (01051) (71900) (01067) (01147) (01077) (0

 FEB 1996

 08... <2 <3 6 240 <20 .2 <5 -- <6 

 MAR

 19... <2 <3 4 33 <20 <.2 <5 <5 <6 

 19... <2 <3 <2 39 <20 <.2 <5 <5 <6 

 JUL

 03... <2 <3 <2 52 <20 <.2 <5 <5 <6 < 

 SEP

 26... <2 <3 4 8 <20 <.2 <5 <5 <6 

 JUN 1997

 09... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

 SEP

 16... -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 
Appendix 2. Results of analyses of paired water samples collected by use of automatic samplers and manual,

cross-sectionally integrated sampling, Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky

Append

 DIS- PH PH OXYGEN OXYGEN

 CHARGE, SPE- WATER WATER DEMAND, DEMAND, CALCIUM

 INST. CIFIC WHOLE WHOLE BIO- CHEM- TOTAL

 SAMPLE- CUBIC CON- FIELD LAB TEMPER- OXYGEN, CHEM- ICAL RECOV-

 COLLECTION FEET DUCT- (STAND- (STAND- ATURE DIS- ICAL, (HIGH ERABLE

 METHOD STATION DATE TIME PER ANCE ARD ARD WATER SOLVED 5 DAY LEVEL) (MG/L

 NUMBER SECOND (US/CM) UNITS) UNITS) (DEG C) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) AS CA)

 (00061) (00095) (00400) (00403) (00010) (00300) (00310) (00340) (00916)

 INTEGRATED 03298135 03-19-96 1005 205. 339. 7.5 7.8 5.4 12.2 4. 28. 28.3

 AUTOMATIC 03298135 03-19-96 0955 205. 339. 7.5 7.6 5.4 12.2 3. 27. 26.7

 INTEGRATED 03298135 11-25-96 1055 43.8 475. 7.8 7.8 8.97 9.27 3. 20. 59.5

 AUTOMATIC 03298135 11-25-96 1100 43.8 475. 7.8 8. 8.97 9.27 2. 16. 59.

 INTEGRATED 03298140 01-22-97 1500 -- 765. -- 7.8 -- -- 7. 20. 46.3

 AUTOMATIC 03298140 01-22-97 1505 -- 766. -- 7.9 -- -- 6. 21. 45.1

 INTEGRATED 03298150 03-19-96 1145 362. 292. 7.7 -- 6. 11.1 -- -- 38.2

 AUTOMATIC 03298150 03-19-96 1150 362. 292. 7.7 8. 6. 11.1 8. 40. 38.9

 INTEGRATED 03298150 10-18-96 0830 55. 317. 7.46 8. 16. 9. 5. 20. 32.3

 AUTOMATIC 03298150 10-18-96 0835 55. 264. 7.46 8. 16. 9. 5. 21. 32.5

 INTEGRATED 03298150 01-22-97 1335 151. 583. 7.72 7.9 4.4 12.47 7. 23. 41.3

 AUTOMATIC 03298150 01-22-97 1340 151. 589. 7.72 7.9 4.4 12.47 7. 22. 42.9

 INTEGRATED 03298150 01-22-97 1530 82.4 616. 7.75 8. 4.9 12.01 6. 21. 44.5

 AUTOMATIC 03298150 01-22-97 1535 82.4 621. 7.75 8. 4.9 12.01 6. 18. 44.9

 MAGNE- ANC RESIDUE

 SIUM, WATER CHLO- RESIDUE TOTAL RESIDUE RESIDUE NITRO- NITRO- NITRO-

 TOTAL UNFLTRD RIDE, AT 105 AT 105 FIXED VOLA- GEN, GEN, GEN,

 RECOV- CARBON- DIS- DEG. C, DEG. C, NON TILE, NITRATE NITRITE NO2+NO3

 ERABLE ATE SOLVED DIS- SUS- FILTER- SUS- TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL

 STATION DATE TIME (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L SOLVED PENDED ABLE PENDED (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L

 NUMBER AS MG) CACO3) AS CL) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L) AS N) AS N) AS N)

 (00927) (00430) (00940) (00515) (00530) (00540) (00535) (00620) (00615) (00630)

 03298135 03-19-96 1005 9.94 73. 20.6 196. 380. 352. 28. 2.4 .18 2.58

 03298135 03-19-96 0955 9.38 66. 20.4 168. 378. 348. 30. 2.4 .23 2.63

 03298135 11-25-96 1055 24.5 -- 31. -- 101. -- -- -- -- 1.2

 03298135 11-25-96 1100 24.1 -- 30. -- 63. -- -- -- -- 1.2

 03298140 01-22-97 1500 16.2 -- 146. -- 210. -- -- -- -- 3.5

 03298140 01-22-97 1505 16.1 -- 148. -- 178. -- -- -- -- 3.2

 03298150 03-19-96 1145 13.6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

 03298150 03-19-96 1150 13.3 131. 19.8 196. 238. 214. 24. 2.3 .14 2.44

 03298150 10-18-96 0830 11. -- 18. -- 102. -- -- -- -- 2.3

 03298150 10-18-96 0835 10.9 -- 19. -- 70. -- -- -- -- 2.

 03298150 01-22-97 1335 15.6 -- 92. -- 368. -- -- -- -- 2.7

 03298150 01-22-97 1340 16. -- 96. -- 354. -- -- -- -- 2.7

 03298150 01-22-97 1530 17.3 -- 93. -- 234. -- -- -- -- 2.5

 03298150 01-22-97 1535 17. -- 94. -- 208. -- -- -- -- 2.8

 BERYL-

 NITRO- NITRO- NITRO- PHOS- BARIUM, LIUM, CADMIUM

 GEN, GEN, GEN, PHOS- PHOS- PHORUS TOTAL TOTAL WATER

 AMMONIA AMMONIA ORGANIC PHORUS PHATE, DIS- ARSENIC RECOV- RECOV- UNFLTRD

 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SOLVED TOTAL ERABLE ERABLE TOTAL

 STATION DATE TIME (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (MG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L

 NUMBER AS N) AS NH4) AS N) AS P) AS PO4) AS P) AS AS) AS BA) AS BE) AS CD)

 (00610) (71845) (00605) (00665) (00650) (00666) (01002) (01007) (01012) (01027)

 03298135 03-19-96 1005 .3 0.386 1.43 .47 .27 .06 <5. 98. <.5 <2.

 03298135 03-19-96 0955 .26 0.335 1.3 .53 .28 .05 7. 103. <.5 <2.

 03298135 11-25-96 1055 .12 0.155 -- .12 -- .02 <5. 68. <.5 <2.

 03298135 11-25-96 1100 .25 0.322 -- .13 -- .03 <5. 63. <.5 <2.

 03298140 01-22-97 1500 .89 1.146 -- .65 -- .46 <5. 80. 1. <2.

 03298140 01-22-97 1505 .88 1.133 -- .59 -- .45 <5. 79. <.5 <2.

 03298150 03-19-96 1145 -- -- -- -- -- -- <5. 72. <.5 <2.

 03298150 03-19-96 1150 .31 .399 1.56 .47 .27 .12 <5. 72. <.5 <2.

 03298150 10-18-96 0830 .09 0.116 -- .48 -- .37 5. 47. <.5 <2.

 03298150 10-18-96 0835 .08 0.103 -- .48 -- .37 <5. 46. <.5 <2.

 03298150 01-22-97 1335 .55 0.708 -- .5 -- .2 <5. 101. 1. <2.

 03298150 01-22-97 1340 .51 0.657 -- .36 -- .23 <5. 103. 1. <2.

 03298150 01-22-97 1530 .54 0.695 -- .43 -- .27 <5. 83. <.5 <2.

 03298150 01-22-97 1535 .54 0.695 -- .5 -- .26 <5. 85. <.5 <2.
Appendix 2. Results of analyses of paired water samples collected by use of automatic samplers and manual,

cross-sectionally integrated sampling, Chenoweth Run Basin, Jefferson County, Kentucky—Continued

144 Appendix 2

 CHRO-

 MIUM, COPPER, IRON, LEAD, MERCURY NICKEL, SILVER, ZINC,

 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL SELE- TOTAL TOTAL

 RECOV- RECOV- RECOV- RECOV- RECOV- RECOV- NIUM, RECOV- RECOV-

 ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE ERABLE TOTAL ERABLE ERABLE

 STATION DATE TIME (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L (UG/L

 NUMBER AS CR) AS CU) AS FE) AS PB) AS HG) AS NI) AS SE) AS AG) AS ZN)

 (01034) (01042) (01045) (01051) (71900) (01067) (01147) (01077) (01092)

 03298135 03-19-96 1005 <3. 11. 11100. <20. .3 8. <5. <6. 75.

 03298135 03-19-96 0955 10. 11. 10500. 20. <.2 8. <5. <6. 67.

 03298135 11-25-96 1055 <3. 3. 2080. <20. .1 <5. <5. <6. 37.

 03298135 11-25-96 1100 <3. 4. 1800. <20. .1 <5. <5. <6. 29.

 03298140 01-22-97 1500 <3. 8. 7020. <20. .1 8. <5. <6. 43.

 03298140 01-22-97 1505 <3. 13. 6130. 24. .1 <5. <5. <6. 41.

 03298150 03-19-96 1145 <3. 8. 7100. <20. .7 <5. <5. <6. 43.

 03298150 03-19-96 1150 7. 10. 6890. 20. <.2 9. <5. <6. 41.

 03298150 10-18-96 0830 15. 6. 3500. <20. .2 9. <5. <6. 25.

 03298150 10-18-96 0835 <3. 4. 3300. <20. <.2 5. <5. <6. 24.

 03298150 01-22-97 1335 <3. 13. 11200. 21. .1 8. <5. <6. 50.

 03298150 01-22-97 1340 <3. 16. 11800. <20. .2 9. <5. <6. 53.

 03298150 01-22-97 1530 <3. 9. 7510. <20. .1 6. <5. <6. 44.

 03298150 01-22-97 1535 <3. 11. 8100. 20. .1 8. <5. <6. 37.

 SED.

 SUSP.

 SEDI- SIEVE

 MENT. DIAM.

 SUS- %FINER

 STATION NUMBER DATE TIME PENDED THAN

 (MG/L) .062MM

 (80154) (70331)

 03298135 03-19-96 1005 390 99.6

 03298135 03-19-96 0955 -- --

 03298135 11-25-96 1055 -- --

 03298135 11-25-96 1100 -- --

 03298140 01-22-97 1500 -- --

 03298140 01-22-97 1505 -- --

 03298150 03-19-96 1145 -- --

 03298150 03-19-96 1150 -- --

 03298150 10-18-96 0830 -- --

 03298150 10-18-96 0835 -- --

 03298150 01-22-97 1335 -- --

 03298150 01-22-97 1340 -- --

 03298150 01-22-97 1530 -- --

 03298150 01-22-97 1535 -- --
Appendix 3. Arc Macro Language (AML) program for definition of hydrologic response units (HRU's), hru.aml

Appendix 

/* PURPOSE: Develop model HRU's

/* Continuous grids of slope, soils, and land-use are simplified as

/* defined by remap tables (xxxx.rmp). The reclassed grids are then

/* combined with the subbasin grid. This combined grid is used to extract

/* the unique combination of slope, soils and land-use type by subbasin that

/* is written to an ascii, comma-delimited file

/* WRITTEN: P. Zarriello 7/1998

/* INPUT GRIDS Required (xxx_ig)

&sv slp_ig = slope7fm_grd /* smoothed slope grid 7x7 cell focalmedian

&sv soil_ig = soils_grd /* soils grid

&sv lulc_ig = lulc_grd /* lulc grid

&sv sub_ig = subbas_grd /* subbasin grid

&sv lk_ig = lkda_grd /* drainage area to ponds

/* OUTPUT GRIDS created (xxx_og)

&sv slp_og = rc_slopeg /* reclassed slope grid

&sv soil_og = rc_soilg /* reclassed soils grid

&sv lulc_og = rc_lulcg /* reclassed land use grid

&sv HRU_og = HRU_grd /* combined reclassed slope, soils, & lulc

&sv outf = HRU.dat /* ASCII output file of HRU's by subbasin

&sv outf2 = HRU_sum.dat /* ASCII output file summarizing HRU's

/* &echo &on

&s .grd_char = %slp_ig% /* set cell characteristics to an existing grid

/* Check that required input grids exist

 &if [exist %slp_ig% -grid] = .FALSE. &then &do

 &type %slp_ig% does not exist

 &stop

 &end

 &if [exist %soil_ig% -grid] = .FALSE. &then &do

 &type %soil_ig% does not exist

 &stop

 &end

 &if [exist %lulc_ig% -grid] = .FALSE. &then &do

 &type %lulc_ig% does not exist

 &stop

 &end

 &if [exist %sub_ig% -grid] = .FALSE. &then &do

 &type %sub_ig% does not exist

 &stop

 &end

 &if [exist %lk_ig% -grid] = .FALSE. &then &do

 &type %lk_ig% does not exist

 &stop

 &end

 &type 'Required input grids exist..... processing'

/* Check for and delete output grids

 &if [exist %slp_og% -grid] = .TRUE. &then &do

 kill %slp_og% all

 &end

 &if [exist %soil_og% -grid] = .TRUE. &then &do

 kill %soil_og% all

 &end

 &if [exist %lulc_og% -grid] = .TRUE. &then &do

 kill %lulc_og% all
Appendix 3. Arc Macro Language (AML) program for definition of hydrologic response units (HRU's), hru.aml—Contin

146 Appendix 3

 &end

 &if [exist %HRU_og% -grid] = .TRUE. &then &do

 kill %HRU_og% all

 &end

display 9999 position 40 40 size 600 820

/* -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

/* Grid processing

/* -----------------

GRID

 mape %.grd_char%

 setcell %.grd_char%

 setwindow %.grd_char% %.grd_char%

/* get cell size from .grd_char

 &describe %.grd_char%

 &sv cellX = %GRD$dx%

 &sv cellY = %GRD$dy%

 &sv a_mult = %cellX% * %cellY% * 0.0002471 /* ac/m^2

/* reclass grids into user defined groups by ASCII remap tables (xxxxx.rmp)

/* NOTE: A item in the GRID can be used, other than value, by specifying the item

/* after the grid (e.g. reclass{in_grid.item, rmp_file)

 &type 'Reclassing SLOPE grid'

 %slp_og% = reclass(%slp_ig%, slope2.rmp)

 &type 'Reclassing SOILS grid'

 %soil_og% = reclass(%soil_ig%.code, soil3.rmp)

 &type 'Reclassing LULC grid'

 %lulc_og% = reclass(%lulc_ig%.lulc_code, lulc.rmp)

/* combine reclassed grids with subbasins and pond drainage areas

 &type 'Combining reclassed SLOPE, SOIL, & LULC GRIDS with SUBBASIN & LKDA GRID'

 %HRU_og% = combine(%sub_ig%, %lk_ig%, %slp_og%, %soil_og%, %lulc_og%)

quit

/* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/* Arc processing

/* ----------------

/* additem to combined grid to get area in acres

additem %HRU_og%.vat %HRU_og%.vat acres 7 7 n 2

&type 'Added item ACRES to %HRU_og%.vat'

/* calculate area in acres and cleanup old output info files

TABLES

 sel %HRU_og%.vat

 calc acres = count * %a_mult%

 &if [exist HRU.TAB -info] = .TRUE. &then kill HRU.TAB

 &if [exist HRU.SUM -info] = .TRUE. &then kill HRU.SUM

quit

&type 'Calculated area in acres'

/* delete the case item if it exist

 &if [iteminfo %HRU_og% -vat table# -exist] = .TRUE. &then &do

 dropitem %HRU_og%.vat %HRU_og%.vat table#

 &end
Appendix 3. Arc Macro Language (AML) program for definition of hydrologic response units (HRU's), hru.aml—C

Appendix 

/* summarize unique combination of slope, soils, & lulc by subbasin

 &DATA arc frequency %HRU_og%.vat hru.tab table#

 %sub_ig%

 %lk_ig%

 %slp_og%

 %soil_og%

 %lulc_og%

 END

 ACRES

 END

 &END

 &type 'Frequencies by subbasin computed'

/* -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/* produce output report to an ASCII file

/* -------------------------------------------

/* &if [exist %outf% -file] = .TRUE. &then &do

/* &sys mv %outf% %outf%_old

/* &end

 &DATA arc TABLES

 sel hru.tab

 unload %outf% %sub_ig% %lk_ig% %slp_og% %soil_og% %lulc_og% acres delimited init

 statistics %sub_ig% hru.sum

 sum acres

 end

 sel hru.sum

 unload %outf2% %sub_ig% sum-acres delimited init

 kill hru.sum

 Quit

 &END

&type '-----------------------------------------

&type 'Output HRU data written to: ' %outf%

&type 'Summary of HRU's written to:' %outf2%

&type '-----------------------------------------

&type DONE

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

REMAP TABLES

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

# remap table for slope

0.00 5.00 : 1 #0 to 5 %

5.00 1000. : 2 #> 5%

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

# remap table for soils

 1 : 2 #CaA

 2 : 3 #AsB

 3 : 2 #CnD

 4 : 2 #CnE

 5 : 2 #CrE3

 6 : 2 #CmC3

 7 : 1 #RuA

 8 : 3 #EkA

 9 : 1 #Ta

10 : 2 #CsC

11 : 1 #WmC2

12 : 2 #CsD2

13 : 3 #EkB

14 : 3 #AsA
Appendix 3. Arc Macro Language (AML) program for definition of hydrologic response units (HRU's), hru.aml—Contin

