Chesapeake Bay Program Decision Support System Management Actions Watershed Model Bay Model Criteria...
25
Chesapeake Bay Program Decision Support System 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PercentofSpace P ercentofTim e C FD C urve Area ofC riteria Exceedence Area ofAllow able C riteria Exceedence 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PercentofSpace P ercentofTim e C FD C urve Area ofC riteria Exceedence Area ofAllow able C riteria Exceedence Management Actions Watershed Model Bay Model Criteria Assessment Procedures Effects Allocations Airsh ed Model Land Use Change Model COAST
-
Upload
beverly-bell -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Chesapeake Bay Program Decision Support System Management Actions Watershed Model Bay Model Criteria...
Chesapeake Bay ProgramDecision Support System
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Space
Per
cent
of T
ime
CFD Curve
Area of Criteria Exceedence
Area of AllowableCriteria
Exceedence
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Space
Per
cent
of T
ime
CFD Curve
Area of Criteria Exceedence
Area of AllowableCriteria
Exceedence
Management Actions
Watershed Model
Bay Model
CriteriaAssessmentProcedures
Effects
Allocations
Airshed Model
Land UseChange Model
COAST
Annual or Monthly:
Land Use AcreageBMPsFertilizerManureAtmospheric DepositionPoint SourcesSeptic Loads
Hourly Values:
RainfallSnowfallTemperatureEvapotranspirationWindSolar RadiationDewpointCloud Cover
Daily output comparedTo observations
Quick overview of watershed model Calibration
HSPF
Each segment consists of separately-modeled land uses
• High Density Pervious Urban• High Density Impervious Urban• Low Density Pervious Urban• Low Density Impervious Urban• Construction• Extractive • Wooded• Disturbed Forest
• Corn/Soy/Wheat rotation (high till)
• Corn/Soy/Wheat rotation (low till)
• Other Crops• Alfalfa• Nursery• Pasture• Degraded Riparian Pasture• Animal Feeding Operations• Fertilized Hay • Unfertilized Hay
– Nutrient management versions of the above
Plus Point Source and Septic
Each calibrated to nutrient and Sediment targets
Agriculture40%
Forest15%
Atmospheric Deposition to Non-
Tidal Water1%
Urban & Suburban Runoff18%
Municipal & Industrial
Wastewater21%
Septic5%
Agriculture - manure19%
Agriculture - chemical fertilizer
16%
Agriculture - Atmospheric Deposition - livestock & fertilized soil
emissions6%
Atmospheric Deposition - mobile (on-road + non-
road) + utilities + industries
21%
Natural - lightning + forest soils
1%
Urban & Suburban Runoff - chemical
fertilizer11%
Municipal & Industrial Wastewater
21%
Septic5%
Land Use Source
Ultimate SourceWSM Uses:
Divide Load into contributing areas and sources
From the Chesapeake Bay Commission Report: Cost-Effective Strategies for the BayDecember, 2004
WSM Uses:Determine Effective Practices
WSM Uses:Track Implementation Progress
WSM Uses:Track Implementation Progress
WSM Uses:Track Implementation Progress
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1985 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
TN
(M
illi
on
LB
S/Y
R)
Cap Load Allocation
WSM Uses:Estimate annual loads below monitoring stations
Roughly 25% of the total load is unmonitored
2003 Decision:Reduce annual
loads to 175 million lbs TN and 12.8
million lbs TP
Phase 4
Phase 5 Development
Phase 5
Large Community of Developers
Maryland Department of the EnvironmentVirginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
DevelopersEPA
U of MarylandUSGSNRCS
Chesapeake Research ConsortiumVirginia Tech
Interstate Commission onthe Potomac River Basin
Chesapeake Bay Program
Advisors and data suppliersState Governments of
NY, PA, MD, DE, VA, WV, DCScientific and Technical Advisory Committee
USGS
$
$
$
Phase 4.3 Calibration Phase 5 Calibration
Calibration sites = 20Land Segments = 94River Segments = 94Land uses = 9Simulation Years = 10
Calibration sites = 296Land Segments = 308
River Segments= 1,063Land uses = 25
Simulation Years = 20
Fine Segmentation
ETM Functionality
• Greater Accuracy:– Time Varying Land Use– Time Varying BMPs– BMP efficiency reacting to hydrologic condition – Design life of BMPs– Sub-grid effects (differential land-to-river transport)
• Easier Data Handling– Easily allows large-scale parameter adjustments during
calibration– Parallel computing operations convenient– Easy to add new land use types– Easily integrated into outside databases for scenarios– Relatively easy to add new WQ constituents (bacteria)
Additional CBPO-coded features allow:
Flexible Functionality
Better, extended, and finer scale data sets
High Resolution Input Data
Land Use AcreageBMPsFertilizerManureAtmospheric DepositionPoint SourcesSeptic Loads
RainfallSnowfallTemperatureEvapotranspirationWindSolar RadiationDewpointCloud Cover
Simulation period is 1984-2005: Two decades of meteorology and watershed management data
Open-Source Model• Entire model available on web• Already in Use
– Climate Change Study– Community model at ICPRB– Potomac PCB TMDL– MDE TMDLs– USGS Factors Affecting Trends– USGS Shenandoah Models– Academic studies– UNC / Baltimore LTER study– 60-year ‘Tipping point’
investigation
Transferability
User-Friendliness
• Ensures even treatment across jurisdictions
• Fully documented calibration strategy
• Repeatable
• Makes Calibration Feasible
• Enables uncertainty analysis
Automated Calibration
Chesapeake Bay ProgramDecision Support System
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Space
Per
cent
of T
ime
CFD Curve
Area of Criteria Exceedence
Area of AllowableCriteria
Exceedence
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percent of Space
Per
cent
of T
ime
CFD Curve
Area of Criteria Exceedence
Area of AllowableCriteria
Exceedence
Management Actions
Watershed Model
Bay Model
CriteriaAssessmentProcedures
Effects
Allocations
Airshed Model
Land UseChange Model
COAST
Nitrogen Pollution and Cost
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1985conditions
2000progress
Tier1 Tier2 Tier3 E3
TN
de
live
red
to B
ay
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Co
st $
M
TNCost M$
Non-attaining water vs annual cost
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
M$ per year
pe
rce
nt o
f Ba
y in
no
n-a
ttain
me
nt
Tier3
Tier2Tier1
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
155 160 165 170 175 180 185
Nitrogen Load
pe
rce
nt o
f Ba
y in
no
n-a
ttain
me
nt
Difficult Consensus
Tier3
Drastic Option
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
Absolute Effect Normalized by load
Susquehanna
MD Western Shore
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
MD Eastern Shore
VA Eastern Shore
Estuarine model used to determine basins with highest effect on DO
Incr
easi
ng e
ffec
t of
eac
h po
und
of r
educ
tion
Effect of Geographic Targeting
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
155 160 165 170 175 180 185
Nitrogen Load
pe
rce
nt o
f Ba
y in
no
n-a
ttain
me
nt
Tier3
Drastic Option Efficient Option
WatershedStates
Responsibility
Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Sediment
Load Allocation Process
By 9 major river basins
...then by 20 major tributary basins by
jurisdiction
…then by 44 state-defined tributary
strategy subbasins
WatershedPartners
Responsibility
WatershedStates
Responsibility
