CICEET Progress Report for the period 9/02/07 Through 3/01/08

Project Title: Applying multiple models to inform watershed management and land use planning a coastal community
Principal Investigator(s): Kathleen B. Boomer, Xuyong Li, Latif Kalin, Donald E. Weller
Project Start Date: 09/01/07

Figures

Figure 1

Project Objectives for This Reporting Period
Objectives
During this first project period, we planned the following tasks:
1. Finalize the watershed model set;
2. Meet with Queenstown Town Planners to open a continuing dialogue about the project status and discuss the alternative land use scenarios for evaluation;
3. Finalize the spatial extent of the modeling effort and an overall strategy for calibrating and verifying each of the models;
4. Assemble the spatial data required for the watershed modeling efforts; and
5. Initialize simulation for each individual watershed model.

Tasks to meet objectives
In addition to maintaining a dialogue among project team members, we needed to open a continuing dialogue with planners from the Town of Queenstown. We also decided to broaden the project’s application beyond the target community by reaching out to County planners. Technical tasks included organizing spatial input data and initializing a subset of our models.

Progress on Tasks
On January 8 and 9, 2008, we held a kick-off meeting which included meetings with the Town of Queenstown and the Queen Anne’s County Department of Land Use, Growth Management & Environment. The following summarizes the collective outcome of all conversations and meetings.

1. Finalized watershed model set: In addition the SWAT, the CBP-HSPF model, and GWLF, we will use the Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment tool (L-THIA) (http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/runoff/Index.html). The resulting non-point source discharge estimates are based on runoff calculations and loading coefficients. The tool was developed explicitly to provide municipalities with a straightforward analysis tool for evaluating alternative land use scenarios.

2. Community outreach: The commission of volunteer planners from the Town of Queenstown met with us on January 8, 2008 for a project update and discussion. Their earlier communications resulted in access to local spatial data as well as information regarding alternate land use plans which the town would like to evaluate. Because the Town planning area straddles two watersheds, they are especially interesting in evaluating relative impacts to each sub-area. They are also interested in evaluating the impacts of growth distributed evenly across the planning area versus consolidated (i.e., denser) growth adjacent to the current municipality. To facilitate future communications, our project has been included as a regular item on the Planning Commission’s semi-monthly meetings. On January 9, 2008, we met with Queen Anne’s County Department of Land Use, Growth Management & Environment. We agreed to keep the County informed of our progress and to broaden our analysis enough to provide managers with useful information but still meet the responsibilities of our contract with CICEET.

3. Finalized model extent and objectives based on feedback from Town- and County meetings: We agreed to calibrate and verify the models using data assembled by the Chesapeake Bay Program for three of their Eastern Shore model segments which overlap with Queen Anne’s County and data from three watersheds monitored by SERC (see Figure 1). We also agreed to apply the calibrated models to MD-HUC12 units, as suggested by the County, to areas including the Queenstown planning areas and south-western Queen Anne’s County, where most of the development in the next 20 to 30 years is expected to occur. Finally we agreed to also apply the watershed models to smaller sub-basins including Queenstown to address the Town’s questions regarding the relative impacts to adjacent water bodies by different growth strategies.

4. Data assembly and organization: The Town and County provided us with access to additional spatial data needed for the model implementations. We have centralized and organized much of the data into standard formats and projection.

5. Initialization of model simulation: Currently we are assembling and processing the geospatial data required by the selected models. Elevation, soil and current land use maps in GIS formats are being processed to prepare the input parameter data files for the models. We are working to fine tune the stream network maps and the watershed boundaries generated through automated extraction and delineation algorithms in GIS. Extra effort is needed to meet the challenge presented by flat topography in the coastal plain. This is a crucial process for consistency between the models. We are setting up the initial values and value ranges for hydrological, nutrient and sediment parameters values from the results of other watershed modeling research projects in Chesapeake coastal plain.

Have the results/data gathered during this reporting period changed the project objectives when compared to your original proposal? Please explain.
Project initiation was delayed until November by contract logistics. Since our actual start-up in November, we have made strong progress toward completing the tasks presented in our proposal’s timeline.

Difficulties
Our meeting with the County planning organizations already has clarified the challenge of integrating science and policy at the local level. In particular, we learned that for County planners, analysis of land use impacts on surface water quality is secondary to other impact analysis and zoning recommendations, such as engineering and public service infrastructure. Given the limited time and financial resources, county-level planners find it challenging to prioritize watershed impacts over addressing mandated infrastructure requirements. Accordingly, the County planning agency expressed some reluctance to participate in our efforts, despite our assurances to minimize any resource contributions from the county to the project.

Data Generated to date
none to report.

Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period

Objectives
During the next six months we plan to calibrate our model set and apply the models to assess impacts from alternative land use scenarios. We will continue our dialogue with Queenstown and Queen Anne’s County to inform them of our progress and address questions which arise during the analyses as well as provide outreach to broader audiences.

Work Plan to Meet Objectives
Technical tasks
a) Model set-up, calibration, and application: We will continue setting up the models, and by next fall we should have some preliminary model outputs and be close to completing model calibration and validation.

b) Assessment of land use / land cover scenarios: Land use scenarios will be assessed with the uncalibrated models during this time period. Assessments with calibrated models will need more time. Relative changes in water quality and quantity to be estimated by calibrated and uncalibrated model simulations will be compared.

2. Outreach tasks:
a) Contribute project updates and attend semi-monthly Planning Commission meetings on an as-needed basis

b) Present our CICEET project and its status to the Chesapeake Community Modeling Program at their Chesapeake Modeling Symposium on May 12-14, 2008 in Annapolis, MD.

c) Introduce work to MD State and Eastern Shore citizens by presenting at a Corsica River Restoration’s monthly meeting potential.

Expenditures
To date, expenditures for personnel compensation at SERC amount to $26, 401. We have also negotiated a contract with Auburn University for Year 1 of the project in the amount of $36, 320.