148 Appendix 3

15 : 1 #BeB3

16 : 2 #Ma

17 : 2 #CdB2

18 : 1 #WmB

19 : 2 #CaB

20 : 1 #DcA

21 : 2 #Rd

22 : 3 #FaF

23 : 1 #OcD3

24 : 3 #FaE

25 : 2 #CsC3

26 : 1 #Gn

27 : 3 #FaD

28 : 1 #WA

29 : 3 #Ne

30 : 1 #Gu

31 : 1 #RuC2

32 : 1 #BaB

33 : 2 #CsA

34 : 1 #Ld

35 : 3 #FaE3

36 : 2 #CrD3

37 : 1 #BaD2

38 : 2 #CrC3

39 : 1 #BaB2

40 : 1 #Lb

41 : 1 #RuB2

42 : 3 #Hs

43 : 2 #CsB2

44 : 1 #DcB

45 : 2 #CsC2

46 : 3 #FaD3

47 : 1 #BeD3

48 : 1 #BaC2

49 : 1 #RuB

50 : 1 #BeC3

51 : 2 #CsB

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

# remap table for lulc

10 : 1 #Pasture/Crop

11 : 2 #Forest

12 : 3 #Dist residential

13 : 4 #Dist Comm/indust/Mfam

14 : 5 #Open residential

15 : 5 #Open comm/indust/Mfam

16 : 6 #Open other

21 : 7 #Roads-comm/indust/Mfam

23 : 7 #Buildings-comm/indust/Mfam

24 : 7 #Parking-comm/indsut/Mfam

25 : 7 #Roads-residential

26 : 7 #Buildings-residential

27 : 7 #Parking-residential

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OUTPUT FILES - Note the head line has to be added manually

SUMMARY FILE - hru_sum.dat

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reach,Area(ac)

11,837.780000

12,1401.300000

13,257.280000

14,756.220000
Appendix 3. Arc Macro Language (AML) program for definition of hydrologic response units (HRU's), hru.aml—C

Appendix 

21,803.170000

22,702.920000

23,700.960000

24,969.970000

25,116.610000

26,325.500000

27,253.020000

28,10.450000

31,119.630000

32,437.520000

33,51.360000

34,356.350000

35,29.010000

36,986.850000

37,475.940000

38,242.520000

39,185.860000

40,318.090000

41,241.840000

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 COMPLETE LISTING - hru.dat (header added manually)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

REACH,LK_DA,SLOPE,SOIL,LULC,AREA_AC

11,1,1,1,2,0.000000

11,1,1,1,3,0.060000

11,1,1,1,5,22.340000

11,1,1,1,7,29.720000

11,1,1,2,2,0.010000

11,1,1,2,3,0.320000

11,1,1,2,5,12.900000

11,1,1,2,7,37.240000

11,1,1,3,2,0.020000

11,1,1,3,5,41.790000

11,1,1,3,7,8.740000

11,1,2,1,2,0.020000

11,1,2,1,3,0.100000

11,1,2,1,5,98.440000

11,1,2,1,7,261.720000

11,1,2,2,3,0.080000

11,1,2,2,5,3.950000

11,1,2,2,7,40.560000

11,1,2,3,2,0.010000

11,1,2,3,3,0.020000

11,1,2,3,5,76.920000

11,1,2,3,7,177.130000

11,2,1,1,3,0.020000

11,2,1,1,5,0.020000

11,2,1,1,7,1.210000

11,2,1,2,5,0.060000

11,2,1,2,7,0.250000

11,2,1,3,7,0.230000

11,2,2,1,2,0.000000

11,2,2,1,5,0.350000

11,2,2,1,7,14.860000

11,2,2,2,3,0.030000

11,2,2,2,5,0.190000

11,2,2,2,7,0.600000

11,2,2,3,7,7.870000

Truncated to listing of the first subbasin.
Appendix 4 151

Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 

Discharge, in cubic feet per second [00061]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 17 29.901 0.130 0.130 0.815 1.690 15.003298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 35 66.293 0.830 0.846 11.600 18.600 98.003298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 13 4.278 0.890 0.890 3.540 3.920 4.703298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 16 30.194 4.020 4.020 4.892 9.215 28.503298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 15 40.625 3.580 3.580 6.110 11.100 40.903298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 100 54.729 1.670 2.595 6.800 16.050 39.603298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 17 48.400 1.810 1.810 5.610 9.910 53.5

Specific conductance, in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius [00095]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 17 667.941 168.000 168.000 534.000 660.000 780.003298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 35 438.143 142.000 158.000 299.000 389.000 600.003298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 15 875.533 572.000 572.000 718.000 752.000 1140.003298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 27 690.704 187.000 188.600 500.000 699.000 811.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 14 719.000 310.000 310.000 525.750 717.000 914.003298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 99 544.856 162.000 255.000 441.000 573.000 662.003298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 33 552.151 129.000 178.700 368.000 472.000 730.0

pH, in standard units [00400]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 19 7.316 6.200 6.200 6.600 7.600 7.903298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 35 7.634 7.180 7.204 7.500 7.690 7.703298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 16 7.387 6.500 6.500 6.800 7.350 7.603298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 21 7.476 6.600 6.620 7.000 7.400 7.803298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 15 7.940 6.500 6.500 7.400 7.900 8.603298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 99 7.939 6.300 6.900 7.580 8.000 8.403298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 2 -- 8.700 -- -- -- -- 

pH, laboratory, in standard units [00403]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 15 7.987 7.600 7.600 7.900 8.000 8.103298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 25 7.692 7.000 7.030 7.450 7.700 8.003298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 15 7.580 7.200 7.200 7.400 7.500 7.803298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 32 7.806 6.300 7.015 7.725 7.850 8.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 15 8.487 7.700 7.700 8.200 8.500 8.803298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 94 8.036 6.500 6.900 7.800 8.100 8.403298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 37 8.049 6.600 7.050 7.750 7.900 8.6
152 Appendix 4 Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97—Continued

Water temperature, in degrees Celsius [00010]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 19 13.479 1.000 1.000 5.000 14.600 21.003298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 35 13.059 3.500 3.988 6.010 11.310 19.603298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 15 16.413 5.000 5.000 11.500 17.200 22.503298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 20 16.540 5.000 5.050 9.000 16.900 22.803298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 15 13.647 3.000 3.000 4.000 16.000 23.003298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 99 13.859 2.400 3.200 6.800 15.000 19.803298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 21 16.162 0.500 0.700 5.250 19.000 23.7

Dissolved oxygen, in mg/L [00300]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 19 10.042 6.000 6.000 7.700 9.100 12.303298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 35 9.705 6.770 6.794 8.020 9.410 11.403298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 15 7.653 4.000 4.000 7.100 8.000 8.503298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 20 10.235 7.400 7.410 8.225 9.000 12.203298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 14 12.457 7.700 7.700 9.600 12.450 14.503298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 96 11.494 6.270 7.371 10.125 11.200 12.903298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 18 13.044 8.200 8.200 10.075 12.350 14.9

Dissolved oxygen, in percent of saturation [00301]

03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 68 116.441 84.000 90.000 100.000 113.500 124.0

Biochemical oxygen demand, 5-day at 20 degrees Celsius, in mg/L [00310]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 17 1.985* -- *0.392 *0.989 *1.500 *3.5

03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 25 4.346* -- *1.132 *2.500 *4.000 *6.0

03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 16 4.575* -- *1.000 *1.925 *3.000 *8.0

03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 35 5.037 1.000 1.080 2.000 4.000 6.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 15 2.488* -- *1.000 *1.213 *2.000 *4.0

03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 94 3.388* -- *0.897 *2.000 *2.000 *4.0

03298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 39 4.722* -- *0.852 *2.000 *4.000 *7.0

Chemical oxygen demand, 0.25N dicromate, in mg/L [00340]

03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 25 27.280 7.000 7.300 15.000 20.000 30.503298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 18 25.667 1.000 1.000 18.750 23.500 32.203298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 93 20.106* -- *7.708 *14.000 *18.000 *23.503298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 22 35.455 14.000 14.150 18.000 31.000 41.7

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 
Appendix 4 153

Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97—Continued

Fecal coliform, membrane filter, M-FC agar, in colonies/100 [31613]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 15 1681.004* -- *2.057 *53.000 *410.000 *1560.0

03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 14 3931.572 2.000 2.000 432.500 650.000 7075.003298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 14 771.860* -- *1.015 *8.255 *189.500 *1395.0

03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 27 2988.667 1.000 3.800 260.000 700.000 4600.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 14 919.568* -- *4.949 *73.250 *300.000 *590.0

03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 82 2286.902 3.000 23.300 109.500 345.000 2425.003298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 22 2623.191* -- *1.232 *70.000 *645.000 *4650.0

Fecal streptococci, membrane filter, KF agar, in colonies/100 [31673]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 14 12592.786 12.000 12.000 78.750 960.000 19125.003298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 13 17139.309 371.000 371.000 1780.000 9800.000 26000.003298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 13 1459.462 10.000 10.000 51.000 200.000 1150.003298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 25 15844.880 12.000 19.200 172.500 7800.000 23050.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 13 9262.308 23.000 23.000 38.000 600.000 17050.003298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 80 5218.800 8.000 20.100 67.000 500.000 3650.003298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 20 8214.150 10.000 10.000 103.000 417.000 12200.0

Hardness, total, in mg/L as CaC03 [00900]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 4 -- 191.000 -- -- -- -- 03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 4 -- 188.000 -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 24 196.901 125.600 126.287 149.233 197.235 241.403298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 4 -- 174.000 -- -- -- -- 

Calcium, total, in mg/L as Ca [00916]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 45.318 20.900 20.900 27.750 38.400 64.703298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 18 44.322 21.800 21.800 31.425 39.800 58.703298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 55.698 29.200 29.625 40.525 53.200 61.903298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 23 48.832 25.800 26.140 40.100 46.100 58.2

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 
154 Appendix 4 Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97—Continued

Magnesium, total, in mg/L as Mg [00927]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 22.170 6.830 6.830 9.615 13.900 28.603298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 18 15.234 8.050 8.050 10.363 13.750 19.603298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 18.677 9.350 9.680 13.950 18.000 23.303298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 23 15.918 7.620 7.818 13.670 16.800 18.0

Alkalinity, carbonate, in mg/L as CaC03 [00430]

03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 14 135.000 46.000 46.000 70.500 114.000 213.003298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 11 94.455 7.000 7.000 51.000 92.000 155.003298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 90 158.167 53.000 81.900 120.750 156.500 198.003298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 10 128.200 90.000 90.000 107.000 130.000 147.5

Chloride, dissolved, in mg/L as Cl [00940]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 4 -- 25.900 -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 16 33.881 6.000 6.000 16.350 29.500 45.503298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 52.589 1.700 1.700 9.200 43.000 67.603298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 20 34.980 8.600 8.670 16.000 20.900 55.503298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 18 30.889 3.000 3.000 15.250 22.500 54.3

Dissolved solids, residue at 105 degrees Celsius, in mg/L [00515]

03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 10 276.000 78.000 78.000 157.000 227.000 418.003298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 11 376.727 132.000 132.000 210.000 280.000 500.003298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 89 386.084 140.000 194.000 338.000 378.000 452.003298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 14 242.929 45.000 45.000 156.000 215.000 322.5

Suspended solids, residue at 105 degrees Celsius, in mg/L [00530]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 19 47.053 1.000 1.000 5.000 9.000 36.003298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 25 213.800 3.000 3.300 10.500 63.000 382.003298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 16 6.688 1.000 1.000 2.500 6.500 8.703298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 37 196.784 1.000 1.900 6.000 46.000 239.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 15 37.333 1.000 1.000 4.000 6.000 53.003298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 94 127.559 1.000 1.875 4.000 8.000 39.703298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 41 296.902 1.000 2.000 5.500 88.000 424.0

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 
Appendix 4 155

Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97—Continued

Suspended solids, nonvolatile on ignition, in mg/L [00540]

03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 10 147.800 2.000 2.000 17.250 85.000 283.503298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 11 293.727 3.000 3.000 12.000 82.000 694.003298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 83 61.614 1.000 1.000 2.000 4.000 19.003298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 14 424.357 2.000 2.000 61.250 121.000 790.0

Residue, volatile nonfilterable, in mg/L [00535]

03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 10 87.800 2.000 2.000 16.000 33.000 167.003298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 11 31.273 2.000 2.000 2.000 20.000 60.003298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 90 39.188 0.100 0.500 2.000 3.000 13.503298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 14 115.286 2.000 2.000 9.500 62.500 186.0

Nitrogen, nitrate, total, in mg/L as N [00620]

03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 4 -- 0.770 -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 10 2.890 1.200 1.200 1.475 2.700 4.203298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 79 3.765 0.140 0.640 2.000 3.200 4.803298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 9 2.589 1.200 1.200 1.700 2.400 3.3

Nitrogen, nitrite, total, in mg/L as N [00615]

03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 9 0.071 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.103298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 10 0.147 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.065 0.203298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 86 0.109 0.010 0.013 0.040 0.070 0.103298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 9 0.492 0.009 0.009 0.120 0.330 1.0

Nitrogen, nitrite + nitrate, total, in mg/L as N [00630]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 18 1.021 0.260 0.260 0.653 1.130 1.303298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 20 1.493 0.580 0.587 0.875 1.550 1.803298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 15 9.452 0.880 0.880 4.600 9.600 13.003298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 36 5.216 1.200 1.200 2.075 4.135 7.803298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 15 5.040 1.100 1.100 2.800 3.500 6.703298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 85 3.889 0.310 0.909 2.010 3.270 4.603298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 36 4.074 0.940 1.229 1.900 2.950 4.8

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 
156 Appendix 4 Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97—Continued

Nitrogen, ammonia, total, in mg/L as N [00610]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 19 0.077 0.020 0.020 0.040 0.050 0.003298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 25 0.246 0.027 0.031 0.055 0.160 0.203298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 16 0.449 0.030 0.030 0.065 0.195 0.803298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 37 0.343 0.020 0.020 0.100 0.250 0.503298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 15 0.161 0.010 0.010 0.040 0.100 0.203298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 93 0.167 0.010 0.020 0.070 0.100 0.203298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 41 0.153 0.010 0.021 0.075 0.110 0.2

Nitrogen, ammonia, total, in mg/L as NH4 [71845]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 19 0.099 0.030 0.030 0.050 0.060 0.003298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 25 0.314 0.030 0.036 0.070 0.210 0.303298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 16 0.584 0.040 0.040 0.085 0.250 1.103298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 37 0.440 0.030 0.030 0.130 0.320 0.603298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 15 0.207 0.010 0.010 0.050 0.130 0.303298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 93 0.216 0.010 0.030 0.090 0.130 0.203298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 41 0.197 0.010 0.031 0.095 0.140 0.2

Nitrogen, organic, dissolved, in mg/L as N [00605]

03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 10 1.119 0.120 0.120 0.428 1.135 1.803298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 11 1.279 0.440 0.440 0.800 0.970 1.603298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 85 0.912 0.040 0.106 0.400 0.630 0.803298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 10 1.703 0.570 0.570 0.660 1.055 2.6

Phosphorus, total, in mg/L as P [00665]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 15 0.103 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.103298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 25 0.176 0.020 0.020 0.045 0.130 0.203298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 12 2.430 0.860 0.860 1.500 2.500 3.303298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 34 1.288 0.340 0.340 0.485 0.820 2.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 12 1.183 0.310 0.310 0.427 0.625 2.103298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 91 1.181 0.140 0.202 0.420 0.760 2.003298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 39 0.863 0.060 0.090 0.320 0.490 1.3

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 
Appendix 4 157

Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97—Continued

Phosphate, total, in mg/L as P04 [00650]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 3 -- 0.020 -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 10 0.230 0.010 0.010 0.030 0.105 0.403298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 14 3.211 0.460 0.460 0.798 2.745 5.903298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 85 2.753 0.370 0.499 1.040 1.990 4.603298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 18 2.174 0.180 0.180 0.800 1.150 3.7

Phosphorus, dissolved, in mg/L as P [00666]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 10 0.041 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.035 0.003298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 20 0.042* -- *0.008 *0.014 *0.030 *0.0

03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 9 2.556 1.200 1.200 1.500 2.600 3.703298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 26 0.917 0.030 0.034 0.183 0.420 1.303298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 10 1.132 0.120 0.120 0.268 0.990 2.003298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 19 0.441 0.070 0.070 0.170 0.260 0.503298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 28 0.497 0.020 0.029 0.080 0.175 0.6

Phosphorus, orthophosphate, total, in mg/L as P [70507]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 3 -- 0.005 -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 10 0.075 0.004 0.004 0.010 0.035 0.103298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 14 1.047 0.150 0.150 0.260 0.895 1.903298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 85 0.898 0.120 0.163 0.340 0.650 1.503298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 18 0.709 0.060 0.060 0.260 0.375 1.2

