Using Multiple Watershed Models to Predict Water, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus Discharges to the Patuxent Estuary

Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Volumn 49, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 15-39

  Boomer, Kathleen M B ^a   Weller, Donald E ^a   Jordan, Thomas E ^a   Linker, Lewis ^b   Liu, Zhi Jun ^c   Reilly, James ^d,f   Shenk, Gary ^b   Voinov, Alexey A ^e,g  

^a SMITHSONIAN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b Integrated Analysis Coordinator (Shenk)   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO   (United States)

^d Maryland Department of Planning   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^f Reilly now at Reilly Consulting   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Ensemble modeling; Hydrological modeling; Land use; Model average; Model comparison; Model performance; Model structure; Nonpoint source pollution; Simulation; Watershed management; Watersheds

Indexed keywords

HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; MODEL COMPARISON; MODEL PERFORMANCE; NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION; SIMULATION; WATERSHED MANAGEMENT;

FORECASTING; INPUT OUTPUT PROGRAMS; LAND USE; LANDFORMS; MODEL STRUCTURES; NITROGEN; PHOSPHORUS; SOIL CONSERVATION; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WATER CONSERVATION; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER POLLUTION; WATERSHEDS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION;

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; DATA SET; DECISION MAKING; DISCHARGE; FLOW MODELING; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; LAND USE CHANGE; NITROGEN; NUMERICAL MODEL; PHOSPHORUS; PREDICTION; RELIABILITY ANALYSIS; TIME SERIES; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WATER RESOURCE; WATERSHED;

CHESAPEAKE BAY; MARYLAND; PATUXENT ESTUARY; PATUXENT RIVER; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84873322661     PISSN: 1093474X     EISSN: 17521688     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00689.x     Document Type: Article

References (119)

1. Alexander, R.B., J.W. Brakebill, R.E. Brew, and R.A. Smith, 1999. Enhanced River Reach File 1.2 (ERF1). http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/erf1.xml, accessed July 2012.
2. Alexander, R.B., P.J. Johnes, E.W. Boyer, and R.A. Smith, 2002. A Comparison of Models for Estimating the Riverine Export of Nitrogen from Large Watersheds. Biogeochemistry57:295-339.
3. Beaulac, M.N. and K.H. Reckhow, 1982. An Examination of Land-Use - Nutrient Export Relationships. Water Resources Bulletin18:1013-1024.
4. Beven, K., 2007. Towards Integrated Environmental Models of Everywhere: Uncertainty, Data and Modelling as a Learning Process. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences11:460-467.
5. Beven, K. and J. Kirby, 1979. A Physically-Based, Variable Contributing Area Model of Basin Hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin24:43-69.
6. Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, A.S. Donigian, Jr., and R.C. Johanson, 2001. Hydrologic Simulation - Program FORTRAN (HSPF): User's Manual for Release 12. Aqua Terra Consultants, Mountain View, California.
7. Bloschl, G., 2006. Hydrologic Synthesis: Across Processes, Places, and Scales. Water Resources Research42:W03S02, doi: 10.1029/2005WR004319:1-3.
8. Boesch, D.F., 2002. Challenges and Opportunities for Science in Reducing Nutrient Over-Enrichment of Coastal Ecosystems. Estuaries25:886-900.
9. Boomer, K.B., D.E. Weller, and T.E. Jordan, 2008. Empirical Models Based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation Fail to Predict Sediment Discharges from Chesapeake Bay Catchments. Journal of Environmental Quality37:79-89.
10. Bormann, H., L. Breuer, T. Graff, and J.A. Huisman, 2007. Analysing the Effects of Soil Properties Changes Associated with Land Use Changes on the Simulated Water Balance: A Comparison of Three Hydrological Catchment Models for Scenario Analysis. Ecological Modelling209:29-40.
