chesapeake bay program watershed modeling
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Chesapeake Bay ProgramWatershed Modeling
Gary Shenk, Lewis Linker, Rich BatiukPresentation to STAC
3/22/2011
![Page 2: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Chesapeake Bay Partnership Models
![Page 3: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Recent History of theChesapeake Bay Program’s
Watershed Model
• Phase 4.3 – (2002 – 2010) - C2K• Phase 5.3.0 – (2010) – TMDL
– Segmentation Input data– Calibration Functionality– Accessability
• Phase 5.3.2 – (2011-2017) – WIP2– Land use– Nutrient Management
![Page 4: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Watershed Model Supervision
• Water Quality Goal Implementation Team– Watershed Technical Workgroup– Agriculture Workgroup– Urban Stormwater Workgroup– Forestry Workgroup– Sediment Workgroup
• Modeling Workgroup (STAR)• PSC
![Page 5: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
STAC involvement in WSM
• Formal review in 2005 and 2008 of watershed model
• Workshops in the past 10 years– Modeling in the CBP: 2010 and beyond– Pasture Management– Atmospheric Deposition– Wetlands– Fertilizer Sales Data– Shoreline Modification– Innovative Ag BMPs
![Page 6: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
66
Annual or Monthly:
Land Use AcreageBMPsFertilizerManureAtmospheric DepositionPoint SourcesSeptic Loads
Hourly Values:
RainfallSnowfallTemperatureEvapotranspirationWindSolar RadiationDewpointCloud Cover
Daily output comparedTo observations
How the Watershed Model Works
HSPF
![Page 7: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
77
Each segment consists of 30 separately-modeled land uses:
• Regulated Pervious Urban• Regulated Impervious Urban• Unregulated Pervious Urban• Unregulated Impervious Urban• Construction• Extractive • Combined Sewer System• Wooded / Open• Disturbed Forest
• Corn/Soy/Wheat rotation (high till)
• Corn/Soy/Wheat rotation (low till)
• Other Row Crops• Alfalfa• Nursery• Pasture• Degraded Riparian Pasture• Afo / Cafo• Fertilized Hay • Unfertilized Hay
– Nutrient management versions of the above
Plus: Point Source andSeptic Loads, and
Atmospheric Deposition Loads Each calibrated to nutrient and
Sediment targets
How the Watershed Model Works
![Page 8: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Precipitation FertilizerManureAtmospheric deposition
Runoff
How the Watershed Model Works
Hydrologysubmodel
Management filter
RiverSedimentsubmodel Phosphorus
submodel
Nitrogensubmodel
hourly
![Page 9: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
99
Automated Calibration
CalibrationProcedures
Input DataScenario Builder
CalibrationData
![Page 10: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Calibration Strategy
• Match observations in rivers• Match properties and trends
– Groundwater recession curve– Crop uptake of Nitrogen
• Match literature and other models– Reasonable rates of nutrient export– USGS estimator and sparrow empirical
models
10
![Page 11: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
1111Automated Calibration
![Page 12: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Log of WSM and Estimator TN Loads
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
8.5
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5Estimator (pounds per year)
WS
M p
5.2
(pou
nds
per
year
)
wsm p5.3wsm p5.3 PQUALwsm p5.21:1
