[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Task 18 FY 90
Final Work Product


Eroding Bank. Nutrient Verification Study
____  tr the Lower Chesapeake B.-ay




ï¿½ R: I


..Ab    Y7Js
-%~ 9~ tS6~C   Li                 .         E
ï¿½~ -

-~1 i	3' -

-4\ ~3.   ~t	ï¿½


I-t~
82ii             b~~~ iz~~ocy A ibis lcm, JCsnniï¿½4 r:
-- ~arzzcn tee H!il, Ned Hi. Burger andr jack E. Frl;e
'~~~'1
rC-1, "-l,rv
Department cf Canservaxijin and Recreation
Division of Soil and Water C;nsen'vaqoln
Shoreline Programs Buireau
Glozucester Point, VIA

Eroding Bank Nutrient Verifi'cation Study
for the Lower Chesapeake Bay



by



Nancy A. Ibison, Joseph C. Baumer, Carlton Lee Hill,
Ned H. Burger and Jack E. Frye
Department of Conservation and Recreation
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Shoreline Programs Bureau
Gloucester Point, Virginia




This project was funded, in part, by the Virginia Council on the Environment's
Coastal Resources Management Program through grant # NA90AA-H-CZ796 of
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 as amended.





February 1992





Virginia Department of Conservation and Rercreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation programs,
activities, and employment opportunities are available to all people regardless of race, color, religion, sex,
age, national origin, or political affiliation. An equal opportunity/affirmative action employer.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 1990 report "Sediment and Nutrient Contributions of Selected Eroding Banks of the Chesapeake Bay
Estuarine System" represented the first attempt to estimate the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus
contributed to the lower Chesapeake Bay by shoreline erosion. Thie seiment and nutrient contributions
from 14 eroding banks on the mainstem of the Bay and tributary rivers were examined. Mean nitrogen
and phosphorus loading concentrations and loading rates were calculated. The initial study provided
insight into the magnitude of nutrient inputs from shoreline erosion.


The present study was undertaken to verify and expand the initial research. An additional 44 eroding
banks along the lower Chesapeake Bay estuarine system were studied. A question regarding a possible
error in the phosphorus mneasurements due to apatite contained in fossiliferous soil horizons was studied.
The study also examined the impact of landuse on nutrient loading concentrations.


The findings of this study confirm the high variability in nutrient loading concentrations and loading rates
determined in the initial study. The nutrient loading rates for shoreline erosion were much higher than
similar rates use in agricultural nutrient loading calculations. The difference is due to the large volumes
of soil lost from shoreline erosion.


The mean total phosphorus loading concentration for banks with fossils was approximately double the
mean for banks without fossils. Mean inorganic phosphorus loading concentrations were the same for
both groups.


Landuse was found to impact the nutrient loading concentrations. Four landuse categories were
examined: active farms, fallow farms, wooded and rural residential. Active farms had the greatest mean
total nitrogen and total phosphorus loading concentrations. The total nitrogen loading concentration for
soils sampled from wooded land was equal to that of active farms. Rural residential land had the lowest
mean nutrient loading concentrations.


The data from the study can be used with recent shoreline stabilization data to calculate nutrient reduction
"credits" for the period from 1985 to 1990.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the following individuals for their contributions to this project. Thanks to C.
Scott Hardaway and George Thomas of the College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science (VIMS) for project design and field work. Thanks to the staff of the VIMS sediment and nutrient
analysis lab. Special thanks and credit to Susan Townsend of the Department of Conservation and
Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation for her perseverance with layout and printing of the
report.
iii

Table of Contents



I. INTRODUCTION ...........................
1
II. SITE DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES .....
Site Selection ...............................
Sampling Procedures ..........................

III. METHODOLOGY .............................
Laboratory Analyses ..........................
Nutrient Analyses ............................
Grain Size Analysis ...........................
Nutrient Loading Rates ........................
Nutrient Loading Concentrations ...................
Sediment and Nutrient Loading Rates per Acre per Year
3
3
3
.................
.................
................
8
8
8
8
9
10
11
,oooooo
oo......
ooooooo
,,ooooo
IV. RESULTS ...................................................
Nutrient Concentration, Grain Size and Bank Height .......................
Nutrient Loading Rates .........................................
Nutrient Loading Concentrations ....................................
Phosphorus Concentrations in Banks with Fossiliferous Horizons ................
Nutrient Loading Concentrations and Landuse ...........................
13
13
36
44
55
55
63
63
64
64
65

66
67

68
70
V. DISCUSSION ..............................
Comparison of Shoreline Erosion with Upland Erosion ...
Nutrient Loading Concentrations for Fossiliferous Banks..
Nutrient Loading Concentrations and Landuse ........
Nutrient Management Implications ...............

.	.	.
	.

.	.	.
	.


VI. CONCLUSIONS ...............................................

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ......................

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................

IX. APPENDICES .................................................
I
iv

LIST OF FIGURES
Fiwue Pg

I Site Map ..........................4

2	Illustration of Upland Erosion Versus Shoreline Erosion ...........12

3	Soil Classification Criteria.....................13

4	Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus
and Total Nitrogen: a) Potomac South I and b) Potomac South 2 ........14

5     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and
Total Nitrogen: a) Potomac South 3 and b) Potomac South 4..........15

6     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:-
a) Potomac South 5 and b) Potomac South 6 ...............16

7     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Potomac South 7 and b) Rappahannock North I .............17

8     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Rappaihannock North 2 and b) Rappahannock North 3 ...........18

9     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Rappahannock North 4 and b) Rappahannock North 5 ...........19

10    Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Rappahannock North 6 and b) Rappahannock North 8 ...........20

1 1    Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Rappahannock North 9 and b) Rappahannock South I1...........21

12    Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Rappahannock South 2 and b) Rappahannock South 3 ...........22

13    Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Rappahannock South 4 and b) Rappahannock South 5 ...........23

14     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Rappahannock South 6 and b) Rappahannock South 7 ...........24

15    Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) York North I and b) York North 2 .................25

16    Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) York North 3 and b) York North 4 .................26
V

17    Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) York South I and b) James North I1.................27

18    Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) James North 2and b) James North 3.................28

19    Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) James North 4and b) James North 5.................29

20     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) James South I and b) James South 2.................30

21     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) James South 3 and b) Jamnes South 4.................31

22     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) James South 5 and b) James South 6.................32

23     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Tota Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Jamnes South 7 and b) Piankatank I1.................33

24     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Western Shore I and b) Eastern Shore I1...............34
25     Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:
a) Eastern Shore 2 and b) Eastern Shore 3................35

26	Nutrient Loading Rates - Potomac River, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen ....45

27	Nutrient Loading Rates - Potomac River, Inorganic Phosphorus .........46

28	Nutrient Loading Rates - Rappahannock River, Total Phosphorus and
Total Nitrogen ........................47
29	Nutrient Loading Rates - Rappahannock River, Inorganic Phosphorus .......48
30	Nutrient Loading Rates - York River, Total Phosphorus and Total
Nitrogen ..........................49

31	Nutrient Loading Rates - York River, Inorganic Phosphorus ..........50

32	Nutrient Loading Rates - fames, Total Phosphorus and Total
Nitrogen ..........................51

33  Nutrient Loading Rates - James River, Inorganic Phosphorus..........52
vi

34    Nutrient Loading Rates - Chesapeake Bay, Total Phosphorus
and Total Nitrogen .......................53

35	Nutrient Loading Rates - Chesapeake Bay, Inorganic Phosphorus.........54

36	N-utrient Loading Concentrations - Averaged by Landuse ...........57

37	Nutrient Loading Concentrations - Active Farms..............58

38	Nutrient Loading Concentrations - Fallow Farms..............59

39	Nutrient Loading Concentrations - Wooded Sites..............60

40	Nutrient Loading Concentrations - Rural Residential Sites...........61
vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                                              Paae

I Site Information.......................                                                            5
2	Total Nitrogen Loading Rate Sumnmary .................37
3	Total Phosphorus Loading Rate Summary................39
4	Inorganic Phosphorus Loading Rate Summary...............41
5	Nutrient Loading Summary (Ibison et. al., 1990)..............43
6	Nutrient Loading Concentrations by Landuse...............56
viii

I. INTRODUCTION
In the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the participants targeted nitrogen and phosphorus contributions
to the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay for a 40% reduction by the year 2000. To meet this goal, all
possible point and nonpoint source nutrient inputs need to be examined to determine where reductions
are feasible. In previous assessments of nonpoint source nutrient inputs published by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the contribution from shoreline erosion was not known (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1982; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, cited by Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation, 1989).


In an effort to determine the magnitude of nutrient contributions from shoreline erosion, the study entitled
"Sediment and Nutrient Contributions of Selected Eroding Banks of the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine
System" was undertaken (Ibison et. al., 1990). The study represented the first attempt to estimate the
quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus contributed to the lower Chesapeake Bay by shoreline erosion. In
the report, the sediment and nutrient contributions from 14 sites on the mainstem of the Bay and tributary
rivers were examined. The total contribution of nitrogen and phosphorus from shoreline erosion for the
lower Chesapeake Bay was estimated using the mean nitrogen and phosphorus loading concentrations for
the sites and the annual net soil loss from approximately 1,600 miles of tidal shoreline reported in Byrne
and Anderson (1977).


The present study was undertaken to verify and expand the findings of the previous study. An additional
44 eroding banks along the Chesapeake Bay and tributary rivers were sampled. The sites represent
different soil stratigraphies and landuse types. Landuse is known to influence nonpoint source pollution
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983).


The previous study also raised questions about the phosphorous analysis methods. Some of the banks
studied have fossiliferous layers containing phosphorus in the form of the mineral apatite. Apatite
phosphorus is unavailable for biological uptake and thought to only become available after extremely long
periods of time (Johnson, personal communication). The phosphorus analysis methods use acid
extractions to measure inorganic and total phosphorus. Questions were posed as to whether or not the
methods would extract apatite phosphorus, and if so, how much apatite is present in the fossiliferous
horizons. The staff at the nutrient lab of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) used different
I






acid extraction methods and acid concentrations to try to isolate the more readily available phosphorusI
from apatite. Unfortunately, no method was found that would differentiate more readily available
phosphorus from apatite phosphorous.


The present study was undertaken with the following objectives:3


(1)     To verify and expand the previous research on the nutrient and sediment contributions
from eroding shoreline banks.


(2)	To determine the effects of landuse on nutrient concentrations in eroding shoreline banks.


(3)	To determine the difference in phosphorus concentrations between banks with and without
fossiliferous layers.3


Since the completion of the initial eroding bank nutrient study, VIMS has              cnutdthe Virginia Bank3
Erosion Study (Hardaway et. al., in pres) to determine the total length of shoreline erosion control
structures installed between 1985 and 1990.  The VIMS study documents how much land has been3
stabilized against erosion, resulting in a reduction in the nutrient loading from shorelie erosion. Using
the expanded baseline nutrient loading data from this report and the VIMS shoreline stabilization data,3
it will be possible to estimate a reduction 'credit" for the shoreline stabilization activities undertaken since
the 1985 "base level" year.3

11. SIT DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Site Selection


Forty-four sites were selected for the project using sites from the Virginia Bank Erosion Study (Hardaway
et. at., in press). Initial selection was conducted by researchers at the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science using the VIMIS Shoreline Video Survey of 1990. Sites were field checked and sampled if
suitable. Site locations are depicted in Figgure 1. (GIS coordinates for the sites are reported in Appendix
B.) The site name, county, reach, reach length, erosion rate, volume eroded, landuse, sarmpling date for
nutrient samples and bank heig.ht above mean high water (MHW) are listed in Table 1. The reach, reach
length, erosion rate and volume eroded information were obtained from Byrne and Anderson (1977).
Since erosion rates were unavailable for 7 sites, the average Bay-wide erosion rate of 0.7 foot per year
from Byrne and Anderson (1977) was used, Because all banks sampled were actively eroding, a rate of
0.7 foot per year represents a conservative, reasonable estimate.


SamnDliniz Procedures


Field sampling involved collection of soil samples from the various distinct horizons on the bank face.
Samples were taken directly from the bank face where undisturbed sediments were present. It was
necessar to dig down to undisturbed soils where sloughing had occurred. The lithologic characteristics
of the horizons, presence of fossil material and evidence of groundwater were noted. The sample
positiorns and approximate horizon widths were measured with a stadia rod and hand level. The landuse
at each site was also noted. Four basic landuse types were designated: active %frmland, referring to
cultivated cropland; fallow farmland, referring to presently uncultivated farmland; wooded land and rural
residential land.


Two samnples were taken from each horizon for nutrient and -fain size analyses. The samples were
placed in sterile whirlpaks and kept oni ice while being transported back to the tab. The samples were
frozen and stored for analysis. (The sediment and nutrient data are reported in Appendix A.)
3

Figure 1. Site Locations.
I
4                                                                      1

- - -  m -  m - - - - -  m m  m  m


Table 1. Site Information






PSI - Potomac South I	Westmoreland	12	26700	3.5	7 .87	active farm	8/14/91	18.0
PS2 - Potomac South 2	Westmoreland	34	5800	2.8	0.74	active farm	8/14(91	17.0
PS3 - Poto mec South 3	Westmoreland	46	5300	4.2	0.78	active farm	8/28/91	15.5
PS4 - Potomec South 4	Northumberland	55	5000	2.0	0.39	active farm	8/14/91	8.0
PS5 - Potomac South 5	Northumberland	74	7500	3.8	1.30	fallow farm, new rural	8/28/91	8.5
residential
PS6 - Potomac South 6	Northumberland	76	42500	4.9	1.83	wooded	8/28191	12.0
PS7 - Potomac South 7	Northumberland	76	42500	4.9	1.83	fallow farm	9/11/91	8.0
RNI - Rappahannock North I	LAncaster	178	2600	1.6	0.63	wooded	8/13/91	16.8
RN2 - Rappahannock North 2	Lancaster	207	12200	2.8	No Data	active farm	8/7/91	23.0
RN3 - Rappahannock North 3	Lancaster	213	6300	1.6	0.04	wooded	8/7/91	19.5
RN4 - Rappahannock North 4	Richmond	239	13400	2.6	0.49	active farm	8/7/91	10.0
RN5 - Rappahannock North 5	Richniond	255	20400	2.4	1.08	rural residential	8/6/91	16.0
RN6 - Rappahannock North 6	Richmiond	248	4100	1.8	0.69	wooded	8/7/91	8.0
RNS - Rappahannock North 8	Richmond	248	4100	1.8	0.69	active farm	8/7/91	7.0
RN9 - Rappahannock North 9	Lancaster	160	3800	10.7)	No Data	wooded, rural	8113191	48.0
residential
RSI - Rappahannock South I      Middlesex           107      9500        1.6         1.20     active farm with          10/9/91     25.0
vegetated buffer

