Calibration of the Phase 5 Watershed Model Progress Report

1. Calibration of thePhase 5 Watershed ModelProgress Report Modeling Subcommittee 4/3/2007

2. Today’s Presentations • This Presentation • Phase 5 calibration strategy overview • Progress since January • Hydrology model validation • First run of 10-year hydrologic periods • Jing and Rob • Upgrades to the ground cover database • Nursery targets • Re-calibration of land sediment • Me • River Calibration

3. Automated Calibration • Makes Calibration Feasible • Ensures even treatment across jurisdictions • Enables uncertainty analysis • Fully documented calibration strategy • Repeatable

4. View from 30,000 feet Calibration Procedures Input Data “vortex” Calibration Data

5. Calibration Process Single-processor time Hydrology Land parameters River data 1 week Temperature Land parameters River parameters River data Land Sediment Land parameters Land targets 1 week Land Nutrients Land parameters Land targets 1 week River Water Quality River parameters River targets 1 week

6. Hydrology Land parameters River data Temperature Land parameters River parameters River data Land Sediment Land parameters Land targets Land Nutrients Land parameters Land targets River Water Quality River parameters River targets Progress in January • Stabilized forest calculation and recalibrated • Work on EOF to EOS Transport Factors • Full calibration

7. Progress Since January - Code • Modified hydrology and temperature calibration procedures to allow for calibration of smaller basins • Consolidation of various phase 5 code versions • Wrote code to generate outputs requested by VA

8. Progress Since JanuaryExtended data through 2005 • Rainfall, Temperature, PET • Observed River Flow data • Atmospheric deposition data • Point Source data • Ran hydrology and temperature calibration

9. Progress Since January – Land Sediment • Integrated land cover and tillage data into the Vortex (COAST) • Updated targets as requested by MDE • Ran the calibration

10. Progress Since January – Land Nutrients • Modified nutrient species targets • Labile organics < Refractory organics • Refractory (P:N) < Labile (P:N) • Ran the calibration TN TP DIN OrgN Labile OrgN Labile OrgP OrgP DIP Refractory OrgN Refractory OrgP

11. Organic Simulation Labile ORGN DIN BOD P:N = 0.1384 Algae P:N = 0.1384 DIP Labile ORGP DIN Benthic Algae P:N = 0.1384 0.1384 0.1384 Refract ORGN DIP Refractory ORGN 0.1384 Refract ORGP Refractory ORGP Median Observed ORGN:ORGP ratio is 0.056

12. Progress Since JanuaryRiver Water Quality • Derived and used subgrid transport factors • (convert EOF to EOS) • Extended calibration to 2005 • Ran calibration

13. Hydrology Recalibration with Validation • Differences from previous hydrology • Through 2005 rather than 1999 • New land use, rainfall, . . . • Two Scenarios • Calibrate using all data • Calibrate using first and last 40% of Data • Check Validation for Both

18. Slight decrease in efficiency

19. Validation better than Calibration

21. Validation period better than total period

22. Validation about the same either for either calibration

23. Observations • The calibration and the validation are slightly better using all data rather than the first and last 40% • In both cases the agreement with the validation data set (middle 20%) is better than the calibration

24. Model Validation • It has been shown that the hydrology model and calibration procedure can be adequately validated • Questions: • Should we use the best calibration or the validated calibration? • Should we do the same thing for water quality?

25. The Effect of Different Averaging Periods

26. The Way to Test • Well Calibrated Model • Used January Version • Use 1985 conditions throughout • Used Time-Varying conditions • Use results to get bounds on effects of hydrology on allocation decisions

30. Averaging Period • Relatively small changes due to averaging period • Real results (well calibrated model, constant scenario) will be presented to the Water Quality Steering Committee