11. Bormann, H., L. Breuer, T. Graff, J.A. Huisman, and B. Croke, 2009. Assessing the Impact of Land Use Change on Hydrology by Ensemble Modelling (LUCHEM) IV: Model Sensitivity to Data Aggregation and Spatial (Re-)distribution. Advances in Water Resources32:171-192.
12. Brakebill, J.W. and S.D. Preston, 1999. Digital Data Used to Relate Nutrient Inputs to Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Version 1.0. Report USGS OFR 99-60, 10 pp., U.S. Geological Survey.
13. Brakebill, J.W. and S.D. Preston, 2003. A Hydrologic Network Supporting Spatially Referenced Regression Modeling in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment81: 73-84.
14. Brakebill, J.W. and S.D. Preston, 2004. Digital Data Used to Relate Nutrient Inputs to Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Version 3.0. Report USGS OFR 2004-1433, 15 pp., U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
15. Brakebill, J.W., S.D. Preston, and S.K. Martucci, 2001. Digital Data Used to Relate Nutrient Inputs to Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Version 2.0. Report USGS OFR 01-251, 17 pp., U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.
16. Brandt, S.B. and D.M. Mason, 2003. Effect of Nutrient Loading on Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) Growth Rate Potential in the Patuxent River. Estuaries26:298-309.
17. Breitburg, D.L., T.E. Jordan, and D. Lipton, 2003. Preface-From Ecology to Economics: Tracing Human Influence in the Patuxent River Estuary and Its Watershed. Estuaries26:167-170.
18. Breuer, L. and J.A. Huisman, 2009. Assessing the Impact of Land Use Change on Hydrology by Ensemble Modeling (LUCHEM). Advances in Water Resources32:127-128.
19. Breuer, L., J.A. Huisman, P. Willems, H. Bormann, A. Bronstert, B.F.W. Croke, H.G. Frede, T. Graff, L. Hubrechts, A.J. Jakeman, G. Kite, J. Lanini, G. Leavesley, D.P. Lettenmaier, G. Lindstrom, J. Seibert, M. Sivapalan, and N.R. Viney, 2009. Assessing the Impact of Land Use Change on Hydrology by Ensemble Modeling (LUCHEM). I: Model Intercomparison with Current Land Use. Advances in Water Resources32:129-146.
20. Cerco, C.F., 1995. Response of Chesapeake Bay to Nutrient Load Reductions. Journal of Environmental Engineering121:549-556.
21. Clark, J.S., 2007. Models for Ecological Data: An Introduction. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
22. Cohn, T.S., D.L. Caulder, E.J. Gilroy, L.D. Zynjuk, and R.M. Summers, 1992. The Validity of a Simple Log-Linear Model for Estimating Fluvial Constituent Loads: An Empirical Study Involving Nutrient Loads Entering Chesapeake Bay. Water Resources Research28:2353-2364.
23. Cohn, T.S., L.L. DeLong, E.J. Gilroy, R.M. Hirsch, and D.K. Wells, 1989. Estimating Constituent Loads. Water Resources Research25:937-942.
24. Costanza, R., A.A. Voinov, R. Boumans, T. Maxwell, F. Villa, L. Wainger, and H. Voinov, 2002. Integrated Ecological Economic Modeling of the Patuxent River Watershed, Maryland. Ecological Monographs72:203-231.
25. Crawford, N.H. and R.K. Linsley, 1966. Digital Simulation in Hydrology: Stanford Watershed Model IV. Report Technical Report No. 39, 210 pp., Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
26. Darrell, L.C.D., B.F. Majedi, J.S. Lizárraga, and J.D. Blomquist, 1998. Nutrient and Suspended-Sediment Concentrations, Trends, Loads, and Yields from the Nontidal Part of the Susquehanna, Potomac, Patuxent, and Choptank Rivers, 1985-96. Report USGS Water-Resources Report 98-4177, 38 pp., U.S. Geological Survey.
27. Dearing, J.A. and R.T. Jones, 2003. Coupling Temporal and Spatial Dimensions of Global Sediment Flux through Lake and Marine Sediment Records. Global and Planetary Change39:147-168.