RS2 - Rappahanniockc South 2    Middlesex           106      15800       1.9        1.53      fallow farm with          10/9/91     30.0
wooded fringe

Table 1. Site Iiiformiation (Conttinued)



Reach	Length	at	Eroded	Sap,mpig    Heigh
Site  *. ...  County  No. *	(ft)*	(ftlyr)*	(cyiftlyr S	o     Lands	Dlft)

RS3 - Rappahannok South 3	Middlestbx     as	4700	2.1	0.56	fallow farmn	8/6/91	10.0
RS4 - Rappahannock South 4	Essex                70	27400	3.3	2.51	active farm, wooded	8/13/91	26.0
fringe
RSS - Rappahannock South 5	Essex	69	10200	(0.7)	No Data	ruiral residential	8/13/91	16.0
RS6 - Rappahannock South 6	Middlesex	88	8700	I's	0.70	active farm	8/6/91	10.0
RS7 - Rappdhannock South 7	Essex	70	27400        3.3	.2.51	rural residential,	8/6/9 1	27.0
wooded

YN1I - York North I	Gloucester	88	4500	0.4	0.05	wooded	3/25/91	7.0
YN2 - York North 2	Gloucester	94	3400	{0.7)	No Data	wooded	3/2S/91	21.S
YN3 - Yoirk North 3	Gloucester	97	3600	(0.7)	+0.08	residential	3/25/9 1	26.0
YN4 - York North 4	King & Queen	114	5800	1.6	0.30	logged, scrub wooded	3125/91	3.5
YS1  York South I	New Kent	6	15700	1.4	0.53	logged in '85. wooded	3125191	16.0
JNI J ames North I	Janies City	307	2800	0.7	No Data	active farm	4117/91	11.0
lN2 - James North 2        l	anies City	293	23100	(0.7)	No Data	wooded	4/17/9 1	23.0
JN3 - James North 3	James City	291	9600	1.2	0.23	wooded	4/17/9 1	22.S
iN4 - James North 4	Charles City	341	6600	(0.7)	No Data	active farm, wooded	4122/9 1	12.0
fringe,

iNS - James North 5	Charles City	343	6300	(0.7)	No Data	wooded	4/22/91	20.0
ISI - James South I	Isle of Wight	202	20700	1.2	0.96	wooded	4/2219 1	19.0
JS2 - James South 2	Isle of Wight	201	5600	1.9	0.36	wooded	4/22/91	24.0
ON
-           m -  m  m   m ---   -  m    - m

m   ---m  m--- m                 m   -   ------m  mm



Table 1. Site Iiiforittation (Continued)


Reach    Length	Rate ~~~~~o*1e	S~ampling	Height



.1S3 - Janmes South 3	Surry	197	13200	2.8	0.21	wooded	4/22191	3.0
354 - Jaines South 4	Prince George	173	2400	1.4	1.09	active fann	4/22/91	13.0
1S5 - Jarmes South 5	Isle of Wight	209	700	0.7	0.02	wooded	4/24/91	22.0
.156 - James South 6	Isle of Wight	205	36800	3.8	2.84	active farm	8/27/91	20.0
157 - James South 7	Isle of Wight	204	19900	0.7	0.14	fallow farm, wooded	8127/91	60.0
firinge

FPi1 - Piankatank I	Mathews	34	6000	3.7	0.41	fallow farm	7/31/91	10.0
WS1I - Western Shore I	Mathews	326	19100	7.1	1.33	ruiral residential,	7131/91	3.5
wooded

ES I - Easterm Share I	Northampton	155	3000	1.7	0.58	wooded	9/12/91	11.0
ES2 - Eastern Shore 2	Northampton	152	9700	5.7	1.90	fallow farm	9112/91	12.0
253 - Eastemn Shore 3	Northampton	194	16500	2.3	0.26	fallow farm	9/12/91	13.0
__
j
from Shoreline Erosion in'
Tidewater Vireinia.
(0.7) average Bay-wide erosion rate from Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Virs!inia.

+    indicates an accretional reach in volume, eroded column.






III. METHODOLOGY


Laboratory Analyses


Laboratory analyses were conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science sediment and water
quality labs. The water quality lab uses EPA approved procedures.


Nutrient Analyses


The total nitrogen measured included nitrate nitrogen and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN; includes ammonia
and organic forms of nitrogen). Total nitrogen analysis was conducted using 10 to 20 mg samples of air-
dried, ground soil. Each soil sample was analyzed for total nitrogen using a Carlo Erba NA1500 C/N
Analyzer. The mean detection limit for total nitrogen was 0.18 mg/g. Total nitrogen analysis procedures
can be found in the Carlo Erba Strumentazione Carbon Nitrogen Analyzer 1500 Instruction Manual
(1986).


Phosphorus measured included total phosphorus and inorganic phosphorus (orthophosphate).  The
procedures used air-dried, homogenized, ground soil samples. The inorganic phosphorus procedure
involved  an HCI and H2SO4 extraction of approximately 1 g soil samples.  The total phosphorus
procedure involved combustion of approximately 1 g samples at 475 ï¿½C for 5 hours, followed by HCI
extraction of phosphorus.  For both phosphorus procedures, sample extracts were filtered through
Whatman G/F glass fiber filters and then analyzed using a continuous flow analyzer. The mean detection
limit for total phosphorus was 0.01 mg/g and 0.001 mg/g for inorganic phosphorus.  Phosphorus
procedures were taken from the following reference manuals: 'Laboratory Procedure for the Soil Testing
and Plant Analysis Laboratory' (1988) and Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974).


Grain Size Analysis


The sediment samples were split, wet sieved and separated into gravel, sand, silt and clay fractions. To
determine a weight percent, the gravel fraction (material coarser than 2.0 mm) was dried and weighed.
The sand fraction (0.0625 to 2.0 mm) was analyzed using a rapid sediment analyzer (RSA) to determine
8~~~~~~~~

the grain size distribution and weight percent. The weight percentages of the silt and clay fractions
(material finer than 0.0625 mm) were measured according to standard pipette methods.


Nutrient Loading Rates


Nutrient loading rates were calculated for each site using the following information:   nutrient
concentration, estimated average bulk density, bank height, horizon thickness and annual erosion rate.
All of the above variables were known except bulk density. The limited scope of the study did not allow
field measurements of the bulk densities of the soils sampled. Therefore, an estimated average bulk
density of 93.6 lb/fe (1.5 g/cm?) was used. The bulk density value used was based on conversations with
soil scientists and researchers from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Moreover, the
value used was similar to the bulk densities reported in the soil surveys for some of the soils studied.


To calculate a nutrient loading rate for each site, the bank erosion volume was first calculated using the
following equation:


V = B  w()



where: V = Unit bank erosion volume (ft3/ft-yr)
B    Bank height (ft)
E = Unit erosion rate (ft/ft-yr)
W = Unit width (ft)


Nutrient loading rates were then derived. In the following equation, a mean nutrient concentration for
each bank was calculated by summing the weighted nutrient concentrations for each soil horizon. The
mean nutrient concentration for the bank was then multiplied by the bulk density and eroded soil volume
to obtain the nutrient loading rate for the bank. The equation is presented as follows:
9








R  =  VD                HN                                      (2)
L..v
B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I

where:   R = Nutrient loading rate (lbs/ft-yr)
B = Bank height (ft)
D	= Bulk density (93.6 lb/f)                                                                                       5
H	= Horizon thickness (ft)
N	= Nutrient concentration (mglg) converted to English units (lb/ton)
V	= Unit bank erosion volume (fe/ft-yr)


Nutrient Loadin! Concentrations	I


The term "nutrient loading concentration" refers to the amount of a given nutrient in pounds, per ton of	I
soil. The mean loading concentrations for total nitrogen and total phosphorus were used in the previous
research to estimate the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay from shoreline                        I
erosion. (In the previous report, the term "nutrient loading factor" was used, however the term "nutrient
loading concentration" is more descriptive since the values are reported in pounds per ton.)  Similar                        I
nutrient loading concentrations are used in the Chesapeake Bay Agricultural BMP Cost-Share program
to determine the effectiveness of best management practices. The loading concentrations were calculated                      I
using the following formula:



C =  R                                              (3)
$


where:   C = Nutrient loading concentration (b/ton)                                                                         3
R= Nutrient loading rate (lbs/ft-yr)
S = Sediment loss (tons/ft-yr)                                                                                    5


The sediment loss was calculated using the volume lost (lbs/ft-yr),  a bulk density of 93.6 Ib/ft  and a
conversion factor for a ton (2000 Ibs). The loading concentrations also represent a weighted average for
each site.


t10

I

Sediment and Nutrient Loadine Rates ner Acre ner Year
Nutrient loading rates for upland erosion have traditionally been expressed in lbs/acre/yr. To calculate
an equivalent rate for shoreline erosion, the area contained in one acre (43,560 ft/acre) was divided by
the shoreline erosion rate (ft/yr) to obtain an equivalent length or:



43560    ft                                         4
L=
L         ~~acre
(4)
ET




Where: L = Length of shoreline (ft/acre)
E = Erosion rate (ftfyr)
T = Time (1 yr)


The equivalent length is then multiplied by the bank height (B) and erosion rate (E) to obtain the soil loss
per acre per year (equation 5):




V = L E B                                           (5)



where: V = Volume eroded (ft/acre-yr)
L = Length (ftlacre)
E= Erosion rate (ftlyr)
B = Bank height (ft)


Using a soil bulk density of 93.6 lb/ft, and converting from pounds to tons, the volume of eroded soil
can be converted to mass (tons). The nutrient contribution per acre of shoreline can be calculated as the
product of the nutrient loading concentration times the soil volume eroded times the bulk density.
11







Figure 2 illustrates the comparison of soil loss from upland erosion versus shoreline erosion. Assume
a site such as PS1 in Westmoreland County with an average shoreline erosion rate of 3.5 feet per year
(Byrne and Anderson, 1977). A representative acre (43,560 ft2) of shoreline therefore has a width of 3.5                  I
feet and length of 12,446 feet. The total volume of soil lost by shoreline erosion varies with the bank
height at the shore. The bank height at PSi is 18.0 feet from the base to the top. The soil loss calculated
using equations 4 and 5 is 36,696 tons/acre-yr. In contrast, the average upland erosion rate for 3 highly
erodible agricultural subwatersheds in Westmoreland and Richmond Counties is 14 tons/acre-year (Brown
and Price, 1988).
I





UPLAND EROSION

M4Tons/Acre









|                              /        3Tons/ Aa'e  .e

















Figure 2. Illustration of Upland Erosion Versus Shoreline Erosion



12                                                                 3

IV. RESULTS
Nutrient Concentration. Grain Size and Bank Heieht


Grain size, inorganic phosphorus, total phosphorus and total nitrogen concentrations are plotted against
bank height for each site in Figures 4 through 25. Although both total phosphorus and inorganic
phosphorus were measured in Ibison et. al. (1990), total phosphorus was reported to keep the research
consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Program nutrient loading estimates (Chesapeake Executive Council,
1988). In the present study, inorganic phosphorous data has been included to show the amount of
immediately available phosphorus. (Inorganic phosphorus data measured in the previous research are
presented in Appendix A of Ibison et. al, 1990.) Soil classification criteria used in Figures 4 through 25
are depicted in Figure 3 below:
Symbol

E
1:
1
U'
Description




gravel and sand


sand


silty/clayey sand
Composition



greater than 60% sand
with 20% or greater gravel

greater than 80% sand
less than 20% silt and clay

50%o to 80% sand
20% to 50% silt/clay
50%	to 80%	silt/clay
20%	to 50%	sand

greater than 80% silt/clay
less than 20% sand
sandy silt/clay


silt/clay
Figure 3. Soil Classification Criteria
13

I
P3tds Sze
Wcyct Dwriet


Sit mu Cla -.-*-	a-'M

0	50	Im

~8	56	a
a
I
I otai pbosonaus


a5 120 '20 300 400 5U
'otat Nit-ogen

Om~ MM im 150 -103
~-garnc Prcs4Icrior
WWG/
eu  a'eZ2  &'~ ~0.4
I
PSi-6
PS'1-3

PS1-4
PSI-3
la
a ,
0-  -----:~



I




0






0I

a0
I


aI



0
I
9-
I

0I


C-
0D

0
(1)
a
I
11
0
I
PS'i-2
10
I
5


9
I0-.-
I
PSiIA
PSI-7
0
I
I
2243
MG~G
b
Pa7tk-.e j'-zs
Weecnt Peca,t

saZwdem"~	-	a.,0-
SIft a" Cay	--*-	05-0%


a0 %
I
I
,tha] Nitogen


020 m2 OAO 000 as I
k-a*ganfe PhOSMWjS


0IGI
Totai PhosvrIcts


0.0350--  0.75  -De
I
0
_0         p
PS2-B


oPSP-S
a




0
LU
I
0
I
10


0





0~
0





I


00
0-
I
10
PS2-4






0
0. -'


01
I
P52-3
PS2-2
PS2-i
5
I
0
I
elevation relative to n-san high water

F'igure 4.   Grain Size, Inorgkyanic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) Potomac
South I and b) Potomac South 2.
I
I
14

Pbmlcia SIze
Wm. Mt PFrcent






a 50 IN
a
To%m PFcsclxus
~an imiaW5a
Irergwie RhCsWCrX.~q

eim3 aome82 oom 0e46


o  tI                     i            L
s
Jr,2



io -



5 -



0 -


t2S3-3


,PS3-1


0:
0
4
-
p
0
0-- - -  C
0-
0- -  ------


.2

0'1
- --

0    0'

9


91
0
0
10
a
1-0
I
I
I
I
I
I
b
partIC1 Sims

wecm QPu -c. S

swi	am amm	9


sR	am ow -*	N-a
klo~arc Phmrc-t

020 3 21 1092 1103 094
Tomi PhnspaLs

020 a2.1.0 32 303 34
TotW Niro;e,G
NiCGl
1020 1020 OAO aim aaal
a8-
-~PS4-4

PS4-3


P,94-
2.


