Jerrit Askvig, Leah Bode, Nathan Cushing, Colin Mullery
December 1, 2010
Agenda
 Context
 Stakeholder
Analysis
 Problem Statement
 Scope
 Design Alternatives
 Method Analysis/Simulation
 Project Plan/Budget
 Risk Mitigation
2
Chesapeake Bay / West and
Rhode Rivers

CB is the largest estuary in the
U.S containing 57 billion cubic
meters of water[1]

CB watershed covers 165k
square km[1]

W&RR are sub estuaries of the
CB contain 50 million cubic
meters of water

W&RR watershed covers 78
square kilometers[2]
[1] Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
[2] Source: West/Rhode Riverkeeper
3
Current Sub-estuary Health

Currently the water quality in the sub-estuary is poor. Many of the
samples taken to measure water quality do not meet the threshold
levels.
Water Quality
Indicator
Water C larity
Dissolved Oxygen
Nutrients (N / P)
Algae
Underwater Grasses
Percent of Samples Meeting Threshold
Threshold
1m
5 mg/L
0.65 mg/L
0.037 mg/L
6.2 ug/L
298 Acres
2009
West
Rhode
2010
West
Rhode
11%
49%
12%
75%
4%
58%
5%
68%
10%
13%
18%
21%
0%
0%
5%
0%
8%
0%
0%
0%
Data Source: West/Rhode River Report Card 2009, 2010
4
Water Clarity Data

Secchi depth is the measure
of how far into the water
natural light can penetrate

Average river depth is less
than 2 meters[1]

Less than 5% of test samples
in the West & Rhode Rivers
met the threshold of 1 meter
in 2010 (34 of 717)[1]
Threshold Level
Trendline
Threshold Level
Trendline
Secchi Disk
[1] Source: West/Rhode Riverkeeper
Chart Data Sources: Maryland Department of Natural Resources
5
Problem Chain
Excess Nutrients and Sediment
Algae Blooms
Turbidity Increases
Underwater Grasses Cannot Grow
Dissolved Oxygen Decreases
Aquatic Ecosystem Suffers
6
Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen is
important for the survival and
reproduction of aquatic
creatures

Areas without sufficient
dissolved oxygen are called
“dead zones” and result in
decreased habitats

Only 60% of water tested in
the West & Rhode Rivers met
the threshold of 5 mg/L in
2010 (697 of 1157 samples)
Source: 2010 West & Rhode River Report Card
7
Aquatic Ecosystem
Data Source: West/Rhode Riverkeeper Report Card 2009, 2010
8
Causes of Poor Water Quality

Excess Nutrients
◦ 8.3 million kg of phosphorous and 127 million kg of nitrogen
flowed into the bay in 2007
◦ In 2010, only 8% of testing sites in West & Rhode Rivers
passed thresholds

Excess Sediment
◦ In 2007, 4.3 million metric tons of sediment flowed into the
Chesapeake Bay
Data Source: Chesapeake Bay Program
9
Current Restoration
1.
The West & Rhode Riverkeeper monitors
construction sites to reduce sediment flowing
into the estuary
2.
The West & Rhode Riverkeeper offers a
sewage pump-out service for boaters
3.
Septic system upgrades and Sustainable lawn
care
4.
Living shoreline restoration at Camp Letts and
Shady Side
5.
Oyster Harvesting Program, Project Oyster
West River (POWeR) grew 25,000 in 2010
Restoration Sources: West/Rhode Riverkeeper
Source: West/Rhode River Report Card 2010
10
Agenda
 Context
 Stakeholder
Analysis
 Problem Statement
 Scope
 Design Alternatives
 Method Analysis/Simulation
 Project Plan/Budget
 Risk Mitigation
11
Stakeholder Analysis
12
Water Quality
Undesirable
Current Situation
Currently pollution is causing a
degrading environment for wildlife
and plants. This is unacceptable
Water Quality
Unbalanced
Businesses
Community Rec
FarmsFishermen
Forcing
Balance
Increasing
Regulations
Balanced by reducing
pollution in-flow
Regulations
Government can force a balance by imposing
regulations on stakeholders. This may not work
because much of the pollution comes from the
Susquehanna River.
13
Susquehanna Pollution
Source: Eyes on the Bay, March 2010
14
Susquehanna Pollution