Arsenic, total, in ug/L as As [01002]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 6.246* -- *1.298 *2.603 *4.430 *10.0

03298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 3.798* -- *0.120 *0.519 *1.434 *3.9

03298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 23 7.678* -- *2.433 *4.459 *6.372 *11.0

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 
158 Appendix 4 Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97—Continued

Barium, total, in ug/L as Ba [01007]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 2 -- 78.000 -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 74.529 41.000 41.000 64.000 70.000 93.003298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 2 -- 26.000 -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 88.211 35.000 35.000 43.000 71.000 129.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 2 -- 47.000 -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 76.568 26.000 26.750 36.000 42.000 83.503298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 24 89.167 40.000 40.000 43.750 67.500 119.7

Beryllium, total, in ug/L as Be [01012]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 18 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 0.244* -- *0.003 *0.016 *0.056 *0.1

03298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 23 1.000* -- *1.000 *1.000 *1.000 *1.0

Cadmium, total, in ug/L as Cd [01027]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 24 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Chromium, total, in ug/L as Cr [01034]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 2.354* -- *0.205 *0.608 *1.334 *3.5

03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 4.681* -- *0.007 *0.072 *0.315 *1.6

03298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 24 1.571* -- *0.029 *0.158 *0.485 *1.4

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 
Appendix 4 159

Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97—Continued

Copper, total recoverable, in ug/L as Cu [01042]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 7.183* -- *1.269 *2.556 *7.000 *11.5

03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 2 -- 8.000 -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 16.158 7.000 7.000 13.000 15.000 21.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 2 -- 7.000 -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 11.896* -- *3.920 *4.360 *8.000 *15.003298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 24 15.083 5.000 5.500 8.250 10.500 18.7

Iron, total, in ug/L as Fe [01045]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 2 -- 249.000 -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 5325.647 94.000 94.000 864.000 2250.000 9665.003298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 2 -- 47.000 -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 9669.685 90.000 90.000 312.000 6130.000 20400.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 2 -- 128.000 -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 4722.227 68.000 78.750 122.750 424.500 7797.503298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 24 11755.708 75.000 75.000 3925.000 7805.000 15575.0

Lead, total, in ug/L as Pb [01051]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 18 23.792* -- *10.753 *15.898 *20.000 *31.703298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 14.477* -- *2.611 *5.537 *9.780 *17.503298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 23 18.972* -- *2.754 *7.113 *12.471 *20.0

Mercury, total recoverable, in ug/L as Hg [71900]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 0.109* -- *0.081 *0.099 *0.100 *0.1

03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 0.095* -- *0.022 *0.040 *0.070 *0.1

03298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 45 0.147* -- *0.016 *0.043 *0.083 *0.2

03298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 24 0.127* -- *0.031 *0.056 *0.099 *0.2

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 
160 Appendix 4 Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97—Continued

Nickel, total, in ug/L as Ni [01067]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 5.314* -- *2.004 *3.254 *4.626 *8.0

03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 8.343* -- *2.430 *4.592 *6.602 *13.0

03298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 11.078* -- *1.328 *3.112 *7.530 *9.703298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 24 8.414* -- *1.146 *2.958 *6.000 *12.0

Selenium, total, in ug/L as Se [01147]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 18 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 23 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Silver, total, in ug/L as Ag [01077]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 -- -- -- -- -- -- 03298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 24 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Zinc, total, in ug/L as Zn [01092]

03298129 Chenoweth Run at Old Watterson Trail 01/95-03/97 2 -- 10.000 -- -- -- -- 03298135 Chenoweth Run at Ruckriegel Parkway 02/96-09/97 17 49.320* -- *7.447 *24.500 *39.000 *77.503298138 Chenoweth Run at Jeffersontown WWTP 01/95-01/96 2 -- 28.000 -- -- -- -- 03298140 Chenoweth Run at Taylorsville Road 01/95-09/97 19 67.526 25.000 25.000 34.000 42.000 102.003298145 Chenoweth Run at Easum Road 01/95-01/96 2 -- 29.000 -- -- -- -- 03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 44 58.500 13.000 18.000 31.000 49.500 63.003298160 Chenoweth Run at Seatonville Road 01/95-09/97 24 62.250 16.000 16.250 27.250 45.000 95.7

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 
Appendix 4 161

Appendix 4. Statistical summary of constituent concentrations and water-quality characteristics measured at selected locations in the C

Jefferson County, Kentucky, 1991–97—Continued

Cyanide, total, in mg/L as Cn [00720]

03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 19 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

2,4-D, total, in ug/L [39730]

03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 18 0.209* -- *0.003 *0.008 *0.030 *0.2

2,4,5-T, total, in ug/L [39740]

03298150 Chenoweth Run at Gelhaus Lane 01/91-12/97 18 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

*Value is estimated by use of a log-probability regression to predict the values of data below the detection limit.

Value at indicated percentile

Station

number Station name

Period

analyzed N Mean Minimum 5 25 50 75 
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File

Appendix 

*** HSPF model for Chenoweth Run - Louisville, Ky.

*** Modelers: Phil Zarriello, Ithaca N.Y.; Gary Martin, Louisville, Ky.

*** Run Date: 3/2/2000

***

*** References to HSPF manual V10

***

*** NOTE: Three or more asterisks indicate a model comment statement.

***

*** General Conversions

*** ac-ft/hr x 12.1 = mean cfs/sec (ac-ft * 43560ft/ac * 1/60min/hr *1/60sec/

*** ac-ft/day x 0.50417 = mean cfs/sec

*** mean cfs/hr x 0.0826446 = ac-ft/hr (1/43560ac * 60min/hr * 60sec/min)

*** mean cfs/day x 1.9834711 = ac-ft/day

***

*** 1 hour simulation: flow, sediment, and PO4

***

*** Module Sub-module Purpose

*** ------ ---------- -----------------------------------

*** PERLND PWATER Flow from pervious areas

*** SEDMNT Sediment generation

*** PQUAL PO4 yield associated with sediment + overland flow

*** IMPLND IWATER Runoff from impervious surfaces

*** SLD Solids generation

*** IQUAL Buildup and washoff of PO4 on a surface

*** RCHRES HYDR Flow in Channels

*** SEDTRN Sediment transport in channels

*** RQUAL River quality

*** OXRX Simulate DO and BOD

*** NUTRX Nutrient flux (PO4 only) in channels

RUN

GLOBAL

 Chenoweth Run Watershed - Jeffersontown, KY 2/96 to 1/98 [QUAL run]

 START 1996/02/01 00:00 END 1998/01/31 24:00

 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 9

 RESUME 0 RUN 1

END GLOBAL

********************************************************************************

*** FILES Block 4.2 pg 277 ***

********************************************************************************

FILES

<FILE> <UN#>***<----FILE NAME------------------------------------------------->

WDM 20 C:\WRDAPP\GENWORK\ky\chen.wdm

ERROR 25 C:\WRDAPP\GENWORK\ky\qual.err

MESSU 22 C:\WRDAPP\GENWORK\ky\qual.ech

 15 C:\WRDAPP\GENWORK\ky\qual.out

END FILES

********************************************************************************

*** OPN Sequence Block 4.3 pg 279 ***

********************************************************************************

OPN SEQUENCE

*** Select Time step:

*** INGRP INDELT 00:05

 INGRP INDELT 01:00

 IMPLND 1

 IMPLND 2

 PERLND 1

 PERLND 2

 PERLND 3

 PERLND 4

 PERLND 5

 PERLND 6

 PERLND 7

 PERLND 8

 PERLND 9

 PERLND 10

 PERLND 11

 PERLND 12

 PERLND 13

 PERLND 14

 PERLND 15

 PERLND 16

 PERLND 17
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

164 Appendix 5

*** Process pond RCHRES (lakes/ponds) before channel RCHRES

 RCHRES 15

 RCHRES 16

 RCHRES 17

 RCHRES 18

 RCHRES 19

 RCHRES 20

 RCHRES 21

 RCHRES 22

 RCHRES 23

*** COPY 1

*** Channels

 RCHRES 1

 RCHRES 2

 RCHRES 3

 RCHRES 4

 RCHRES 5

 RCHRES 6

 RCHRES 7

 RCHRES 8

 RCHRES 9

 RCHRES 10

 RCHRES 11

 RCHRES 12

 RCHRES 13

 RCHRES 14

 COPY 100

 COPY 101

 COPY 102

 COPY 105

 COPY 106

 COPY 107

 COPY 108

 COPY 109

*** COPY 110

*** COPY 111

 GENER 1

 GENER 2

 GENER 3

 GENER 4

 END INGRP

END OPN SEQUENCE

*******************************************************************************

*** PERLND - Pervious land surface Princ 4.2(1).1 pg 38 ***

*** Coding 4.4(1) pg 284 ***

*******************************************************************************

PERLND

 ACTIVITY

 <PLS > Active Sections (1=Active, 0=Inactive) ***

 ### -### ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ***

 1 17 1 1 0 1 0 0

 END ACTIVITY

 PRINT-INFO

 <PLS > <-*** Print-flags: 2-PIVL, 3-dy, 4-mn, 5-yr, 6-never ***-> PIVL PYR

 ### -### ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC   ** 

 1 17 6 5 6 6 6 6 1 1

 END PRINT-INFO
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

 GEN-INFO

 <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer ***

 ###--### User t-series Engl Metr ***

 LULC,Dainage,SLOPE in out ***

 1 Agr, poor <5% 1 1 1 1 15 0

 2 Agr, poor >5% 1 1 1 1 15 0

 3 Agr, mod 1 1 1 1 15 0

 4 Agr, well 1 1 1 1 15 0

 5 Forest, poor, <5% 1 1 1 1 15 0

 6 Forest, poor, >5% 1 1 1 1 15 0

 7 Forest, mod 1 1 1 1 15 0

 8 Forest, well 1 1 1 1 15 0

 9 Open 1 1 1 1 15 0

 10 Open R/C,poor,<5% 1 1 1 1 15 0

 11 Open R/C,poor,>5% 1 1 1 1 15 0

 12 Open R/C,mod, <5% 1 1 1 1 15 0

 13 Open R/C,mod, >5% 1 1 1 1 15 0

 14 Open R/C,well 1 1 1 1 15 0

 15 Dist R, poor 1 1 1 1 15 0

 16 Dist R, mod 1 1 1 1 15 0

 17 Dist C 1 1 1 1 15 0

 END GEN-INFO

***----------------------------------------------------------------------------*

*** PERLND - Section PWATER Princ. 4.2(1).3 pg 54 *

*** Coding 4.4(1).4 pg 300 *

*** Water Budget *

***----------------------------------------------------------------------------*

 PWAT-PARM1

*** 1=varies monthly 0=does not

*** <PLS > <PWATER flags><monthly parameter value flags>

***## -### CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE

 1 17 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

 END PWAT-PARM1

 PWAT-PARM2

 <PLS > *** PWATER input info: Part 2

 ### -### ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC

 ***(none) (in) (in/hr) (ft) (none) (l/in) (l/in)

 1 0 5.67 0.037 1200. 0.025 0.45 0.994

 2 0 4.77 0.035 550. 0.075 0.45 0.998

 3 0 7.65 0.097 1200. 0.050 0.45 0.992

 4 0 3.60 0.356 400. 0.050 0.45 0.990

 5 0 5.67 0.037 1200. 0.025 0.45 0.998

 6 0 4.77 0.035 650. 0.075 0.45 0.994

 7 0 7.65 0.097 1200. 0.050 0.45 0.990

 8 0 3.60 0.356 400. 0.050 0.45 0.990

 9 0 5.76 0.073 1200. 0.050 0.45 0.994

 10 0 4.89 0.033 1300. 0.025 0.45 0.995

 11 0 4.38 0.032 1200. 0.075 0.45 0.994

 12 0 5.50 0.079 1200. 0.025 0.45 0.993

 13 0 5.50 0.075 600. 0.075 0.45 0.992

 14 0 3.24 0.152 800. 0.055 0.45 0.991

 15 0 2.30 0.038 200. 0.030 0.45 0.640

 16 0 2.90 0.058 200. 0.030 0.45 0.640

 17 0 2.05 0.028 100. 0.025 0.40 0.400

 END PWAT-PARM2
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

166 Appendix 5

 PWAT-PARM3

 <PLS > *** PWATER input info: Part 3

 ### -### ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP

 1 4 40. 35. 2.5 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.070

 5 8 40. 35. 2.5 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.100

 9 40. 35. 2.5 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.070

 10 14 40. 35. 2.5 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.040

 15 16 40. 35. 3.0 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.020

 17 40. 35. 3.5 2.0 0.00 0.00 0.010

 END PWAT-PARM3

 PWAT-PARM4

 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 ***

 Flag PARM1 VCS VUZ VUR VMN VIFW VLE ***

 ### -### CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP ***

 (in) (in) (none) (none) (l/da) (none) ***

 1 17

 END PWAT-PARM4

*** Monthly parameter values for flag set in PWAT-PARM1 ***

*** Values represent the start of each month and interpolated ***

*** to the value of the start of the next month ***

 MON-INTERCEP

 Monthly interception storage capacity ***

 <PLS> ***

 ### -### Required if VCSFG=1 in PWAT-PARM1 ***

 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 9 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03

 10 14 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.03

 15 16 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02

 17 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.01

 END MON-INTERCEP

 MON-UZSN

 Upper zone nominal storage ***

 UZSN inversely affects peak flow - as UZSN goes up, peaks go down ***

 <PLS> Required if VUZFG=1 ***

 ### -### Upper zone storage at start of each month ***

 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 4 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .85 .85 .95 .95 .82 .80

 5 8 .84 .84 .84 .84 .84 .84 .86 .87 .97 .98 .88 .84

 9 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .80 .82 .86 .96 .96 .85 .83

 10 14 .82 .82 .82 .82 .82 .83 .84 .86 .97 .98 .90 .82

 15 16 .35 .35 .35 .35 .35 .35 .38 .38 .50 .50 .35 .35

 17 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .12 .18 .28 .28 .14 .10

 END MON-UZSN

 MON-MANNING

 Manning's "n" for overland flow ***

 <PLS > Required if VNNFG=1 ***

 ### -### Manning's n for overland flow at start of each month ***

 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.25

 15 16 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.23

 17 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.22

 END MON-MANNING

 MON-INTERFLW

*** Monthly interflow (inc INTFW flattens peak by creating more interflow)

 <PLS > Required if VIFWFG=1 ***

 ### -### Monthly interflow at start of each month ***

 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 9 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90

 10 14 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.80

 15 16 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.05

 17 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.70

 END MON-INTERFLW

 MON-IRC

 Monthly interflow recession (inc IRC dec peak) ***

 <PLS > Required if VIRCFG=1 (max < 1.0) ***

 ### -### Monthly interflow at start of each month ***

 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 9 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.49 0.47 0.45

 10 14 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.40 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.43 0.35

 15 16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.18

 17 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08

 END MON-IRC
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

 MON-LZETPARM

 Lower zone ET - index of deep-rooted veg density ***

 <PLS > Required if VLEFG=1 (max < 1.0) ***

 ### -### Lower zone ET parameter at start of each month ***

 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 .12 .12 .12 .12 .13 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .13 .12