PS4-i
a
N
N
0,
Ila


C)
0
01
II
I




I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6 -


4 -


2 -
I
I
I
I
0
x
d,
I
I
i
I

t
I
I
I
I
I
0I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-2
elevationl relative to me-an high water




F'igure 5.   Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) Potomac

South 3 and b) Potomac South 4.
15I

I
a
Pau:ia Size
WOK-n F-	cam




a    S O	~ ï¿½
Io
I
Total Phochots
MCGG
am ql-l       le te
W110r~r
ao    z 32am    304
Total l\ta'og
tv z~ z
I
.0
I
i
I

-l-PS5-43
6 7


4 -ï¿½:   PS5-2

2..-
0-j
10

I


0



Ili
0I
0l
I
I
I
I
I
I

10

i
I
I
I
\9
1
1
1
j
I
I
I
I
b
I
I
SR~ am Giae -~.* M-.

a     to


am   oem   amni  ~006  ar
Tota  l F,o.tat
WY/G
Total N~tcen

~too 020 3A0 aim aaa12
12j

10-

8-

a6-

4 -

2 -

0 -

-2 -
PSM-



* . "PS6-3



'-	PS6-2



..	Ps6-1
---O
I
0
0
0
(a
P- - -
I
I
I
N
V
I
I

I
I
I
t

I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I




02
(L
)
\0
I
I
I
I
I
I
k
t
I.
I
I

0




I
I
0
0I





9
I
I
I
I
-elesatlcn ralauiNe to mswea hgh water

Figure 6.   Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total N'itrogen: a) Potomac
South 5 and b) Potomac South 6.
I
I
16

a
Paimc S:'M
Wa~qm pq'~~
Sam1 gm1 owo	___w_	I -MM

si mCw .	_M-
i cum Pvcwrcna
, AG(G
TotiaNtroo
IVG1G
zmZOoz   8  ls
2
12 j

1~

Si	P87-5


6	oP.S7-4
41	0 PS7-2
-1	oPS7-2
11 '
-2   -  P7-


0-

0
A
0
k
C,
0I
01
No
/
0


10
I
I
I
I
I
I
01
9
b
parucle Sze



smat mCING3	-.4-       -I-

a	5
1	s 7	i ;

Total NtrAcen

am 0.15 020 0am 040 M~


on m elm 0516 021 o

Ome 3  a"Om a.10
20



1.5



10



5
0-*
0
-	.NI-5
---	RNI-4








...RNI-2
0

0
/
a
a





I






0


-
1-
Ul

I N
0



0






0
0
0





9-
'19
elev-ation relatiNe to mew6f high water




F'igure 7.   Grain Size, Inor-anic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) Potomac
South 7 and b) Rappahannock North 1.
.17

I
Paiiei Size


Salld ard CVas  --a	VI-.00

8iaa .-m	3   %

a 59	l
a
I
Toal NitrOGe
NGICI
00  2    IZAO   B   B
Totai PIOsorcrus

zoa3.0 2123  3m  44
urlagwc phoswiorLe
M3GI
05am    ai    lm   a
I
I
- i- _*  ;1\2-8


.45-	-9P2-7
-	1

j	- 0 'M2-13



-4



I-!RN2-3

0
- .
0


0
a-
0-


0
I
0





0
I
0
0(

I
I
I
I
0
0

0- -
-I
I-
0
1
1
1
1
1
I

p
I
I
I
I

a~~IG
I

I

I
b
Pat~Icq Stze
Weign, Pgrcard

8"aa~cwM -.* 8.-%




0


01
TotN Phwpr"L

W-Wm a	G3	ma



08D"092Z	09U

f- i I i	i
Total Wioen
vr-dG
ftrv-c R'mn

0m oomi Om 5 008





0
0
I

I
---0
0-



0
H112-5
PN3-4

FII3-3





0 RS-2


PM-1
I

C-

(1
)
LL
J
15
-
I



0
I
/O
I
t
I
0o
5
0_
I
II


I
I
I
I
I
alevatcnl relatlv to rren higM watEr

IFigure 8.   Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:   a)
Rappahannock North 2" and b) Rappahannock North 3.
I
I
18

a
pm'CwSlzs


swdmor	--Mm  *-VW

a	Ea go

Im	t       a
raomr- PNMciOMMA












0-- - - - II

91
Total F'hOSDIra,

IN .1.5	1-1	31 m







0- -	- -

I





I
i otal NMInga








0-~  ~    ~~ -  --



0



-   P14-5



RN4-2

--0IN4-1
0

'0

1
a8-


0
0D
U]



4-


2-
k
6
I
I
I
I
I
10
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
-2 -
b
pa"IdG Szs



SR " Cty	-.-*-   " - %

0	e %
ivorwlc R*=V'us
N~3GG
Total Phosmorus

an 25eeon an
Total Nr l
WIVG
20-
15-





io -




5 -





0 -



.-.-, R\5-2


---.I R~Z-i




*:=71L-2


1.:    -

C:
0

c
u
I m



0~~~---




0
0
0
0,-
0-
-e



0




0

x
10
I
I
I
IP
0	0

/
	~~~
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~I
I
0
aekNation relatIe to mew i gh water




Figure 9.  Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:  a)

Rappahannock North 4 and b) Rappahannock North 5.
19

I
a



saw 8.4 "I.  *	- le e%

a   so	*

Is53	a
I
horgancPhrosraj

Nraee
Toatm Phmom;
NI3GIC
 ama  US 3.0A1    2
* otal Nitrogen
NQj3d
02   12   A  ai   a   z
I
I4
I
8-~


I- _ PN-

I--'  N-






.. *PN6-1
0
- 0


0-
C
D
LU
0
I
0-
 -I


4 -


2 -
I
I
0
x
N
I


x
x
k
t

I
f
I
I
I
I
0
1
1
t
I
I
I
I

1
;I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
I

I

I
Ii

Q
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
b


Sa     gnt P'ICSM~ 0




sa            a I
I
I


am um anam um
-rotw M*rL
a"r

TQat tg
10 -


8 -

c
0

0
III



IFN
&2
K
N
,
-
0

0
x
0
1
1
10
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
I
I
t
I
I
0
10
6 -


4 -


2 -
'a

p
I
I
I

7I
I
I
I
I
I
p-
I
I
I

I





i
I

I
0 -

-2 -
I
eealicbn rekttvo to mres rs1k water

F'igure 10.  Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:   a)
Rappahannock North 6 and b) Rappuhannock North S.
I
I

20

a





We1	Ph	't


11	55       *U
rwgaic G

ZZB ~2 aa            M
P0.us
Toll 1'trogen,

300         32 5  .75
IZ
,0
0

9I



0-






0
45
Iq


91
;3
410




25
20
15
C:

70


LLJ
/
9



0
0
0
0
0-
I I          0
o

o            0
t0
0D- - - -        J
5
I~
b
pulde Size



GM "       -4--   In- a%





a 0
ir~c PInc-sari,,s
NG'G  ~5 ~
i otal PhozsWorks
Total NIfr)en
IV/GI
00    O00am   eo  A e
25-


20-


15 -


lo:


5 -


0 -
P- St-8


P-*  SI-7







-RSI-4
R SI-2
RSI-I
a
0
0


CD

0
(a)
I
I
1
4
I
0
0

0
1

0~
N
6
t
t
I
la
0


a
-1
0
0N

0,
0
1
1
1
1
aereaUon reiat1' "O mmn hlgrn wate




Figure 11.  Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total LNitrogen:  a)

Rappahannock North 9 and b) Rappahannock South 1.
21

I.
a
POM:C. size
'N.-gt P-foDm


aW -dow         --ï¿½  .g

Sama  -.-me-
I
raganc P'o=rmst
KCYGa
Totw PeRxnpcu
Nrto/
Total "r'.oen
NC-G
I
I
20o-  -


25


20      -
' ;S2-:5
15      _
-    PS2-4
10      --:


5          *PS2-3
. S2-2
a  m   IRsa-l
I?
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
i
I
0
k






I



I
I
Q




I

C-
0
.n
I
I?







I

ImN
I
I
I
a
0..
)- - -
I
I
b
I
I
1
Parbd Stre



efardandr	-a---	In-e,



1	Ie I	-	S
lr~al Phomrru~s

0e0 00 aLle Wa 22a







1-~~~-

I~

I
Totai FPosworEr

?eIG
Total NtMeng

IRS "a" eae oem em
I0 -	-





8	-~ P6
6	K


4-

2-


0

-2   I
I
a
I
- 0

c

(D

LU
0
a
I
0-
I
I
i
0
1
1
1
a
I
I
I
f
I

II

11

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Iewvainn reistl'%e to mean hig watfl

Figure 12. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Tot-al Nitrogen: a)
Rappahannock South 2 and b) Rappahannock South 3.
I
I

a
p3ncal Sbe



Sfttam ca   -*~-	"




le	i
0
T..iial oso"L*r
hrlG
an0.1 13.10a  OmA1  350
IraWaxC Prn~sonrust

G~ age 02   .1   IS




0
Totai NitrOGefl


1~    i. I~ I

- .
0:~
RS4-7
-.RS4-5

RS4-4



RS4-'3





RS4-2

.RS4-1
251'
I


20j






10


5


0
- a
0-
a

I
(


I ~LU
Q


0






0.
I
p
I
k
x


I
I

I
I
I

I
O'





I



N
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
0-


ii
-Q
b
Patcle Size
Weicnt Pftcwt

sit wo OW     --*-	-.-O
a	so	'
to 1	.
lgnorw$ p?osomorm
. W/G
an a Omt Oa% ezn
Iota] FItosoriat

OW am a'  a's a=
Tot-Al mtroga

aoo 020 0.4 83 13a   Zs
20-

R:-   S5-4








TRS
S-2

RS5-1
0

15-







10 -






5 -
0


0





0








0
LU

0


p.














aI



I





0I

/









0

t
I

6











0


a

I
I
0




0


0



a
elevation relative to m. mn i gh water




Figure 13.  Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:  a)

Rappahannock South 4 and b) Rap pahannock South S.
-23

I
a
Pldt"c SEze
wecp~t Pq'cwt

stt &A O-W	--*-   s.^

0	m
1' I	:
IU      w	8
I
I
W,IcrQ c olnoswwu
W-i G
OAN   z im	A    . amo 02



I	__
Total P~-oswortn
Niellr
028 O2 50 a-3 MI
Total Nilrogen

05W 020 O 040 eoa a150z





a~~~~pap
0



0
/0
10
I

0
0




0


I

C-



LL
J
I
I
I
0
1
j
I
I
I
I
0
1
I
0



0
0



0
I
I
I
I
b
ParticSaszG


~axl ad Gam ---N-0- 5 0%
at am Cay   --4-=- 50.%

I =


Total "lg81   I
ftrgan R,sWacns
Total FpRvGv=%

020 0.10 020 2.30 a,8 au0
O50 020 ZAO Oig OM0 iZa
I
I





i--




L
25              RS7-7


2    0


RS7-4

D              ~~~~RS7-3

RS7-2


0              RS7-1




alevation rEtat81 to IT83n high WatSr
0
- - 0
- -0



Is
0-
d
IS



0
0
1






0



0- -
I

I
I
IS
I


0I
I
10
0
0
I
I
F'igure 14.  Grain Size, inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen:  a)

Rappahannock South 6 and b) Rappahannock South 7.
24

a




Sam sm amlm	a~	- I
se dme	-4---	in -


a 5* in



agem ae ~0l0% a320

NG3IG
000  3.'    02   33



elm 0 GA elm 380.2
a
I-
C:
CD
3
M
L
L
a


4
YMI-3


Is'N-p




IM-i
0
lp



I
I
0
1
1
1
i
0I
-I
0
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
21
b

we,qr. P-soya


SaI d m4  a~   . 5
k~Ui,o prcwrs

am u W amt umi
TGIW P-esuxs
am aIO am &33 am
Total NeTcgen

am Oa R40 aM GM Im
25-

2-0-


15-


10-


5 -


a -
- - BYN2-%0


. :  YN2-9



..0YN2-8
-* 4YN2-7

---'YN2-a
-0
0
a
0
a



I






z



0

uJ
0,










00



I-Q
0~
01
I
0


00

6
0


1

N
0,

0I

- -1
0 1
01
Iï¿½
slavat1ci reladw to rrem hfgh wata




Fitgure 15. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) York

North I and b) York North 2.
25

I
a
Paiics size





Vyli Po it





0
I

horgw  0  zeispm-!
Tctat R'seoaras

Kra-W1203z
Total taften~s
aI
,,     aN-8


--0YN3-7




15 -4     -I
- .YN3-5


---* YN3-4

-YNS-3
- -. YN3-2

---% YN3-.1
0
I0


0I
0



0




0



N

0'

11
I
01





01
)
II
I
I
I
I
I


10
4
I
'I
Ia

I
I
0D

I
I
I
b
I
I
%fflC! Sime



&M NSt~M on -*--. M-%

ut  MO. C;	e     -2

 i.	--
ar9- PI'MO-

am alm am1 Om1 ez
Total Prwxt

Om9elm ame a~0 A0
Total Nittan
W-dAe0itO
I
5 -
4 -


C)
0

0D
II
I
--  YNP-2




-- . YN4-1
3 -
2
a
I
I
I
I
I
0I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
41
a
I
I
9
I
I
I
I
0 -

-1 -

-2 -
I
slavadon raladve to mean Migh water

Figure 16. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) York
North 3 and b) York North 4.
I
I
26

a
Rartlc~ Size
'Neqnt P~-3rza-t


Swlt ana Cw	In	a- 0

a	50	i

-1 !, ,	1 !::.:
rxarprc Pt"osororus

mZe  aov  o lama~
Total Pw1osohoR;s

K aG
Total NtCe
v3Gi
00 :)23 OAO OB3 Z-e













I- -

0  ---
2- 2Z wa2/G




-1

I
0
'Z
(1)
I i I
15
-
YIS11-
63
YSI-5


YEI-4
10

01


0
0 -



0
/
I



10
0-
Y-CI-3
5
0

0
YS 1-2
0
/
0
b
Parrda Sze
Weio,t P-rcsnt
Sam~ av Gr&,w ---.  a - W
gtt anoCaf	.*- In. a%



im	wa       a
hffl;wl Flnoscnms

Eig      Om 00 321f a
Totwl Phmamrcrs

0   IN    2a~e    A
TotaJ Nlt0nW

 aaim01   020   2   aAe
127

10-

a8-

a6-

4 -

2 -

0 -

-2 -












iNI-2
0
0

0P
























0
















/






C5

0D

I0

/
a


0
0I

11

11

11
9
1
1


I
lI
1

1
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
N
N
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
elevation relat-m~ to aman higni wawe




Figure 17. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorous and Total Nitrogen: a) York

South I and b) James North 1.
27

I
a
parwdeSiz
'Ab-t P-fat

Szl usOO.. ---s O."
Staewt---Im- 9
I


ane ao ea"e a0I6 32e
7tW~ Ptascricrt
Klc;G
308 306    .9   I aleai
TotW itrge
'Necl
Me   -l "32  ame 3,40 a5
I~~~~
I

20-


15 -


10-


5 -


0-:



_4N25


-_












- I

0D

01~
1-1



O,
I



10



6


0- -


0/
0I
'O
0
E





Lii
. a
I
0
0



0
I

I
0
I
9
9
I
I
I
I
I
I


ParW% Site                                                                                                              I
Wakti Plwcmt
b
8"amen"	--W- 4- W%
saxmcw	--*- la-0%

a 50 In
1  1  i  ,  ;  _
Go a
togian~ Rmwhratm


I 8;  I8   I   -1


a0 m ame al O.%BI
I
Tota Nlizagn

800 an8 04 eaam Ism
I
25 -

20 -




cD    115--



5 -


0 -



..MN-8






-M4
IM-2
Q
I
I
I
0-
I
lp
0
I
I
a
a
a


p
0


0
I


I




a
0.
0,
I
0



0= -
-I
f-
/
1
I
I
GlevatIcgwraidvtcelitas' hlgfl water

F'iguire 18. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) James
North 2 and b) James North 3.

28
I
I

a
Pantxia Size
W.I-nt P'T'rt


sera am crw -.--O a - BYm


si ar i ewI B9
raQwc N=rnrw

NGG
TotaiPlt2samaLat
TCMI NiVCcg&n
~~
io-
-0








~~~~1IN-
0

9

0
I
I
t


I
t
I


6


t
I

0I

I
I
I
I9I

I







I(i
'3
I

I
It


S
I
I
I


I
I
I
I
N

k
k
b
I
I
I
I
aI
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
b
Weight PTCat


S"Ma    -.   .M





0

k


an m ao BanB ago
To~ia Ptcswcaa
S  N B9    BA
T0,21mvn?g

GMG2 BB ~a




.-- -  -
0- - - -
-o




15
-



10 .



