1 phase 5.3 calibration gary shenk 3/31/2010. 2 calibration method calibration method largely...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Phase 5.3 Calibration
Gary Shenk
3/31/2010
2
Calibration Method
• Calibration method largely unchanged for several years– P5.1 – 8/2008 - first automated calibration– P5.2 – 6/2009 - better constraints on parameters and
regional factors– P5.3 – 2/2010 - few small changes in reaction to new
scenario builder data
• Reviews– WQSC– Modeling Subcommittee– STAC review
3
Watershed Model Inputs
• Phase 5.1– No Scenario Builder
• Phase 5.2– Half-Built Scenario Builder with known issues
• Phase 5.3– Final TMDL Scenario Builder
4
Fixed Issues with Scenario Builder for phase 5.3
• Realistic uptake values
• Realistic nutrient applications
• Low variability between states for uptake and application
• Manure spread logic improved
• Scenarios now possible within Scenario Builder
5
Other P5.3 changes
• Land Use – – Better characterization of ag land location– Better trend in urban land
• Point Source– Addition of “non-significant” sources
• Septic– Tied to land use modeling
6
River Calibration Criteria
• CFD only
• Estimator Loads for Regional Factors
• STAC thought this was good calibration strategy but not a representative way to present the results
• Recommended that results communicated in the outputs of interest (loads)
7
Comparisons
• Statistics– Phase 5 and Estimator
• Total Loads over space• Loads at a point over time
– Phase 5 and USGS unbiased Samples– Phase 5 and Validation
• Calibration Plots– Phase 4 and Phase 5– Phase 5 all station
• Compare Loads to Previous Models
ftp://ftp.chesapeakebay.net/modeling/phase5/calibration_pdfs/p53_2010_02/
8
9
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 8.5
Estimator (pounds per year)
WS
M p
5.2
(pou
nds
per
year
)
wsm p5.3
wsm p5.3 PQUAL
wsm p5.2
1:1
10
Log of WSM and Estimator TP Loads
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6
6.2
6.4
6.6
6.8
7
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7
Estimator (pounds per year)
WS
M p
5.2
(pou
nds
per
year
)
wsm p5.3
wsm p5.3 PQUAL
wsm p5.2
1:1
11
Log of WSM and Estimator TSS Loads
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Estimator (pounds per year)
WS
M p
5.2
(pou
nds
per
year
)
wsm p5.3
wsm p5.3 PQUAL
wsm p5.2
1:1
12
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 p5.3
wsm p5.3 PQUAL
wsm p5.2
13
Correlation of Fall Line Stations vs Estimator Annual Loads TP
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 p5.3
wsm p5.3 PQUAL
wsm p5.2
14
Correlation of Fall Line Stations vs Estimator Annual Loads TSS
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 p5.3
wsm p5.3 PQUAL
wsm p5.2
15
'Unbiased' USGS samples vs WSM Population TN p5.2 AGCHEM
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
(m
g/l)
WSM 10
WSM 25
WSM 50
WSM 75
WSM 90
GS 10
GS 25
GS 50
GS 75
GS 90
16
'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
(m
g/l)
WSM 10
WSM 25
WSM 50
WSM 75
WSM 90
GS 10
GS 25
GS 50
GS 75
GS 90
17
'Unbiased' USGS samples vs WSM Population TP p5.2 Agchem2
0.01
0.1
1P
S2_
6730
_666
0
RU
5_60
30_0
001
JA5_
7480
_000
1
SW
7_16
40_0
003
SL9
_272
0_00
01
YM
4_66
20_0
003
EM
2_39
80_0
001
SU
7_08
50_0
730
SL9
_249
0_25
20
PM
7_48
20_0
001
JL7_
6800
_707
0
SJ6
_213
0_00
03
YP
4_67
20_6
750
JL7_
7100
_703
0
PS
5_52
40_5
200
SU
8_16
10_1
530
PM
2_28
60_3
040
PU
3_32
90_3
390
XU
3_46
50_0
001
PS
3_51
00_5
080
PU
2_30
90_4
050
PM
4_40
