The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStakeholderMeeting_2_12052023September 25, 2023 Neuse River Watershed Modeling stakeholder Meeting RESPEC.COM Agenda ›Project Introduction – DWR ›Review of Model Selection and Model Period Determination ›Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) ›Simulation and Data Source Planning ›Updates on Model Development ›Updates on Model Calibration and Validation ›Remaining Timeline ›Discussion RESPEC.COM 2 RESPEC TEAM ›Principal-In-Charge – RUSSEL Persyn ›Project Manager – Seth Kenner ›QA/QC Officer – Paul Duda ›Modeling Team ⁄Chris Lupo ⁄Cindie Kirby ⁄Paul Hummel 3 Project Overview ›Schedule 4 Model Selection ›Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran ⁄Vetted for over 40 Years ⁄Core watershed model in US-EPA BASINS and US ACE Watershed Modeling System ⁄Capable of continuous hourly simulation ⁄Represents multi-land use watersheds ⁄Works for multiple pollutants (sediment, nutrients, dissolved oxygen, etc.) ⁄Represents surface, subsurface, stream, and lake hydrology and water-quality processes,including point sources ⁄RESPEC modeling team •Over 50 years of experience •Hundreds of model applications RESPEC.COM 5 HSPF Model Calibrated Parameters ⁄Hydrology ⁄Sediment ⁄Temperature ⁄Dissolved oxygen ⁄Phosphorus Species ⁄Nitrogen Species Model Development 6 Cropland Barren UrbanForestPastures Overland Flow Interflow •Precipitation •Air Temperature •Evaporation •Solar Radiation •Cloud Cover •Wind •Dew Point Model Land Covers and Soils Point Sources In-Stream Processes -Nutrient Cycling -Fate and Transport Model Parameterization: Infiltration Cover Shade Upper/lower zone storage Groundwater recession Ice parameters Interception storage Interflow Manning’s n Vegetation CLimate BMP Module Implementation Planning Modeling Period ›2004-2022 ⁄Wet and dry years ⁄2003 as “warm up period” 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Precip (inches) Station: Richlands (316422)Station: Jacksonville Eoc (314471)Station: Albert Ellis Airport (KOAJ)Station: Sandy Run (CLJN7) Quality Assurance Project Plan RESPEC.COM 8 data Collection ›Meteorological Data ⁄PRISM ⁄NLDAS ›Atmospheric Deposition ⁄NADP ⁄CASTNET ›Discharge ⁄USGS NWIS ›Water Quality ⁄USGS NWIS (from WQ portal) ⁄State WQ Data ›Point Source ⁄State Data ›Water Use ⁄State Data 9 ›Land Cover ⁄NLCD 2019 ›Soils ⁄SSURGO ›Cropland ⁄NASS Crop Data Layer ›Feedlots ⁄State Layer ›MS4s ⁄State Layer ›Septic ⁄State Sewered Areas ⁄Census Spatial Data ›Watersheds ⁄NHD Plus V2 ›Flowlines ⁄NHD PLUS HIGH RES ⁄Local Data ›Elevation/slope ⁄USGS 3Dep ›Cross Sections ⁄NC Flood Risk Information System HEC Models Gridded Met Data ›A script estimates meteorological inputs for HSPF with gridded data for each meteorological zone ›The inputs are exported to a WDM file that HSPF reads. ›The list of timeseries inputs includes: ⁄Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) •4-KM grid •Daily time-step •Precipitation ⁄North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) •12-km grid •Hourly time-step • Precipitation – used to disaggregate PRISM •Air temperature •Solar radiation •Wind speed •Calculated from NLDAS timeseries •Dew point – specific humidity, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure (two method options) •Cloud cover – solar radiation •Potential evapotranspiration – solar radiation, dew point, air temperature, and wind travel RESPEC.COM 10 MET ZONE Development ›Met Zone Definition ⁄Subwatersheds sharing the