5



0




j*N5-,3

, I
-.  .  \5.4
0
a
I1

I

z

0
-1
I
0
0,
I
I
I

I
I
91
1
1
1
1
1
/
0
I
I


91
/
0
eevatJon relaflave toa high water




Figure 19. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) James

North 4 and b) James North S.
29

I
a
parw~e Size



SR No a"	-4*-   " - 0
0	5
i i , ~~.
I
j-uwr"c pt-~ni

0I      !   ~i
Total P~os~onn

00   31  aie  0.15  b2
Total ~Aros
I
I
2o



15	JSI s-s





I-	-.	3-2
hi0    I
	isi-
p
I
9


C:

CI
I

I
10
0
0
I
0
I
11
a
01
0



I
I
o
0
"I0
Na
0.1
1
1
1
I"
I
I
I
I
b



Wegqr cqowo 4-~-5





is t
ToSii Ph=hCrn.

MI i
Total NV~ogen
WI3/G
00   mOQ   a  a
ftrganC Ph=f~tne

a am aimO   9
I
25-


20-


-0

w    -

5 -

0 -
.232-10
.232-9
J23-8

.232-7
, JS2-6
, J32-5
'JS2-4
I
0 D







0


0
.0

0
N
N




0,I


,0
0-- - - - 0

0
N
/
I
I


91
I
a
I


0
I
0
0l
9
isa324
.232-2
.232-1



I
I
I
t
I



I



I
eWeatlon relatve to mm~ Mh1 water




F'igure 20. Grain Size, Inorg,anic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) James

South I and b) James South 2.


I


I
30

a
p3rXcia Sim


Sdftd SfU ciGr    --V	I -W
sitam c~ay	40-   %


I !	-::

'U         s o	0

P"socr

'YOG
ZM    3.'O  D2    ZM
Total Nitrgen
NI3GI
5-
~
4 1
I~~~~C
_


I         -
(D
C
O
(D
3-J

2-i

I1-
I -E_
jS3-2
I =-fll

=7=1
-E_fl
-::7_ ';_I
___T

-ZIL..--
0
1
t
I
I
I
I

aI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
1
1
1
1
1
t
i
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 -

-1 -

-2 -
b
Pa-loi Sima

I.rd " G2	--.W    a-IM%

Si W1	ON-*- "a


a  v
I
hOrgW AMScn
NG
ToTa Phosm'ai.
~iGG
098 VO  320     03    a
Tota M.Tlg
lvG
*~jS4-5
.JS4-3



tJS4
-2



JS4-.1
12 -

10 -

a8-

6 -

4 -

2 -

0 -

-2 -
0-	-----







0 ~	~        ~
-     -




G-
- .0
0- -
I
6
I
L
I
I
I
a
I
I
I
I
I
a
91


0




CD
0


0D
III

0
0
i
Ia

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
alievtion rea~tte to mean high water




Figure 21. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) James

South 3 and b) James South 4.
3
1

I
a



Sft -Oy  p-"t ~.4

S& a%0m        3 3
1' r cf-*- '.
a3     3 in
I
CagWC PhMWnrus

W-WG8086 ~
. =1 9t'cSor,IEn

aim 005           0.16
Tolai Nitrogen

023 Or8 120 10 223
I
25 -
.4





20


5 -
- z'--7





T j-5-6

' S5-1
0
x
I?
a-



0
I
I
I


I


t0

I
p
a


0
I
0
N
I
0
1
1
1
1
1
I0
I
I

I
b







a 50               1

13 1         1   i     ,:
I
k1lrwinc F-MVMoeA

Noe01 a~03   0
7c',; PhOz~oiaLs
fvoG
aw  .'  023 020  040O
Total NwNen

026 020 0.40 026 ;J0 A
I



0   -



-0
5--





0 -

I--   S6-
-~ j Js6-7
--- J35-5




* ~.JSS-4


- -. JS6-3


.-.- 'b-
-~ JSG4
0

0



0I

k

I
0
0
.0
0


x~0
0
I
0

9


0

p
I
I
I
0
0



a
*0
I
I
I
I
elevation relatlve to mew, migf water
I
F'igure 22. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total iNitrogen: a) James
South 5 and b) James South 6.
I
32

a

Sa r ro	I	-W

se rdO	.4-	IN9
ragac PnoscrE,n








- -
Totw PhosulaxAl
W-VG

I 3I
Total "room~
NGIG
10
0-
9- 1
1
1
f
I
0
1
1
1
t
I
I
I
t
I

x
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a


c
m

C
D
III
6


4


2
I
I
t
I
I
0

-2
b



Slt=CaTi -4- =-a%
a 4           I.M
1	III ~:
11
im	e go
kcm,Wc phos&cms

e  W ei     3
Touta Riosohoms
M3IG
on0~ J~0 O.* 03 ~MI
 otal Nitorsw'e

0~ 20 OA 40 aM )B
60-


50-


40-


30-


20 -


10 -


0 -



-UJS7-10


*   JS7-7



jS7-8






-   .JS7-5





-JS7-4



-  JS7-3







-4JS7-1





0,








0
9


aI
I
0

01

0

a

C:








LU
J
0I
0I
a-
0
I
0
1
1
0
1
t
4
0
1









0I
0-
aI

I0- - - - - ?




0.078 ~,1G

I0-
eWeation relatWv to mean high water




F-igure 23. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) James
South 7 and b) Piankatank I.
33

I
a
pw$Icl size
W').nt P'Vcwt


Sa am &a     -m.~M
sa am ow-*          9a
I


Tci Icrs
W-aganic PTroswate
NCYC  e   o
Total Ntragen
KI5G
303 029 OAM 983 OB8 98
I


4 1
I


c
(D
Co
(3)
M~WI-2



I-I'NSI-I
3 -I



I1-
I
I
I
I

i
II

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
I
9
0

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
-1

-2-
I
I
I
b




a 5*                  In


898  am   a"   895  9928


TcI Ph  inxs.

Tota N989819829
I
I
12-
10-

8-

6a-

4 -

2 -

0 -

-2 -
-   .ESI-5

___ESI-4
ES1-3


ESI-2




ESI-I
-_o
,0
a
0
11

N


0
(2J

LL
]
I
I

II

II
'0
b
/


t
I
I
I
/
0k
1
1
1
1
0





10
a
I
I
aievatinf raiat" to amn~ hOf watX

F'igure 24. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen: a) Western
Shore I and b) Eastern Shore 1.
I
I
34

a
PBMWA SLZB


S"~ au" Ow.  --- "	a- -
SI	R
oGV-*	eO
a 50 me



WYGG


I-. - - -  1
Tcial pnc

W-JG
Total "troge
Nrl/G
020w   2  3 OAZ 3---A
0
1

0
I A
'a
01
N




0
1
t
I
I
9
II



I
I
I
I
I
I




CD
LU






0
0I
1
t
I

9I
I
I
I
I
I
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
b
pa-lect'Size
WeiQm Pqca,t


Sa l  a   --W   a-m%
,ocita Ph=rats


OR 320 401 ei ose lee
Total mtcen
M3O/G
000 Oie am 0-: aAe 13-%
fma~nic FsRn=cs
W-VG
12
1-

10
-
0
0
p


I

I
0

C-
0

m
(D




b


/

I



0

01
0,
'_D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sefoatan relafr/e to mewa hlgfl matr




F'igure 25. Grain Size, Inorganic Phosphorus, Total Phosphomu and Total iNitrogen: a) Eastern

Shore 2 and b) Eastern Shore 3.
35






In Figures 4 through 25, a number of sites with sady soils showed the 'classic trend' of high nutrient
concentrations near the surface and decreasing nutrient concentrations with depth. Sites that showed this
trend are PS6, RN8, RS3, RS7, JNI, Pl1 and ES2. Sandy soils would obviously allow rapid percolation3
of sur-face water.


Sites with active groundwater seepage and increased nutrient concentrations in the area of clay layers
include PS2, PS3, RN9, RSl1, YN2, YN3 and JS5. In contrast, sites RS5, PI I and ES2 had groundwater
seepage but no increase in the nutrient concentrations at depth due to sandy soils throughout the profile.
Apparently clay layers collect the nutrients that have leached from upper horizons. A relationship
between grain size and total nitrogen had been observed for some sites in the previous research (lb ison
et.al., 1990). A relationship between total phosphorus and grain size had been expected because of the3
bonding capacity of clays for phosphorus. Total nitrogen proved to have a better relationship with grain
size than total phosphorus for the sites studied (Tbison et. al., 1990). Simpson (personal communication)*
noted that nitrate nitrogen is stored in soil micropores. He theorized that the observed nitrogen spikes
in the past research may have been influenced by increased micropore volume in fine textured soils.3


Although sites RNI1, RN3 and YSI1 had no evidence of groundwater seepage in the horizons being
sampled, favorable precipitation conditions could induce groundwater seepage.  At these sites, 'spikes'
in total nitrogen concentrations were also found to be associated with clay horizons. (At RN3, both total
nitrogen and total phosphorus increased in the clay layer in the middle of the bank. It should be noted
that groundwater was seeping across a basal clay outcrop below the mean high water elevation. This

finding indicates aroundwater from different aquifers may be entering the river.)

Nutrient LoadinLy RatesI


The mean nutrient loading rates for total nitrogen, total phosphorus and inorganic phosphorus for eachU
site are presented in Tables 2 through 4. Note the high standard deviations, indicating that the loading
rates are variable. This finding is not surprising since the nutrient loading concentrations, bank heights3
and erosion rates used to calculate loading rates vary considerably among the sites. The mean nutrient
loading rates and standard deviations for the 14 sites exaimined in the previous study are presented in
Table 5. The mean nutrient loading rates from the previous study were approximately twice those
calculated in this study. The previous study focused on reaches with erosion rates greater than 2.0 ft/yr3

363

Table 2. Total Nitrogen Loading Rate Summary
Bank              Sediment
-:Sample   g	Loss	TN	TN	TN
Name	ton/ft-yr	lblft-yr'	lb/ton	lb/ac-yr
PSI	2.95	2.93	0.99	36465.9
PS2	2.23	1.09	0.49	16957.3
PS3	3.05	2.16	0.71	22402.3
PS4	0.75	0.66	0.88	14374.8
PS5	1.51	0.82	0.54	9399.8
PS6	2.74	1.20	0.44	10722.5
PS7	1.83	0.79	0.43	7022.9
RN1	0.13	0.12	0.92	13068.0
RN2	0.70	0.34	0.48	21157.7
RN3	0.85	0.67	0.79	41693.1
RN4	1.22	0.87	0.71	14575.8
RN5	1.80	0.79	0.44	14338.5
RN6	0.67	0.14	0.21	3388.0
RN8	0.59	0.26	0.44	6292.0
RN9	1.57	0.38	0.24	23646.9
RSI	1.87	0.52	0.28	14157.0
RS2	2.67	0.96	0.36	22009.3
RS3	0.10	0.67	6.82	138977.1
RS4	4.02	5.88	1.46	77616.0
RS5	0.52	0.10	0.19	6222.9
RS6	0.84	0.67	0.80	16214.0
RS7	4.17	0.87	0.21	11484.0
YNI	0.13	0.12	0.92	13068.0
YN2	0.70	0.34	0.48	21157.7
YN3	0.85	0.15	0.18	9334.3
YN4	0.26	0.17	0.65	4628.3
YS1	1.05	0.52	0.50	16179.4
JN1	0.36	0.11	0.31	6845.1
JN2	0.29	0.34	1.19	55842.5
IN3	1.26	1.58	1.25	57354.0
JN4	0.39	0.30	0.76	18668.6
JNS	0.66	0.65	0.99	40448.6
37

I
I

I
I
I
I
I
Table 2. Total Nitrogen Loading Rate Summary (Continued)
Bank:      |    Sediment        |
Sample	Loss                 TN TN	TN       :	TN
Name	ton/ft-yr         : lb/ft-yr	lb/ton	lb/ac-yr  ::
JSL	1.07	0.83	0.78	30129.0
JS2	2.13	0.64	0.30	14672.8
JS3	0.39	0.22	0.56	3422.6
JS4	0.85	0.43	0.50	13379.1
JS5	0.72	0.45	0.62	28002.9
JS6	3.56	1.65	0.46	18914.2
JS7	1.97	1.05	0.53	65340.0
PI1	1.73	0.95	0.55	11184.3
WS1	1.16	1.04	0.89	6380.6
ESI	0.88	0.33	0.38	8455.8
ES2	3.20	0.77	0.24	5884.4
ES3	1.40	0.21	0.15	3977.2
Mean          : i:40	0.81	.731	2624.0
||000; lt:Std. Dev.  l0|:00:i0:0::0i :1.07	0.95	-0.98	24467.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
-
I
1
I
:
U
38
I

