Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling. Gary Shenk, Lewis Linker, Rich Batiuk Presentation to STAC 3/22/2011

Transcription

1 Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Modeling Gary Shenk, Lewis Linker, Rich Batiuk Presentation to STAC 3/22/2011 1

2 Chesapeake Bay Partnership Models 2

3 Recent History of the Chesapeake Bay Program s Watershed Model Phase 4.3 ( ) - C2K Phase (2010) TMDL Segmentation Input data Calibration Functionality Accessability Phase ( ) WIP2 Land use Nutrient Management 3

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 4

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 5

6 How the Watershed Model Works Hourly Values: Rainfall Snowfall Temperature Evapotranspiration Wind Solar Radiation Dewpoint Cloud Cover HSPF Annual or Monthly: Land Use Acreage BMPs Fertilizer Manure Atmospheric Deposition Point Sources Septic Loads Daily output compared To observations 6

7 How the Watershed Model Works 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 Plus: Point Source and Septic Loads, and Atmospheric Deposition Loads 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 Each calibrated to nutrient and Sediment targets 7

8 How the Watershed Model Works Precipitation Fertilizer Manure Atmospheric deposition Management filter Runoff Hydrology submodel Sediment submodel Phosphorus submodel Nitrogen submodel hourly River 8

9 Automated Calibration Input Data Scenario Builder Calibration Procedures Calibration Data 9

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

11 Automated Calibration 11

12 Log of WSM and Estimator TN Loads WSM p5.2 (pounds per year) wsm p5.3 wsm p5.3 PQUAL wsm p5.2 1: Estimator (pounds per year) 12

13 1 Correlation of Fall Line Stations vs Estimator Annual Loads TN Model efficiency wsm p5.3 wsm p5.3 PQUAL wsm p5.2 Susquehanna Patuxent Potomac Rappahannock Mattaponi Pamunkey James Appomattox Choptank 13

14 'Unbiased' USGS samples vs WSM Population TN p TN concentration (mg/l) WSM 10 WSM 25 WSM 50 WSM 75 WSM 90 GS 10 GS 25 GS 50 GS 75 GS 90 JL7_6800_7070 JL7_7100_7030 JA5_7480_0001 YM4_6620_0003 YP4_6720_6750 RU5_6030_0001 PS2_6730_6660 SW7_1640_0003 SU7_0850_0730 SU8_1610_1530 PS5_5240_5200 SL9_2490_2520 SL9_2720_0001 PM7_4820_0001 SJ6_2130_0003 EM2_3980_0001 PS3_5100_5080 PM2_2860_3040 XU3_4650_0001 PM4_4040_0003 PU3_3290_3390 PU2_3090_ SL3_2420_2700

15 Calibration vs validation KS statistic Nitrogen - AGCHEM Calibration Better validation calibration Validation Better 15

16 Quick Overview of Watershed Model Scenarios Hourly Values: Rainfall Snowfall Temperature Evapotranspiration Wind Solar Radiation Dewpoint Cloud Cover Hourly output is summed over 10 years of hydrology to compare against other management scenarios HSPF Scenario Builder Snapshot: Land Use Acreage BMPs Fertilizer Manure Atmospheric Deposition Point Sources Septic Loads Average Annual Flow-Adjusted Loads 16

17 Number of Scenarios Mid 1980s 0 Early 1990s phase 2 fewer than 10 Late 1990s phase Early 2000s phase phase more than phase ????? 17

18 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 18

19 Sample Input and Output Inputs BMP implementation Remote Sensing Crop acreage Crop yield Animal numbers Parameters BMP effects on land use Tillage Type Plant and harvest dates Nutrient application by crop type Animal manure nutrient content Outputs BMP implementation on phase 5 scale Land use Crop Uptake Fertilizer Manure 19