![Page 13: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Correlation of Fall Line Stations vs Estimator Annual Loads TN
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Sus
queh
anna
Pat
uxen
t
Pot
omac
Rap
paha
nnoc
k
Mat
tapo
ni
Pam
unke
y
Jam
es
App
omat
tox
Cho
ptan
k
Mod
el e
ffic
ienc
y
wsm p5.3wsm p5.3 PQUALwsm p5.2
![Page 14: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
'Unbiased' USGS samples vs WSM Population TN p5.3
0.1
1
10JL
7_68
00_7
070
JL7_
7100
_703
0
JA5_
7480
_000
1
YM
4_66
20_0
003
YP
4_67
20_6
750
RU
5_60
30_0
001
PS
2_67
30_6
660
SW
7_16
40_0
003
SU
7_08
50_0
730
SU
8_16
10_1
530
PS
5_52
40_5
200
SL9
_249
0_25
20
SL9
_272
0_00
01
PM
7_48
20_0
001
SJ6
_213
0_00
03
EM
2_39
80_0
001
PS
3_51
00_5
080
PM
2_28
60_3
040
XU
3_46
50_0
001
PM
4_40
40_0
003
PU
3_32
90_3
390
PU
2_30
90_4
050
SL3
_242
0_27
00
TN c
once
ntra
tion
(mg/
l)
WSM 10WSM 25WSM 50WSM 75WSM 90GS 10GS 25GS 50GS 75GS 90
![Page 15: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Calibration vs validation KS statistic Nitrogen - AGCHEM
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1calibration
valid
atio
n
Validation Better
Calibration Better
![Page 16: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
161616
Snapshot:
Land Use AcreageBMPsFertilizerManureAtmospheric DepositionPoint SourcesSeptic Loads
Hourly Values:
RainfallSnowfallTemperatureEvapotranspirationWindSolar RadiationDewpointCloud Cover
“Average AnnualFlow-Adjusted Loads”
Quick Overview of Watershed Model Scenarios
Hourly output is summed over 10 years of hydrology to compare against other management scenarios
HSPF1991-2000
ScenarioBuilder
![Page 17: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
1717
Number of Scenarios
• Mid 1980s – 0• Early 1990s – phase 2 – fewer than 10• Late 1990s phase 4.1 – 37• Early 2000s – phase 4.3 – 400-500• 2009-2010 – phase 5.3.0 more than 300• 2011 - 2017 - phase 5.3.2 - ?????
![Page 18: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
1818
Scenario Builder
Input processor for the watershed model
Generates past, present, or future state of the
watershed
Land use, management practices, fertilizer and
manure applications, crop growth
![Page 19: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Sample Input and Output
Inputs• BMP
implementation
• Remote Sensing • Crop acreage
• Crop yield• Animal numbers
Outputs• BMP
implementation on phase 5 scale
• Land use
• Crop Uptake• Fertilizer• Manure
Parameters• BMP effects on
land use
• Tillage Type
• Plant and harvest dates
• Nutrient application by crop type
• Animal manure nutrient content
![Page 20: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
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
![Page 21: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
212120.7 18.9 18.8 18.2 17.8 17.1 16.8 16.8 16.5 13.6
120.0 114.7 109.8 109.2 108.4 106.6 105.7 104.4 103.9 102.8
71.4 71.9
8.25.0
3.5 3.6 4.1 3.5 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.5
2.4 2.4
81.1
59.158.1 56.7 57.7 56.9 56.2 53.7 53.2 54.8
37.1 37.3
7.5
7.77.3 7.1 6.8 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.6
4.8 4.7
90.5
79.078.4 77.8 75.4 74.4 73.1 73.9 73.8 71.9
52.1 51.4
5.9
5.55.1 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.5
3.0 2.9
175
17 130
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1985 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Strategy StateCap
Goal
mill
ion
lbs.