same precipitation time-series ⁄Land uses in these zones share the same parameter sets ›Steps ⁄Obtain precipitation for each subwatershed ⁄Produce correlation and adjacency matrices ⁄Use analysis to aid the Aggregation of subwatersheds 11 MET ZONE Development Correlation Matrix 12 Adjacency Matrix ›Additional considerations ⁄Drainage Areas ⁄Average Annual Precipitation ⁄Abrupt Changes in Soils, Landuse, Topography, or Ecoregion Fill/Process Other Timeseries Data ›Atmospheric Deposition (N Species) ⁄Convert Weekly or monthly to a daily Timestep ⁄Fill with interpolation and monthly averages ›Water Use ⁄Surface and Groundwater Timeseries filled with Monthly Averages by Reach ›Continuous Discharge for Calibration ›water quality for calibration (Some continuous, mostly grab) ›Point Sources – Data supplied by NC DWR RESPEC.COM 13 Point Source QA/QC ›Plots and Stats Generated ⁄Min, Mean, Max, Etc. ⁄Review Complete RESPEC.COM 14 ? Point Source QA/QC ›Review Edits Sent to NC DWQ (Plots and Changes) RESPEC.COM 15 Point Source QA/QC ›Timeseries And External Source Blocks Generated for Model ⁄Generated using Point Source tool so easily updated if more changes occur RESPEC.COM 16 Point Sources ›Fill Missing Data For Continuous Daily Timeseries ⁄Fill missing constituents using default concentrations ▪Uses ratios if at least 1 component is available ▪Uses concentrations directly if no components are available ⁄Interpolate if missing gap < 14 days ⁄Fill with monthly averages ⁄Fill with overall average ⁄Fill with default concentrations RESPEC.COM 17 Point Sources ›Missing Data – Default Concentrations (mg/L) RESPEC.COM 18 Description Class Type NOX TAM ORN TN BOD PO4 ORP TSS Industrial Process & Commercial Wastewater Discharge Ind Continuous 7 2 1 10 1.44 0.1 0.02 1 Discharging 100% Domestic < 1MGD Class D Continuous 3 1 2 6 1.44 1.6 1.1 1 Municipal Wastewater Discharge, Large Class A Continuous 15 3 1 19 1.44 2.76 0.02 1 Water Plants and Water Conditioning Discharge WTP Intermittent 3 1 0 4 1.44 0.1 0.02 1 Municipal Wastewater Discharge, < 1MGD Class C Continuous 7 1 2 12 1.44 2.59 0.99 1 Water Plants and Water Conditioning Discharge WTP Continuous 3 1 0 4 1.44 0.1 0.02 1 Industrial Process & Commercial Wastewater Discharge Ind Intermittent 7 2 1 10 1.44 0.1 0.02 1 Covation Biomaterials Kinston Site NC0003760_1 Ind_C Continuous 7 2 1 10 3.12 0.1 0.02 5.8 Lee Steam Electric Plant NC0003417_1 Ind_L Intermittent 1 2 1 4 2.1 0.1 0.02 1 New Bern Cellulose Fibers NC0003191_1 Ind_N Continuous 7 2 1 10 1.44 0.1 0.02 9 Greenville Lumber Facility NC0073229_1 Ind_G Intermittent 7 2 1 10 1.44 0.1 0.02 0.1 Ward Transformer Company NC0045608_1 Ind_W Intermittent 1 2 1 4 1.44 0.1 0.02 0 Point Sources ›Default Speciation (When Not Enough Existing Data) ⁄TSS - 60% Clay, 40% Silt ⁄NOX – 98% NO3, 2% NO2 ⁄TP – 72% PO4, 28% Organic P ⁄BOD – to BOD Ultimate (Factor = 2.4) ⁄BOD to Organic N – 4% of BOD ⁄BOD to Organic C – 12% of BOD Concentration RESPEC.COM 19 Subwatershed Delineation ›Boundary Condition at Falls Lake Outlet ›Breaks at: ⁄Most HUC12 outlets ⁄Applicable parameter impairment outlets ⁄Significant flow and water quality monitoring sites ⁄Modeled lakes ›National Hydrography Database v2 ⁄Hydrologically corrected digital elevation model •Flow accumulation grid •Flow direction grid ⁄Errors occur using NHD high-resolution database ⁄ArcGIS pro hydrology toolset 20 Modeled Reservoir/Lake Selection ›7 Lakes/Reservoirs ⁄Impaired (1) ⁄Connected and >200 acres ⁄Calculate