Table 3. Total Phosphorus Loadina Rate Summary
Bank              Sediment
Sample	Loss       -	TP	TP	TP
Name	ton/tt-yr	lb/ft-yr	lb/ton       1	lblac-yr
PSI.	2.95	8.87	3.01	110393.5
PS2	2.23	0.53	0.24	8245.3
PS3	3.05	0.60	0.20	6222.9
PS4	0.75	0.11	0.15	2395.8
PS5	1.51	1.73	1.14	19831.3
PS6	2.74	0.08	0.03	714.8
PS7	1.83	0.28	0.15	2489.1
RN 1	0.13	0.05	0.38	5445.0
RN2	0.70	0.19	0.27	11823.4
RN3	0.85	0.11	0.13	6845.1
RN4	1.22	0.75	0.62	12565.4
RN5	1.80	0.12	0.07	2178.0
RN6	0.67	0.14	0.21	3388.0
RN8	0.59	0.19	0.32	4598.0
RN9	1.57	0.10	0.06	6222.9
RSI	1.87	0.09	0.05	2450.3
RS2	2.67	2.93	1.10	67174.1
RS3	0.10	0.39	3.97	80897.1
RS4	4.02	2.47	0.62	32604.0
RS5	0.52	0.09	0.17	5600.6
RS6	0.84	0.34	0.40	8228.0
RS7	4.17	0.45	0.11	5940.0
YN1	0.13	0.05	0.38	5445.0
YN2	0.70	0.19	0.27	11823.4
YN3	0.85	0.11	0.13	6845.1
YN4	0.26	0.09	0.34	2450.3
YSI	1.05	1.00	0.95	31114.3
INI	0.36	0.11	0.31	6845.1
JN2	0.29	0.12	0.42	19709.1
JN3	1.26	0.13	0.10	4719.0
IN4	0.39	0.35	0.89	21780.0
JN5	0.66	0.30	0.46	18668.6
39

I
I
Table 3. Total Phosphorus Loading Rate Summary (Continued)

Bank      :      Sediment
Sample	Loss	lTlP	TP
Name	ton/ft-yr	Ib/ft-yr      l: b/ton	lb/ac-yr
JS1	1.07	0.20	0.19	7260.0
JS2	2.13	0.14	0.07	3209.7
JS3	0.39	0.22	0.56	3422.6
JS4	0.85	0.38	0.45	11823.4
JS5	0.72	0.06	0.08	3733.7
JS6	3.56	1.43	0.40	16392.3
JS7	1.97	1.53	0.78	95209.7
PI1	1.73	0.16	0.09	1883.7
WS1	1.16	0.60	0.52	3681.1
ESi	0.88	0.13	0.15	3331.1
ES2	3.20	0.65	0.20	4967.4
ES3	1.40	0.26	0.19	4924.2
Mean	.40    i	0.66	.48	15806.6
Std.:Dev.-:      :-:1.07	1.40     o   :	0.72':
	24553.4':
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1,
1
I
I
I
I
1
:
40
I

Table 4. Inorganic Phosphorus Loading Rate Summary
Bank             Sediment
Sample	Loss	IP	IP                 II
Name	ton/ft-yr	lb/ft-yr        . .	lb/ton	lb/ac-yr
PSI	2.95	3.512	1.19	43709.35
PS2	2.23	0.048	0.02	746.74
PS3	3.05	0.129	0.04	1337.91
PS4	0.75	0.015	0.02	326.70
PS5	1.51	0.044	0.03	504.38
PS6	2.74	0.005	0.00	44.68
PS7	1.83	0.013	0.01	115.57
RNI	0.13	0.001	0.01	108.90
RN2	0.70	0.004	0.01	248.91
RN3	0.85	0.002	0.00	124.46
RN4	1.22	0.025	0.02	418.85
RN5	1.80	0.013	0.01	235.95
RN6	0.67	0.005	0.01	121.00
RN8	0.59	0.005	0.01	121.00
RN9	1.57	0.013	0.01	808.97
RSI	1.87	0.009	0.00	245.03
RS2	2.67	0.486	0.18	11142.19
RS3	0.10	0.101	1.03	20950.29
RS4	4.02	0.372	0.09	4910.40
RS5	0.52	0.006	0.01	373.37
i RS6	0.84	0.072	0.09	1742.40
RS7	4.17	0.065	0.02	858.00
YNI	0.13	0.001	0.01	108.90
YN2	0.70	0.004	0.01	248.91
YN3	0.85	0.002	0.00	124.46
YN4	0.26	0.001	0.00	27.23
YSI	1.05	0.050	0.05	1555.71
JNI	0.36	0.003	0.01	186.69
JN2	0.29	0.003	0.01	492.73
IN3	1.26	0.007	0.01	254.10
JN4	0.39	0.011	0.03	684.51
JN5	0.66	0.010	0.02	622.29
41

I
I
Table 4. Inorganic Phosphorus Loading Rate Summary (Continued)
Baink          Sediment
Sample      ,	Less	IP                IF	I
Namne	ton/ft-yr	lb/ft-yr        -lbiton	lb/ac-yr
JS1	1.07	0.012	0.01	435.60
JS2	2.13	0.006	0.00	137.56
JS3	0.39	0.004	0.01	62.23
JS4	0.85	0.010	0.01	311.14
JS5	0.72	0.008	0.01	497.83
JS6	3.56	0.152	0.04	1742.40
JS7	1.97	0.052	0.03	3235.89
Pi1	1.73	0.014	0.01	164. 82
WS1	1.16	0.049	0.04	300.63
ESi1	0.88	0.014	0.02	358.73
ES2	3.20	0.217	0.07	1658.34
ES3	1.40	0.007	0.01	132.57

Meaj	1.40	012707	2330.4
Std. Dev.	1.70.525                              0.3 j.7209 9-'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
42

Table 5. Nutrient Loading
(Ibison et.al., 1990)
Summary
Loading Rate       :     Load. Concent.
Sediment
Loss	TP f	TN	TP	TN
Site              tonft-vr	lb/ft-yr	lb/ft-yr	lbiton	l-b/ton:
Nomini Cliffs	4.75	4.16	5.30	0.88	1.12
Great Point	1.19	0.04	0.52	0.04	0.44
Chesapeake Beach	1.64	0.22	0.79	0.13	0.49
Fleets Island	0.85	0.25	1.49	0.30	1.77
Wellford	1.97	0.22	0.49	0.12	0.25
Canoe House Landing	10.96	1.16	6.44	0.11	0.59
Rosegill	2.45	0.55	0.14	0.23	0.06
Bushy Park Creek	5.26	0.86	0.68	0.16	0.13
Sycamore Landing	3.37	0.84	0.64	0.25	0.19
Pipsico Camp	4.53	2.59	1.14	0.58	0.25
Chippokes State Park	2.14	1.45	1.13	0.69	0.53
Mogarts Beach	4.42	4.42	1.78	1.02	0.41
Silver Beach	3.10	0.40	1.23	0.13	0.40
Tankards Beach	2.39	0.66	1.30	0.28	0.55
::Mea 3::50	1.27	16 :  I05	0.53
 :  Std.Dev.- "    -      2.46	1.38	--i:	1.79           0.30    :	0.43
43






and erosion volumes greater than 1.0 yd3/ft/yr. The sites in the present study were selected to obtain a
wide range of soil stratigraphies to provide more complete coverage of the lower Chesapeake Bay
estuarine system. In general, the reaches sampled had lower erosion rates and eroded soil volumes than
the sites from the previous research. Therefore, the present study reflects the lower nutrient loading
rates.


The variability in nutrient loading rates for each river system and the Bay is clearly depicted in Figures
26 through 35. The inorganic phosphorus loading rates are graphed separately from total nitrogen and
total phosphorus due to differences in scale. In many instances, the inorganic phosphorus loading rate
was only slightly higher than the detection limit. Although readily available (inorganic) phosphorus
loading was minimal, phosphorus measured as total phosphorus could become available under favorable
conditions.


The sites with total nitrogen loading rates greater than or equal to 1 lb/ft-yr were PSI, PS2, PS3, PS6,
RS4, JN3, JS6, JS7 and WSI.  These sites were located throughout the Bay system and not confined to
a particular river. The sites with total phosphorus loading rates greater than or equal to 1 lb/ft-yr were
PS1, PS5, RS2, RS4, YS1, JS6, and 1S7.


Nutrient Loading Concentrations


The nutrient loading concentrations for total nitrogen, total phosphorus and inorganic phosphorus are also
presented in Tables 2 through 4. The mean nutrient loading concentrations were used in Ibison et. al.
(1990) to estimate the total quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the lower Chesapeake Bay
estuarine system from shoreline erosion. The mean total nitrogen and total phosphorus loading
concentrations in this study were 0.73 lb/ton and 0.48 lb/ton, respectively. In the previous research, the
means for total nitrogen and total phosphorus were 0.51 lb/ton and 0.35 lb/ton, respectively (Table 5).
The nutrient loading concentrations are of the same order of magnitude and similar in value. In all
instances, the standard deviations were high.








44

m - m - - -   m m m  - m m   - -
Nutrient Loading Rates
Potomac River
11
10
9
8
7


 5
:


C-

2
1

0
Legend
K	Total Phosphorus
10	Total Nitrogen
Ut
PS2   PS3   PS4   PS5   PS6   PS7
PS1
Figure 26. Nutrient Loading Rates - Potomac River, Total P'hosphorus and Total Nityrogen

Nutrient Loading Rates
4-

3.5 -

3-
Potomac River
Legend
Li  Inorganic Phosphorus



4,
IL"I
a)



IV
co
9
2.5 -

2-

1.5-

1-
0.5 -
-
F-I
PS2   PS3
0
I
I                                                                           I
I
PS4
PS5   PS6
PS7
Psi
Figure 27. Nutrient Loading Rates - Potomac River, Inorganic Pliosphorus
m m  m -  m -  m  m -  m -  -   m  -   -   - m

m -  -  - m m m               m             m m-  -  -    - - m


Nutrient Loading Rates
7-          Rappahannock River
6.5-                                     Legend
6-
5.5-                                n Total Phosphorus
5-                  a                  Total Nitrogen
5-~~~~~~~
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5








- r-B A-I gI      - r

'IC


a.)
a)
cm
-a
o
-Pi
1
0.5
0
Figure 28. Nutrient Loading Rates - Rappahannock River, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen

Nutrient Loading Rates
0.6-
0.55-
0.5-
0.45-
Rappahannock River
Legend
W Inorganic Phosphorus




;::
:;:
:::
i:ii
iii
_
::
::
iï¿½

ii
1

::ï¿½_
i:_:
iï¿½:ï¿½:ï¿½:ï¿½:-
i_
ll
_


i
i
i
i
i
L
s
I
l
i
:
ii
ii
ii
_
ii
ii
I
_



'
"
n
'
i
:















:
:
"
:
'
:




ï¿½
-
ï¿½
ï¿½
,
x
_i
i_
ii
i_
iii
_
0.4 -
0.35 -
0.3 -
0.25 -
0.2-
0.15-



I-
,l

:Z>
oc



10
co
3

:
_
I
_
:
:
 
:::
i:
x:
::i

;ï¿½:
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
ï¿½
ï¿½ï¿½iï¿½ï¿½
:ï¿½-
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½:::::::
:
:::::::::

ï¿½:
q
ï¿½
'
:
i
:i
a
r

i:L

':'""
1
iii
Ii


_
'''
'



::
i:
i


:
'
:
'
:


:
_
:
_
::
::
ï¿½_
:ï¿½
z
_;
_
_ï¿½
-:;
:
_
_ï¿½
_
_:
ï¿½
b_i
_ï¿½.-..
%
Pi:
0.1
0.05
0



A
 
 
 





-q	A
F
L

. --	-Inn
1 RN3 ~7T~IM
]F  N2~TRN4-~- - T -~61f	9 RRS2R  3S4Rw5 RS6
Figur   29.  Nutr ientL o gR a e	R p a  R R e   o  n    s  p r


F'igure 29. Nutrient Loading Rates - Rappahanock River, Inorganic Pliospliorus
m   m   - -m  m   m   -  -  - -  -  - - - - - - --m  ~

I- -I  m m m m I- m  - / -
m - - - -
Nutrient Loading
Rates
1.2-
1.1 -
1-
0.9-
0.8-
0.7-
0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
York River
Legend
a
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
O
,







.4
co
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
YN4
YN3
YS1
YN1
YN2
Figure 30. Nutrient Loading Rates - York River, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen

Nutrient Loading Rate
0.06
0.055
0.05
0.045
-:  0.04
- 0.035
a)
l  0.03
(A E
C c0.025
0  0.02
9J
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
York River
Legend
IL   Inorganic Phosphorus
YN2     YN3     YN4
Ys1
YN1
Figure 31. Nutrient Loading Rates - York River, Inorganic Phosphorus
m  m  -  m                         -  -  -  -       ---

-m m m m m m m m m           m   m m m m m m m-
Nutrient Loading Rates
2

1.
8

1.
6
James River
Legend
H Total Phosphorus
laBO Total Nitrogen
1.4

1.
2

1

0.8

0.
6







cc




.-
0.
4

0.
2

0
JN1 JN2 JN3 JN4 JN5 JS1 JS2 JS3 JS4 JS5 JS6 JS7
Figure 32. Nutrient Loading Rates - James, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen

Nutrient Loading Rates
0.2-                       James River

0.18-                                                          Legend

0.16 -                                                   [JInorganic Phosphorus
0.14-

~-0.12 -

16   0.1 -
IS 0.08 -

~B0.06 -
0.04 -

0.02 -


JN1 JN2 JN3 JN4 JN5 JS1 JS2 JS3 JS4 JS5 JS6 JS7



Fi gure 33. Nutrient Loading Rates - James River, inorganic Plhosplhorus
m  -  --  -- m-             --  -  --          -  -  -  -

I//I//III
//II////ï¿½//
Nutrient Loading Rates
Chesapeake Bay
1.2-
1.1 -
1-
.-c  0.9-
'i, 0.8-

V
0	0.7-
a-	0.6-
a	0.5-
-,	0.4-
Legend
M Total Phosphorus
in Total Nitrogen
0.3 -
0.2-
0.1-
0--
WS1
ES1      ES2
ES3
PI1
Figure 34. Nutrient Loading Rates - Chesapeake Bay, Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen

Nutrient Loading Rates
Chesapeake Bay
0.26 -
0.24-
0.22 --
0.2-
0.18 -
0.16 -
0.14 -
0.12 -
0.1-
0.08 -
0.06 -
0.04 -
0.02 -
0-
Legend
W!! !Inorganic Phosphorus

















ES3



a,


4-
(:i




03

PI1
IES
ES1
ws1
ES2
Figure 35. Nutrient Loading Rates - Chesapeake Bay, Inorganic Pliosphours
_   -  _   _  m_  m    _   _   _   _  _   _   _   _   _   _

Phosohorus Concentrations in Banks with Fossilirerous ITHorizons
Six sites had fossiliferous layers in their stratigraphy. These sites are: PS5, RS2, RS4, YN2, JS6 and
JS7. The sites occurred in all 4 major tributaries. However, they only represent 14% of the sites
sampled.


For the sites with fossiliferous layers, the mean loading concentration for inorganic phosphorus was 0.06
lb/ton and total phosphorus was 0.72 lbs/ton. The standard deviations were 0.06 and 0.33, respectively.
For the 38 sites without fossil layers, the mean inorganic phosphorus loading concentration was 0.06
lb/ton and total phosphorus was 0.39 lbs/ton. The standard deviations were 0.23 and 0.72, respectively.
For inorganic phosphorus, the nutrient loading concentration was the same for both groups. The total
phosphorus loading concentration was almost twice as high for the fossiliferous group. The higher total
phosphorus loading concentration may be related to the presence of apatite.


