1

Announcements and Status

CBP Modeling Quarterly Review

February 2, 2010

Lewis Linker and the CBP Modeling Team

linker.lewis@epa.gov

2

• Facilitate a discussion of the common multi-media, multi-scale and multi-disciplinary challenges facingthe development and application of integrated models for large aquatic ecosystems;• Provide a forum for coordination, discussion, and exchange of information across disciplines,including ecologists and other natural scientists, environmental engineers, and economists and othersocial scientists;• Help ensure that model development is aligned with the policy design, management and decision makingneeds of the large aquatic ecosystems;• Identify successful model development practices that may be widely shared and applied; and• Identify areas requiring further research and analysis, especially those with cross-media implications.

3

Building an Integrated Modeling Toolbox for All LAEs

Global Climate Change Models

Airshed Model

Watershed Model

Small-scale TMDL Model

Coastal or Lake Model (hydrodynamics and water

quality)

Ecosystem Model Economic

Analysis Models (Ecosystem

Services)

LU & LU Change Model

Coastal Shelf Model

Chesapeake Modeling Symposium 2010May 10-12, 2010

Community Modeling for Management, Research and Restoration Decision Support

Scope and AimsThe Chesapeake Community Modeling Program (CCMP) seeks to improve modeling tools and related resources specific to the Chesapeake Bay, its watershed, and connected environmental systems by fostering collaborative open source research. Toward this end the CCMP is convening a modeling symposium as a venue to identify and showcase existing modeling efforts as well as communicate how models are used as decision support tools by different developer and user groups.

ChesMS ‘10 is the second symposium convened by CCMP. ChesMS ‘08 was focused on highlighting and communicating new and innovative Chesapeake ecosystem open source models and building the existing library of available models and tools. ChesMS ’10 expands on this by continuing to showcase new modeling efforts while also demonstrating how new and existing models can be applied to aid in Management, Research and Restoration decision support. By bringing together the model developer and user communities at the symposium, we hope to foster greater intra-group understanding and communication. This will lead to a more product focused model development and a more intelligent use of these models.

Status of Phase 5.3 and Scenario Builder 2.1 - This is Needed for

Calibration

SB 2.1 has provided us our first good calibration data set. Jing finished the land use calibration on January 28 and that’s when the river calibration began. Expect completion of the calibration on or about February 15, 2010.

Status of Phase 5.3 and Scenario Builder 2.2 - This is Needed for

Scenarios

A Model Team of 5 FTEs will work to complete SB 2.2 during February so that SB 2.2 is ready for mid-February development of Phase 5.3 Scenarios.

Initial Phase 5.3 Scenarios to Begin On Or About February 15

• 2010 E3 Scenario (needed for allocation methodology)• 2010 No Action Scenario (needed for allocation methodology)• 2008 Scenario (recent benchmark for Phase 4.3 and

Phase 5.3)• Tributary Strategy Scenario• VA EPIL* (requested by Virginia)•1985 Scenario (highest load benchmark for Phase 4.3

and Phase 5.3)• 2002 Scenario (benchmark for Phase 4.3 and Phase

5.3)• 1985 E3 Scenario (requested by New York)• 1985 No Action (requested by New York)• 2017 VA EPIL (requested by Virginia)• 2025 VA EPIL (requested by Virginia)

* Enhanced Program Implementation Level

Mission Critical WQSTM Scenarios to Begin On Or About March 15

We think the initial sequence of 7 WQSTM scenarios may be:• Target Load Option 3 Scenario (198TN, 14.8TP) – We

have these derived loads already• E3 Scenario (P5.3 Loads TBD: was 138TN, 12.0TP)• About 3 Intermediate Scenarios (if the Target Load Option

3 doesn’t achieve WQSs - something like a 195, 190, and 185 TN and corresponding 13.5, 13, and 12.5 TP, respectively).

• Tributary Strategy Scenario (P5.3 Loads TBD: was 236TN, 21.1TP).

Initial WQSTM Scenarios to Begin On Or About March 15 (continued)

We think the continuing sequence of WQSTM scenarios may look like:• Either a 1985 or 1998 Progress Scenario – TBD.• Any additional intermediate load scenarios needed to get closer to

target loads needed to meet the State’s Bay DO WQ standards.• A series of sediment reduction scenarios, as needed, directed towards reduced tidal shoreline erosion and other tidal loads to support establishment of the sediment allocations achieving the SAV/clarity WQS.• 10x Current (~10% historic) Oyster Biomass on Target Load Option 3 Base.• 50x Current (~50% historic) Oyster Biomass on Target Load Option 3 Base.• 5x Current Menhaden Biomass on Target Load Option 3 Base.• Current Menhaden Biomass with no Bay Harvest on Target Load Option

3 Base.

10

Chesapeake Bay ProgramModeling

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

ScenarioBuilder

Sparrow

All-A few reactions and comments:

- Scenario No. 1 should be a re-run of our current target loads agreedto by the PSC

- Scenario No. 2 should be the Phase 5.3 version of the E3 scenario

- Scenarios No. 3, 4 and 5 should be intermediate loads between E3 andcurrent target loads around the range that Sir Shenk has outlined as thelikely new target loads: 190 TN and 13 TP (something like a 195, 190 and185 TN and corresponding 13.5, 13 and 12.5 TP, respectively)

- Scenario 6 should be the Phase 5.3 version of the Tributary Strategyscenario

If we completed running and analysis of the above 6 WQ/ST modelscenarios in time for the WQGIT meeting in early April, I would beextremely happy.  Icing on the cake would be:

- Any additional intermediate load scenarios needed to get closer totarget loads needed to meet the states Bay DO WQ standards;

- A series of sediment reduction scenarios directed towards tidalshoreline erosion, tidal resuspension loads to support establishment ofthe sediment allocations; and then followed by

- Filter feeder scenarios in the order and as described in Lewis's belowemail message. (These scenarios are important, but not mission criticalheading into the April PSC meeting.)

(Lewis, I hear your confidence in hitting the SAV restorationacreages....I am not feeling as good as you at this time.  We need tobuild in some additional sediment reduction scenarios in AFTER we naildown the revised target load for achieving the states DO WQ standards.)

Let's add a presentation of the recommended WQ/ST model scenarios andtheir order of priority to the February 9th FHTE team meeting agenda.Lewis, please take the lead on this agenda item, factoring in the abovefeedback, what you hear at next week's Modeling Quarterly Review andfeedback from your fellow Bay TMDL team members on this email message.

Lewis-Thanks for prompting Ping and Jeni to run the entire Bay criteriaassessment machinery through its paces in test drive mode prior to usgetting into scenario production mode with the WQ/ST model. This isexactly what we need them to be doing prior to March 15.  Pleasecontinue to work directly with Ping and Jeni to ensure this happens.And please ensure we have one primary person for conducting the WQ/STmodel criteria assessment procedures and two backups, all of whom needto be fully trained prior to mid-March.