surface area at volumes and depths of contours if bathymetry is available 21 Lake/Reservoirs Size (Acres)Impaired Lake Johnson 148 Yes Holts Lake 379 No Lake Crabtree 455 No Lake Benson 476 No Wiggins Mill Reservoir 511 No Lake Wheeler 565 No Buckhorn Reservoir 758 No Reach Development ›National Hydrologic Dataset High-Resolution Flowlines ›Reduced to One Reach per Subwatershed ›Calculations for HSPF: ⁄Length ⁄Slope ⁄Elevation ⁄F-tables •At a range of depths •Surface area •Volume •Flow 22 Reach/Lake FTABLE Development ›Function table (FTABLE) ⁄Summary of hydraulic properties (extended rating curve) ⁄For each depth/stage •Surface area •Volume •Outflow ›Lake Data ⁄Outflow information (dams) ›Reach Data ⁄Cross sections •Hydraulic models (have a LOT!!!) •Surveys •DEM/Lidar •Streamflow field measurements/gaging notes 23 Schematic Development ›Model Land Cover In each Subwatershed ⁄Evaluate •National Land Cover Dataset 2019 •NRCS gNATSGO Soils hydrologic soil group •Crop types •Tile drainage 24 Developed 16% Forest 28% Scrub/Shrub 2%Herbaceous 2% Hay/Pasture 4% Cultivated Crops 24% Wetland 24% A 19% B 19% C 9% AD/BD/CD/D 53% Soybeans 45% Corn 24% Dbl Crop WinWht/Soybean s 8% Fallow/Idle Cropland 6% Cotton 6% Sweet Potatoes 4% Tobacco 3% Other 4% Schematic Development ›Tile Drainage Estimation ⁄Row crops ⁄Less than 4% slope ⁄Hydrologic Soil Group A/D, B/D, C/D, D 25 D. Wall, Gosack, B., Pearson, T., Shore, M., 2017. Estimating Tile Drainage Densities. Prepared by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Environmental Resources Schematic Development ›Manured Cropland ⁄Evaluate estimation by subwatershed 26 Method used in Chesapeake Bay Watershed Mode: https://cast-content.chesapeakebay.net/documents/5%20Land%20Use%202020%2003%20Draft.pdf Schematic Development ›MS4s ⁄Used Provided MS4 layers ⁄Have separate mass links for easy tracking ›Septic Systems ⁄Used Census Population points outside of Areas with Sewer Systems RESPEC.COM 27 Land Use Aggregation 28 Final Segmentation ›Putting it all together ⁄Produce the schematic •Links all source areas to a reach ›Initial Model parameterization ⁄Past modeling efforts •Pawcatuck •CTWM (2001) •Octoraro ⁄GIS Data •Slope •Elevation •Soil properties 29 Land Cover Impervious MS4 Hydrozones HSG Sewered/Blockpop Calibration vs validation ›Calibration ⁄Adjust model parameters through an iterative trial and error-process until the resulting predictions provide a good correlation with observed data ›Validation ⁄Test of the calibration on a separate time-period to help establish greater confidence in the calibration and predictive capabilities 30 Calibration Criteria 31 ›How good is good enough? hydrology - Calibration Sites ›Boundary Condition (1) ⁄Falls Lake ›Primary Sites (5) ⁄Mainstem or large drainage area with full POR (Contentnea Creek) ›Secondary Sites (8) ⁄Relatively smaller drainage area with nearly or full POR ›Tertiary Sites (15) ⁄Smallest drainage areas with short POR ⁄Often upstream of a more robust gage RESPEC.COM 32 Hydrology Calibration 33 ›Phases for hydrology calibration ⁄Establish an annual water balance ⁄Adjust low-flow/high-flow distribution ⁄Adjust storm flow/hydrograph shape ⁄Make seasonal adjustments R2 mfe R2 mfe Vol [in]Peak [cfs] 130 USGS-02087500 Neuse River 406.3 100 Primary 0.99 0.98 0.94 0.93 9.0 4.5 5.5 Very Good 350 USGS-02089000 Neuse River 1686.7 100 Primary 0.96 0.95 0.87 0.84 2.9 9.6 -0.3 Good 470 USGS-02089500 Neuse River 2042.4 100 Primary 