Nutrient Loading Concentrations and Landuse


One objective of this study was to determine the effect of landuse on the nutrient concentrations of
eroding shoreline banks. The following four landuse types have been identified for the sites studied:
active farm, fallow farm, wooded and rural residential. Of the 44 sites studied, 14 were active farms,
8 were fallow farms, 16 were wooded and 6 were rural residential. The landuse types represent 32%,
18%, 36% and 14% respectively of the total number of sites. Table 6 and Figures 36 through 40 show
the loading concentrations by landuse type. The mean loading concentration for each landuse type is
depicted in Figure 36. Loading concentrations by landuse type are provided in Figures 37 through 40.


The mean total nitrogen and total phosphorus loading concentrations were high for active farmland, as
was expected. Surprisingly, the mean total nitrogen loading concentration for wooded land was as high
as for active farmland. Of the wooded sites, JN3 had the highest loading concentration, which seems to
be related to the very high nitrogen and carbon concentrations found in organic peaty layer at the base
of the bank. A similar situation existed for YN2, although the mean nitrogen concentration for the site
was not unusually high. The other wooded sites generally had high total nitrogen and carbon
concentrations in the topsoil. Some sites had high nitrogen concentrations associated with clay layers.
55

I
Table 6. Nutrient Loading Concentrations by Land Use
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Active Farm Loading Concentrations       II        Fallow Farm Loading Concentrations
TP	TIN	TP	TN:
site          lbiton	lbiton             Site	lb/ton	lb/ton:
PSI	3.02	1.00	PS5	1.16	0.54
PS2	0.24	0.50	PS7	0.16	0.44
PS3	0.20	0.72	RS2	1.10	0.36
PS4	0.14	0.90	RS3	0.40	0.68
RN2	0.86	0.26	JS7	0.78	0.54
RN4	0.62	0.72	Pl1	0.10	0.56
RNB	0.32	0.44	ES2	0.20	0.24
RS 1	0.04	0.28	ES3	0.19	0.16
RS4	0.62	1.48	I      ea	05
RS6         ~~~0.40	0.80                   I	.4
JN1	0.32	0.30  j ~~~~~~~~~wStd. Dev.       0.41	0.~16
JN4	0.90	0.76
JS4	0.44	0.50
JS6	0.40	0.46
Mean	0.1	:651
M         ~	~~~0.611	.2


Wooded Loading, ConcentrationsRura[ Residential Loading Concentrations'.
site..        f TP          * ~TN..	T                            I
(lb/ton         (blb/ton	Site            lb/o             lbtoni~




















I
I




















I
I
PS6
RNI
RN3
RN6
YNI
YN2
YN4
Ys1I
JN2
JN3
JNS
IS 1
JS2
JS3
Js5
ES I
0.02
0.14
0.06
0.20
0.36
0.26
0.24
0.96
0.16
0.10
0.46
0.18
0.06
0.58
0.08
0.52
0.44
0.64
0.46
0.22
0.92
0.48
0.66
0.50
0.46
1.26
1.00
0.78
0.30
0.58
0.64
0.90
RN5
RN9
RS5
RS7
YN3
WS
1
0.06
0.06
0.16
0.10
0.12
0.52
0.44
0.24
0.20
0.22
0.18
0.90
I
I
I
I
Mea n	j0. 17103
Std.~Dev,.	j        016            02
I
I
I
I


Mean	1          0.27 1	0.64


 Std. Dev.	10.24  1	0.27
56

m I I I m - -   -I  - -- -  - -
Nutrient Loading Concentrations
0.8-
0.75-
0.7-
0.65-
0.6-
0.55-
0.5-
0.45-
0.4-
0.35 -
0.3-
0.25-
0.2-
0.15-
0.1 -
Averaged By Land Use
Legend
m Total Phosphorus

a
o




r-
.o
a


O


t-
0


.C
Total Nitrogen
Residential
Active Farm Fallow Farm
Wooded
Figure 36. Nutrient Loading Concentrations - Averaged by Landuse

Nutrient Loading Concentrations
4-                      Active Farms
Legend
3.5 -
H	Total Phosphorus
g3 -	Total Nitrogen

2.5-




1.5-

1-

0.5


PS2    PS4   RN4 RS1    RS6    JN4    JS6
PS1    PS3   RJN1    J
C
o
0


o


CZ

( o
O



0
Figure 37. Nutrient Loading Concentrations - Active Farms
m m  m m m_   m m m m m m m m m m m m m

- -
- - I- -I - - - - - - -- -- I
Nutrient Loading Concentration
Fallow Farms
Legend
F////,        Om Total Phosphorus
a 0  Total Nitrogen
1.3
1.2
1.1

a
0



o


C"


"O
o,
0

0
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
ES2 ES3
PS5  PS7  RS2  RS3  JS7  PI1
Figure 38. Nutrient Loading Concentrations - Fallow Farms .

Nutrient Loading Concentrations
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Legend
Total Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen
c


.0
o



C:

0
C
0
0


r-
Figure 39. Nutrient Loading Concentrations - Wooded Sites
_   _   _   _  m                  -   - _  m _   _  _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

ImmII////mm/IImmIIIm
Nutrient Loading Concentrations
1.1-             Rural Residential Sites
1-                                                    Legend
0.9-                        .	Total Phosphorus
_ 0.8 -	Total Nitrogen
0.7-

0.6-
0.5-
O
0.4-
c  0
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-

RN5    RN9    RS5    RS7    YN3    WS1
Figure 40. Nutrient Loading Concentrations - Rural Residential Sites

Phosphorus loading concentrations decreased from active farmland to rural residential. Of the six sites with
fossiliferous layers, 3 were fallow farms, 2 were wooded and I was an active farm. The relatively high mean
phosphorus loading concentration for fallow farms appears to be influence-d by the three (3) sites with fossils.
The remaining fallow farm sites had relatively sandy soils.












62~~~~~~~

V. DISCUSSION
Comnarison of Shoreline Erosion with Unband Erosion


The purpose of this study was to verify and expand the results of the previous research by Ibison et. al. (1990).
The new research confirmed that nutrient loading concentrations and loading rates are extremely variable from
site to site.


The nutrient contributions from shoreline erosion can be compared to upland agricultural erosion using loading
concentrations and loading rates. The nutrient loading concentrations are lower for shoreline banks than
agricultural runoff, as discussed below. In contrast, the high nutrient loading rates clearly demonstrate the much
greater relative impact of shoreline erosion to estuarine water quality.


Nutrient loading concentrations from Virginia's Agricultural BMP Cost-Share program provide a reference with
which to compare loading concentrations from shoreline erosion. The effectiveness of agricultural BMPs is
assessed using an average total nitrogen loading concentration of 5.44 pounds per ton of soil and total
phosphorus concentrations that vary state-wide from 0.68 to 1.88 pounds per ton of soil (Chesapeake Executive
Council, 1988). In comparison, the mean total nitrogen and total phosphorus loading concentrations determined
in this bank erosion study were much lower, 0.73 and 0.48 pounds per ton of soil, respectively. The loading
concentrations used for agricultural BMP assessments reflect nutrient losses to surface waters from the nutrient
enriched topsoil layer. The loading concentrations for shoreline banks, in contrast, are weighted for the soil
stratigraphy of the entire bank.
I
The nutrient loading rates reflect the fundamental difference between the nutrient load from upland erosion
versus shoreline erosion. The large mass of material lost through shoreline erosion allows tons of soil with
associated nutrients to be input directly into the Bay system. Although agricultural land may have higher
nutrient loading concentrations, the underlying soil horizons remain relatively undisturbed and do not contribute
to downstream nutrient loading. The sheer mass of material lost through shoreline erosion results in nutrient
loading rates several orders of magnitude higher than similar upland loading rates. This difference is readily
apparent when the nutrient loading rates are converted to lbs/acre-yr and compared to agricultural loading rates
for comparable land areas. Beaulac and Reckhow (1982) reported a range of total nitrogen export rates for
cultivated farmland from the literature varying from 1.88 to 71.02 lbs/acre/yr (2.1 to 79.6 kgaha/yr) and total
63

I

phosphorus export rates varying from 0.23 to 108.81 lbs/acre/yr (0.26 to 18.6 kgfha/yr). Due to the quantity                 i
of soil loss due to shoreline erosion, the comparable loss of nutrients per shoreline acre is 22,624 lbs/acre-yr
for total nitrogen and 15,807 lbs/acre-yr for total phosphorus (Tables 2 and 3).


Another notable difference between shoreline erosion and upland erosion involves the proximity of the nutrient
input to the water body. In all shoreline erosion cases, nutrient loads are input directly into the water. In
addition, the nature of shoreline erosion versus upland erosion is that the former results in the complete loss
of land and subsequent unrecoverable loss in real estate tax base. In contrast, upland erosion primarily depletes
the topsoil's ability to support agriculture. Shoreline land loss may also damage or destroy shore adjacent BMPs            3
that were installed to minimize upland nonpoint source pollution.


Nutrient Loadiny Concentrations for Fossiliferous  Banks


The mean total phosphorus loading concentration for the 6 banks with fossiliferous horizons was approximately	I
twice that found for the 38 banks without fossil layers. The inorganic phosphorus loading means were the same	3
for both groups. Since the fossiliferous sites represented only 14% of the sites sampled, fossiliferous horizons
were not a factor in most of the banks studied. The highest total phosphorus loading concentrations were found             3
at 2 sites with no fossils: PSI, an active farm and RS3, a fallow farm with high nutrient levels in the upper
horizon. For the purpose of calculating nutrient loading estimates for the entire Bay, the mean total phosphorus
loading concentration for the non-fossiliferous sites could be used to reduce possible errors.


Nutrient Loading Concentrations and Landuse	I


The landuse comparisons indicated differences among the four landuse types. Active farmland proved to have	I
the highest loading concentrations, as would be expected. The high total nitrogen load found for wooded land
was an unexpected result because of research showing nitrogen reduction by wooded riparian buffers (Peterjohn             I
and Correll, 1984; Correll and Weller, 1989; Correll, 1991). The forested buffers studied by Correll and
colleagues occurred along sloping banks of first order streams with wetland soils present. Correll and Weller            I
(1989) determined the high rates of nitrogen loss were due to denitrification by the wetland soils beneath the
forest. For denitrification to occur, two conditions appear to be necessary:  low redox conditions of the soils          3
and large amounts of organic matter (Correll, unpublished lecture). In contrast, the wooded sites examined in
the present study occurred on the tops of eroding bluffs where wetland soils were not present. It would appear
64

-that without suitable hydrology and soil conditions for denitrification, the effectiveness of forested buffers for
nitrogen removal would be limited to nitrogen uptake by the trees and filtration of surface runoff. While
forested buffers appear to be very effective in reducing nitrogyen in headwater areas with wetland soils, the
findings of the present research suggest low ni"ogen removal efficiency for the upland forests alona eroding
shoreline bluffs of major rivers and the Bay.


I	~Nutrient Manaanenent Imuilcations


I	~~To achieve the 40% nonpoint source nutrient reduction goal of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, mnanagement
tools need to be developed to target the highest contributors and achieve the greatest reduction for the monies
U     ~ ~spent. 'Because of the large sediment losses associated with shoreline erosion, the sites with the highest sediment
losses have the greatest potential for nutrient contributions, even when the nutrient loading concentrations are
I       ~~average or low. As an example, site PS3 contributes more nutrients due to the high sediment loss and mnoderate
nutrient loading concentrations than site RS3 with low sediment loss and hiah nutrient loading concentrations.
U       ~~Obviously, the highest contributors would have both high sediment loss and higrh nutrient loading
concentrations.
Since data are available in Byrne and Anderson (1977) on the reaches with the highest sediment losses and
erosion rates, these reaches should be given the highest priority for implementing shoreline erosion control
nieasures.


The results of this research can also be used to calculate nutrient reduction "credits' for stabilized shoreline
sites. To calculate a nutrient reduction credit, the mean nutrient loadina concentration for the given landuse
at the site and sediment loss information for the reach can be used to calculate a loading rate. Because the land
has been stabilized, the loading rate represents a reduction credit of nutrients no longer being input into the Bay.
The shoreline stabilization data from the Virginia Bank Erosion Study (Hardaway et. al., in press) will allow
the calculation of nutrient reduction credits to the Bay from 1985 to 1990.
65


I
'
VI. CONCLUSIONS



1. The present study verifies that large quantities of nutrients are contributed to the Bay and tributary rivers
by shoreline erosion.


2. The mean total phosphorus loading concentration for fossiliferous banks was approximately twice the mean
for the non-fossiliferous banks studied.
I
3. Differences in nutrient loading concentrations were found for different landuse types. Active farmland had
the highest nutrient loading concentrations. Wooded land had an equally high mean total nitrogen loadingc
concentration.
I
4. The nutrient loading data for different landuse types can be used as a management tool to assess a nutrient
reduction credit for stabilized shorelines.



I
I
I
!
!
I









66                                                                     3:!
!

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
1.  The finding of equally high total nitrogen loading concentrations for the soils of wooded land and active
farmland was an unexpected result.  Additional research is needed to more thoroughly investigate the
relationship between nutrient loading concentrations and landuse, especially for wooded land.


2.  The report assumed the calculated nutrient loading concentrations for a given landuse type were consistent
within the identified reach. Additional research is needed to determine if this assumption is valid, by
ï¿½             evaluating more sampling sites for a given landuse and reach.
67






VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY


Beaulac, M.N. and K.H. Reckhow. 1982. An Examination of Land Use - Nutrient Export
Relationships. Water Resources Bulletin. 18:1013 - 1023.

Brown, A.R. and J.C. Price. [Memorandum to State ASC Committee concerning ACP special project
request.] January 22, 1988.

Byrne, R.J. and G.L. Anderson.  1977. Shoreline Erosion in Tidewater Virginia: Special Report in
Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 111. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester
Point, VA. p. 102.

Carlo Erba Strumentazione Carbon Nitrogen Analyzer 1500 Instruction Manual. 1986.

Chesapeake Executive Council. 1988. Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy. Chesapeake Bay Program
Agreement Commitment Report. Annapolis, MD.

Correll, D.L. and D.E. Weller. 1989. Factors Limiting Processes in Freshwater Wetlands: An
agricultural Primary Stream Riparian Forest. In: R.R. Sharitz and J.W, Gibbons (eds.) CONF-8603 101,
DOE Symposium Series No. 61 USDOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Oak Ridge, TN.

Correll, D.L. 1991. Human Impact on the Functioning of Landscape Boundaries.
In: M.M. Holland, P.G. Risser and R.J. Naiman (eds.) Ecotones - The Role of Landscape Boundaries
in Management and Restoration of Changing Environments. Chapman and Hall, New York. pp. 90-109.