 2 .25 .25 .25 .26 .27 .28 .28 .28 .28 .28 .27 .25

 3 .12 .12 .12 .12 .13 .14 .14 .14 .14 .14 .13 .12

 4 .27 .27 .27 .27 .28 .29 .29 .29 .29 .29 .28 .27

 5 .56 .56 .56 .56 .58 .60 .62 .62 .62 .62 .59 .56

 6 .81 .81 .81 .81 .86 .91 .98 .98 .98 .98 .90 .81

 7 .72 .72 .72 .72 .76 .79 .79 .79 .79 .79 .76 .72

 8 .89 .89 .89 .89 .89 .91 .98 .98 .98 .98 .94 .89

 9 .22 .22 .22 .22 .23 .24 .24 .24 .24 .24 .23 .22

 10 .18 .18 .18 .18 .19 .22 .22 .22 .21 .20 .19 .18

 11 .34 .34 .34 .34 .38 .40 .40 .40 .38 .34 .34 .34

 12 .23 .23 .23 .23 .26 .28 .28 .28 .28 .27 .25 .23

 13 .30 .30 .30 .30 .34 .36 .36 .36 .34 .30 .30 .30

 14 .38 .38 .38 .38 .40 .42 .42 .42 .42 .42 .40 .38

 15 16 .05 .05 .05 .07 .10 .24 .24 .24 .25 .24 .18 .11

 17 .02 .02 .03 .03 .08 .15 .16 .17 .17 .17 .04 .03

 END MON-LZETPARM

 PWAT-STATE1

 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation

 ### -### *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS

 1 0.030 0.000 1.547 0.104 8.946 2.529 0.911

 2 0.030 0.000 1.458 0.080 6.479 5.091 1.083

 3 0.030 0.000 1.412 0.063 13.426 3.032 1.489

 4 0.030 0.000 .868 0.002 5.889 4.008 3.003

 5 0.030 0.000 1.466 0.057 7.122 6.046 1.219

 6 0.030 0.000 1.460 0.056 5.859 2.722 1.163

 7 0.030 0.000 1.184 0.016 9.869 3.040 1.952

 8 0.030 0.000 0.692 0.001 5.007 3.867 2.854

 9 0.030 0.000 1.380 0.053 8.816 3.297 1.553

 10 0.020 0.000 1.594 0.096 7.600 2.534 0.904

 11 0.020 0.000 1.521 0.081 6.043 2.472 1.030

 12 0.020 0.000 1.593 0.106 12.003 2.056 0.980

 13 0.020 0.000 1.518 0.083 9.970 2.794 1.306

 14 0.020 0.000 1.286 0.028 5.430 3.243 2.216

 15 0.020 0.003 0.772 0.070 4.556 0.049 0.528

 16 0.020 0.001 0.727 0.070 4.746 0.106 1.054

 17 0.000 0.000 0.118 0.000 3.419 0.005 0.378

 END PWAT-STATE1

***** Section SEDMNT coding pg 315 4.4(1).5 --------------------------------

 SED-PARM1

 < PLS > *** SDOP= 0 new method less dependent on time step

 ### -### CRV VSIV SDOP *** SDOP= 1 ARM & NPS method

 1 4 1 0 1

 5 8 1 0 1

 9 17 1 0 1

 END SED-PARM1

 SED-PARM2

 soil detachment DET = DELT60*(1.0-CR)*SMPF*KRER(RAIN/DETL60)^JRER ***

 < PLS > mgt coef exp reattach veg verticl***

 ### -### SMPF KRER JRER AFFIX COVER NVSI ***

 1 4 1.0 0.86 1.95 .020 0.0

 5 8 1.0 0.14 2.30 .035 .95 0.0

 9 1.0 1.38 1.70 .015 .60 0.0

 10 14 1.0 1.95 1.55 .015 .60 0.0

 15 1.0 0.96 1.90 .010 .70 0.0

 16 17 1.0 0.45 1.90 .010 .70 0.0

 END SED-PARM2
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

168 Appendix 5

 SED-PARM3

*** SDOP -flg determines (SED-PARAM1) washoff and scour equation used

*** 1 Washoff = DELT60*KSER((SURS +SURO)/DELT60)^JSER

*** 0 Washoff = DELT60*KSER( SURO /DELT60)^JSER

*** 1 Scour = SURO/[(SURS + SURO)*DELT60*KGER*((SURS + SURO)/DELT60)^JGER]

*** 0 Scour = DELT60*KGER*( SURS + SURO)/DELT60^JGER

*** Washoff Scour ***

*** PLS > coeff exp coeff exp ***

***## -### KSER JSER KGER JGER ***

 1 4 5.45 0.76 0.19 1.40

 5 8 2.95 1.05 0.10 2.30

 9 3.96 0.68 0.12 1.65

 10 14 5.46 0.25 0.18 1.35

 15 3.22 1.05 0.18 1.45

 16 17 2.62 1.25 0.08 2.40

 END SED-PARM3

 MON-COVER

 < PLS > Monthly values for erosion-related veg cover (CRV=1) ***

 ### -### JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 4 .55 .55 .55 .60 .70 .75 .85 .85 .84 .82 .70 .55

 5 8 .88 .88 .88 .92 .93 .95 .95 .95 .95 .93 .92 .91

 9 14 .65 .65 .70 .75 .85 .90 .92 .92 .85 .80 .78 .75

 15 17 .65 .65 .70 .75 .85 .90 .92 .92 .92 .92 .92 .75

 END MON-COVER

 SED-STOR

 < PLS > Detached sediment storage (tons/acre) ***

 ### -### BLOCK1 BLK2 BLK3 BLK4 BLK5 ***

 1 4 .010 0 0 0 0

 5 8 .005 0 0 0 0

 9 14 .008 0 0 0 0

 15 17 .010 0 0 0 0

 END SED-STOR

*** SOIL TEMP SIM TURNED OFF--NOT NEEDED BECAUSE AG-CHEM MODULE NOT USED

***** Section PSTEMP coding pg 323 4.4(1).6 -----------------------------

 PSTEMP-PARM1

 ### ### SLTV ULTV LGTV TSOP ***

 1 17 1 1 1 1

 END PSTEMP-PARM1

*** PSTEMP-PARM2

*** ### ### ALST BLST ULTP1 ULTP2 LGTP1 LGTP2 ***

*** 1 17 33 .80 .15 2. .10 6.

*** END PSTEMP-PARM2

 MON-ASLT

 < PLS > Surface temperature when air temp is 32F (TSOP = 1) ***

 ### ### JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 4 34. 34. 35. 38.0 45.0 52.0 62.0 60.0 48.0 42.0 36. 35.0

 5 8 32. 32. 34. 38.0 40.0 48.0 58.0 58.0 44.0 38.0 36. 35.0

 9 14 34. 34. 35. 38.0 43.0 50.0 60.0 59.0 47.0 38.0 36. 35.0

 15 17 36. 36. 38. 41.0 46.0 53.0 64.0 63.0 52.0 44.0 39. 37.0

 END MON-ASLT

 MON-BSLT

 < PLS > Surface soil temperature slope (TSOP = 1) ***

 ### ### JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 4 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.38 0.42 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.28 0.28

 5 8 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.28 0.28

 9 14 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.38 0.42 0.45 0.42 0.38 0.28 0.28

 15 17 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.42 0.47 0.49 0.46 0.40 0.30 0.30

 END MON-BSLT

 MON-ULTP1

 < PLS > Upper zone soil temperature intercept (TSOP = 1) ***

 ### ### JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 4 42. 42. 44. 47. 50. 54. 57. 58. 56. 46. 44. 42.

 5 8 44. 44. 44. 45. 47. 49. 51. 53. 52. 45. 44. 44.

 9 14 43. 43. 44. 45. 49. 53. 56. 57. 56. 46. 44. 44.

 15 17 45. 45. 45. 49. 53. 58. 62. 60. 58. 47. 45. 45.

 END MON-ULTP1
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

 MON-ULTP2

 < PLS > Upper zone soil temperature slope (TSOP = 1) ***

 ### ### JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 17 .25 .25 .25 .30 .30 .30 .35 .35 .30 .25 .25 .25

 15 17 .30 .30 .30 .35 .35 .35 .40 .40 .35 .30 .30 .30

 END MON-ULTP2

 MON-LGTP1

 < PLS > Lower zone soil temperature (TSOP = 1) ***

 ### ### JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 17 57.5 57.5 58.8 60.0 60.4 60.8 61.3 62.4 61.5 60.5 59.3 58.1

 END MON-LGTP1

 PSTEMP-TEMPS

 < PLS > Initial temperatures ***

 ### ### AIRTC SLTMP ULTMP LGTMP ***

 1 14 29.5 33.0 43.0 57.5

 15 17 29.5 32.0 44.0 59.0

 END PSTEMP-TEMPS

*** Section PQUAL coding pg 363 4.4(1).8 -------------------------------------

 NQUALS

 <PLS > ***

 # - #NQUAL ***

 1 17 1

 END NQUALS

 QUAL-PROPS

 <PLS >*** Identifiers and flags

 # - #<--qualid-->*** QTID QSD VPFW VPFS QSO VQO QIFW VIQC QAGW VAQC

 1 17 PO4 LB 1 1 0 0

 END QUAL-PROPS

 QUAL-INPUT

 <PLS > Storage on surface and nonseasonal parameters ***

 # - # SQO POTFW POTFS ACQOP SQOLIM WSQOP IOQC AOQC ***

 1 4 1.00 0.045 0.035 0.0002 0.003 1.9 .00001 .000001

 5 8 2.00 0.008 0.008 0.0001 0.001 2.7 .00001 .000001

 9 14 1.10 0.070 0.040 0.0002 0.003 2.7 .00001 .000001

 15 16 0.20 0.460 0.058 0.0002 0.006 3.8 .00001 .000001

 17 0.20 0.820 0.062 0.0002 0.006 5.4 .00001 .000001

 END QUAL-INPUT

END PERLND

***============================================================================

***============================================================================

**************************************************************************

*** IMPLND - Impervious land 4.2(2) Prin. 4.2(2) pg 104 ***

*** Coding 4.4(2) pg 403 ***

**************************************************************************

IMPLND

 ACTIVITY

 <ILS > Active Sections (1-active, 0-inactive) ***

 ### -### ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ***

 1 1 1 1

 2 1 1 1

 END ACTIVITY

 PRINT-INFO

 2-PIVL, 3-dy, 4-mn, 5-yr, 6-never user end ***

 <ILS > <------ Print-flags --------> PIVL PYR ***

 ### -### ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL #### ## ***

 1 6 5 6 1 1

 2 6 5 6 1 1

 END PRINT-INFO

 GEN-INFO

 <ILS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer ***

 ### -### User t-series Engl Met ***

 in out i/o# ***

 1 Residential 1 1 1 15 0

 2 Comm/Indust/Mfam 1 1 1 15 0

 END GEN-INFO
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

170 Appendix 5

*** ----------------------------------------------------------------------

*** IMPLND - Section IWATER input Prin. 4.2(2).3 pg 104

*** Coding 4.4(2).4 pg 408

*** retention, routing and evap from impervious surfaces

*** ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 IWAT-PARM1

 <ILS > Flags ***

 ### -### CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI ***

 1 0 1 0

 2 0 1 0

 END IWAT-PARM1

 IWAT-PARM2

 <ILS > ***

 ### -### LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC ***

 1 400. .014 .010 .01

 2 200. .010 .010 .03

 END IWAT-PARM2

 IWAT-PARM3

 <ILS > ***

 ### -### PETMAX PETMIN ***

 1 40. 35.

 2 40. 35.

 END IWAT-PARM3

 IWAT-STATE1

 <ILS > IWATER state variables ***

 ### -### RETS SURS ***

 1 .01 .00

 2 .03 .00

 END IWAT-STATE1

  Section Solids coding pg 416 4.4(2).6 -----------------------------

 SLD-PARM1

 <PLS > Accu remov flgs ** *

 # - # VASD VRSD SDOP ***

 1 2 1 0 0

 END SLD-PARM1

 SLD-PARM2

 Washoff Accumulation ***

 <PLS > coef exp Removal ***

 ### -### KEIM JEIM ACCSDP REMSDP ***

 1 0.10 1.85 0.01 0

 2 0.12 1.90 0.01 0

 END SLD-PARM2

 MON-SACCUM

 <PLS > Monthly solids accumulation rate (VASD= 1) ton/acre/day ***

 ### -### JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

 1 .012 .012 .010 .003 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .005

 2 .011 .011 .008 .003 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .007

 END MON-SACCUM

 MON-REMOV ***

 <PLS > Monthly values for solids removal rate (VRSD flg = 1) ***

 ### -### JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ***

*** 1 2 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003 .003

 END MON-REMOV ***

 SLD-STOR

 <PLS > initial slds storage (tons/acre) ***

 ### -### ##### ***

 1 .095

 2 .142

 END SLD-STOR
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

*** Section IQUAL coding pg 428 4.4(2).7 ----------------------------------

*** because IMPLND has no explicit subroutines for PHOS

 NQUALS

 <PLS > ***

 ### -###NQUAL ***

 1 2 1

 END NQUALS

 QUAL-PROPS

 <PLS > consituent Unit Sed Mon. Wash mon. ***

 ### -###<--qualid--> QTID QSDF VPFW QSOF VQO ***

 1 2 PO4 LB 1 0 1 0

 END QUAL-PROPS

 QUAL-INPUT

 <PLS > Storage on surface and nonseasonal parameters ***

 ### -### SQO POTFW ACQOP SQOLIM WSQOP ***

 1 .010 1.55 .001 0.045 5.4

 2 .012 1.42 .001 0.035 5.4

 END QUAL-INPUT

END IMPLND

***============================================================================

***============================================================================

********************************************************************************

*** RCHRES Block Prin. 4.2(3) pg 117 ***

*** Coding 4.4(3) pg 433 ***

*** Channel Processes ***

********************************************************************************

RCHRES

 ACTIVITY

 RCHRES Active Sections (1=Active, 0=Inactive) ***

 ### -### HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG ***

 1 23 1 1 1 1 1

 END ACTIVITY

 PRINT-INFO

 RCHRES <-Print-flags: 2-PIVL,3-dy,4-mn,5-yr,6-never ***> PIVL PYR

 ### -### HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB   ** *

 1 23 6 6 5 6 6 6 1 1

 END PRINT-INFO

 GEN-INFO

 RCHRES<-------Name------->Nexit Unit Systems Printer ***

 ### -### User t-series Engl Metr LKFG ***

 in out ***

 1 Chenoweth #39 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 2 Chenoweth #37 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 3 Reach #36 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 4 Chenoweth #35 2 1 1 1 15 0 0

 5 Chenoweth #33 2 1 1 1 15 0 0

 6 Chenoweth #31 2 1 1 1 15 0 0

 7 Chenoweth #28 2 1 1 1 15 0 0

 8 Chenoweth #25 2 1 1 1 15 0 0

 9 Chenoweth #23 2 1 1 1 15 0 0

 10 Chenoweth #21 2 1 1 1 15 0 0

 11 Razor Br. #14 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 12 Chenoweth #13 2 1 1 1 15 0 0

 13 Shinks Br. #12 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 14 Chenoweth #11 2 1 1 1 15 0 0

*** Pond reaches (Lakes/ponds)

 15 V12 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 16 V13 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 17 V14 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 18 V21 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 19 V22 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 20 V23 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 21 V24 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 22 V27 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 23 V41 1 1 1 1 15 0 0

 END GEN-INFO
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

172 Appendix 5

*** ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ***

*** RECHRES - Section HYDR input Prin. 4.2(3).1 pg 121 ***

*** coding 4.4(3).2 pg 438 ***

*** HYDRA-PARM1 pg 439 ***

*** HYDRA-PARM2 pg 441 ***

*** HYDRA-INIT pg 444 Inital conditions ***

*** ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ***

 HYDR-PARM1

 RCHRES Flags for HYDR section ***

 ### -### VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each ODGTFG for each *** FUNCT for each

 FG FG FG FG possible exit possible exit *** possible exit

 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 *** 1 2 3 4 5

 1 3 0 1 1 1 4

 4 7 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 2

 8 10 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 2

 11 0 1 1 1 4

 12 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 2

 13 0 1 1 1 4

 14 0 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 2

 15 23 0 1 1 1 4

 END HYDR-PARM1

 HYDR-PARM2

 RCHRES ***

 ### -### FTB FTA LEN DELTH STCOR SED ***

 ### -### DSN BNO (miles) (feet) (feet) KS DB50 ***

 1 39 0.705 26. 0. .5 .008

 2 37 1.234 30. 0. .5 .008

 3 36 1.994 39. 0. .5 .008

 4 35 0.244 10. 0. .5 .008

 5 33 0.458 3. 0. .5 .008

 6 31 0.441 7. 0. .5 .008

 7 28 0.215 3. 0. .5 .008

 8 25 0.490 10. 0. .5 .008

 9 23 1.358 23. 0. .5 .008

 10 21 0.957 23. 0. .5 .008

 11 14 1.016 59. 0. .5 .008

 12 13 0.690 12. 0. .5 .008

 13 12 1.179 66. 0. .5 .008

 14 11 1.584 31. 0. .5 .008

*** Pond reaches (Lakes/ponds)

 15 112 0.200 .01 0. .5 .008

 16 113 0.200 .01 0. .5 .008

 17 114 0.200 .01 0. .5 .008

 18 121 0.200 .01 0. .5 .008

 19 122 0.200 .01 0. .5 .008

 20 123 0.200 .01 0. .5 .008

 21 124 0.200 .01 0. .5 .008

 22 127 0.200 .01 0. .5 .008

 23 141 0.200 .01 0. .5 .008

 END HYDR-PARM2

 HYDR-INIT

 Initial value of COLIND *** Initial value of OUTDGT

 <RCHRES> VOL for each possible exit *** for each possible exit

 ### -### (ac-ft) EX1 EX2 EX3 EX4 EX5 *** EX1 EX2 EX3 EX4 EX5

 1 0.284 4.0

 2 0.560 4.0

 3 0.851 4.0

 4 0.597 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

 5 0.386 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

 6 0.925 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

 7 0.256 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

 8 1.020 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

 9 4.740 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

 10 3.300 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

 11 0.065 4.0

 12 2.590 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

 13 0.254 4.0

 14 9.260 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

*** Pond reaches (Lakes/ponds)

 15 226.000 4.0

 16 18.400 4.0

 17 43.800 4.0

 18 92.200 4.0

 19 32.400 4.0

 20 35.600 4.0

 21 38.600 4.0

 22 8.410 4.0

 23 6.710 4.0

 END HYDR-INIT

*** Section ADCALC coding pg 445 4.4(3).3 ----------------------------------

*** Prepare advection simulation

 ADCALC-DATA

 RCHRES Data for ADCALC ***

 ### -### CRRAT VOL ***

 1 14 1.80

 15 23 1.10

 END ADCALC-DATA

*** Section HTRCH coding pg 451 4.4(3).5 ------------------------------------

*** Not active - stream temp read in from external annie file

*** To simulate stream temp external files for cloud cov, dew pnt, sol rad,

*** and wind speed are required

 HEAT-PARM

 <RCHRES> ELEV ELDAT CFSAEX KATRAD KCOND KEVAP ***

 ### -### ***

 1 14 550.0 0.0 .85

 15 23 550.0 0.0 .95

 END HEAT-PARM

 HEAT-INIT

 <RCHRES> TW AIRTMP ***

 ### -### ***

 1 23 41. 46.