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.89 3.3 6.1 -2.1 Fair 595 USGS-02091500 Contentnea Creek 733.8 100 Primary 0.89 0.88 0.79 0.74 3.6 9.5 -0.5 Poor 630 USGS-02091814 Neuse River 3257.6 99 Primary 0.92 0.91 0.87 0.85 3.2 -1.6 -0.4 41 USGS-02087324 Crabtree Creek 121.9 100 Secondary 0.94 0.92 0.84 0.80 4.8 2.8 9.2 81 USGS-02087359 Walnut Creek 29.8 100 Secondary 0.92 0.81 0.79 0.79 11.2 -13.7 14.6 175 USGS-02088000 Middle Creek 83.6 100 Secondary 0.92 0.88 0.65 0.63 12.2 -13.4 12.5 189 USGS-0208773375 Swift Creek 120.1 75 Secondary 0.91 0.78 0.75 0.73 14.0 -22.1 15.6 331 USGS-02088500 Litte River 229.7 100 Secondary 0.92 0.92 0.80 0.80 0.0 -10.6 3.2 544 USGS-02090380 Contentnea Creek 157.3 100 Secondary 0.86 0.85 0.77 0.77 -1.0 -20.8 5.7 589 USGS-02091000 Nahunta Swamp 79.8 100 Secondary 0.86 0.84 0.75 0.74 9.6 -12.8 -0.4 731 USGS-02092500 Trent River 174.5 100 Secondary 0.90 0.89 0.65 0.61 -6.7 0.9 -4.8 33 USGS-0208726005 Crabtree Creek 60.7 100 Tertiary 0.93 0.92 0.80 0.78 -2.6 -0.5 8.7 35 USGS-02087275 Crabtree Creek 108.9 100 Tertiary 0.94 0.88 0.80 0.73 8.2 8.0 17.0 47 USGS-0208732885 Marsh Creek 9.6 100 Tertiary 0.83 0.75 0.83 0.83 5.1 -18.8 11.2 71 USGS-02087337 Walnut Creek 3.3 23 Tertiary 0.60 0.58 0.68 0.61 -9.5 -45.5 -1.0 73 USGS-0208734210 Walnut Creek 9.1 23 Tertiary 0.83 0.69 0.68 0.68 4.3 -23.5 10.4 75 USGS-0208734795 Walnut Creek 17.2 23 Tertiary 0.89 0.81 0.80 0.79 5.0 -23.1 7.8 77 USGS-0208735012 Rocky Branch 1.2 100 Tertiary 0.81 0.75 0.83 0.81 0.5 -23.0 9.1 91 USGS-0208739674 Neuse River Trib 2.3 6 Tertiary 0.44 0.31 0.31 0.18 -37.0 -79.5 -34.9 181 USGS-02087580 Swift Creek 24.9 100 Tertiary 0.82 0.47 0.64 0.61 21.5 -23.6 36.7 182 USGS-0208758850 Swift Creek 35.8 100 Tertiary 0.84 0.58 0.66 0.63 21.8 -28.5 29.2 317 USGS-02088383 Litte River 53.4 75 Tertiary 0.87 0.86 0.67 0.66 -2.8 -37.1 -2.4 435 USGS-0208925200 Bear Creek 57.5 63 Tertiary 0.84 0.76 0.79 0.61 3.4 1.1 -11.5 553 USGS-02090504 Contentnea Creek 242.4 10 Tertiary 0.69 0.61 0.50 0.43 3.9 -29.5 4.8 605 USGS-02091736 Middle Swamp 49.4 6 Tertiary 0.47 -0.38 0.68 0.03 29.1 4.9 51.6 687 USGS-0209205053 Swift Creek 251.8 24 Tertiary 0.88 0.80 0.79 0.76 -12.4 -26.9 -19.9 Calibration TypeReachGageSegment Name Drainage Area [sq mi] Percent Available Criteria Monthly Daily Storm Differences Total Vol %Diff hydrology Calibration Statistics RESPEC.COM 34 hydrology Calibration Statistics RESPEC.COM 35 R2 mfe R2 mfe Vol [in]Peak [cfs] Area Weighted 0.92 0.90 0.85 0.82 3.3 0.4 0.3 Very Good True Average 0.84 0.75 0.74 0.69 3.7 -14.5 6.2 Good Area Weighted 0.83 0.78 0.78 0.68 11.5 12.0 9.9 Fair True Average 0.87 0.77 0.76 0.66 11.5 -2.4 16.2 Poor Area Weighted 0.89 0.88 0.83 0.81 1.5 0.8 -1.2 True Average 0.89 0.80 0.79 0.76 4.2 -11.1 6.2 Averaging Method Full Calibration (2004-2022) Dry Validation (2004-2011) Wet Validation (2012-2016) Period Criteria Monthly Daily Storm Differences Total Vol %Diff R2 mfe R2 mfe Vol [in]Peak [cfs] Area Weighted 0.92 0.90 0.85 0.82 3.3 0.4 0.3 Very Good True Average0.84 0.75 0.74 0.69 3.7 -14.5 6.2 Good Area Weighted 0.83 0.78 0.78 0.68 11.5 12.0 9.9 Fair True Average0.87 0.77 0.76 0.66 11.5 -2.4 16.2 Poor Area Weighted 0.89 0.88 0.83 0.81 1.5 0.8 -1.2 True Average0.89 0.80 0.79 0.76 4.2 -11.1 6.2 Averaging Method Full Calibration (2004-2022) Dry Validation (2004-2011) Wet Validation (2012-2016) Period Criteria Monthly Daily Storm Differences Total Vol %Diff SNOWDAS SNOWFALL RESPEC.COM 36 Area % Dif Upper 10.8 Middle 15.6 Lower -20.7 Overall 