List of Contributors
Planning/Zoning options
You are invited to join the discussion and share your thoughts on these and other related issues.
List of Contributors
Comments
It would seem to be useful to describe the location of the monitoring station from which much of the data was obtained, and perhaps pinpoint its location on the maps. Am I wrong or does that data describe only the effluent from the southern portion of the watershed? I understand that the effect of rainfall raising the level of one part of the creek would have a relatively similar effect on other parts of the creek, but other measurements would be quite different.
Jack
I would think that Alexey is calibrating the model with the water quality data relative to land use and activities upstream of the sampling site and then applying the results watershed wide but using the land use and projected land use for each area. He has topo and land use for the entire watershed. This is also the only consistent long term water quality data we have with which to calibrate the model. I will be providing Alexey with the Task Force data as it becomes available but it will not be as useful do to its short duration. But you would be better off getting the answer from the horse's mouth.
From the horse's mouth:
David was quite right in his replies. So is Jack in his concerns. Indeed we have only one station on the watershed and it is located half the way downstream, which means that a good half of the area is not really taken into account. To this I can only add:
- there is never enough data and we can always use only what we have got;
- the full Patuxent model has been calibrated for several other subwatersheds (Cattail, Unity, Upper Patuxent) so in a way we are using much more information than we have from only one gaging station on Hunting Creek;
- we would be happy to use any additional information we get to refine the model.