28. Devereux, O.H., K.L. Prestegaard, B.A. Needelman, and A.C. Gellis, 2010. Suspended-Sediment Sources in an Urban Watershed, Northeast Branch Anacostia River, Maryland. Hydrological Processes24:1391-1403.
29. Dezetter, A., S. Girard, J.E. Paturel, G. Mahe, S. Ardoin-Bardin, and E. Servat, 2008. Simulation of Runoff in West Africa: Is There a Single Data-Model Combination that Produces the Best Simulation Results?Journal of Hydrology354:203-212.
30. Donigian, Jr, A.S., B.R. Bicknell, A.S. Patwardhan, L.C. Linker, C.H. Chang, and R. Reynolds, 1994. Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Application to Calculate Bay Nutrient Loadings - Final Facts and Recommendations. Modeling Subcommittee of the Chesapeake Bay Program Report CBP/TRS 57/96, EPA 903-R-94-042. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.
31. Duan, Q.Y., N.K. Ajami, X.G. Gao, and S. Sorooshian, 2007. Multi-Model Ensemble Hydrologic Prediction Using Bayesian Model Averaging. Advances in Water Resources30:1371-1386.
32. EPA-EMAP (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program), 1994. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Pilot Project, U.S. EPA-EMAP, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
33. Fox, G.A. and G.V. Wilson, 2010. The Role of Subsurface Flow in Hillslope and Stream Bank Erosion: A Review. Soil Science Society of America Journal74:717-733.
34. Friedrichs, M., C. Cerco, C. Friedrichs, R. Hood, D. Jasinski, W. Long, K. Sellner, and G. Shenk, 2011. Chesapeake Bay Hydrodynamic Modeling: A Workshop Report. STAC Publication 11-04. Chesapeake Research Consortium. Edgewater, Maryland.
35. Givens, G.H., 1999. Multicriterion Decision Merging: Competitive Development of an Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association94:1003-1014.
36. Glibert, P.M., C.A. Heil, J.M. O'Neil, W.C. Dennison, and M.J.H. O'Donohue, 2006. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Silica, and Carbon in Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia: Differential Limitation of Phytoplankton Biomass and Production. Estuaries and Coasts29:209-221.
37. Gneiting, T. and A.E. Raftery, 2005. Atmospheric Science - Weather Forecasting with Ensemble Methods. Science310:248-249.
38. Goetz, S.J., C.A. Jantz, S.D. Prince, A.J. Smith, R. Wright, and D. Varlyguin, 2004. Integrated Analysis of Ecosystem Interactions with Land Use Change: The Cheapeake Bay Watershed. In : Ecosystems and Land Use Change, R.S. DeFries, G.P. Asner, and R.A. Houghton (Editors). American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., pp. 263-275.
39. Gordon, W.S., J.S. Famiglietti, N.L. Fowler, T.G.F. Kittel, and K.A. Hibbard, 2004. Validation of Simulated Runoff from Six Terrestrial Ecosystem Models: Results from VEMAP. Ecological Applications14:527-545.
40. Gourley, J.J. and B.E. Vieux, 2005. A Method for Evaluating the Accuracy of Quantitative Precipitation Estimates from a Hydrologic Modeling Perspective. Journal of Hydrometeorology6:115-133.
41. Gutierrez-Magness, A.L., J.E. Hannawald, L.C. Linker, and K.J. Hopkins, 1997. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Application and Calculation of Nutrient and Sediment Loadings, Appendix E. Report Report # EPA 903-R-97-019, 142 pp., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
42. Harmel, R.D., K.W. King, B.E. Haggard, D.G. Wren, and J.M. Sheridan, 2006. Practical Guidance for Discharge and Water Quality Data Collection on Small Watersheds. Transactions of the ASABE49:937-948.
43. Hartzell, J.L., T.E. Jordan, and J.C. Cornwell, 2010. Phosphorus Burial in Sediments along the Salinity Gradient of the Patuxent River, a Subestuary of the Chesapeake Bay (USA). Estuaries and Coasts33:92-106.