 END HEAT-INIT

*** Section SEDTRN coding pg 454 4.4.(3).6 ------------------------------------

*** Simulate sediment transport in RCHRES

 SANDFG

 <RCHRES> ***

 ### -### SNDFG (sand load simul method; 1-Toffaletti,2-Colbely,3-user) ***

 1 14 3

 15 23 1

 END SANDFG

 SED-GENPARM

 <RCHRES> BEDWID BEDWRN POR ***

 ### ### (ft) (ft) ***

 1 5 5. 1.5

 6 10 10. 1.5

 11 5. 1.5

 12 15. 1.5

 13 5. 1.0

 14 20. 1.0

 15 23 25. 2.5

 END SED-GENPARM

 SAND-PM

 <RCHRES> Dia. W RHO KSAND EXPSND ***

 ### ### (in) (in/s) ***

 1 14 .008 .770 2.45 2.5 0.8

 15 23 .008 .770 2.45

 END SAND-PM

*** Silt Parameters (default parameters washthru)

 SILT-CLAY-PM

 <RCHRES> Dia. W RHO TAUCD TAUCS M ***

 ### ### (in) (in/s) (gm/cm3) (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) ***

*** 1 14

 1 8 .00145 .0320 2.35 .270 .29 4.10

 9 14 .00145 .0320 2.35 .265 .30 5.10

 15 23 .00145 .0320 2.35 .100 .35 1.10

 END SILT-CLAY-PM
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

174 Appendix 5

*** Clay Parameters

 SILT-CLAY-PM

 <RCHRES> Dia. W RHO TAUCD TAUCS M ***

 ### ### (in) (in/s) (gm/cm3) (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) (lb/ft2) ***

*** 1 15

 1 8 .00012 .0034 2.20 .270 .28 4.10

 9 14 .00012 .0034 2.20 .265 .30 4.10

 15 23 .00012 .0034 2.20 .100 .35 1.10

 END SILT-CLAY-PM

 SSED-INIT

 <RCHRES> Suspended sed concs (mg/l) ***

 ### -### Sand Silt Clay ***

 1 14 0. 5. 4.

 15 23 0. 1. 4.

 END SSED-INIT

 BED-INIT

 <RCHRES> BEDDEP Initial bed composition as % ***

 ### -### (ft) Sand Silt Clay ***

 1 23

*** 1 23 0.8 0.80 0.15 0.05

 END BED-INIT

*** Section RQUAL coding pg 497 4.4(3).8 ----------------------------------------

 BENTH-FLAG

 <RCHRES> Flag benthic influences, 1-active, 0-inactive ***

 ### -### BENF flag ***

 1 23 1

 END BENTH-FLAG

 SCOUR-PARMS

 <RCHRES> benthic scour parameters (only used BENF = 1) ***

 ### -### SCRVEL SCRMUL ***

 1 23 5. 1.5

 END SCOUR-PARMS

*** Section OXRX (required for RQUAL which is required for NUTRX)------------------

*** coding pg 500 4.4(3).8.1

*** NOTE: Pond RCHRES (No. 15-23) are not specified as LAKE's in RCHRES GEN-INFO

*** if these are specified as LAKE's (LKFG = 1), then windspeed is required

 OX-FLAGS

 <RCHRES> flag type of oxygen reaeration method ***

*** Owen's/Churchill's/O'Connor-Dubbins' formua ***

 ### -### REAM ***

 1 23 2

 END OX-FLAGS

 OX-GENPARM

 <RCHRES> KBOD20 TCBOD KODSET SUPSAT ***

 ### -### /hr ***

 1 7 .1 4.

 8 14 .1 5.

 15 23 .1 8.

 END OX-GENPARM

 ELEV

 <RCHRES> ELEV *** elevation of RCHRES above sea level

 ### -### (ft) *** (required becaue HTRCH inactive)

 1 23 550

 END ELEV

 OX-BENPARM

 <RCHRES> BENOD TCBEN EXPOD BRBOD(1) BRBOD(2) EXPREL ***

 ### -### mg/m2.hr mg/m2.hr mg/m2.hr ***

 1 7 1. 1.1 1.2 1. 5. 2.5

 8 14 4. 1.1 1.2 3. 8. 2.5

 15 23 3. 1.2 1.5 8. 15. 2.8

 END OX-BENPARM

*** OX-CFOREA

*** <RCHRES> CFOREA *** correction factor for reaeration in lakes

*** ### -### *** (RCHRES 15-23 pond RCHRES for ponds GEN PARM LKFG=1

*** 15 23 0.8

*** END OX-CFOREA
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

 OX-TCGINV

 <RCHRES> ***stream RCHRES (GEN-PARM LKFG=0,OX-FLAGS REAM=2)

 ### -### TCGINV ***

 1 23 1.050

 END OX-TCGINV

 OX-INIT

 <RCHRES> DOX BOD SATDO ***

 ### -### mg/l mg/l mg/l ***

 1 14 10. 2.

 15 23 8. 7.

 END OX-INIT

 *** Section NUTRX coding pg 511 4.4(3).8.2 ---------------------------------

 *** Simulate PO4 in RCHRES ***

 NUT-FLAGS

 <RCHRES> TAM NO2 PO4 AMV DEN ADNH ADPO PHFL ***

 ### -### ***

 1 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

 END NUT-FLAGS

*** NUT-AD-FLAGS *** Not used ***

*** Atmospheric Deposition Flags ***

*** <RCHRES> NO3 NH3 PO4 ***

*** ### -### F C F C F C ***

*** 1 23 -1 0 -1 0 0 0

*** END NUT-AD-FLAGS

 NUT-BENPARM

 *** Release rates - Used only if BENF = 1 in RQUAL

 *** aerobic anaerobic aerobic anaerobic

 <RCHRES> BRTAM(1) BRTAM(2) BRPO4(1) BRPO4(2) ANAER ***

 ### -### mg/m2.hr mg/m2.hr mg/m2.hr mg/m2.hr mg/l ***

 1 23 11.0 33.0 0.95 1.2 0.0055

 END NUT-BENPARM

 NUT-NITDENIT

 *** nitrification- denitrification rates

 <RCHRES> KTAM20 KNO220 TCNIT KNO320 TCDEN DENOXT ***

 ### -### /hr /hr /hr mg/l ***

 1 23 .002 .004 1.07 .001 1.04 0.2

 END NUT-NITDENIT

 NUT-NH3VOLAT

 <RCHRES> EXPNVG EXPNVL ***

 ### -### ***

 1 23 0.50 0.6667

 END NUT-NH3VOLAT

 NUT-BEDCONC

 <RCHRES> Bed concentrations of NH4 & PO4 (mg/mg) ***

 ### -### NH4-sand NH4-silt NH4-clay PO4-sand PO4-silt PO4-clay ***

 1 23 0 0 0 0.00011 0.00211 0.02421

 END NUT-BEDCONC

 NUT-ADSPARM

 <RCHRES> Kd Adsorbtion coefficients for NH4 AND PO4 (l/mg) ***

 ### -### NH4-sand NH4-silt NH4-clay PO4-sand PO4-silt PO4-clay ***

 1 23 400.00 500.00 900.00

 END NUT-ADSPARM

 NUT-DINIT

 <RCHRES> NO3 TAM NO2 PO4 ***

 ### -### mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l pH ***

 1 23 0. 0. 0. 0.025 8.1

 END NUT-DINIT

 NUT-ADSINIT

 <RCHRES> Initial suspended NH4 and PO4 concentrations (mg/mg) ***

 ### -### NH4-sand NH4-silt NH4-clay PO4-sand PO4-silt PO4-clay ***

 1 23 0. 0. 0. .001 .025 0.50

 END NUT-ADSINIT

END RCHRES
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

176 Appendix 5

*******************************************************************************

*** COPY Block 4.4.(11) page 536 ***

*** combines times series from mutiple PERLN's,IMPLD's, RCHRES ***

*******************************************************************************

COPY

 TIMESERIES

 Copy-opn ***

 ### -### NPT NMN ***

 100 102 0 7

 105 1

 106 109 5

 END TIMESERIES

END COPY

GENER

 OPCODE

 # - # Op- *** add two time series

 code ***

 1 4 16

 END OPCODE

END GENER

*******************************************************************************

*** External Sources Block 4.6.2 Page 569 ***

*** WDM input data ***

*******************************************************************************

*** HOURLY TIME STEP

EXT SOURCES

<-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <tgrp> <-Member-> ***

<Name> ### <Name>## tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> ### ### <Name> # # ***

WDM 28 PREC ENGLZERO 1.00SUM PERLND 1 17 EXTNL PREC

WDM 28 PREC ENGLZERO 1.00SUM IMPLND 1 2 EXTNL PREC

WDM 28 PREC ENGLZERO 1.00SUM RCHRES 1 23 EXTNL PREC

WDM 32 PET ENGL 1.00SAME PERLND 1 17 EXTNL PETINP

WDM 32 PET ENGL 1.00SAME IMPLND 1 2 EXTNL PETINP

WDM 32 PET ENGL 1.00SAME RCHRES 1 23 EXTNL POTEV

WDM 34 ATMP ENGL 1.00SAME PERLND 1 17 ATEMP AIRTMP

WDM 36 WTMP ENGL 1.00SAME RCHRES 1 8 HTRCH TW

WDM 40 WTMP ENGL 1.00SAME RCHRES 9 23 HTRCH TW

*** WWTP flow input source is in ft^3/s; target unit in ac-ft/hr 0.0826446

WDM 9602 FLOW ENGL .0826446SAME RCHRES 8 INFLOW IVOL

WDM 9603 FLOW ENGL .0826446SAME RCHRES 8 INFLOW IVOL

WDM 9605 FLOW ENGL .0826446SAME RCHRES 9 INFLOW IVOL

WDM 9606 FLOW ENGL .0826446SAME RCHRES 10 INFLOW IVOL

*** same for both time steps input DSN in tons/day assumes all SED from

*** WWTP is clay size except for the Jeff bypass flows which are split

*** between clay and silt size particles

WDM 9712 SED ENGL 1.00DIV RCHRES 8 INFLOW ISED 3

WDM 9713 SED ENGL 0.50DIV RCHRES 8 INFLOW ISED 2

WDM 9713 SED ENGL 0.50DIV RCHRES 8 INFLOW ISED 3

WDM 9715 SED ENGL 1.00DIV RCHRES 9 INFLOW ISED 3

WDM 9716 SED ENGL 1.00DIV RCHRES 10 INFLOW ISED 3

*** WWTP PO4 loads-- assume the majority of the by PO4 load is suspended & on clay size fraction

WDM 9702 PO4 ENGL 1.00DIV RCHRES 8 INFLOW NUIF1 4

WDM 9703 PO4 ENGL .20DIV RCHRES 8 INFLOW NUIF1 4

WDM 9703 PO4 ENGL .30DIV RCHRES 8 INFLOW NUIF2 2

WDM 9703 PO4 ENGL .70DIV RCHRES 8 INFLOW NUIF2 3

WDM 9705 PO4 ENGL 1.00DIV RCHRES 9 INFLOW NUIF1 4

WDM 9706 PO4 ENGL 1.00DIV RCHRES 10 INFLOW NUIF1 4
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

*** Hourly GW loss DSN 72 ranges 1.0-1.5 ft3/s June-November, zero otherwise.

*** GW loss estimated to be a maximum of 2 ft3/s between Ruckriegel and

*** Gelhaus, the same lineal loss rate dowstream from Gelhaus; and 0.5 ft3/s

*** maximum upstream from Ruckriegel. Outflow Demand Gate 1 is the estimated

*** channel loss from the system.

WDM 72 FLOW ENGL 0.079SAME RCHRES 4 EXTNL OUTDGT 1

WDM 72 FLOW ENGL 0.148SAME RCHRES 5 EXTNL OUTDGT 1

WDM 72 FLOW ENGL 0.143SAME RCHRES 6 EXTNL OUTDGT 1

 *** Base loss rate 0.37 ft3/s upstream from Ruckriegel Pkwy

WDM 72 FLOW ENGL 0.130SAME RCHRES 7 EXTNL OUTDGT 1

WDM 72 FLOW ENGL 0.295SAME RCHRES 8 EXTNL OUTDGT 1

WDM 72 FLOW ENGL 0.819SAME RCHRES 9 EXTNL OUTDGT 1

WDM 72 FLOW ENGL 0.577SAME RCHRES 10 EXTNL OUTDGT 1

 *** Base loss rate 1.82 ft3/s Ruckriegel Pkwy to Gelhaus Ln

WDM 72 FLOW ENGL 0.416SAME RCHRES 12 EXTNL OUTDGT 1

WDM 72 FLOW ENGL 0.955SAME RCHRES 14 EXTNL OUTDGT 1

 *** Base loss rate 1.37 ft3/s Gelhaus Ln to Seatonville Rd

END EXT SOURCES

********************************************************************************

*** EXTERNAL Block 4.6.5 page 581 ***

*** output ***

********************************************************************************

*** Area of Chenoweth Run 10579.47 ac (16.530 mi2)

***

***

*** Mult factor for RCHRES convert ac-ft/tsstep to inches =(12in/ft)/DA(ac)

*** US Gage : 12/ 3445.14 = 0.0034832 (RCHRES #6)

*** Mid Gage: 12/ 7326.62 = 0.0016379 (RCHRES #10)

*** DS Gage : 12/10579.47 = 0.0011343 (RCHRES #14)

***

*** Convert ac-ft/hr into ft3/s

*** ac-ft/hr * 1hr/60min * 1min/60sec * 43,560ft2/ac = 12.1

*** PERLND & IMPLND

*** converts ac-in/tsstep to watershed inches/tsstep = 1/DA

*** US Gage: 0.0002903 for DA of 3445.14 ac

*** Mid Gage: 0.0001365 for DA of 7326.62 ac

*** DS Gage: 0.0000945 for DA of 10579.47 ac

***

*** Basin Reach ID Model RCHRES No.

*** -------------- -----------------

*** Reach 11 - RCHRES #14 (DS Gage at Seatonville Rd)

*** Reach 21 - RCHRES #10 (Mid Gage at Gelhaus Lane)

*** Reach 25 - RCHRES #8 (DS JTown WWTP at Taylorsville Rd)

*** Reach 31 - RCHRES #6 (US Gage at Ruckriegel Pkwy)

EXT TARGETS

<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Aggr Amd ***

<Name> x <Name> x x<-factor->strg <Name> x <Name>qf tem strg strg***

RCHRES 6 OFLOW OVOL 2 12.1 WDM 556 SIMQ 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 8 OFLOW OVOL 2 12.1 WDM 558 SIMQ 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 OFLOW OVOL 2 12.1 WDM 560 SIMQ 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 14 OFLOW OVOL 2 12.1 WDM 564 SIMQ 1 ENGL REPL

 *** OVOL - outflow ac-ft/hr through individual exit

 *** ROSED - total outflow sediment tons/hr

 *** SSED - Suspended Sed conc. mg/l (4 - all size fractions)

 *** TAU - Bed shear stress
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

178 Appendix 5

*** Output time series at Ruckriegel (US gage CHEN 6)

RCHRES 6 OFLOW OVOL 2 0.0034832 WDM 500 SIMQ 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 SEDTRN ROSED 4 WDM 600 SED 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 SEDTRN SSED 4 WDM 601 SSED 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 HYDR TAU 1 WDM 602 TAU 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 SEDTRN DEPSCR 1 WDM 603 SCOU 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 SEDTRN DEPSCR 2 WDM 604 SCOU 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 SEDTRN DEPSCR 3 WDM 605 SCOU 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 SEDTRN RSED 7 *** WDM 606 RSED 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 SEDTRN RSED 8 *** WDM 607 RSED 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 SEDTRN RSED 9 *** WDM 608 RSED 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 OXRX DOX 1 1 WDM 800 DO 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 NUTRX NUCF9 2 4 WDM 700 DPO4 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 NUTRX NUCF2 1 2 WDM 701 SPO4 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 NUTRX NUCF2 2 2 WDM 702 SPO4 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 NUTRX NUCF2 3 2 WDM 703 SPO4 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 6 NUTRX NUCF2 4 2 WDM 704 SPO4 1 ENGL REPL