Correll, D.L. (unpublished lecture) How to Manage Riparian Forests. Virginia Professional
Horticultural Conference. Virginia Beach, VA.  January 8, 1992.

Hardaway, C.S., G.R. Thomas, I.B. Glover, 1.B. Smithson, M.R. Berman, and A.K. Kenne. (in press)
Virginia Bank Erosion Study. Contract report to Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, VA.

Ibison, N.A., C.W. Frye, I.E. Frye, C.L. Hill and N.H. Burger. 1990. Sediment and Nutrient
Contributions of Selected Eroding Banks of the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine System.  Department of
Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Gloucester Point, VA. p. 71.

Johnson, Gerald H. (personal communication) College of William and Mary, Geology Dept.,
Williamsburg, VA.

Laboratory Procedure for the Soil Testing and Plant Analysis Laboratory.  1988. Extension publication
452-881. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Agronomy Dept., Blacksburg, VA.
Peterjohn, W.T. and D.L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient Dynamics in an Agricultural Watershed: Observation
on the Role of a Riparian Forest. Ecology. 65(5) pp. 1466-1475.

Simpson, T.W. (personal communication) Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences, Blacksburg, VA.

68
I

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.
EPA-600/4-79-020. Cincinnati, OH. p. 298.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A
Synthesis. E.G. Macalaster, D.A. Barker and M. Kasper (eds.) U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. p. 635.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. D.A.
Barker, M. Manganello, D. Pawlowicz and S. Katsanos (eds.) Philadelphia, PA. p. 186.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Guidelines for the Preparation of the 1988 State Water
Quality Assessment (305 (b) Report). pp. 19. Taken from: Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation. 1989. Virginia Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program. Richmond, VA.

VIMS Shoreline Inventory Computer Database. Unpublished. Virginia Institute of Marine Science,
Gloucester Point, VA.
69

IX. APPENDICES
I
I
70

Appendix A. Sediment and Nutrient Data

|	|I   :	0 Grain Size:a %	Nutrient Concentration (mglg)
Sample	Gravel	Sand	Silt  I  Clay	TP	IP	TN	PC
PSI-1	15.3	32.8	50.8	1.1	1.347	0.541	0.510	8.020
PS 1-2	16.3	14.9	68.8	0.0	0.415	0.319	0.190	0.790
PS1-3	24.1	4.9	70.8	0.2	0.440	0.035	0.252	1.312
PS1-4	34.8	18.9	45.1	1.2	0.362	0.051	0.410	2.020
PS1-5	28.4	19.6	48.2	3.8	1.616	0.079	2.014	21.797
PS1-6	16.3	51.6	31.9	0.2	0.429	0.019	0.366	2.401
PS1-7	13.5	28.5	58.0	0.0	5.308	2.243	0.550	9.500
PS2-1	5.0	3.6	91.2	0.2	0.022	0.005	0.080	0.270
PS2-2	45.0	11.5	43.4	0.1	0.666	0.014	0.340	2.300
PS2-3	12.1	4.2	80.3	3.4	0.016	0.003	0.040	0.130
PS2-4	7.5	1.6	90.4	0.5	0.035	0.009	0.330	1.110
PS2-5	18.7	3.3	77.7	0.3	0.026	0.002	0.190	1.010
PS2-6	20.2	36.1	42.1	1.6	0.342	0.089	0.780	8.770
PS3-1	32.7	20.8	39.7	6.8	0.193	0.032	0.590	4.670
PS3-2	12.1	1.3	86.5	0.1	0.071	0.007	0.090	0.530
PS3-3	33.6	33.0	32.9	0.5	0.036	0.001	0.090	0.570
PS3-4	20.2	26.6	51.3	1.9	0.060	0.008	0.420	4.030
PS3-5	7.6	1.0	91.3	0.1	0.008	0.000	0.010	0.190
PS3-6	24.8	35.3	39.9	0.0	0.231	0.031	0.730	8.480
PS4-1	57.4	24.1	18.5	0.0	0.089	0.001	0.510	1.750
PS4-2	65.5	21.0	13.4	0.1	0.049	0.000	0.440	2.080
PS4-3	26.2	6.8	66.6	0.4	0.049	0.034	0.280	2.180
PS4-4	18.8	30.7	49.6	0.9	0.208	0.011	0.800	8.360
PS5-1	12.0	2.4	83.3	2.3	1.471	0.027	0.090	0.570
PS5-2	40.8	33.9	24.6	0.7	0.071	0.001	0.420	1.740
PS5-3	9.6	1.9	84.1	4.4	0.049	0.003	0.130	0.680
PS5-4	9.5	29.3	58.0	3.2	0.215	0.035	0.750	10.010
PS6-1	1.0	0.3	97.0	1.7	0.008	0.000	0.030	0.410
PS6-2	15.1	2.9	81.8	0.2	0.014	0.001	0.320	1.710
PS6-3	8.6	3.0	88.2	0.2	0.008	0.001	0.030	0.450
PS6-4	34.5	32.6	32.8	0.1	0.016	0.001	0.160	1.170
PS6-5	13.5	42.5	44.0	0.0	0.062	0.002	1.150	17.190
PS7-1	17.7	6.7	75.6	0.0	0.071	0.005	0.120	0.570
PS7-2	1.5	0.7	97.5	0.3	0.009	0.001	0.020	0.190
PS7-3	11.7	9.3	78.4	0.6	0.093	0.005	0.130	0.700
PS7-4	25.8	41.2	32.9	0.1	0.073	0.001	0.220	1.610
PS7-5	21.1	55.6	23.3	0.0	0.167	0.007	0.820	10.810
71

I
I
Appendix A. Sediment and Nutrient Data (Continued)
I
Grain Size %	Nutrient Concentration (mg/g)
Sample    Gravel	Sand	Silt     Clay	TP	I P	TN	PC
RN1-1	34.6	29.7	35.7	0.0	0.038	0.006	0.088	0.552
RN1-2	4.1	2.5	85.9	7.5	0.042	0.001	0.019	0.270
RN1-3	55.8	36.5	7.7	0.0	0.076	0.001	0.533	2.510
RN1-4	21.5	13.2	65.2	0.1	0.114	0.002	0.081	0.528
RN1-5	12.6	26.2	61.2	0.0	0.045	0.003	0.344	5.568
RN2-1	14.4	4.3	77.2	4.1	2.104	0.005	0.167	1.984
RN2-2	12.7	2.3	85.0	0.0	0.061	0.013	0.060	0.260
RN2-3	21.0	8.2	70.8	0.0	0.085	0.005	0.142	0.799
RN2-4	2.6	0.9	64.8	31.7	0.044	0.001	0.023	0.156
RN2-5	4.0	1.7	90.0	4.3	0.021	0.001	0.010	0.130
RN2-6	20.0	11.0	69.0	0.0	0.058	0.007	0.188	0.789
RN2-7	10.1	21.1	68.5	0.3	0.080	0.005	0.217	2.127
RN2-8	10.3	23.9	65.5	0.3	0.392	0.014	0.648	7.242
RN3-1	1.0	0.8	97.5	0.7	0.009	0.001	0.030	0.230
RN3-2	45.6	24.1	28.8	1.5	0.049	0.000	0.490	2.220
RN3-3	3.8	1.3	94.9	0.0	0.020	0.001	0.040	0.640
RN3-4	17.7	7.2	75.0	0.1	0.022	0.001	0.126	1.659
RN3-5	8.7	22.9	68.3	0.1	0.051	0.002	0.587	15.703
RN4-1	20.7	20.2	59.0	0.1	0.089	0.001	0.178	0.905
RN4-2	53.4	33.1	13.5	0.0	0.163	0.001	0.393	1.912
RN4-3	23.1	18.1	58.7	0.1	0.144	0.003	0.106	7.180
RN4-4	27.7	20.5	48.5	3.3	1.844	0.085	1.508	8.221
RN4-5	11.5	29.7	58.6	0.2	0.162	0.004	0.222	2.482
RNS-1	24.4	31.7	43.9	0.0	0.056	0.004	0.115	0.510
RN5-2	0.7	0.5	81.0	17.8	0.005	0.001	0.010	0.110
RN5-3	2.7	0.5	94.2	2.6	0.018	0.006	0.052	0.315
RN5-4	64.2	19.2	16.0	0.6	0.069	0.003	0.265	2.007
RN5-5	23.0	13.4	62.3	1.3	0.024	0.000	2.188	1.733
RN6-1	5.5	3.4	91.0	0.1	0.082	0.007	0.058	0.362
RN6-2	23.9	9.1	66.9	0.1	0.126	0.002	0.018	0.208
RN6-3	11.2	25.5	62.6	0.7	0.073	0.001	0.268	2.781
RN6-4	6.3	22.9	70.4	0.4	0.073	0.002	0.722	14.045
RN8-1	1.9	1.8	95.7	0.6	0.049	0.005	0.030	0.293
RN8-2	2.1	1.5	95.0	1.4	0.055	0.003	0.350	0.230
RN8-3	23.3	15.1	61.6	0.0	0.410	0.003	0.219	1.394
RN84	10.2	21.3	68.4	0.1	0.296	0.004	0.463	5.161
I


I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
72
I

Appendix A. Sediment and Nutrient Data (Continued)
Grain Size %	Nutrient Concentration (mglg)
Sample    Gravel	Sand	Silt     Clay	TP	IP	TN	PC
RN9-1	31.2	26.4	42.4	0.0	0.024	0.002	1.510	37.410
RN9-2	5.8	1.0	92.9	0.3	0.048	0.001	0.022	0.131
RN9-3	3.4	0.4	55.1	41.1	0:005	0.002	0.010	0.090
RN9-4	2.6	0.1	97.1	0.2	0.002	0.001	0.010	0.040
RN9-5	4.1	0.5	78.6	16.8	0.004	0.001	0.010	0.160
RN9-6	3.7	1.2	95.0	0.1	0.003	0.002	0.010	0.090
RN9-7	18.0	7.4	73.8	0.8	0.018	0.006	0.070	0.310
RN9-8	8.0	0.8	91.2	0.0	0.073	0.012	0.030	0.180
RN9-9	4.8	0.6	94.4	0.2	0.015	0.004	0.020	0.160
RN9-10	5.6	0.9	93.5	0.0	0.055	0.005	0.030	0.230
RN9-11	13.3	24.0	62.7	0.0	0.074	0.003	0.160	1.630
RN9-12	10.5	1.3	88.0	0.2	0.060	0.005	0.370	5.420
RS1-1	5.9	1.9	58.4	33.8	0.015	0.003	0.100	1.300
RS 1-2	6.9	1.5	90.9	0.7	0.005	0.002	0.020	0.340
RS1-3	28.4	14.5	54.7	2.4	0.034	0.011	0.120	1.290
RS 1-4	38.1	23.0	38.6	0.3	0.059	0.003	0.300	2.600
RS 1-5	15.3	8.6	75.7	0.4	0.022	0.001	0.120	0.490
RS 1-6	22.0	9.3	68.7	0.0	0.021	0.001	0.150	0.550
RS 1-7	30.5	16.0	53.5	0.0	0.027	0.003	0.190	0.740
RS1-8	13.7	23.2	63.1	0.0	0.025	0.001	0.130	1.040
RS2-1	10.2	4.8	79.5	5.5	3.880	0.698	0.120	0.920
RS2-2	8.2	4.6	87.1	0.1	1.087	0.140	0.090	0.470
RS2-3	10.2	2.9	86.8	0.1	0.283	0.078	0.130	0.480
RS24	20.8	5.2	74.0	0.0	0.073	0.004	0.120	0.430
RS2-5	28.5	7.5	64.0	0.0	0.042	0.002	0.160	0.560
RS2-6	23.5	3.0	73.3	0.2	0.191	0.027	0.480	6.720
RS3-1	5.0	0.7	94.1	0.2	0.033	0.002	0.079	0.259
RS3-2	19.8	14.0	66.2	0.0	0.051	0.003	0.182	1.220
RS3-3	36.9	1.6	61.5	0.0	0.710	0.208	1.095	11.282
RS4-1	9.9	8.7	74.4	7.0	0.475	0.197	0.230	9.060
RS4-2	61.3	36.4	2.3	0.0	0.218	0.028	0.490	8.940
RS4-3	51.0	46.9	1.9	0.2	0.279	0.011	0.720	12.430
RS4-4	60.1	24.5	8.4	7.0	0.218	0.008	0.670	8.800
RS4-5	34.6	17.7	47.6	0.1	0.526	0.011	2.040	1.220
RS4-6	30.7	7.1	62.2	0.0	0.053	0.002	0.300	1.930
RS4-7	14.5	27.0	58.1	0.4	0.231	0.011	0.960	11.530
73

I
I
Appendix A. Sediment and Nutrient Data (Continued)
I
Grain Size %	: Nutrient Concentration (mglg):
Sample    Gravel    Sand	Silt     Clay	TP	IP	TN :	PC
RS5-1	0.8	0.4	98.7	0.1	0.055	0.006	0.012	0.097
RS5-2	0.9	0.4	98.3	0.4	0.016	0.002	0.014	0.081
RS5-3	7.3	7.9	84.8	0.0	0.087	0.009	0.043	0.368
RS5-4	20.5	10.3	69.2	0.0	0.152	0.004	0.240	1.584
RS5-5	2.8	1.2	96.0	0.0	0.066	0.005	0.044	0.263
RS5-6	10.3	24.5	65.2	0.0	0.185	0.005	0.633	7.144
RS6-1	55.5	37.0	7.5	0.0	0.138	0.001	0.386	1.909
RS6-2	53.9	26.7	18.5	0.9	0.100	0.014	0.396	1.709
RS6-3	18.9	8.5	72.5	0.1	0.105	0.028	0.091	0.584
RS64	13.6	23.1	62.8	0.5	0.540	0.144	0.676	7.631
RS6-5	17.9	20.9	61.2	0.0	0.169	0.055	0.195	1.593
RS7-1	4.0	0.6	94.4	1.0	0.060	0.017	0.220	2.566
RS7-2	11.9	15.4	72.0	0.7	0.038	0.014	0.070	0.284
RS7-3	5.0	1.9	87.8	5.3	0.024	0.005	0.034	0.197
RS7-4	3.3	1.3	95.3	0.1	0.038	0.006	0.025	0.173
RS7-5	5.8	2.2	91.9	0.1	0.022	0.003	0.022	0.248
RS7-6	4.1	1.0	94.5	0.4	0.045	0.007	0.062	0.294
RS7-7	20.3	9.0	70.6	0.1	0.118	0.004	0.224	2.001
RS7-8	2.9	0.5	95.1	1.5	0.020	0.006	0.016	0.125
RS7-9	8.6	17.6	73.6	0.2	0.349	0.017	0.995	11.520
YN1-1	6.1	4.1	89.8	0.0	0.122	0.002	0.929	0.733
YN1-2	29.4	19.0	51.6	0.0	0.188	0.002	0.298	3.647
YN1-3	6.1	17.3	76.5	0.1	0.229	0.008	0.241	3.496
YN2-1	40.6	18.0	40.5	0.9	0.303	0.030	1.236	35.176
YN2-2	33.4	24.4	42.2	0.0	0.092	0.004	0.404	6.527
YN2-3	3.0	0.8	94.2	2.0	0.018	0.001	0.020	0.228
YN2-4	3.3	2.7	93.6	0.4	0.010	0.000	0.052	0.306
YN2-5	67.4	26.1	6.4	0.1	0.163	0.001	0.437	3.527
YN2-6	37.5	19.1	33.4	10.0	0.300	0.001	0.224	24.822
YN2-7	35.4	12.9	51.0	0.7	0.085	0.000	0.270	1.722
YN2-8	7.4	2.0	90.6	0.0	0.074	0.001	0.133	0.438
YN2-9	7.7	2.2	90.1	0.0	0.152	0.002	0.091	0.503
YN2-10	7.8	17.9	74.2	0.1	0.059	0.002	0.093	1.300
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
74
* I