44. Homer, C., J. Dewitz, J. Fry, M. Coan, N. Hossain, C. Larson, N. Herold, A. McKerrow, J.N. VanDriel, and J. Wickham, 2007. Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the Conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing73:337-341.
45. Homer, C., C.Q. Huang, L.M. Yang, B. Wylie, and M. Coan, 2004. Development of a 2001 National Land-Cover Database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing70:829-840.
46. Hsu, K.L., H. Moradkhani, and S. Sorooshian, 2009. A Sequential Bayesian Approach for Hydrologic Model Selection and Prediction. Water Resources Research45:15.
47. Huisman, J.A., L. Breuer, H. Bormann, A. Bronstert, B.F.W. Croke, H.G. Frede, T. Graff, L. Hubrechts, A.J. Jakeman, G. Kite, J. Lanini, G. Leavesley, D.P. Lettenmaier, G. Lindstrom, J. Seibert, M. Sivapalan, N.R. Viney, and P. Willems, 2009. Assessing the Impact of Land Use Change on Hydrology by Ensemble Modeling (LUCHEM) III: Scenario Analysis. Advances in Water Resources32:159-170.
48. Jakeman, A.J., R.A. Letcher, and J.P. Norton, 2006. Ten Iterative Steps in Development and Evaluation of Environmental Models. Environmental Modelling and Software21:602-614.
49. Jordan, T.E., D.L. Correll, and D.E. Weller, 1997a. Effects of Agriculture on Discharges of Nutrients from Coastal Plain Watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Environmental Quality26:836-848.
50. Jordan, T.E., D.L. Correll, and D.E. Weller, 1997b. Nonpoint Source Discharges of Nutrients from Piedmont Watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of the American Water Resources Association33:631-645.
51. Jordan, T.E., D.L. Correll, and D.E. Weller, 1997c. Relating Nutrient Discharges from Watersheds to Landuse and Streamflow Variability. Water Resources Research33:2579-2590.
52. Jordan, T.E., D.E. Weller, and D.L. Correll, 2003. Sources of Nutrient Inputs to the Patuxent River Estuary. Estuaries26:226-243.
53. Kadane, J.B. and N.A. Lazar, 2004. Methods and Criteria for Model Selection. Journal of the American Statistical Association99:279-290.
54. Koop, G. and L. Tole, 2004. Measuring the Health Effects of Air Pollution: To What Extent Can We Really Say that People Are Dying from Bad Air?Journal of Environmental Economics and Management47:30-54.
55. Langland, M.J., J.D. Blomquist, L.A. Sprague, and R.E. Edwards, 1999. Trends and Status of Flow, Nutrients, and Sediments for Selected Nontidal Sites in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 1985-98. Report U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 99-451, 64 pp., U.S. Department of Interior, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania.
56. Langland, M.J., P.L. Lietman, and S. Hoffman, 1995. Synthesis of Nutrient and Sediment Data for Watersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin. U.S. Geological Survey. Lemoyne, Pennsylvania.
57. Layton, D.F. and S.T. Lee, 2006. Embracing Model Uncertainty: Strategies for Response Pooling and Model Averaging. Environmental and Resource Economics34:51-85.
58. Leamer, E.E., 1983. Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics. The American Economic Review73:31-43.
59. Linker, L.C., G.W. Shenk, R.L. Dennis, and J.S. Sweeny, 2000. Cross-Media Models of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Airshed. Water Quality and Ecosystem Modeling1:91-122.
60. Linker, L.C., G.W. Shenk, P. Wang, and R. Batiuk, 2008. Integration of Modeling, Research, and Monitoring in the Chesapeake Bay Program. In : The Management of Water Quality and Irrigation Technologies, J. Albiac and A. Dinar (Editors). Earthscan, London, United Kingdom, pp. 41-60.