 *** Total PO4 load

GENER 1 OUTPUT TIMSER WDM 705 TPO4 1 ENGL REPL

*** Output time series at Talyorsville Rd. (CHEN 8)

RCHRES 8 SEDTRN ROSED 4 WDM 628 SED 1 ENGL REPL

GENER 3 OUTPUT TIMSER WDM 728 TPO4 1 ENGL REPL

*** Output time series at Gelhaus (mid gage CHEN 10)

RCHRES 10 OFLOW OVOL 2 0.0016379 WDM 510 SIMQ 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 SEDTRN ROSED 4 WDM 610 SED 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 SEDTRN SSED 4 WDM 611 SSED 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 HYDR TAU 1 WDM 612 TAU 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 SEDTRN DEPSCR 1 WDM 613 SCOU 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 SEDTRN DEPSCR 2 WDM 614 SCOU 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 SEDTRN DEPSCR 3 WDM 615 SCOU 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 SEDTRN RSED 7 *** WDM 616 RSED 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 SEDTRN RSED 8 *** WDM 617 RSED 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 SEDTRN RSED 9 *** WDM 618 RSED 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 OXRX DOX 1 1 WDM 810 DO 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 NUTRX NUCF9 2 4 WDM 710 DPO4 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 NUTRX NUCF2 1 2 WDM 711 SPO4 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 NUTRX NUCF2 2 2 WDM 712 SPO4 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 NUTRX NUCF2 3 2 WDM 713 SPO4 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 10 NUTRX NUCF2 4 2 WDM 714 SPO4 1 ENGL REPL

 *** Total PO4 load

GENER 2 OUTPUT TIMSER WDM 715 TPO4 1 ENGL REPL

*** Output time series at Seatonville Rd- downstream site (CHEN 14)

RCHRES 14 OFLOW OVOL 2 0.0011343 WDM 534 SIMQ 1 ENGL REPL

RCHRES 14 SEDTRN ROSED 4 WDM 634 SED 1 ENGL REPL

GENER 4 OUTPUT TIMSER WDM 734 TPO4 1 ENGL REPL

*** Output time series via Copy for use with HSPEXP

COPY 100 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 0.0002903 WDM 501 SURO 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 100 OUTPUT MEAN 2 1 0.0002903 WDM 502 IFWO 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 100 OUTPUT MEAN 3 1 0.0002903 WDM 503 AGWO 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 100 OUTPUT MEAN 4 1 0.0002903 WDM 505 PETX 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

COPY 100 OUTPUT MEAN 5 1 0.0002903 WDM 506 SAET 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

COPY 100 OUTPUT MEAN 6 1 0.0002903AVER WDM 507 UZSX 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

COPY 100 OUTPUT MEAN 7 1 0.0002903AVER WDM 508 LZSX 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

COPY 101 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 0.0001365 WDM 511 SURO 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 101 OUTPUT MEAN 2 1 0.0001365 WDM 512 IFWO 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 101 OUTPUT MEAN 3 1 0.0001365 WDM 513 AGWO 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 101 OUTPUT MEAN 4 1 0.0001365 WDM 515 PETX 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

COPY 101 OUTPUT MEAN 5 1 0.0001365 WDM 516 SAET 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

COPY 101 OUTPUT MEAN 6 1 0.0001365AVER WDM 517 UZSX 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

COPY 101 OUTPUT MEAN 7 1 0.0001365AVER WDM 518 LZSX 1 ENGL AGGR REPL
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

COPY 102 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 0.0000945 WDM 521 SURO 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 102 OUTPUT MEAN 2 1 0.0000945 WDM 522 IFWO 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 102 OUTPUT MEAN 3 1 0.0000945 WDM 523 AGWO 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 102 OUTPUT MEAN 4 1 0.0000945 WDM 525 PETX 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

COPY 102 OUTPUT MEAN 5 1 0.0000945 WDM 526 SAET 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

COPY 102 OUTPUT MEAN 6 1 0.0000945AVER WDM 527 UZSX 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

COPY 102 OUTPUT MEAN 7 1 0.0000945AVER WDM 528 LZSX 1 ENGL AGGR REPL

*** GW channel seepage (dsn 80- hourly , 81- 5 min)

COPY 105 OUTPUT MEAN 1 WDM 80 GW 1 ENGL REPL

*** Output average soil temps & SED yield by land-use type

*** soil surface temp F xxx1

*** soil upper-zone temp F xxx2

*** soil lower-zone temp F xxx3

*** Total removal of sediment from PERLND's xxx4

*** Sed transport capacity (by surface runoff) xxx5

*** Combined Agr PERLND's (No. 1 to 4)

COPY 106 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 WDM 1061 SLTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 106 OUTPUT MEAN 2 1 WDM 1062 ULTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 106 OUTPUT MEAN 3 1 WDM 1063 LGTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 106 OUTPUT MEAN 4 1 WDM 1064 PSED 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 106 OUTPUT MEAN 5 1 WDM 1065 STCP 1 ENGL REPL

*** Combined Forest PERLND's (No. 5 to 8)

COPY 107 OUTPUT MEAN 1 WDM 1071 SLTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 107 OUTPUT MEAN 2 WDM 1072 ULTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 107 OUTPUT MEAN 3 WDM 1073 LGTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 107 OUTPUT MEAN 4 WDM 1074 PSED 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 107 OUTPUT MEAN 5 WDM 1075 STCP 1 ENGL REPL

*** Combined Open PERLND's (No. 9 to 14)

COPY 108 OUTPUT MEAN 1 WDM 1081 SLTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 108 OUTPUT MEAN 2 WDM 1082 ULTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 108 OUTPUT MEAN 3 WDM 1083 LGTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 108 OUTPUT MEAN 4 WDM 1084 PSED 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 108 OUTPUT MEAN 5 WDM 1085 STCP 1 ENGL REPL

*** Combined disturbed PERLND's (No. 15 to 17)

COPY 109 OUTPUT MEAN 1 WDM 1091 SLTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 109 OUTPUT MEAN 2 WDM 1092 ULTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 109 OUTPUT MEAN 3 WDM 1093 LGTM 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 109 OUTPUT MEAN 4 WDM 1094 PSED 1 ENGL REPL

COPY 109 OUTPUT MEAN 5 WDM 1095 STCP 1 ENGL REPL

*** Output individual PERLND sediment characteristics

PERLND 1 SEDMNT DETS WDM 2001 DETS 1 ENGL REPL

PERLND 1 SEDMNT STCAP WDM 2002 STCP 1 ENGL REPL

PERLND 1 SEDMNT WSSD WDM 2003 WSSD 1 ENGL REPL

PERLND 1 SEDMNT SCRSD WDM 2004 SCRS 1 ENGL REPL

PERLND 1 SEDMNT SOSED WDM 2005 SOSE 1 ENGL REPL

PERLND 1 SEDMNT DET WDM 2006 DET 1 ENGL REPL

END EXT TARGETS
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

180 Appendix 5

*******************************************************************************

*** SCHEMATIC Block 4.6.4 page 574 ***

*** Global specifications of watershed structure ***

*** works in tandem with MASS-LINK ***

*******************************************************************************

SCHEMATIC

<-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> <ML-> ***

<Name> ### <-factor-> <Name> ### # ***

 (acres) ***

*** Subbasin 1a to RCHRES 1 (fig. 29)

 (241.95 ac - 226.74ac per, 15.21 ac imp)

PERLND 1 20.64 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 2 0.30 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 3 10.66 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 4 5.28 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 5 11.63 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 6 2.49 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 7 28.44 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 8 8.91 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 9 11.15 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 10 13.69 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 11 1.62 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 12 4.84 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 13 1.12 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 14 9.96 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 15 17.95 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 16 8.67 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 17 2.62 RCHRES 1 1

IMPLND 1 5.00 RCHRES 1 2

IMPLND 2 0.07 RCHRES 1 2

*** Subbasin 1a to Pond RCHRES V23

PERLND 1 28.26 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 2 0.81 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 3 0.10 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 9 8.83 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 10 13.00 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 11 0.60 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 12 0.45 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 13 0.02 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 14 1.59 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 15 10.24 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 16 0.66 RCHRES 23 1

PERLND 17 2.21 RCHRES 23 1

IMPLND 1 10.14 RCHRES 23 2

*** Subbasin 1b to RCHRES 1 (318.09 ac)

PERLND 7 4.75 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 8 2.89 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 9 68.46 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 10 25.46 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 11 3.92 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 12 27.96 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 13 16.84 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 14 15.50 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 15 5.64 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 16 13.34 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 17 57.54 RCHRES 1 1

IMPLND 1 28.76 RCHRES 1 2

IMPLND 2 47.03 RCHRES 1 2

*** Subbasin 1c to RCHRES 1 (185.89 ac)

PERLND 5 1.18 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 7 21.84 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 8 4.10 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 9 14.47 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 10 3.40 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 11 0.79 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 12 18.92 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 13 5.52 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 14 4.68 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 15 20.34 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 16 17.64 RCHRES 1 1

PERLND 17 22.82 RCHRES 1 1

IMPLND 1 16.57 RCHRES 1 2

IMPLND 2 33.62 RCHRES 1 2
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

*** Subbasin 2a to RCHRES 2 (242.53 ac)

PERLND 1 2.68 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 2 0.05 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 3 0.68 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 5 6.46 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 6 3.36 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 9 4.97 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 10 15.26 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 11 12.20 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 12 11.07 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 13 20.94 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 14 6.25 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 15 3.85 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 17 67.78 RCHRES 2 1

IMPLND 1 2.19 RCHRES 2 2

IMPLND 2 84.79 RCHRES 2 2

*** Subbasin 2b to RCHRES 2 (475.93 ac)

PERLND 9 5.47 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 10 6.48 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 11 2.55 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 12 36.21 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 13 34.31 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 14 13.55 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 15 25.16 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 16 76.84 RCHRES 2 1

PERLND 17 109.11 RCHRES 2 1

IMPLND 1 20.49 RCHRES 2 2

IMPLND 2 145.76 RCHRES 2 2

*** Subbasin 3 to RCHRES 3 (986.80 ac)

PERLND 1 0.04 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 2 0.03 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 5 0.92 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 6 0.41 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 7 0.16 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 9 29.90 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 10 86.81 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 11 15.50 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 12 54.69 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 13 30.55 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 14 3.39 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 15 224.80 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 16 279.21 RCHRES 3 1

PERLND 17 89.83 RCHRES 3 1

IMPLND 1 117.21 RCHRES 3 2

IMPLND 2 53.35 RCHRES 3 2

*** Subbasin 4 to RCHRES 4 (29.02 ac)

PERLND 9 0.29 RCHRES 4 1

PERLND 10 4.52 RCHRES 4 1

PERLND 11 10.93 RCHRES 4 1

PERLND 12 0.19 RCHRES 4 1

PERLND 13 0.22 RCHRES 4 1

PERLND 15 7.64 RCHRES 4 1

PERLND 17 1.74 RCHRES 4 1

IMPLND 1 1.64 RCHRES 4 2

IMPLND 2 1.85 RCHRES 4 2

*** Subbasin 5a to RCHRES 5 (356.37 ac)

PERLND 1 5.18 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 2 0.28 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 3 0.40 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 5 18.58 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 6 37.65 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 7 48.28 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 9 21.14 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 10 9.57 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 11 19.40 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 12 26.23 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 13 22.50 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 15 9.34 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 16 10.98 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 17 51.76 RCHRES 5 1

IMPLND 1 8.34 RCHRES 5 2

IMPLND 2 66.74 RCHRES 5 2
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

182 Appendix 5

*** Subbasin 5b to RCHRES 5 (51.37 ac)

PERLND 9 2.67 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 10 4.48 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 11 15.27 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 12 1.93 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 13 1.02 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 15 12.51 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 16 1.16 RCHRES 5 1

PERLND 17 4.87 RCHRES 5 1

IMPLND 1 6.71 RCHRES 5 2

IMPLND 2 0.75 RCHRES 5 2

*** Subbasin 6a to RCHRES 6 (437.52 ac)

PERLND 1 15.24 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 2 9.54 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 3 22.28 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 5 40.58 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 6 82.40 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 7 60.48 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 8 4.97 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 9 2.31 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 10 14.87 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 11 23.29 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 12 29.33 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 13 22.03 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 15 19.24 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 16 5.61 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 17 35.27 RCHRES 6 1

IMPLND 1 12.11 RCHRES 6 2

IMPLND 2 37.97 RCHRES 6 2

*** Subbasin 6b to RCHRES 6 (119.67 ac)

PERLND 1 4.32 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 2 8.65 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 3 15.18 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 9 4.16 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 10 3.24 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 11 18.36 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 12 5.39 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 13 3.99 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 15 9.89 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 16 8.45 RCHRES 6 1

PERLND 17 18.96 RCHRES 6 1

IMPLND 1 7.80 RCHRES 6 2

IMPLND 2 11.28 RCHRES 6 2

  Ruckriegel Parkway (Upper Gage) at outflow RCHRES 6---------------------

** * Subbasin 7 to RCHRES 7 (10.45 ac)

PERLND 1 0.65 RCHRES 7 1

PERLND 2 2.76 RCHRES 7 1

PERLND 3 0.86 RCHRES 7 1

PERLND 9 0.35 RCHRES 7 1

PERLND 10 0.68 RCHRES 7 1

PERLND 11 0.93 RCHRES 7 1

PERLND 13 0.16 RCHRES 7 1

PERLND 14 0.03 RCHRES 7 1

PERLND 15 2.58 RCHRES 7 1

PERLND 16 0.25 RCHRES 7 1

IMPLND 1 1.20 RCHRES 7 2

*** Subbasin 8a to RCHRES 8 (253.07 ac)

PERLND 1 5.12 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 2 28.42 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 3 17.79 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 4 6.62 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 9 6.81 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 10 3.68 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 11 11.45 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 12 9.07 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 13 5.88 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 14 3.95 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 15 8.72 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 16 6.64 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 17 6.83 RCHRES 8 1
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

IMPLND 1 4.51 RCHRES 8 2

IMPLND 2 9.76 RCHRES 8 2

*** Subbasin 8a to Pond RCHRES V22

PERLND 1 7.20 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 2 7.17 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 3 28.11 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 4 0.26 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 9 2.62 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 10 7.00 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 11 1.72 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 12 22.49 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 13 12.08 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 14 0.19 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 15 3.94 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 16 9.25 RCHRES 22 1

PERLND 17 6.66 RCHRES 22 1

IMPLND 1 2.89 RCHRES 22 2

IMPLND 2 6.24 RCHRES 22 2

*** Subbasin 8b to RCHRES 8 (325.43 ac)

PERLND 1 11.42 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 2 10.98 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 3 17.12 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 4 0.91 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 9 8.19 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 10 20.53 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 11 28.78 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 12 30.41 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 13 10.02 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 14 2.00 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 15 54.74 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 16 45.72 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 17 27.26 RCHRES 8 1

IMPLND 1 44.47 RCHRES 8 2

IMPLND 2 12.88 RCHRES 8 2

*** Subbasin 8c to RCHRES 8 (116.57 ac)

PERLND 5 4.04 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 6 3.57 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 7 0.38 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 9 18.81 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 10 4.44 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 11 42.10 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 12 5.63 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 13 6.04 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 14 3.64 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 15 13.94 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 16 6.96 RCHRES 8 1

PERLND 17 1.06 RCHRES 8 1

IMPLND 1 5.96 RCHRES 8 2

*** Subbasin 9a to RCHRES 9 (969.95 ac)

PERLND 1 0.63 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 2 0.69 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 3 9.28 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 5 11.17 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 6 42.87 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 7 0.32 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 8 3.79 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 10 50.22 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 11 203.90 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 12 234.84 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 13 93.18 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 14 8.60 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 15 21.74 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 16 31.22 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 17 1.83 RCHRES 9 1

IMPLND 1 16.92 RCHRES 9 2

IMPLND 2 0.22 RCHRES 9 2
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

184 Appendix 5

*** Subbasin 9a to Pond RCHRES V21

PERLND 2 0.19 RCHRES 21 1

PERLND 3 3.81 RCHRES 21 1

PERLND 5 0.01 RCHRES 21 1

PERLND 9 4.24 RCHRES 21 1

PERLND 10 15.57 RCHRES 21 1

PERLND 11 27.50 RCHRES 21 1

PERLND 12 105.16 RCHRES 21 1

PERLND 13 29.30 RCHRES 21 1

PERLND 15 4.77 RCHRES 21 1

PERLND 16 33.21 RCHRES 21 1

PERLND 17 0.93 RCHRES 21 1

IMPLND 1 13.84 RCHRES 21 2

*** Subbasin 9b to RCHRES 9 (699.96 ac)

 (Saratoga Woods in this subbasin)

PERLND 5 3.21 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 6 14.67 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 8 9.86 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 9 35.19 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 10 33.21 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 11 115.95 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 12 14.40 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 13 3.17 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 14 73.65 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 15 154.06 RCHRES 9 1

PERLND 16 23.23 RCHRES 9 1

IMPLND 1 36.67 RCHRES 9 2

*** Subbasin 9b to Pond RCHRES V20

PERLND 3 0.32 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 5 2.93 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 6 13.06 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 8 2.75 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 9 66.66 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 10 20.97 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 11 35.70 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 12 14.62 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 13 0.70 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 14 4.59 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 15 13.10 RCHRES 20 1

PERLND 16 3.38 RCHRES 20 1

IMPLND 1 3.91 RCHRES 20 2

*** Subbasin 10a to Pond RCHRES V19 (702.90 ac)

PERLND 5 17.00 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 6 27.32 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 7 19.01 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 8 7.15 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 10 61.99 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 11 147.16 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 12 49.16 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 13 37.41 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 14 18.30 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 15 144.14 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 16 110.43 RCHRES 19 1