5.3 Area % Dif Upper 6.0 Middle 0.2 Lower -34.3 Overall -5.3 SNOWDAS Snow Depth RESPEC.COM 37 Area % Dif Upper 6.0 Middle 0.2 Lower -34.3 Overall -5.3 SNOWDAS Snow Depth RESPEC.COM 38 RESPEC.COM 39 Mainstem Timing and Peak Flow Challenges ›Mainstem Neuse River and Contentnea Creek ⁄Over-simulating peak flow, poor daily statistical performance, and peak timing was being simulated up to 5 days early ⁄Issue Resolutions: •Recalculated stream slopes using the 5th and 95th percentile elevations instead of min and max (better agreement with HEC-RAS profiles) •Provided additional storage volume as a function of stream top width and depth (justified with ecoregion descriptions) ›Tributary and Smaller Headwater Streams ⁄Under-simulating peak flow ⁄Issue Resolutions: •Capped HEC-RAS obtained Manning’s n for floodplain (values were >1 for ~1/8th of the tributaries) •Improved runoff calibration with infiltration and surface storage parameters RESPEC.COM 40 Mainstem Timing and Peak Flow Challenges ›EPA Level IV Ecoregions ⁄Downstream portions of the Neuse and Contentnea are categorized as “Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces” ⁄“…the region includes large sluggish rivers and backwaters with ponds, swamps, and oxbow lakes.” hydrology - Mainstem Timing Challenges RESPEC.COM 41 hydrology - Mainstem Timing Challenges RESPEC.COM 42 Water Balance Results RESPEC.COM 43 0 20 40 60 80 Surface Runoff Groundwater Runoff Evaporation Deep Loss Water Balance Comparison Neuse HSPF Cape Fear SWAT NCDEQ Piedmont NCDEQ Coastal Plain ›Comparable to two independent studies in the region ⁄Cape Fear SWAT Model ⁄2009 Cape Fear Basin Plan ›Ensures HSPF runoff parameters are well calibrated and provides further justification for needing to adjust storage volume in FTABLES ›Water balances also make sense on a relative landuse basis ⁄ex: runoff for develop >> forest Water Quality Calibration Sites ›Primary (3) ⁄>10,000 samples ⁄Downstream on major drainages ›Secondary (24) ⁄> 1,000 samples ⁄Substantial drainage area, key locations, modeled lakes ›Tertiary (40) ⁄>1,000 samples ⁄Upstream of areas already covered by secondary locations ⁄Only reviewed when inconsistencies are observed at downstream secondary locations ›NA ⁄< 1,000 samples or on an estuary RESPEC.COM 44 Water Quality Calibration process ›Phases for Water Quality calibration ⁄Estimate land-use-specific parameters ⁄Compare simulated loading rates with expected ranges and adjust if necessary ⁄Calibrate instream parameters to observed data 45 Land-use Frink's Export Coefficients (lb/ac/yr) CTWM Export Coefficients (lb/ac/yr) Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus General Urban 12.0 ± 2.3 1.5 ± 0.2 NA NA Pervious Urban NA NA 8.5 (5.6–15.7)0.26 (0.20–0.41) Impervious Urban NA NA 4.9 (3.7–6.6)0.32 (0.18–0.36) Agriculture 6.8 ± 2.0 0.5 ± 0.13 5.9 (3.4–11.6)0.30 (0.23–0.44) Forest 2.1 ± 0.4 0.1 ± 0.03 2.4 (1.4–4.3)0.04 (0.03–0.08) Wetland NA NA 2.2 (1.4–3.5)0.03 (0.02–0.05) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 TN Loading Rate [lb/acre/yr]TN Loading Rates - Example Calibration Process Overview ›Water Quality Calibration ⁄Sediment ⁄Dissolved oxygen ⁄Temperature ⁄Phosphorus species ⁄Nitrogen species ⁄Chlorophyll A ›Evaluation ⁄Daily ⁄Duration ⁄Monthly averages ›Match Observed Data to Model Simulation 46 Simulated Observed Daily Monthly Duration Dev EIA 6% Dev 18% Manured Crop 8% Unmanured Grain 11%Soybeans 18% Other Crops 11% Pasture Hay 9% Grassland 9% Forest 4% Wetlands 