CICEET Progress Report for the period 9/16/05 Through 3/15/06

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): Thomas Mulcahy, (NEIWPCC)
Additional Investigator(s): Keith Robinson, Rich Moore, and Craig Johnston (USGS)
Project Start Date: 9/01/04

Tables

Table 1

Tasks to meet objectives
Task 5. SPARROW Model Workshops
Task 6. Develop SPARROW web application

Progress on Tasks
Task 5. SPARROW Workshops. To date, six workshops have been conducted, including the state workshops for: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont.

Task 6. Development of the SPARROW Web-based Application. USGS and NEWIPCC have initiated the process of planning and design for the SPARROW web-based 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 continues to explore 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 the SPARROW Model web-based application to provide New England SPARROW Model results and data to a wide variety of audiences.
2. Completion of the final workshop for New England Coastal Managers.

Tasks to Meet Objectives
Task 5. SPARROW Model Workshops
Task 6. Develop SPARROW Web

Work Plan for Next Reporting Period
Task 5. SPARROW Model Workshops. NEIWPCC and USGS will begin preparing a workshop for other coastal resource managers (via the New England National Estuarine Research Reserve’s (NERR) Coastal Training Programs). The final workshop for coastal managers will be planned for late June or early July 2006, following completion of Task 6 (development of the SPARROW Web application) and will highlight coastal applications of the SPARROW model.

Task 6. Develop SPARROW Web. USGS and NEWIPCC have initiated the process of planning and design for the SPARROW web application. The website will be based on USGS and EPA applications that utilize an interactive web-based interface for viewing and accessing data. Updates and enhancements to these applications are being evaluated for use in the SPARROW web application. If the technology has evolved as expected, than the user will be able to query features ­ including the NHD reaches and associated attributes ­ using the ARC view identify tool. An upstream trace feature may also be available for the SPARROW web-based application. 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.

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.
November 3, 2005: Maine Workshop, held at ME DES, in Augusta, ME
November 16, 2005: Vermont Workshop, held at VT DEC, Waterbury, VT

Conferences: None.

Manuals, Protocols
New England SPARROW Model manual completed.

Outreach Activities
See workshops (above). Also, NEIWPCC continues to receive an extensive amount of inquiries about and interest in the release of the New England SPARROW Data Viewer.

Contact with End Users
End users will be asked to review the SPARROW web-based application upon its completion.

End users were brought together on March 31, 2005 to serve as testing group for the beta 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. I received comments for this report from two end users ­ see below.

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.
The potential applications range from Total Maximum Daily Load analyses to general questions concerning nutrient modeling in rivers. There are many other benefits of having this model available. For example, some researchers want to know things like what is the watershed for a given river? What is the flow, slope and nutrient concentrations expected? These types of questions can be addressed with the model.

2) Do you see any key challenges that the researchers may want to address or keep in mind?
The key challenge, as previously stated, include the need to update the data upon which the model is based. Specifically, you need to get up to date information on NPDES discharge rates of nutrients because many of the dischargers have upgraded their equipment and the lower discharges of nutrients is not reflected in the model so the model is giving incorrect results. Second, the model should be re-evaluated for the sedimentation rate of phosphorus in lakes because the current parameter seems to be much too large. Third, there are many instances of errors in the datalayer within the model. Examples include parts of rivers connected by straight lines where no rivers exist and parts of the river running upstream (see South River in Conway MA sparrow Rch_ 40287 and Rch_id 40289), or NPDES discharges indicated in the model (see watershed sparrowid 30673 which indicates p-sewer of 1505 kg) where there are no NPDES dischargers within miles according to our data. Admittedly, some of this may be our fault if MassDEP provided you with the incorrect NPDES permit information, but nevertheless, these and other similar errors in the coverages should be corrected.

3) Does this report offer you enough information to adequately address the above questions?
Yes.

4) Other feedback?
It would be great to get this on a website and it might be a good idea to look to the future for migrating it to the next version of arcview.

Name: Greg Comstock
Organization: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Location: 29 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
Phone number: (508) 767 - 2868
E-mail: gcomstock@des.state.nh.us

1) At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology.
Potential applications include use as a screening tool to determine nutrient hot spots and likely sources of nutrient loadings.

2) Do you see any key challenges that the researchers may want to address or keep in mind?
I think the model would be more useful to end users if it could be easily recalibrated to new data and used to run predictive scenarios (ie. what would the loads be if the WWTFs reduced their loads by 50%?).

3) Does this report offer you enough information to adequately address the above questions?
Yes