PERLND 17 37.50 RCHRES 19 1

IMPLND 1 26.33 RCHRES 19 2

*** Subbasin 10b to RCHRES 10 (803.15 ac)

PERLND 1 1.23 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 2 14.32 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 3 0.08 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 4 22.12 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 5 4.29 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 6 25.92 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 7 0.88 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 8 33.88 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 9 2.29 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 10 7.95 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 11 26.00 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 12 4.38 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 13 3.74 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 14 46.72 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 15 19.79 RCHRES 10 1

PERLND 16 15.86 RCHRES 10 1

IMPLND 1 7.23 RCHRES 10 2
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

*** Subbasin 10b to Pond RCHRES V18

PERLND 1 21.31 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 2 36.56 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 3 50.50 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 4 5.61 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 5 6.05 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 6 36.19 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 7 43.73 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 8 14.45 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 9 112.20 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 10 25.07 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 11 68.31 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 12 18.67 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 13 10.56 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 14 22.49 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 15 53.35 RCHRES 18 1

PERLND 16 17.20 RCHRES 18 1

IMPLND 1 24.22 RCHRES 18 2

*** Gelhaus Lane (Lower Gage) at exit to RCHRES 10-----------------------------

*** Subbasin 11 to RCHRES 11 (756.41 ac)

PERLND 1 27.31 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 2 91.05 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 3 82.08 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 4 12.82 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 5 3.45 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 6 49.82 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 7 14.45 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 8 58.63 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 9 17.44 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 10 11.04 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 11 60.82 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 12 32.72 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 13 12.81 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 14 41.58 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 15 17.86 RCHRES 11 1

PERLND 16 17.07 RCHRES 11 1

IMPLND 1 9.77 RCHRES 11 2

 *** Subbasin 11 to Pond RCHRES V17

PERLND 1 5.29 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 2 17.93 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 3 33.37 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 5 2.15 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 6 12.77 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 8 11.95 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 9 2.84 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 10 13.59 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 11 40.01 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 12 15.55 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 13 2.47 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 14 13.75 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 15 13.18 RCHRES 17 1

PERLND 16 6.74 RCHRES 17 1

IMPLND 1 4.10 RCHRES 17 2

*** Subbasin 12 to RCHRES 12 (284.78 ac)

PERLND 1 1.70 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 2 46.47 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 3 23.29 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 4 42.30 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 5 0.19 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 6 0.14 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 8 0.19 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 9 1.02 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 10 2.17 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 11 20.00 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 12 0.55 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 13 1.63 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 14 31.67 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 15 6.14 RCHRES 12 1

PERLND 16 5.66 RCHRES 12 1

IMPLND 1 5.36 RCHRES 12 2
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

186 Appendix 5

*** Subbasin 12 to Pond RCHRES V16

PERLND 1 0.31 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 2 0.66 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 3 0.02 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 4 2.40 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 5 2.74 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 6 3.55 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 7 0.06 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 8 3.31 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 9 2.64 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 10 2.57 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 11 14.70 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 12 5.44 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 13 2.19 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 14 18.72 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 15 3.48 RCHRES 16 1

PERLND 16 3.72 RCHRES 16 1

IMPLND 1 2.30 RCHRES 16 2

*** Subbasin 13 to RCHRES 13 (1,401.30ac)

PERLND 1 34.70 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 2 97.30 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 3 38.38 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 4 72.98 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 5 82.05 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 6 335.34 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 7 1.83 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 8 102.39 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 9 4.34 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 10 31.63 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 11 84.09 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 12 6.28 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 13 1.04 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 14 11.41 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 15 30.84 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 16 5.29 RCHRES 13 1

PERLND 17 0.22 RCHRES 13 1

IMPLND 1 32.85 RCHRES 13 2

*** Subbasin 13 to Pond RCHRES V15

PERLND 1 16.20 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 2 35.74 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 3 21.63 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 4 6.91 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 5 7.69 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 6 20.76 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 8 0.01 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 10 77.56 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 11 174.75 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 12 20.40 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 13 2.95 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 14 1.42 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 15 30.07 RCHRES 15 1

PERLND 16 5.04 RCHRES 15 1

IMPLND 1 7.21 RCHRES 15 2

*** Subbasin 14 to RCHRES 14 (837.85 ac)

PERLND 1 34.12 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 2 138.32 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 3 54.74 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 4 127.54 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 5 15.21 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 6 217.48 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 7 7.70 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 8 176.23 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 10 1.47 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 11 9.41 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 12 15.91 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 13 9.25 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 14 5.39 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 15 9.04 RCHRES 14 1

PERLND 16 7.85 RCHRES 14 1

IMPLND 1 8.19 RCHRES 14 2
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

*** -----------------------------------------------------------

*** channel linkages

RCHRES 23 1.00 RCHRES 1 4

RCHRES 1 1.00 RCHRES 2 4

RCHRES 2 1.00 RCHRES 4 4

RCHRES 3 1.00 RCHRES 4 4

RCHRES 4 1.00 RCHRES 5 5

RCHRES 5 1.00 RCHRES 6 5

RCHRES 6 1.00 RCHRES 7 5

RCHRES 7 1.00 RCHRES 8 5

RCHRES 22 1.00 RCHRES 8 4

RCHRES 8 1.00 RCHRES 9 5

RCHRES 21 1.00 RCHRES 9 4

RCHRES 20 1.00 RCHRES 9 4

RCHRES 9 1.00 RCHRES 10 5

RCHRES 19 1.00 RCHRES 10 4

RCHRES 18 1.00 RCHRES 10 4

RCHRES 10 1.00 RCHRES 12 5

RCHRES 17 1.00 RCHRES 11 4

RCHRES 16 1.00 RCHRES 12 4

RCHRES 11 1.00 RCHRES 12 4

RCHRES 12 1.00 RCHRES 14 5

RCHRES 15 1.00 RCHRES 13 4

RCHRES 13 1.00 RCHRES 14 4

*** ==========================================================

*** Copy operations for use with HSPEXP

*** -----------------------------------------------------------

  Mfact is CUMULATIVE contributing area to:

** * Upper gage at Ruckriegel Parkway

**** Area (ac)

PERLND 1 76.36 COPY 100 90

PERLND 2 19.66 COPY 100 90

PERLND 3 49.30 COPY 100 90

PERLND 4 5.28 COPY 100 90

PERLND 5 79.35 COPY 100 90

PERLND 6 126.31 COPY 100 90

PERLND 7 163.95 COPY 100 90

PERLND 8 20.87 COPY 100 90

PERLND 9 173.82 COPY 100 90

PERLND 10 200.78 COPY 100 90

PERLND 11 124.43 COPY 100 90

PERLND 12 217.21 COPY 100 90

PERLND 13 159.06 COPY 100 90

PERLND 14 54.92 COPY 100 90

PERLND 15 366.60 COPY 100 90

PERLND 16 422.56 COPY 100 90

PERLND 17 464.51 COPY 100 90

IMPLND 1 236.96 COPY 100 91

IMPLND 2 483.21 COPY 100 91

*** -------

*** total 3445.14

*** -----------------------------------------------------------

*** Lower Gage at Gelhaus Lane

PERLND 1 123.92 COPY 101 90

PERLND 2 120.75 COPY 101 90

PERLND 3 177.17 COPY 101 90

PERLND 4 40.80 COPY 101 90

PERLND 5 128.05 COPY 101 90

PERLND 6 289.91 COPY 101 90

PERLND 7 228.27 COPY 101 90

PERLND 8 92.75 COPY 101 90

PERLND 9 431.18 COPY 101 90

PERLND 10 452.09 COPY 101 90

PERLND 11 833.93 COPY 101 90

PERLND 12 726.04 COPY 101 90

PERLND 13 371.30 COPY 101 90

PERLND 14 239.08 COPY 101 90

PERLND 15 861.47 COPY 101 90

PERLND 16 725.91 COPY 101 90

PERLND 17 546.58 COPY 101 90
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

188 Appendix 5

IMPLND 1 425.11 COPY 101 91

IMPLND 2 512.31 COPY 101 91

*** -------

*** total 7326.62

*** --------------------------------------------------------

*** DS at Seatonville Rd - Mouth

  Area (ac)

PERLND 1 243.55 COPY 102 90

PERLND 2 548.22 COPY 102 90

PERLND 3 430.68 COPY 102 90

PERLND 4 305.75 COPY 102 90

PERLND 5 241.53 COPY 102 90

PERLND 6 929.77 COPY 102 90

PERLND 7 252.31 COPY 102 90

PERLND 8 445.46 COPY 102 90

PERLND 9 459.46 COPY 102 90

PERLND 10 592.12 COPY 102 90

PERLND 11 1237.71 COPY 102 90

PERLND 12 822.89 COPY 102 90

PERLND 13 403.64 COPY 102 90

PERLND 14 363.02 COPY 102 90

PERLND 15 972.08 COPY 102 90

PERLND 16 777.28 COPY 102 90

PERLND 17 546.80 COPY 102 90

IMPLND 1 494.89 COPY 102 91

IMPLND 2 512.31 COPY 102 91

** * -------

*** total 10579.47

***

***

*** ----------------------------------------------------------

*** "GW seepage" between Ruckriegel and Gelhaus gages

RCHRES 8 1.00 COPY 105 95

RCHRES 9 1.00 COPY 105 95

RCHRES 10 1.00 COPY 105 95

*** GENER adds sus. and diss. PO4

RCHRES 6 1.00 GENER 1 97

RCHRES 10 1.00 GENER 2 97

RCHRES 8 1.00 GENER 3 97

RCHRES 14 1.00 GENER 4 97

  Copy operation to check avg soil temps by land use type

** * the MFACT is the percent of PERLND area in each Land use class

PERLND 1 0.16 COPY 106 96

PERLND 2 0.36 COPY 106 96

PERLND 3 0.28 COPY 106 96

PERLND 4 0.20 COPY 106 96

PERLND 5 0.13 COPY 107 96

PERLND 6 0.50 COPY 107 96

PERLND 7 0.13 COPY 107 96

PERLND 8 0.24 COPY 107 96

PERLND 9 0.14 COPY 108 96

PERLND 10 0.15 COPY 108 96

PERLND 11 0.31 COPY 108 96

PERLND 12 0.21 COPY 108 96

PERLND 13 0.10 COPY 108 96

PERLND 14 0.09 COPY 108 96

PERLND 15 0.42 COPY 109 96

PERLND 16 0.34 COPY 109 96

PERLND 17 0.24 COPY 109 96

END SCHEMATIC
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

*******************************************************************************

*** MASS-LINK Block 4.6.4 page 574 ***

*** Specific TS transferred between operations ***

*******************************************************************************

*** MFACT 0.08333333 = 1/12 ft/in (convert runoff in inches to ac-ft for routing

MASS-LINK

*** PERLND's route water & QW from pervious areas to channels ----------------

 MASS-LINK 1

<-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> ***

<Name> <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> <Name> # # ***

PERLND PWATER PERO 0.08333333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL

 *** MFACT is the proportion of sand, silt, and clay

PERLND SEDMNT SOSED 0.02 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 1

PERLND SEDMNT SOSED 0.38 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 2

PERLND SEDMNT SOSED 0.60 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 3

 *** PO4 simulated as Agrchem

PERLND*** PHOS TSP4S 1 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF1 4

PERLND*** PHOS TSP4S 5 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF1 4

PERLND*** PHOS SSP4S 3 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF1 4

PERLND*** PHOS SEDP 2 0.01 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 1 2

PERLND*** PHOS SEDP 2 0.20 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 2 2

PERLND*** PHOS SEDP 2 0.79 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 3 2

 *** PO4 simulated as PQUAL

PERLND PQUAL SOQO 1 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF1 4

PERLND PQUAL SOQS 1 0.01 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 1 2

PERLND PQUAL SOQS 1 0.20 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 2 2

PERLND PQUAL SOQS 1 0.79 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 3 2

 END MASS-LINK 1

*** IMPLND's - route water & QW from impervious areas to channels ------------

 MASS-LINK 2

<Srce> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Targ> <-Grp> <-Member-> ***

<Name> <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> <Name> # # ***

IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.08333333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL

*** MFACT is the proportion of sand, silt, and clay

IMPLND SOLIDS SOSLD 0.02 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 1

IMPLND SOLIDS SOSLD 0.38 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 2

IMPLND SOLIDS SOSLD 0.60 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 3

*** sus. PO4 is porportioned: 1% on sand, 20% on silt, & 79% on clay

IMPLND IQUAL SOQO 1 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF1 4

IMPLND IQUAL SOQS 1 0.01 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 1 2

IMPLND IQUAL SOQS 1 0.20 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 2 2

IMPLND IQUAL SOQS 1 0.79 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 3 2

 END MASS-LINK 2

*** RCHRES - route water & QW from channel to channel with 1 outflow gate ----

 MASS-LINK 4

<Srce> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Targ> <-Grp> <-Member-> ***

<Name> <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> <Name> # # ***

RCHRES ROFLOW 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW

 *** NOTE: the above mass-link is equivalent to what follows since group

 *** members are not specified all active members are targeted

RCHRES*** ROFLOW ROVOL 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL

 *** (1st mem# 1-sand, 2-silt, 3-clay, 4-total; 2nd mem#. 2- PO4)

RCHRES*** SEDTRN ROSED 1 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 1

RCHRES*** SEDTRN ROSED 2 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 2

RCHRES*** SEDTRN ROSED 3 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 3

 ***(NUCF1 -diss 4-PO4;NUCF2 particulate 1-sand,2-silt,3-clay, 2nd mem# 2-PO4)

RCHRES*** NUTRX NUCF1 4 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF1 4

RCHRES*** NUTRX NUCF2 1 2 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 1 2

RCHRES*** NUTRX NUCF2 2 2 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 2 2

RCHRES*** NUTRX NUCF2 3 2 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 3 2

 END MASS-LINK 4
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

190 Appendix 5

*** RCHRES's - route water & QW from channel to channel with 2 outflow gates --

 MASS-LINK 5

<Srce> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Targ> <-Grp> <-Member-> ***

<Name> <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> <Name> # # ***

RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL

 *** 2nd outflow gate - main flow

 *** route sus. sediments downstream )

RCHRES SEDTRN OSED 2 1 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 1

RCHRES SEDTRN OSED 2 2 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 2

RCHRES SEDTRN OSED 2 3 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 3

 *** route diss. and sus. PO4 downstream

RCHRES NUTRX NUCF9 2 4 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF1 4

RCHRES NUTRX OSPO4 2 1 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 1 2

RCHRES NUTRX OSPO4 2 2 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 2 2

RCHRES NUTRX OSPO4 2 3 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 3 2

 *** 1st outflow gate - "GW seepage"

 *** route sus. sediments downstream

RCHRES SEDTRN OSED 1 1 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 1

RCHRES SEDTRN OSED 1 2 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 2

RCHRES SEDTRN OSED 1 3 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW ISED 3

 *** route sus. PO4 downstream but not diss. PO4

RCHRES NUTRX OSPO4 1 1 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 1 2

RCHRES NUTRX OSPO4 1 2 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 2 2

RCHRES NUTRX OSPO4 1 3 1.0 RCHRES INFLOW NUIF2 3 2

 END MASS-LINK 5

*** MASS-LINK for COPY operations for HSPEXP ---------------------------------

<Srce> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Targ> <-Grp> <-Member-> ***

<Name> <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> <Name> # # ***

 MASS-LINK 90

PERLND PWATER SURO COPY INPUT MEAN 1

PERLND PWATER IFWO COPY INPUT MEAN 2

PERLND PWATER AGWO COPY INPUT MEAN 3

PERLND PWATER PET COPY INPUT MEAN 4

PERLND PWATER TAET COPY INPUT MEAN 5

PERLND PWATER UZS COPY INPUT MEAN 6

PERLND PWATER LZS COPY INPUT MEAN 7

 END MASS-LINK 90

 MASS-LINK 91

IMPLND IWATER SURO COPY INPUT MEAN 1

IMPLND IWATER PET COPY INPUT MEAN 4

IMPLND IWATER IMPEV COPY INPUT MEAN 5

 END MASS-LINK 91

*** MASS LINK for other COPY operations --------------------------------------

*** Acummulate Channel loss to GW seepage to WDM file

*** NOTE GW Seepage loss is not routed to any other part of the watershed

 MASS-LINK 95

RCHRES HYDR O 1 COPY INPUT MEAN 1

 END MASS-LINK 95

*** Soil temp. and sediment from PERLND's

 MASS-LINK 96

PERLND PSTEMP SLTMP COPY INPUT MEAN 1

PERLND PSTEMP ULTMP COPY INPUT MEAN 2

PERLND PSTEMP LGTMP COPY INPUT MEAN 3

PERLND SEDMNT SOSED COPY INPUT MEAN 4

PERLND SEDMNT DETS COPY INPUT MEAN 5

 END MASS-LINK 96

*** Mass-link for GENER operation to calc total PO4 load -------------------

 MASS-LINK 97

RCHRES NUTRX NUCF9 2 4 GENER INPUT ONE

RCHRES NUTRX NUCF2 4 2 GENER INPUT TWO

 END MASS-LINK 97

END MASS-LINK
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

********************************************************************************

*** FTABLES Block 4.5 page 565 ***

*** Describes functional relation between area-storage-discharge ***

********************************************************************************

FTABLES

 FTABLE 11

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 14) Chenoweth #11

 20 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (CFS) ***

 494.800 0.000 0.000 0.00

 495.000 0.882 0.305 2.00

 495.500 3.086 1.068 7.00

 496.000 7.646 3.152 24.00

 496.500 9.457 5.567 54.00

 497.000 10.661 8.499 97.00

 497.500 11.526 11.609 154.00

 498.000 13.358 15.446 223.00

 498.500 14.790 17.936 268.00

 499.000 15.852 20.643 324.00

 499.500 19.937 27.755 462.00

 500.000 25.428 38.696 698.00

 500.500 31.935 57.742 1132.00

 501.000 41.677 78.785 1588.00

 501.500 54.226 111.002 2301.00

 502.000 62.733 146.911 3135.00

 502.500 69.885 186.059 4134.00

 503.000 75.604 228.889 5318.00

 504.000 85.176 322.198 8206.00

 505.000 91.923 423.101 11796.00

 END FTABLE 11

 FTABLE 12

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 13) Shinks Branch #12

 16 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 530.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 530.100 0.476 0.100 1.00