/yea
r
NY PA DC MD WV VA DE
Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay By Jurisdiction Point source loads reflect measured discharges while
nonpoint source loads are based on an average-hydrology year
333.9
289.9 281.1270.2
175
266.3277.7 275.1
262.9 261.9 260.7
184.4 183.1
![Page 22: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
• BMPs that alter nutrient applications to croplando Diet and feed changeso Manure transporto Nutrient management applications
• BMPs involving landuse conversions
• BMPs with nutrient and sediment reduction efficiencies
• BMPs with both landuse conversions and reduction efficiencies
o Riparian forest buffers and wetland restorationo Riparian grass buffers
How is the Bay Watershed Model Applies Practices and Programs
![Page 23: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Agricultural BMPs Developed Lands BMPsRiparian Forest Buffers Riparian Forest Buffers
Riparian Grass Buffers Riparian Grass Buffers
Wetland Restoration Wetland Restoration
Land Retirement Tree Planting
Tree Planting Forest Conservation
Conservation-Tillage Urban Growth Reduction
Continuous No-Till Wet Ponds & Wetlands
Carbon Sequestration/Alternative Crops Dry Detention Ponds & Hydrodynamic Structures
Poultry and Swine Phytase Dry Extended Detention Ponds
Poultry Litter Transport Infiltration Practices
Ammonia Emission Reductions Filtering Practices
Animal Waste Management Systems: Livestock & Poultry Stream Restoration
Barnyard Runoff Control/Loafing Lot Management Erosion & Sediment Control
Dairy Precision Feeding /and Forage Management Nutrient Management
Nutrient Management Applications Abandoned Mine Reclamation
Precision Agriculture Dirt & Gravel Road Erosion & Sediment Control
Enhanced Nutrient Management Street Sweeping
Conservation Plans/SCWQP Septic Connections
Cover Crops (Early- and Late-Planting) Septic Pumping
Small Grain Enhancement (Early- and Late-Planting) Septic Denitrification
Off-Stream Watering with and without Fencing Structural Shoreline Erosion Control
Off-Stream Watering w/ Fencing & Rotational Grazing Non-Structural Shoreline Erosion Control
Precision Grazing
Horse Pasture Management Forestry BMPsWater Control Structures Forest Harvesting Practices
Stream Restoration
Non-Point Source Practices and Programs
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/NPS_BMP_Table1.8.pdf (8 pages)
![Page 24: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Process for new BMPs
• Generate request from Sector Workgroup• Convene a review panel
– Gather research– Characterize as to applicability, location,
variability, amount of research, and scientific support
• Review by Source Sector Workgroup, Watershed Technical Workgroup, and WQGIT
http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/Nutrient-Sediment_Control_Review_Protocol.pdf
![Page 25: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1985 Base 2009 Target Tributary Loading Loading Loading E3 All
Scenario Calibration Scenario Load A Strategy Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Forest
342TN 309TN 248TN 200TN 191TN 190TN 179TN 170TN 141TN 58TN
24.1TP 19.5TP 16.6TP 15.0TP 14.4TP 12.7TP 12.0TP 11.3TP 8.5TP 4.4TP
Num
ber o
f Seg
men
ts in
DO
Vio
latio
n
Open Water Violations
Deep Water Violations
Deep Channel Violations
Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Attainment
Basin-wide load is190 N and 12.7 P (MPY)
![Page 26: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
2626
Relative Effect of a Pound of Pollution on Bay Water Quality
![Page 27: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
2727
Relative effectiveness (Riverine * Estuarine Delivery)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UpES
, MD
UpES
, DE
Mid
ES, M
DSu
sq, M
DLo
wES
, MD
Wsh
, MD
UpES
, PA
Low
ES, D
ESu
sq, P
APx
tB, M
DEs
hVA,
VA
PotB
, DC
Mid
ES, D
EPo
tA, D
CPo
tB, M
DPo
tB, V
ASu
sq, N
YRa
pB, V
APo
tA, M
DYr
kB, V
APo
tA, V
AW
sh, P
APo
tA, W
VPo
tA, P
APx
tA, M
DJm
sB, V
ARa
pA, V
AYr
kA, V
AJm
sA, V
AJm
sA, W
V
Major River Basin by Jurisdiction Relative Impact on Bay Water Quality
![Page 28: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Nitrogen -- Phase 5.3 -- Goal=190
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Relative Effectiveness
Perc
ent r
educ
tion
from
201
0 no
BM
Ps to
E3
All OtherWWTP
![Page 29: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Pollution Diet by River
Pollution Diet by State
![Page 30: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Jurisdictions’ Watershed
Implementation Plans
92 Individual TMDLs
![Page 31: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022020703/61fb46272e268c58cd5c3a3c/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
System Configuration and Flows
BayTAS(In CBPO IT
Infrastructure)
Back-end – BayTAS O&M Team and State
Access (QA, data entry, review etc.)
Final TMDL, Baseline Progress,
Other data.
Feds, States and DC submit Non-Point Source
Load, Practices/Verification using NEIEN
Watershed Model runs measure loadings progress.
To Chesapeake Stat for Presentation31
Wastewater Point Source /Data Direct
Reporting
Scenario Builder
Practices