5% Point Source 0% Septics 0%Boundary 1% TSS [ton] Water Quality Preview RESPEC.COM 47 Dev EIA 7% Dev 13% Manured Crop 4% Unmanured Grain 6% Soybeans 11% Other Crops 5%Pasture Hay 4% Grassland 5% Forest 16% Wetlands 17% Point Source 3% Septics 0% Boundary 9% Flow [ac-ft] 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 TSS [lbs/acre] Water Quality Preview RESPEC.COM 48 ›Begin with sediment and temperature calibration ⁄Many processes are temperature dependent ⁄N and P associated sediment Water Quality Preview RESPEC.COM 49 Water Quality Preview RESPEC.COM 50 Water Quality Preview - EXAMPLE TABLE RESPEC.COM 51 Constituent Primary and Secondary Calibration Reaches Primary Calibration Reaches Obs Sim Diff Obs Sim Diff (mg/L)(mg/L)%(mg/L)(mg/L)% Total Suspended Sediment 25 10 –61 8.1 8.7 7.5 Temperature 68 64 –4.9 54.7 52.2 –4.6 Dissolved Oxygen 7.7 7.2 –7.1 10.5 9.5 –8.9 Total Nitrogen 0.77 0.78 2.1 0.81 0.79 –2.3 Total Inorganic Nitrogen 0.46 0.51 10 0.47 0.49 4.9 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.37 0.35 –7.3 0.37 0.34 –6.1 Ammonia as N 0.060 0.051 –14 0.033 0.051 56 Nitrite-Nitrate as N 0.40 0.46 14 0.44 0.44 2 Total Phosphorus 0.046 0.038 –17 0.042 0.045 8.3 Orthophosphate as P 0.019 0.016 –15 0.020 0.017 –14 Chorlophyll a 4.7 6.1 29 5.2 6.4 23 Biochemical Oxygen Demand 1.10 0.78 –30 1.2 0.8 –31 Total Organic Carbon 6.5 6.9 6.1 7.0 6.2 –12 SCENARIO APPLICATION MANAGER (SAM) ›Stand Alone Program with GIS Mapping ›HSPF Modeling Experience not Required ›Requires ⁄Calibrated HSPF model ⁄GIS watersheds linked to model ›Will be Used For ⁄Transport and Delivery Factor Development ⁄Existing Conditions Analysis ⁄What-if Scenarios Scenario Application Manager (SAM) ›Determine Pollutants of Concern ›Identify Critical Locations and Sources ›Develop Custom or Optimized Scenarios ›Scenario Analysis ›Reporting for Documentation RESPEC.COM 53 SAM Easy as 1-2-3 Transport Factor Calculation Example ›Modeled years are 2004 – 2022 ⁄Export Local Loads ▪Local Runoff Loads Delivered to Nearest Stream ▪Aggregate Timestep (Min Daily) ▪Unique Source and Basin ⁄Export Transported Loads ▪Loads Delivered To Selected Outlet ▪Same Timestep, Sources, and Basins ⁄Transport Factors ▪Transported Load / Local Load RESPEC.COM 54 Determine Pollutants of Concern Identify Critical Locations/Sources load Concentration Identify Critical Locations/Sources Customize Scenario Customize Scenario Optimizing scenarios $250,000 Prioritize Subbasins Target BMPs Set Optimization Targets Optimization Seeks to Achieve Target But is Limited by Available Budget1 2 3 Process Options4 Optimized BMP outputs5 Scenario Analysis Training and Facilitation of Watershed Planning ›12 Trainings in Past 2 Years Documentation ›Model Selection Memo - Complete ›QAPP - Complete › Input Dataset and Simulation Plan - Complete ›Final Model Report (Including Model Calibration Results) – In Progress 63 Next Steps and Remaining Timeline ›RESPEC ⁄Develop SAM and Draft Water Quality Calibration (Early January) ⁄Training – January 17th (HSPF) and 18th (SAM) ⁄Finalize Water Quality Calibration (Early March) ⁄Finalize Report (Early March) ⁄Final Stakeholder Meeting (March) ⁄Deliver Model (Late March or Early April) RESPEC.COM 64 Thank you! RESPEC.COM 65 Seth.Kenner@RESPEC.com Cindie.Kirby@respec.com Chris.Lupo@respec.com Project Website: https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water- resources/water-planning/modeling-assessment/special- studies#NeuseWatershedModel-12492