 530.600 3.846 1.785 27.00

 531.100 5.868 5.246 114.00

 531.600 9.260 10.194 256.00

 532.100 14.240 15.703 418.00

 532.600 18.830 27.779 804.00

 533.100 24.827 43.473 1347.00

 533.600 29.038 61.919 2032.00

 534.100 34.437 83.052 2859.00

 534.600 38.468 106.240 3830.00

 535.100 41.025 130.123 4931.00

 535.600 42.768 154.281 6158.00

 536.100 44.081 179.091 7534.00

 536.600 45.626 204.657 9034.00

 537.100 46.673 230.240 10651.00

 END FTABLE 12

 FTABLE 13

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 12) Chenoweth #13

 20 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (CFS) ***

 524.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 524.200 0.672 0.338 7.20

 524.500 1.679 0.846 18.00

 525.000 2.491 2.101 64.00

 525.500 2.849 3.445 132.00

 526.000 3.448 4.997 220.00

 526.500 4.391 6.808 325.00

 527.000 5.556 9.078 448.00

 527.500 6.636 11.508 588.00

 528.000 7.953 14.771 797.00

 528.500 9.515 18.558 1038.00

 529.000 11.403 24.020 1390.00

 529.500 13.584 31.265 1862.00

 530.000 15.530 40.031 2416.00

 530.500 17.200 49.596 3070.00

 531.000 18.858 59.783 3811.00

 531.500 19.949 69.721 4627.00

 532.500 21.503 90.044 6495.00

 533.500 22.637 111.139 8671.00

 534.500 23.802 130.456 10787.00

 END FTABLE 13
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

192 Appendix 5

 FTABLE 14

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 11) Razor Branch #14

 15 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 536.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 536.200 1.842 0.689 12.00

 536.700 4.163 3.716 102.00

 537.200 6.321 7.950 254.00

 537.700 8.460 13.017 461.00

 538.200 10.931 19.071 718.00

 538.700 14.808 32.868 1342.00

 539.200 16.934 43.068 1860.00

 539.700 18.795 53.838 2450.00

 540.200 20.324 63.911 3040.00

 540.700 21.574 73.570 3642.00

 541.200 22.780 84.814 4380.00

 541.700 23.970 96.668 5198.00

 542.200 25.343 110.215 6169.00

 542.700 26.712 127.164 7458.00

 END FTABLE 14

 FTABLE 21

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 10) Chenoweth #21

 20 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (CFS) ***

 536.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 536.100 0.757 0.046 0.60

 536.500 0.787 0.228 3.00

 537.000 2.862 1.326 24.00

 537.500 4.599 3.335 81.00

 538.000 5.739 5.846 172.00

 538.500 7.501 9.244 306.00

 539.000 10.143 13.677 486.00

 539.500 12.762 19.057 714.00

 540.000 15.064 25.044 989.00

 540.500 17.737 32.260 1313.00

 541.000 20.690 42.531 1784.00

 541.500 23.445 53.823 2328.00

 542.000 25.426 65.646 2964.00

 542.500 28.206 79.423 3699.00

 543.000 30.145 93.722 4539.00

 543.500 32.067 108.791 5466.00

 544.000 34.085 125.233 6509.00

 545.000 37.268 160.216 8938.00

 545.500 39.377 179.196 10290.00

 END FTABLE 21

 FTABLE 23

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 9) Chenoweth #23

 20 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (CFS) ***

 560.100 0.000 0.000 0.00

 560.200 0.260 0.087 0.75

 560.500 1.039 0.351 3.00

 561.000 4.729 2.518 28.00

 561.500 7.136 5.688 84.00

 562.000 8.851 10.027 182.00

 562.500 10.955 15.441 321.00

 563.000 17.026 23.290 494.00

 563.500 23.454 31.320 657.00

 564.000 27.448 41.245 887.00

 564.500 32.216 55.357 1223.00

 565.000 36.995 74.639 1724.00

 565.500 44.557 98.209 2344.00

 566.000 47.789 123.228 3097.00

 566.500 50.803 151.146 4001.00

 567.000 53.674 180.548 5018.00

 567.500 56.234 210.879 6141.00

 568.000 58.477 241.964 7368.00

 568.500 60.379 273.623 8699.00

 569.000 62.134 305.930 10126.00

 END FTABLE 23
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

 FTABLE 25

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 8) Chenoweth #25

 20 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (CFS) ***

 580.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 580.100 0.470 0.118 4.60

 580.500 1.176 0.592 23.00

 581.000 1.890 1.575 80.00

 581.500 2.617 2.858 171.00

 582.000 3.430 4.300 290.00

 582.500 4.226 6.143 441.00

 583.000 5.534 8.237 619.00

 583.500 6.723 10.676 821.00

 584.000 8.200 13.914 1068.00

 584.500 9.444 17.178 1329.00

 585.000 10.308 20.643 1635.00

 585.500 11.103 24.489 1993.00

 586.000 11.813 28.702 2405.00

 586.500 12.399 33.300 2890.00

 587.000 12.911 38.152 3431.00

 588.000 13.957 48.431 4653.00

 589.000 15.256 60.102 6129.00

 590.000 16.156 72.122 7818.00

 591.000 16.915 85.784 9915.00

 END FTABLE 25

 FTABLE 28

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 7) Chenoweth #28

 20 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (cfs) ***

 590.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 590.100 0.049 0.022 2.00

 590.500 0.245 0.109 10.00

 591.000 0.408 0.321 43.00

 591.500 0.503 0.565 95.00

 592.000 0.607 0.849 163.00

 592.500 0.705 1.172 249.00

 593.000 0.923 1.629 367.00

 593.500 1.089 2.120 499.00

 594.000 1.366 2.693 644.00

 594.500 1.704 3.439 820.00

 595.000 1.895 4.311 1045.00

 595.500 2.060 5.239 1300.00

 596.000 2.242 6.205 1575.00

 597.000 2.807 8.518 2216.00

 598.000 3.317 11.541 3117.00

 599.000 3.830 15.165 4283.00

 600.000 4.155 19.386 5823.00

 601.000 4.535 24.057 7633.00

 601.500 4.668 26.435 8637.00

 END FTABLE 28

 FTABLE 31

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 6) Chenoweth #31

 20 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (cfs) ***

 594.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 594.100 0.252 0.103 2.30

 594.300 0.758 0.309 7.00

 594.800 1.291 1.007 35.00

 595.300 1.668 1.893 83.00

 595.800 2.089 2.966 148.00

 596.300 2.590 4.502 246.00

 596.800 3.268 6.168 359.00

 597.300 3.706 7.984 488.00

 597.800 4.352 10.223 637.00

 598.300 4.861 12.585 809.00

 598.800 5.226 14.960 1001.00

 599.300 6.087 17.795 1215.00

 599.800 6.929 20.941 1453.00

 600.800 8.367 27.093 1924.00

 601.800 10.428 37.890 2775.00

 602.800 13.234 52.416 3947.00

 603.800 16.268 69.791 5399.00

 604.800 18.627 89.211 7168.00

 605.300 19.920 100.090 8174.00

 END FTABLE 31
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

194 Appendix 5

 FTABLE 33

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 5) Chenoweth #33

 20 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (cfs) ***

 600.400 0.000 0.000 0.00

 600.500 0.047 0.008 0.20

 601.000 0.428 0.174 8.00

 601.500 0.580 0.425 28.00

 602.000 0.742 0.776 63.00

 602.500 0.881 1.169 110.00

 603.000 0.971 1.618 172.00

 603.500 1.092 2.139 252.00

 604.000 1.225 2.733 348.00

 604.500 1.356 3.335 453.00

 605.000 1.543 4.069 583.00

 605.500 1.798 5.036 759.00

 606.000 2.113 6.313 996.00

 606.500 2.378 7.786 1286.00

 607.000 2.662 9.427 1625.00

 607.500 3.097 11.335 2007.00

 608.000 3.652 13.696 2431.00

 609.000 5.044 19.285 3405.00

 610.000 6.516 25.069 4514.00

 611.000 7.237 31.308 5836.00

 END FTABLE 33

 FTABLE 35

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 4) Chenoweth #35

 17 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) (cfs) ***

 606.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 606.100 0.180 0.094 2.80

 606.500 0.899 0.447 14.00

 607.000 1.770 1.278 50.00

 607.500 2.411 2.394 108.00

 608.000 3.621 4.445 212.00

 608.500 4.717 6.633 334.00

 609.000 5.967 9.558 515.00

 609.500 7.380 13.425 761.00

 610.000 8.320 17.664 1070.00

 610.500 9.289 22.079 1407.00

 611.000 10.300 28.159 1917.00

 611.500 11.731 35.628 2568.00

 612.000 13.291 44.612 3393.00

 612.500 15.196 55.254 4384.00

 613.000 17.880 67.897 5512.00

 613.500 19.174 79.386 6754.00

 614.000 20.283 91.101 8083.00

 END FTABLE 35

 FTABLE 36

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 3) Reach #36

 8 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 710.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 710.100 1.346 0.306 2.00

 710.600 6.523 5.049 60.00

 711.100 13.634 14.289 193.00

 711.600 20.460 27.132 389.00

 712.100 26.299 43.038 659.00

 712.600 39.327 86.551 1473.00

 713.100 45.407 120.847 2243.00

 END FTABLE 36
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

 FTABLE 37

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 2) Chenoweth #37

 21 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 624.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 624.200 0.400 0.144 2.00

 624.700 1.480 1.148 23.00

 625.200 2.171 2.493 62.00

 625.700 3.095 4.433 129.00

 626.200 5.232 7.152 216.00

 626.700 6.537 10.490 330.00

 627.200 7.501 14.295 472.00

 627.700 8.658 18.672 642.00

 628.200 9.991 23.752 846.00

 628.700 11.563 29.673 1086.00

 629.200 12.386 35.689 1361.00

 629.700 13.315 41.884 1652.00

 630.200 14.483 48.921 1988.00

 630.700 16.177 56.548 2350.00

 631.200 17.882 65.027 2750.00

 631.700 19.156 73.876 3186.00

 632.200 21.130 84.260 3686.00

 632.700 22.822 95.385 4245.00

 633.200 24.440 107.074 4846.00

 633.700 25.981 119.123 5480.00

 END FTABLE 37

 FTABLE 39

 ROWS COLS *** (RCHRES 1) Chenoweth #39

 22 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 643.900 0.000 0.000 0.00

 644.300 0.569 0.201 4.00

 644.800 1.458 0.806 22.00

 645.300 2.203 1.631 54.00

 645.800 2.970 2.688 102.00

 646.300 3.654 4.036 179.00

 646.800 4.741 5.785 276.00

 647.300 6.144 8.139 397.00

 647.800 7.460 10.806 537.00

 648.300 8.671 13.525 698.00

 648.800 9.540 16.383 880.00

 649.300 10.669 21.221 1210.00

 649.800 11.412 24.845 1469.00

 650.300 12.238 28.774 1758.00

 650.800 13.165 33.039 2079.00

 651.300 14.440 37.732 2430.00

 651.800 14.998 42.453 2814.00

 652.300 15.534 47.373 3229.00

 652.800 16.208 52.696 3680.00

 653.300 16.962 58.315 4166.00

 653.800 17.695 64.346 4707.00

 654.300 18.580 70.239 5231.00

 END FTABLE 39

*** NOTE: Pond RCHRES used when drainage area to ponds is >10% of the subbasin

 FTABLE 112

 ROWS COLS *** (Pond RCHRES 15, Subbasin 13, fig. 28) Chenoweth V12

 8 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 8.000 41.900 124.000 0.01

 10.000 44.300 172.000 0.02

 12.000 47.110 226.000 0.03

 13.000 48.100 251.000 250.00

 14.000 49.500 283.000 750.00

 15.000 50.400 310.000 1500.00

 16.000 51.800 339.000 3000.00

 END FTABLE112
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

196 Appendix 5

 FTABLE 113

 ROWS COLS *** (Pond RCHRES 16, Subbasin 12) Chenoweth V13

 9 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 8.000 3.400 10.100 0.01

 10.000 3.600 14.000 0.02

 12.000 3.800 18.400 0.03

 12.500 3.850 19.400 35.00

 13.000 3.900 20.400 75.00

 14.000 4.000 23.000 200.00

 15.000 4.100 25.200 400.00

 16.000 4.200 27.600 800.00

 END FTABLE113

 FTABLE 114

 ROWS COLS *** (Pond RCHRES 17, Subbasin 11) Chenoweth V14

 8 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 8.000 8.100 24.000 0.01

 10.000 8.600 33.200 0.02

 12.000 9.100 43.700 0.03

 13.000 9.300 48.500 75.00

 14.000 9.600 54.600 200.00

 15.000 9.800 60.000 400.00

 16.000 10.000 65.600 800.00

 END FTABLE114

 FTABLE 121

 ROWS COLS *** (Pond RCHRES 18, Subbasin 10b) Chenoweth V21

 8 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 8.000 17.100 50.700 0.01

 10.000 18.100 70.000 0.02

 12.000 19.200 92.100 0.03

 13.000 19.600 102.000 250.00

 14.000 20.200 115.000 750.00

 15.000 20.500 126.000 1500.00

 16.000 21.100 138.000 3000.00

 END FTABLE121

 FTABLE 122

 ROWS COLS *** (Pond RCHRES 19, Subbasin 10a) Chenoweth V22

 8 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 8.000 6.000 17.800 0.01

 10.000 6.300 24.500 0.02

 12.000 6.700 32.300 0.03

 13.000 6.900 35.900 250.00

 14.000 7.100 40.400 750.00

 15.000 7.200 44.300 1500.00

 16.000 7.400 48.400 3000.00

 END FTABLE122

 FTABLE 123

 ROWS COLS *** (Pond RCHRES 20, Subbasin 9b) Chenoweth V23

 10 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 8.000 6.600 19.500 0.01

 10.000 6.900 27.000 0.02

 12.000 7.400 35.500 0.03

 12.500 7.450 37.500 35.00

 13.000 7.500 39.400 75.00

 14.000 7.800 44.400 200.00

 15.000 7.900 48.600 400.00

 16.000 8.100 53.200 800.00

 17.000 8.300 57.800 1600.00

 END FTABLE123
Appendix 5. Chenoweth Run Basin HSPF Model User Control Input (UCI) File—Continued

Appendix 

 FTABLE 124

 ROWS COLS *** (Pond RCHRES 21, Subbasin 9a) Chenoweth V24

 8 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 8.000 7.100 21.200 0.01

 10.000 7.500 29.300 0.02

 12.000 8.000 38.500 0.03

 13.000 8.200 42.700 75.00

 14.000 8.400 48.100 200.00

 15.000 8.600 52.700 400.00

 16.000 8.800 57.800 800.00

 END FTABLE124

 FTABLE 127

 ROWS COLS *** (Pond RCHRES 22, Subbasin 8a) Chenoweth V27

 8 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 8.000 1.600 4.600 0.01

 10.000 1.700 6.400 0.02

 12.000 1.760 8.400 0.03

 13.000 1.800 9.400 75.00

 14.000 1.850 10.600 200.00

 15.000 1.880 11.600 400.00

 16.000 1.940 12.700 800.00

 END FTABLE127

 FTABLE 141

 ROWS COLS *** (Pond RCHRES 23, Subbasin 1a) Chenoweth V41

 8 4

 DEPTH AREA VOLUME DISCH ***

 (FT) (ACRES) (AC-FT) (CFS) ***

 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00

 8.000 1.250 3.700 0.01

 10.000 1.320 5.110 0.02

 12.000 1.400 6.700 0.03

 13.000 1.430 7.500 75.00

 14.000 1.470 8.400 200.00

 15.000 1.500 9.200 400.00

 16.000 1.540 10.100 800.00

 END FTABLE141

END FTABLES

END RUN
Martin and others—HYDROLOGIC AND WATER-QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION AND MODELING OF THE CHENOWETH RUN BASIN,

JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY—U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4239U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY9818 BLUEGRASS PARKWAYLOUISVILLE, KY 40299–1906

Library Rate