61. Linker, L.C., C.G. Stigall, C.H. Chang, and A.S. Donigian, Jr., 1996. Aquatic Accounting: Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Quantifies Nutrient Loads. Water Environment and Technology8:48-52.
62. Liu, Z.J. and D.E. Weller, 2008. A Stream Network Model for Integrated Watershed Modeling. Environmental Modeling and Assessment13:291-303.
63. Liu, Z.-J., D.E. Weller, D.L. Correll, and T.E. Jordan, 2000. Effects of Land Cover and Geology on Stream Chemistry in Watersheds of Chesapeake Bay. Journal of the American Water Resources Association36:1349-1365.
64. Liu, Z.J., D.E. Weller, T.E. Jordan, D.L. Correll, and K.B. Boomer, 2008. Integrated Modular Modeling of Water and Nutrients from Point and Nonpoint Sources in the Patuxent River Watershed. Journal of the American Water Resources Association44:700-723.
65. Lung, W.S. and S. Bai, 2003. A Water Quality Model for the Patuxent Estuary: Current Conditions and Predictions under Changing Land-Use Scenarios. Estuaries26:267-279.
66. Lung, W.S. and A.J. Nice, 2007. Eutrophication Model for the Patuxent Estuary: Advances in Predictive Capabilities. Journal of Environmental Engineering-ASCE133:917-930.
67. Maxwell, T. and R. Costanza, 1997. A Language for Modular Spatio-Temporal Simulation. Ecological Modelling103:105-113.
68. McIntyre, N., H. Lee, H. Wheater, A. Young, and T. Wagener, 2005. Ensemble Predictions of Runoff in Ungauged Catchments. Water Resources Research41, W03202, W12434, doi: 10.1029/2005WR004289., pp. 1-14.
69. MDP (Maryland Department of Planning), 2003a. 1973 Land Use/Land Cover for Maryland. http://planning.maryland.gov/OurWork/landUseDownload.shtml, accessed July 2012.
70. MDP (Maryland Department of Planning), 2003b. 2002 Land Use/Land Cover for Maryland. http://planning.maryland.gov/OurWork/landUseDownload.shtml, accessed July 2012.
71. MDP (Maryland Department of Planning), MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment) and DNR (Maryland Department of Natural Resources), 2007. Water Resources Element of the Comprehensive Plan Guidance Document Planning for Water Supply. Wastewater Management and Stormwater Management, Baltimore, Maryland, 84 pp.
72. Miller, R.C., D.P. Guertin, and P. Heilman, 2004. Information Technology in Watershed Management Decision Making. Journal of the American Water Resources Association40:347-357.
73. MOP (Maryland Office of Planning), 1993. Nonpoint Source Assessment and Accounting System: Final Report for the FFY, '91 Section 319 Grant. Maryland Office of Planning, Baltimore, Maryland.
74. MOP (Maryland Office of Planning), 1995. Development and Application of the Nonpoint Source Assessment and Accounting System: Final Report for the FFY, '92 Section 319 Grant. Maryland Office of Planning, Baltimore, Maryland.
75. Moriasi, D.N., J.G. Arnold, M.W. Van Liew, R.L. Bingner, R.D. Harmel, and T.L. Veith, 2007. Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations. Transactions of the Asabe50:885-900.
76. Mukundan, R., D.E. Radcliffe, J.C. Ritchie, L.M. Risse, and R.A. McKinley, 2010. Sediment Fingerprinting to Determine the Source of Suspended Sediment in a Southern Piedmont Stream. Journal of Environmental Quality39:1328-1337.
77. Nash, J.E. and J.V. Sutcliff, 1970. River Flow Forecasting Through Conceptual Models Part I - A Discussion of Principles. Journal of Hydrology10:282-290.
78. NOAA-CCAP (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Change and Analysis Program), 2006. Coastal Change Analysis Program Regional Land Cover. http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/ccapregional/, accessed July 2012.