40_0
003
SL3
_242
0_27
00
TP c
once
ntra
tion
(m
g/l)
WSM 10
WSM 25
WSM 50
WSM 75
WSM 90
GS 10
GS 25
GS 50
GS 75
GS 90
18
'Unbiased' USGS samples vs WSM Population TP p5.3
0.01
0.1
1P
S2_
6730
_666
0
RU
5_60
30_0
001
JA5_
7480
_000
1
SW
7_16
40_0
003
SL9
_272
0_00
01
YM
4_66
20_0
003
EM
2_39
80_0
001
SU
7_08
50_0
730
SL9
_249
0_25
20
PM
7_48
20_0
001
JL7_
6800
_707
0
SJ6
_213
0_00
03
YP
4_67
20_6
750
JL7_
7100
_703
0
PS
5_52
40_5
200
SU
8_16
10_1
530
PM
2_28
60_3
040
PU
3_32
90_3
390
XU
3_46
50_0
001
PS
3_51
00_5
080
PU
2_30
90_4
050
PM
4_40
40_0
003
SL3
_242
0_27
00
TP c
once
ntra
tion
(m
g/l)
WSM 10
WSM 25
WSM 50
WSM 75
WSM 90
GS 10
GS 25
GS 50
GS 75
GS 90
19
'Unbiased' USGS samples vs WSM Population TSS - p5.2 Agchem2
0.1
1
10
100
1000P
S3_
5100
_508
0
PS
2_67
30_6
660
JA5_
7480
_000
1
PS
5_52
40_5
200
EM
2_39
80_0
001
YM
4_66
20_0
003
JL7_
6800
_707
0
RU
5_60
30_0
001
SW
7_16
40_0
003
PU
3_32
90_3
390
JL7_
7100
_703
0
PM
2_28
60_3
040
YP
4_67
20_6
750
SL9
_272
0_00
01
PU
2_30
90_4
050
PM
4_40
40_0
003
PM
7_48
20_0
001
SU
7_08
50_0
730
SJ6
_213
0_00
03
SU
8_16
10_1
530
SL9
_249
0_25
20
XU
3_46
50_0
001
SL3
_242
0_27
00
TSS
con
cent
rati
on (
mg/
l)WSM 10 WSM 25WSM 50 WSM 75WSM 90 GS 10GS 25 GS 50GS 75 GS 90
20
'Unbiased' USGS samples vs WSM Population TSS - p5.3
0.1
1
10
100
1000P
S3_
5100
_508
0
PS
2_67
30_6
660
JA5_
7480
_000
1
PS
5_52
40_5
200
EM
2_39
80_0
001
YM
4_66
20_0
003
JL7_
6800
_707
0
RU
5_60
30_0
001
SW
7_16
40_0
003
PU
3_32
90_3
390
JL7_
7100
_703
0
PM
2_28
60_3
040
YP
4_67
20_6
750
SL9
_272
0_00
01
PU
2_30
90_4
050
PM
4_40
40_0
003
PM
7_48
20_0
001
SU
7_08
50_0
730
SJ6
_213
0_00
03
SU
8_16
10_1
530
SL9
_249
0_25
20
XU
3_46
50_0
001
SL3
_242
0_27
00
TSS
con
cent
rati
on (
mg/
l)WSM 10 WSM 25WSM 50 WSM 75WSM 90 GS 10GS 25 GS 50GS 75 GS 90
21
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 1
calibration
valid
atio
n
Validation Better
Calibration Better
22
Calibration vs validation upper concentration bias Phosphorus - AGCHEM
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
calibration
valid
atio
n
Calibration Better
Calibration Better
Validation Better Validation Better
23
Calibration vs validation upper concentration bias Sediment - AGCHEM
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
calibration
valid
atio
n
Calibration Better
Calibration Better
Validation Better Validation Better
24
AGCHEM vs PQUAL KS statistic Nitrogen
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 1
AGCHEM
PQ
UA
L
PQUAL Better
AGCHEM Better
25
AGCHEM vs PQUAL upper concentration bias Phosphorus
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
AGCHEM
PQ
UA
L
AGCHEM Better
AGCHEM Better
PQUAL Better PQUAL Better
26
AGCHEM vs PQUAL upper concentration bias Sediment
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
calibration
valid
atio
n
AGCHEM Better
AGCHEM Better
PQUAL Better PQUAL Better
27
TMDL Allocations Based on
• No Action
• E3
• Riverine Delivery Factors
• Estuarine Delivery Factors
28
TN Delivery
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
NY PA MD DE DC WV VA
p5.2
p5.3
29
TP Delivery
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
NY PA MD DE DC WV VA
p5.2
p5.3
30
First Look at Draft Scenarios
31
TN comparison phase 5.2 and 5.3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
calib NoAction 1985 2007/8 E3
mill
ion
lbs
per
year
p52
p53
32
TP comparison phase 5.2 and 5.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
calib NoAction 1985 2007/8 E3
