CICEET Progress Report for the period 3/15/05 Through 9/15/05

Project Title: Presentation of Nutrient Pollutant Load and Source Estimation Model Results for Enhanced Nutrient Loading Analyses of New England Coastal Watersheds
Principal Investigator(s): Laura Blake
Additional Investigator(s): Keith Robinson, Rich Moore, and Craig Johnston
Project Start Date:1 September 2004

Tables

Table 1

Tasks to meet objectives
Task 4. Package SPARROW Model Data
Task 5. SPARROW Model Workshops

Progress on Tasks
Task 4. Package SPARROW Model Data.
This work is complete. A more efficient (and very user-friendly) graphical user interface (New England SPARROW Data Viewer) has been customized; the New England SPARROW Data Viewer operates (as an add-on tool) within the ArcView 3.x environment. NEIWPCC conducted a model testing session with the end user advisors identified for this project; this meeting took place on March 31, 2005, at the USGS Science Center, in Pembroke, NH. Minor enhancements were made to the New England SPARROW Data Viewer in response to comments from class participants. Laura Hayes (USGS) and Laura Blake (NEIWPCC) also conducted reviews of the model documentation and their comments were incorporated into the metadata. The New England SPARROW Data Viewer on has been finalized and reproduced on a series of 6 CDs (1 for each of the New England States).

Task 5. SPARROW Workshops.
Course content, exercises, and participant manuals were developed by NEIWPCC and USGS. To date, four workshops have been conducted, including the state workshops for Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. Two additional workshops are planned for the next reporting period (Maine and Vermont). A final workshop for coastal managers is planned for Spring 2006, following completion of Task 6 (development of the SPARROW Web application).

Difficulties
The New England SPARROW Data Viewer currently operates within the ArcView 3.3 environment. However, many state (and other) agencies have begun converting over to ArcGIS 9.X. At this time, the New England SPARROW Data Viewer cannot operate within ArcGIS 9.X. USGS is currently exploring the feasibility of creating a New England SPARROW Data Viewer for ArcGIS 9.X.

Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period

Objectives
Specific objectives for the next reporting period are:

1. Complete series of hands-on technical workshops (on the New England SPARROW Model) for the New England States Water Quality and Coastal Programs.
2. Develop the SPARROW Model web page in order to provide New England SPARROW Model results and data to a wide variety of audiences.

Tasks to Meet Objectives
Task 6. Develop SPARROW Web

Work Plan for Next Reporting Period
NEIWPCC and USGS will complete the series of technical workshops for the New England State Water Quality Programs and Coastal Programs, as well begin preparation for a workshop for other coastal resource managers (via the New England National Estuarine Research Reserve’s (NERR) Coastal Training Programs).

NEIWPCC and USGS will develop an interactive web page to provide SPARROW results to a wide variety of audiences. Downloadable copies of the report and all information included on the CDs will be made available through the web site. This includes the SPARROW data as well as the NHD Viewer Toolkit. Dependent upon availability of resources and the state of using NHD on the web, an interactive web-based interface will be developed for viewing and accessing SPARROW data.

Anticipated Success in Meeting Project Objectives
Yes. Unless substantial errors or problems are encountered with the web page development, NEIWPCC does not foresee problems in meeting all project objectives.

Overall Project Timeline Update
See Table 1.

Preliminary Data
All GIS coverages, associated databases, and all metadata are complete. The metadata have undergone a review. The data viewer can easily handle regional datasets, resulting in easier access (to data) for targeted end users. A copy of the complete series of Data Viewer discs, as well as the workshop manual is included with this progress report.

Dissemination
Publications:
None.

Workshops:
March 31, 2005: Model testing session with end user advisors. End user advisors who participated in this testing session include: Gregg Comstock, NH DES; Mark Mattson, MA DEP; Paul Mitnik, ME DEP; Paul Stacey, CT DEP; and Henry Walker, EPA. Beth Card, NEIWPCC’s Water Quality Division Director, was also in attendance at this meeting.

June 2, 2005: Massachusetts Workshop, held at USF&WS, in Hadley, MA.

June 16, 2005: Connecticut Workshop, held at CT DEP, in Hartford, CT.

July 13, 2005: Rhode Island Workshop, held at RI DEM, in Providence, RI.

August 11, 2005: New Hampshire Workshop, held at NH DES, in Concord, NH.

Conferences:
None.

Manuals, Protocols:
New England SPARROW Model manual completed (included with this progress report).

Outreach Activities:
See workshops (above). Also, NEIWPCC has been receiving an extensive amount of inquiries about and interest in the release of the New England SPARROW Data Viewer.

Contact with End Users:
End users were brought together on March 31, 2005 to serve as testing group for the beat version of the model. Modifications were made to the model based on their feedback and the model was finalized.

Patent, Copyright, Invention Disclosure Activity:
None

Expenditures
Expenditures are on track relative to task progress.

End User Advisor Feedback
At the start of this project, there were a total of five end user advisors for this project (Gregg Comstock, NH DES; Mark Mattson, MA DEP; Paul Mitnik, ME DEP; Paul Stacey, CT DEP; and Henry Walker, EPA). Paul Mitnik retired in June 2005; therefore, there are now just four end user advisors for this project.

Name: Paul Stacey, PhD
Organization: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Location: 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127
Phone number: (860) 424 - 3728
E-mail: paul.stacey@po.state.ct.us

1) At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology.
The SPARROW model has a broad range of possible uses, from nutrient loading estimates throughout Connecticut to developing management plans for interstate issues throughout the region. For example, the Connecticut River nitrogen load to Long Island Sound might require management actions in upper river states.

2) What, if anything, has changed about this project's potential applicability since the last reporting period (not applicable to the first Progress Report)?
The difficulty usually lies with keeping the model up to date given land cover changes and the growth of scientific understanding that could improve model estimates. Also, the software framework (ARCVIEW) is undergoing change and the model needs to be modified to work with newer software.

3) Do you see any key challenges that the researchers may want to address or keep in mind?
The report does respond adequately to the technical issues of software and outreach, which is the purview of the project. The growth in scientific understanding that might warrant changes in the model code is outside the scope of this effort.

4) Does this report offer you enough information to adequately address the above questions?
The workshops were very well organized and orchestrated. The model is simple to use by managers, which increases the likelihood of its continued use and value.

Name: Mark D. Mattson, PhD
Organization: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Location: 627 Main Street, 2nd Floor, Worcester, MA 01608
Phone number: (508) 767 - 2868
E-mail: Mark.Mattson@state.ma.us

1) At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology.
We may use it for TMDLs and for comparisons to nutrient criteria being developed by our office as well as other management issues.

2) Do you see any key challenges that the researchers may want to address or keep in mind?
I do not see any other problems with the dissemination of the model. NEIWPCC is doing a good job. However, I have identified a couple of problems with the model itself. One that it tends to overestimate P retention in lakes (and thus probably overestimates landuse loading). Second, that the point source data are somewhat out of date and it is difficult for the end-user to update the point source loading information for any given river. It would be helpful if the model would allow a menu option to update the point source information or at least have the manual provide step by step instructions on how to do this.

3) Does this report offer you enough information to adequately address the above questions?
Yes for dissemination, no for the other model problems.

4) Other feedback?
I suggest the website offer an option for people to ask questions and have the answers posted on the website as a bulletin board.