20 WSM Uses: Divide Load into contributing areas and sources Municipal & Industrial Wastewater 21% Ultimate Source Urban & Suburban Runoff - chemical fertilizer 11% Natural - lightning + forest soils 1% Septic 5% Atmospheric Deposition - mobile (on-road + nonroad) + utilities + industries 21% Agriculture - manure 19% Agriculture - chemical fertilizer 16% Agriculture - Atmospheric Deposition - livestock & fertilized soil emissions 6% Municipal & Industrial Wastewater 21% Septic 5% Agriculture 40% Land Use Source Urban & Suburban Runoff 18% Atmospheric Deposition to Non- Tidal Water 1% Forest 15% 20

21 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 400 NY PA DC MD WV VA DE million lbs./year Strategy State Cap Goal

22 How is the Bay Watershed Model Applies Practices and Programs BMPs that alter nutrient applications to cropland o o o Diet and feed changes Manure transport Nutrient management applications BMPs involving landuse conversions BMPs with nutrient and sediment reduction efficiencies BMPs with both landuse conversions and reduction efficiencies o o Riparian forest buffers and wetland restoration Riparian grass buffers 22

23 Non-Point Source Practices and Programs Agricultural BMPs Developed Lands BMPs Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Grass Buffers Wetland Restoration Land Retirement Tree Planting Conservation-Tillage Continuous No-Till Carbon Sequestration/Alternative Crops Poultry and Swine Phytase Poultry Litter Transport Ammonia Emission Reductions Animal Waste Management Systems: Livestock & Poultry Barnyard Runoff Control/Loafing Lot Management Dairy Precision Feeding /and Forage Management Nutrient Management Applications Precision Agriculture Enhanced Nutrient Management Conservation Plans/SCWQP Cover Crops (Early- and Late-Planting) Small Grain Enhancement (Early- and Late-Planting) Off-Stream Watering with and without Fencing Off-Stream Watering w/ Fencing & Rotational Grazing Precision Grazing Horse Pasture Management Riparian Forest Buffers Riparian Grass Buffers Wetland Restoration Tree Planting Forest Conservation Urban Growth Reduction Wet Ponds & Wetlands Dry Detention Ponds & Hydrodynamic Structures Dry Extended Detention Ponds Infiltration Practices Filtering Practices Stream Restoration Erosion & Sediment Control Nutrient Management Abandoned Mine Reclamation Dirt & Gravel Road Erosion & Sediment Control Street Sweeping Septic Connections Septic Pumping Septic Denitrification Structural Shoreline Erosion Control Non-Structural Shoreline Erosion Control Forestry BMPs Water Control Structures Forest Harvesting Practices Stream Restoration (8 pages) 23

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 24

25 Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Attainment 45 Number of Segments in DO Violation Basin-wide load is 190 N and 12.7 P (MPY) Open Water Violations Deep Water Violations Deep Channel Violations 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 25

26 Relative Effect of a Pound of Pollution on Bay Water Quality 26 26

27 Relative effectiveness (Riverine * Estuarine Delivery) Major River Basin by Jurisdiction Relative Impact on Bay Water Quality UpES, MD UpES, DE MidES, MD Susq, MD LowES, MD Wsh, MD UpES, PA LowES, DE Susq, PA PxtB, MD EshVA, VA PotB, DC MidES, DE PotA, DC PotB, MD PotB, VA Susq, NY RapB, VA PotA, MD YrkB, VA PotA, VA Wsh, PA PotA, WV PotA, PA PxtA, MD JmsB, VA RapA, VA YrkA, VA JmsA, VA JmsA, WV 27 27

28 All Other WWTP 100% Nitrogen -- Phase Goal=190 Percent reduction from 2010 nobmps to E3 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Relative Effectiveness 28

29 Pollution Diet by River Pollution Diet by State 29

30 Jurisdictions Watershed Implementation Plans 92 Individual TMDLs 30

31 System Configuration and Flows Final TMDL, Baseline Progress, Other data. Feds, States and DC submit Non-Point Source Load, Practices/Verification using NEIEN P r a c t i c e s Scenario Builder Watershed Model runs measure loadings progress. Wastewater Point Source /Data Direct Reporting Back-end BayTAS O&M Team and State Access (QA, data entry, review etc.) BayTAS (In CBPO IT Infrastructure) 31 To Chesapeake Stat for Presentation 31