mill
ion
lbs
per
year
p52
p53
33
TN, p5.2, goal=200, WWTP = 4.5-8 mg/l, other: max=min+20%,
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Relative Effectiveness
Per
cent
red
ucti
on f
rom
201
0 no
BM
Ps
to
E3
All Other
WWTP
34
TN, p5.3, goal=200, WWTP = 4.5-8 mg/l, other: max=min+20%,
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Relative Effectiveness
Per
cent
red
ucti
on f
rom
201
0 no
BM
Ps
to
E3
All Other
WWTP
35
TP, p5.2, goal=15, WWTP = .22 - .54 mg/l, other: max=min+20%,
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Relative Effectiveness
Per
cent
red
ucti
on f
rom
201
0 no
BM
Ps
to E
3
All Other
WWTP
36
TP, p5.3, goal=15, WWTP = .22 - .54 mg/l, other: max=min+20%,
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Relative Effectiveness
Per
cent
red
ucti
on f
rom
201
0 no
BM
Ps
to E
3
All Other
WWTP
37
TN Progress 2008/2007 as a fraction of E3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DE DC MD NY PA VA WV
mill
ion
lbs
per
year
p52
p53
38
TP Progress 2008/2007 as a fraction of E3
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DE DC MD NY PA VA WV
mill
ion
lbs
per
year
p52
p53
39
Percent of Target Reached from No Action
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DC DE MD NY PA VA WV Total
TN p5.2
TN p5.3
TP p5.2
TP p5.3
40
Additional Analyses before WQGIT
• Investigate changes in progress for NY, DE, and WV
• Verify that WWTP is correct
• 2007 shows no progress for ESVA
• Source contributions
• . . .
41
Summary
• Calibration method has been stable for years.
• Scenario Builder is now producing reasonable input data
• Phase 5.3 calibration similar to phase 5.2– Point source based changes in Potomac and
Patuxent– Coastal Plain changes in unmonitored area
• Delivery Factors similar
42
Scenario Builder: Role, Documentation and Planned Continued
EnhancementsChris Brosch
Chesapeake Bay Program Nonpoint Source AnalystUniversity of Maryland/CBPO
4343
Scenario Builder
A database program that generates inputs for the
Phase 5 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
Snapshot:
Land Use AcreageBMPsFertilizerManureAtmospheric DepositionPoint SourcesSeptic Loads
44
45
Scenario Builder Planned Enhancements• Version 2.2a: System Maintenance and Documentation Release
– System documentation updated • Version 2.3: Septic and Atmospheric Deposition
– Add these are two new sub-systems • Version 2.4: BMP Descriptions and Other BMP Files
– Accessory BMP files that the model needs to process BMP data from Scenario Builder.
– Input the Phase 5.3 watershed model outputs • Version 2.5: Improve Animal Waste Management System BMPs and
Dead Birds– Both are being addressed by BMPs now—will be addressed more accurately
• Version 2.6: Wastewater Sub System – Will automate input data generation over 3,000 facilities
• Version 3: NEIEN Exchange– Conversion of NEIEN BMP exchange data into Scenario Builder formats.
• Version 4: Data Products– Developing reports or other data products that will stream-line the process for
states, locals and other partners/stakeholders to request information• Version 5: User Interface
– Evolution of version 2.2 User Interface for running “what if” scenarios
46
Scenario List• We have
– 1985 (1985 and allocation air)– 2007 (2007 and allocation air) (not final)– 2010 No Action– 2010 E3 with N-based NM (not final)– VA EPIL (not final)
• Next Up– 1985 No Action– 1985 E3– 2010 E3 with P-based NM– 2008– Trib Strategy– 2009
WQGIT