Appendix A. Sediment and Nutrient Data (Continued)
Grain Size %	Nutrient ConcentrationI (mgIg)
Sample    Gravel    Sand	Silt.    Clay	TP	IP	TN	PC
YN3-1	10.9	7.2	81.9	0.0	0.085	0.002	0.079	0.192
YN3-2	11.9	,6.1	81.7	0.3	0.089	0.005	0.059	0.132
YN3-3	1.7	0.2	98.0	0.1	0.013	0.000	0.007	0.060
YN3-4	2.4	0.2	95.4	2.0	0.010	0.000	0.014	0.034
YN3-5	7.0	3.0	86.5	3.5	0.055	0.000	0.041	0.089
YN3-6	20.2	12.4	67.4	0.0	0.044	0.000	0.105	0.224
YN3-7	10.9	1.4	87.7	0.0	0.104	0.002	0.076	0.353
YN3-8	7.1	16.5	75.6	0.8	0.140	0.001	0.462	6.019
YN4-1	26.2	14.1	59.7	0.0	0.092	0.001	0.150	0.818
YN4-2	10.7	31.6	57.7	0.0	0.152	0.Q001	0.559	10.854
YS1-1	5.6	8.4	84.5	1.5	0.067	0.001	0.037	0.194
YS1-2	40.6	24.7	15.2	19.5	0.485	0.001	0.228	1.277
YS1-3	7.7	2.7	89.6	0.0	0.067	0.000	0.104	0.297
YS1-4	12.8	7.2	79.9	0.1	0.214	0.004	0.079	0.316
YS1-5	12.3	16.3	71.3	0.1	0.370	0.014	0.147	1.476
YS1-6	12.4	17.9	55.3	14.4	2.220	0.168	1.152	16.857
JNI-1	4.7	5.0	90.3	0.0	0.105	0.004	0.057	0.333
JN1-2	22.9	19.7	57.3	0.1	0.183	0.003	0.176	0.638
JN1-3	41.8	28.0	30.0	0.2	0.291	0.004	0.391	1.518
JN2-1	43.5	23.0	27.0	6.5	0.116	0.003	0.223	0.567
JN2-2	14.1	29.1	55.7	1.1	0.062	0.004	0.109	0.435
JN2-3	44.0	19.6	36.2	0.2	0.039	0.001	0.289	21.155
JN2-4	16.7	19.1	62.2	2.0	0.144	0.001	0.129	0.663
JN2-5	43.7	24.3	32.0	0.0	0.058	0.001	0.238	0.945
JN2-6	25.3	6.3	68.1	0.3	0.044	0.001	0.187	1.046
JN2-7	68.1	28.9	2.9	0.1	0.033	0.003	0.540	4.662
JN2-8	71.9	26.5	1.6	0.0	0.087	0.002	6.440	6.346
JN3-1	69.5	21.3	8.8	0.4	0.111	0.007	3.704	56.127
JN3-2	21.9	35.2	42.9	0.0	0.061	0.005	0.499	2.268
JN3-3	7.6	4.9	87.5	0.0	0.025	0.001	0.074	0.607
JN3-4	43.1	28.0	28.9	0.0	0.047	0.001	0.395	2.367
JN3-5	28.3	20.2	51.3	0.2	0.047	0.002	0.247	1.148
JN3-6	46.4	45.1	8.4	0.1	0.025	0.002	0.570	2.170
JN3-7	46.2	42.0	11.8	0.0	0.024	0.001	0.340	1.389
JN3-8	28.0	60.3	11.5	0.2	0.105	0.004	0.100	18.065
75

I
I
Appendix A. Sediment and Nutrient Data (Continued)
I
Grain Size %	: Nutrient Concentration (mg/g):
Sample    Gravel	Sand	Silt     Clay	TP	IP    :	TN	PC
JN4-1	18.9	24.1	56.9	0.1	0.398	0.006	0.290	1.170
JN4-2	22.5	18.0	59.5	0.0	0.426	0.017	0.250	0.790
JN4-3	41.0	43.4	15.6	0.0	0.396	0.011	0.410	1.210
JN4-4	35.9	45.4	18.7	0.0	0.583	0.012	0.512	3.203
JN4-5	20.9	52.7	25.3	1.1	0.510	0.025	2.310	27.700
JN5-1	0.8	0.6	96.5	2.1	0.082	0.002	0.172	0.102
JN5-2	3.7	4.0	92.3	0.0	0.087	0.003	0.215	0.145
JN5-3	28.0	31.7	40.3	0.0	0.187	0.005	0.724	0.668
JN5-4	24.3	11.5	63.8	0.4	0.442	0.019	1.091	0.997
JN5-5	26.0	22.0	51.7	0.3	0.455	0.012	0.404	2.573
JN5-6	7.3	28.6	63.8	0.3	0.406	0.018	2.017	24.198
JS-1l	36.8	53.5	9.7	0.0	0.151	0.024	0.620	7.570
JS1-2	27.8	27.5	44.7	0.0	0.061	0.017	0.318	2.985
JS1-3	17.3	23.9	58.7	0.1	0.018	0.002	0.098	0.721
JS1-4	49.0	34.7	11.3	5.0	0.176	0.002	0.502	1.765
JS1-5	41.8	29.9	27.4	0.9	0.039	0.001	0.338	1.551
JS1-6	50.3	23.9	24.9	0.9	0.086	0.002	0.949	23.369
JS2-1	3.7	0.8	93.4	2.1	0.016	0.001	0.011	0.096
JS2-2	3.6	0.8	54.8	40.8	0.009	0.001	0.014	0.075
JS2-3	7.2	1.1	91.7	0.0	0.013	0.001	0.014	0.164
JS2-4	24.0	23.2	52.5	0.3	0.049	0.002	0.197	0.878
JS2-5	42.1	50.1	7.8	0.0	0.019	0.001	0.319	1.797
JS2-6	19.6	10.3	69.5	0.6	0.054	0.001	0.153	1.077
JS2-7	21.9	10.4	63.7	4.0	0.046	0.001	0.183	1.010
JS2-8	51.3	23.5	25.2	0.0	0.019	0.001	0.263	1.330
JS2-9	62.8.	29.4	7.8	0.0	0.035	0.001	0.550	5.838
JS2-10	26.3	41.6	31.1	1.0	0.243	0.014	0.424	9.765
JS3-1	32.2	32.0	35.7	0.1	0.286	0.006	0.328	1.496
JS3-2	11.6	43.0	45.4	0.0	0.296	0.003	0.071	0.804
JS4-1	3.3	1.1	95.3	0.3	0.106	0.005	0.002	0.025
JS4-2	21.2	24.4	54.4	0.0	0.251	0.006	0.017	0.073
JS4-3	47.6	39.8	11.9	0.7	0.363	0.005	0.573	4.343
JS4-4	37.9	44.7	17.4	0.0	0.352	0.004	2.264	24.375
JS4-5	11.5	49.9	38.0	0.6	0.443	0.013	0.133	0.512
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
76
I

Appendix A. Sediment and Nutrient Data (Continued)
Grain Size %	Nutrient Concentration (mg/g)
Sample    Gravel	Sand	Silt     Clay	TP	IP	TN	PC
JS5-1	29.9	47.8	22.3	0.0	0.098	0.011	0.680	6.780
JS5-2	30.4	28.4	41.2	0.0	0.035	0.011	0.160	2.180
JS5-3	9.3	8.9	81.8	0.0	0.030	0.004	0.160	1.910
JS5-4	2.6	0.7	96.7	0.0	0.007	0.002	0.020	0.210
JS5-5	19.8	10.3	69.9	0.0	0.025	0.001	0.150	0.890
JS5-6	16.5	14.3	68.7	0.5	0.018	0.001	0.320	2.190
JS5-7	4.7	44.0	50.5	0.8	0.122	0.007	1.880	35.170
JS6-1	13.7	24.0	56.9	5.4	0.380	0.022	0.214	16.201
JS6-2	13.1	24.5	61.6	0.8	0.377	0.021	0.154	16.709
JS6-3	12.4	17.8	67.8	2.0	0.037	0.012	0.160	16.098
JS6-4	16.6	16.7	66.7	0.0	0.024	0.013	0.157	1.152
JS6-5	25.2	14.9	59.8	0.1	0.133	0.034	0.231	1.372
JS6-6	11.9	22.5	65.2	0.4	0.277	0.035	0.387	5.124
JS6-7	13.4	23.8	60.3	2.5	0.360	0.028	0.677	7.443
JS7-1	20.3	26.1	52.4	1.2	0.946	0.078	0.400	11.490
JS7-2	23.1	35.4	39.2	2.3	0.343	0.001	0.370	30.400
JS7-3	12.9	25.3	35.5	26.3	0.383	0.001	0.430	70.900
JS7-4	33.4	14.7	51.9	0.0	1.184	0.027	0.130	0.650
JS7-5	40.2	24.2	35.5	0.1	0.035	0.001	0.380	1.800
JS7-6	14.1	3.9	81.5	0.5	0.015	0.001	0.060	0.470
JS7-7	16.9	3.5	79.5	0.1	0.013	0.000	0.040	0.350
JS7-8	40.1	11.2	48.7	0.0	0.024	0.001	0.130	0.890
JS7-9	41.2	6.7	52.1	0.0	0.010	0.001	0.670	0.660
JS7-10	8.6	19.5	71.9	0.0	0.051	0.003	0.320	4.510
PIl-i	12.1	8.0	79.8	0.1	0.042	0.005	0.263	2.541
PI1-2	10.8	3.0	86.2	0.0	0.036	0.001	0.110	0.676
P11-3	24.2	17.1	58.1	0.6	0.027	0.001	0.305	2.740
PI1-4	14.4	27.2	55.6	2.8	0.129	0.016	0.969	15.3 10
WS1-1	17.8	34.1	47.9	0.2	0.145	0.003	0.207	1.484
WS 1-2	13.0	30.8	56.1	0.1	0.544	0.067	1.057	12.927
ESI-1	9.9	5.4	84.7	0.0	0.026	0.003	0.070	0.310
ES1-2	6.1	2.5	91.4	0.0	0.036	0.012	0.070	0.480
ES1-3	18.9	13.8	67.3	0.0	0.144	0.010	0.160	1.220
ES1-4	31.6	32.8	35.6	0.0	0.087	0.003	0.270	2.260
ES1-5	9.9	30.6	59.5	0.0	0.142	0.002	1.500	20.270
77

I
I
Appendix A. Sediment and Nutrient Data (Continued)
I
Grain Size %	Nutrient Concentration (mg/g)
Sample    Gravel       Sand	Silt     Clay	TP	IP	TN	PC
ES2-1	4.9	1.5	93.6	0.0	0.053	0.011	0.040	0.790
ES2-2	7.6	0.9	91.5	0.0	0.055	0.018	0.050	0.640
ES2-3	7.5	0.7	67.4	24.4	0.116	0.018	0.020	0.550
ES24	22.8	37.2	40.0	0.0	0.051	0.002	0.210	1.270
ES2-5	9.4	28.3	61.8	0.5	0.462	0.275	0.530	5.710
ES3-1	13.1	8.6	78.0	0.3	0.145	0.007	0.110	0.480
ES3-2	20.7	31.8	47.5	0.0	0.102	0.002	0.150	1.760
ES3-3	10.6	29.3	60.1	0.0	0.704	0.002	0.350	0.250
ES34	2.9	0.4	96.7	0.0	0.009	0.002	0.010	0.250
I
I
I
I
I
I
I


I
I
I
I


I
I

I
I
78
I

Appendix B. GIS Coordinates
Site               Quadrangle               :North        :  East
PS1	Colonial Beach South	4229800	330400
PS2	St. Clements Island	4223750	350800
PS3	Kinsale	4217150	361850
PS4	Kinsale	4209350	366500
PS5	Heathsville	4202000	377500
PS6	Burgess	4199950	383050
PS7	Burgess	4195450	389650
RNI1	Irvington	4169300	370350
RN2	Urbanna	4171300	364600
RN3	Urbanna	4175700	362700
RN4	Morattico	4187050	352400
RN5	Tappahannock	4197100	343650
RN6	Morattico	4191500	346900
RN8	Morattico	4191600	346900
RN9	Deltaville	4164550	378700
RS 1	Wilton	4163400	369800
RS2	Saluda	4163650	364650
RS3	Urbanna	4174650	359150
RS4	Morattico	4183200	349050
RS5	Dunnsville	4187650	345600
RS6	Urbanna	4171050	360400
RS7	Morattico	4185850	346650
YN1	Clay Bank	4131400	359900
YN2	Williamsburg	4137300	355600
YN3	Gressitt	4139450	353850
YN4	Gressitt	4150350	346100
YSI1	Toano	4150450	342500
JN1	Surry	4123200	334400
JN2	Hog Island	4120750	350150
JN3	Yorktown	4116350	356450
JN4	Claremont	4122750	328900
JN5	Claremont	4124150	326200
JS1	Bacons Castle	4105750	352300
JS2	Hog Island	4111100	351950
JS3	Hog Island	4115650	352000
JS4	Brandon	4124400	323750
JS5	Benns Church	4095700	361900
JS6	Mulberry Island	4099150	358600
JS7	Bacons Castle	4099800	354850
79

I
I
Appendix B. GIS Coordinates (Continued)
I
I
I
: Site            Quadrangle                North                  East
PI1	Mathews	4150450	382400
WS1	Deltaville	4151600	386800
ES 1	'Franktown	4144950	413900
ES2	Franktown	4150500	415250
ES3	Elliotts Creek	4119950	410150
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I





1.
I

I
I
I
80