79. Noe, G.B. and C.R. Hupp, 2009. Retention of Riverine Sediment and Nutrient Loads by Coastal Plain Floodplains. Ecosystems12:728-746.
80. NRC (National Research Council), 2011. Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay: An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation for Nutrient Reduction to Improve Water Quality. The National Academies Press. Washington, D.C. (Prepublication copy).
81. Pappenberger, F. and K.J. Beven, 2006. Ignorance Is Bliss: Or Seven Reasons Not to Use Uncertainty Analysis. Water Resources Research4:2.
82. Phillips, T.J. and P.J. Gleckler, 2006. Evaluation of Continental Precipitation in 20th Century Climate Simulations: The Utility of Multimodel Statistics. Water Resources Research42, W03202, doi: 10.1029/2005WR004313., pp. 1-10.
83. Preston, S.D. and J.W. Brakebill, 1999. Application of Spatially Referenced Regression Modeling for the Evaluation of Total Nitrogen Loading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Report WRIR-99-4054, pp. 1-12, U.S. Geological Survey, Baltimore, Maryland.
84. Prosser, I., P. Rustomji, B. Young, C. Moran, and A. Hughes, 2001. Constructing River Basin Sediment Budgets for the National Land and Water Resources Audit. Report Technical Report Number 15/01, pp. 1-34, CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, Australia.
85. Pyke, C., 2010. Review of Land-Use and Land Cover Dataset and Methodology. STAC Publication, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Edgewater, Maryland.
86. Radcliffe, D.E., J. Freer, and O. Schoumans, 2009. Diffuse Phosphorus Models in the United States and Europe: Their Usages, Scales, and Uncertainties. Journal of Environmental Quality38:1956-1967.
87. Redfield, A.C., 1958. The Biological Control of Chemical Factors in the Environment. American Scientist46:205-221.
88. Sivakumar, B., 2008. The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: The State of Hydrologic Modelling. Hydrological Processes22:4333-4337.
89. Smith, R.A., G.E. Schwarz, and R.B. Alexander, 1997. Regional Interpretation of Water-Quality Monitoring Data. Water Resources Research33:2781-2798.
90. Smith, V.H., S.B. Joye, and R.W. Howarth, 2006. Eutrophication of Freshwater and Marine Ecosystems. Limnology and Oceanography51:351-355.
91. Sprent, P. and G.R. Dolby, 1980. The Geometric Mean Functional Relationship. Biometrics36:547-550.
92. STAC (Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee), 2011. Review of the LimnoTech Report, Comparison of Load Estimates for Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Committee for the ANPC/LimnoTech Review, Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee to the Chesapeake Bay Program. STAC Publication 11-02, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., Edgewater, Maryland.
93. Stankey, G.H., R.N. Clark, and B.T. Bormann, 2005. Adaptive Management of Natural Resources: Theory, Concepts, and Management Institutions. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-654, 73 pp., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.
94. Staver, K.W. and R.B. Brinsfield, 2001. Agriculture and Water Quality on the Maryland Eastern Shore: Where Do We Go from Here?BioScience51:859-868.
95. Stone, K.C., P.G. Hunt, J.M. Novak, M.H. Johnson, and D.W. Watts, 2000. Flow-Proportional, Time-Composited, and Grab Sample Estimation of Nitrogen Export from an Eastern Coastal Plain Watershed. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers43:281-290.
96. Tassone, J., D.M. Weller, R.E. Hall, and N.M. Edwards, 1998. Smart Growth Options for Maryland's Tributary Strategies. Maryland Office of Planning, Baltimore, Maryland.
97. Tele Atlas, 2004. Dynamap 2000 Road Network Database. Spatial Insights, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland.
98. Tobias, J.L. and M. Li, 2004. Returns to Schooling and Bayesian Model Averaging: A Union of Two Literatures. Journal of Economic Surveys18:153-180.
99. U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. TIGER/Line Files, 2005 (First Edition). http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/shp.html, accessed July 2012.
100. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2010a. Chesapeake Bay Phase 5 Community Watershed Model. http://ches.communitymodeling.org/models/CBPhase5/index.php, accessed April 2011.
101. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2010b. Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis, Maryland.
102. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2010c. Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/FinalBayTMDL/CBayFinalTMDLExecSumSection1through3_final.pdf, accessed April 4, 2011.
103. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1999. USGS National Hydrography Data Base (NHD): U.S. Geological Survey Fact Seet 106-99. http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/factsheets/fs10699.html, accessed July 15, 2010.
104. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2011a. USGS Water Data for the Nation. waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis, accessed February 2009.
105. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2011b. Water Resources Applications Software - Summary of HSPF. http://water.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/man_wrdapp?hspf, accessed November 2011.
106. Valiela, I., J.L. Bowen, and K.D. Kroeger, 2002. Assessment of Models for Estimation of Land-Derived Nitrogen Loads to Shallow Estuaries. Applied Geochemistry17:935-953.
107. de Vente, J. and J. Poesen, 2005. Predicting Soil Erosion and Sediment Yield at the Basin Scale: Scale Issues and Semi-Quantitative Models. Earth-Science Reviews71:95-125.
108. Viney, N.R., H. Bormann, L. Breuer, A. Bronstert, B.F.W. Croke, H. Frede, T. Graff, L. Hubrechts, J.A. Huisman, A.J. Jakeman, G.W. Kite, J. Lanini, G. Leavesley, D.P. Lettenmaier, G. Lindstrom, J. Seibert, M. Sivapalan, and P. Willems, 2009. Assessing the Impact of Land Use Change on Hydrology by Ensemble Modelling (LUCHEM) II: Ensemble Combinations and Predictions. Advances in Water Resources32:147-158.
109. Vogelmann, J.E., S.M. Howard, L. Yang, C.R. Larson, B.K. Wylie, and N. Van Driel, 2001. Completion of the 1990's National Land Cover Data Set for the Conterminous United States from Landsat Thematic Mapper Data and Ancillary Data Sources. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing67:650-662.
110. Voinov, A., R. Costanza, C. Fitz, and T. Maxwell, 2007. Patuxent Landscape Model: 2. Model Development - Nutrients, Plants, and Detritus. Water Resources34:268-276.
111. Voinov, A., C. Fitz, R. Boumans, and R. Costanza, 2004. Modular Ecosystem Modeling. Environmental Modelling and Software19:285-304.
112. Voinov, A.A., H. Voinov, and R. Costanza, 1999. Surface Water Flow in Landscape Models: 2. Patuxent Watershed Case Study. Ecological Modelling119:211-230.
113. Vrugt, J.A. and B.A. Robinson, 2007. Treatment of Uncertainty Using Ensemble Methods: Comparison of Sequential Data Assimilation and Bayesian Model Averaging. Water Resources Research43, W01411, doi: 10.1029/2005WR004838., pp. 1-15.
114. Walter, R.C. and D.J. Merritts, 2008. Natural Streams and the Legacy of Water-Powered Mills. Science319:299-304.
115. Weller, D.E., T.E. Jordan, D.L. Correll, and Z.J. Liu, 2003. Effects of Land-Use Change on Nutrient Discharges from the Patuxent River Watershed. Estuaries26:244-266.
116. Wells, R.R., C.V. Alonso, and S.J. Bennett, 2009. Morphodynamics of Headcut Development and Soil Erosion in Upland Concentrated Flows. Soil Science Society of America Journal73:521-530.
117. Wilkinson, S.N., I.P. Prosser, P. Rustomji, and A.M. Read, 2009. Modelling and Testing Spatially Distributed Sediment Budgets to Related Erosion Processes to Sediment Yields. Environmental Modelling and Software24:489-501.
118. Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.C. Shapiro, 2007. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, US Department of Interior, Washington, D.C.
119. Wright, J., 2003. Bayesian Model Averaging and Exchange Rate Forecasts. Journal of Econometrics 146:329-341.