Almost 50% of the Chesapeake
Bay’s fresh water comes from
the Susquehanna

Susquehanna’s contribution to
the Bay
•
•
21 % of the Bay’s phosphorus
40 % of the Bay’s nitrogen
Data Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program
15
Impact on Stakeholders
In reference to the EPA’s pollution diet plan:
“….But EPA's draft pollution diet, released Sept. 24, has
generated opposition from across the six-state region. Farmers,
developers and local and state officials - particularly in New
York and Virginia - have questioned the scientific basis and
EPA's legal authority to order more pollution reductions. Critics
also have warned that the reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus
and sediment that EPA is proposing to require would be
unachievable, costly and potentially damaging to local
economies.”
Source: The Baltimore Sun, November 29th 2010
16
Water Quality
Asking For Balance
Businesses
Community Rec
Farms Fishermen
Regulations
Alternatives Requiring
Stakeholder Change
Balanced by reducing
pollution in-flow
Win/Win
Water Quality
Businesses
Community
Farms
This is the “curse of commons”
problem. Why should a farmer
stop using fertilizer when his
neighbor isn’t?
These design alternatives will shift the pollution
balance while having minimal impact on stakeholders.
This is a win/win for everybody
Rec
Fishermen
Design
Alternatives
Balanced by
removing pollution
Regulations
The utility of the alternative is how far
that alternative shifts the balance.
17
Agenda
 Context
 Stakeholder
Analysis
 Problem Statement
 Scope
 Design Alternatives
 Method Analysis/Simulation
 Project Plan/Budget
 Risk Mitigation
18
Need / Problem Statement
A system is needed to decrease the turbidity in the West and Rhode
Rivers so these sub-estuaries will become a habitable environment
for fish, crabs, oysters, and other species.
Design and evaluate alternatives that will increase the Secchi depth
to at least 1.0 meter.
19
Scope

West and Rhode Rivers and their surrounding watershed and
community

Local Government regulations

This project will consider nutrient and sediment levels in the
West and Rhode Rivers, but will not consider bacteria
contamination
20
Agenda
 Context
 Stakeholder
Analysis
 Problem Statement
 Scope
 Design Alternatives
 Method Analysis/Simulation
 Project Plan/Budget
 Risk Mitigation
21
Design Alternatives
Configurations of:

Oysters
Amount
• Placement
•

Mussels
Amount
• Placement
•

Living Shorelines
Placement
• Length
•
Oyster or
Mussel bed
Living
Shoreline
Restoration
22
Eastern Oysters




Native to the Chesapeake Bay
Can filter up to 190 liters of water per day
Removes algae, nutrients, and sediment from the water
Provide habitat for other aquatic wildlife
Oyster Bed
23
Atlantic Ribbed Mussels




Native to the Chesapeake Bay
Can filter up to 163 liters of water per day
Removes algae, nutrients, and sediment from the water
Unpleasant taste makes Mussels less likely to be poached
Mussel Bed
24
Living Shoreline Restoration

Protects from tidal erosion and removes nitrogen through
denitrification

Grounds suspended sediment and provides habitat for wildlife
Living
Shoreline
Restoration
25
House of Quality
Removes
Prevents
Oysters
Mussels
Living
Shoreline
X
Sediment
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Sediment
X
X
X
Algae
X
X
Nitrogen
X
X
X
Phosphorous
X
X
X
26
Agenda
 Context
 Stakeholder
Analysis
 Problem Statement
 Scope
 Design Alternatives
 Method Analysis/Simulation
 Project Plan/Budget
 Risk Mitigation
27
Method Analysis and Simulation
Process
Oysters
SLR
Mussels
2-D Tidal
Prism Model
Optimization
Process
VIMS Model
Utility Function
Cost / Benefit
Analysis
VIMS: Virginia Institute of Marine Science
28
Model State Variables
Inputs/Outputs
State Variables

Nitrogen (N)

Phosphorous (P)

Sediment (S)

Cell and Tide Volume (V)

Salinity (S)

Water Temperature (WT)

Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Design Alternatives
Cell Attributes
Tidal Flow
N, P, S Loads
2-D
Tidal Prism
Model
Cell Attributes
N, P, S Removed
29
How the Model Works

Sub-estuary is divided into cells

The continuous tide flow process is
model in discrete time steps (1.5
hours)

State variables are recalculated after
every time step

At the end of the tide cycle the state
variable values are stored and used
for the next iteration
30
Model Equations
Vn= Volume of Cell n
Tn= Tide volume of Cell n
Nn= Nitrogen concentration of Cell n
F = River volume
Bn = Bay Concentration of Nitrogen
Rn = River Concentration of Nitrogen
Bay to Cell 1:
N1= (N1·V1+ Bn·T1) / (V1+T1)
Cell 1 to Cell 2:
N2= (N2·V2+ N1·T2) / (V2+T2)
N1= (N1· (V1+ T1 ) + Bn·T1 - N1·T2) / (V1+T1)
Cell 2 to Cell 3:
N3= (N3·V3+ N2·T3) / (V3+T3)
N2= (N2· (V2+ T2 ) + N1·T3 - N2·T3) / (V2+T2)
N1= (N1· (V1+ T1 ) + Bn·T3 - N1·T3) / (V1+T1)
Cell 3 to Cell 4:
N4= (N4·V4+ N3·T4) / (V4+T4)
N3= (N3· (V3+ T3 ) + N3·T4 - N3·T4) / (V3+T3)
N2= (N2· (V2+ T2 ) + N1·T3 - N2·T4) / (V2+T2)
N1= (N1· (V1+ T1 ) + Bn·T3 - N1·T4) / (V1+T1)
31
Model Validation

Baseline Simulations

Simulations using previous data
•
Nutrient data
•
Secchi depth
•
Salinity
32
Baseline Simulations
Initial cell concentrations: 0.95 mg/L N
River Input
0.0 mg/L N
Bay Input
0.85 mg/L N
33
Baseline Simulations
34
Baseline Simulations
35
Baseline Simulations
36
Design of Experiment
37
Optimization Process

Omit all configurations that contain any cells that are
unsustainable

Model remaining configurations

Determine each configuration’s utility using a modified utility
function

The utility will determine which configurations will be
modeled in the VIMS model
TSS Removal
Design Alternative 1: 100 g/Day
Design Alternative 2:
75 g/Day
Sustainability
0.4
0.96
38
Utility Function

Utility value from tidal prism
model is used to narrow
down configuration options

Input data from VIMS model
to find optimal configuration

Top level weights will be
determined by sponsors
using swing weights
Utility
Maximize
Visibility
F(V)
Maximize
Sustainabilit
y
F(S)
Maximize
Water
Quality
F(Q)
Utility = F(V)*Wv + F(S)*Ws + F(Q)*Wq
39
Visibility

Subjective measure of stakeholder approval for design
alternative
Example:
• Living Shoreline Restoration: 1.0
• Oysters: 0.75
• Mussels: 0.5
40
Sustainability
Maximize
Sustainability
F(S)
Growth
F(G)
• Ph level
• Salinity
• Temp
• DO
Poaching
F(PO)
• 0.5 Oysters
• 1 - Mussels
Predators
F(PR)
• Salinity
Disease
F(D)
• Salinity
• Temp
Reproductio
n
F(R)
• Ph level
• Salinity
• Temp
• DO
F(S) = F(G)*Wg + F(PO)*Wpo+ F(PR)*Wpr+ F(D)*Wd + F(R)*Wr
Weights will be determined by Dr. Mark Brush, VIMS
41
Water Quality
Maximize
Water Quality
F(Q)
Decrease
Nutrients
F(N)
Decrease
Sediment F(S)
Increase
Dissolved
Oxygen
F(DO)
• % removed
• % removed
• % increase
Prism Model: F(Q) = F(N)*Wn + F(S)*Ws
VIMS Model: F(Q) = F(N)*Wn + F(S)*Ws + F(DO)*Wdo
Weights will be determined by Dr. Mark Brush, VIMS
42
Cost / Benefit Analysis
Utility vs. Cost (Notional Data)
1
0.9
0.8
0.6
Oysters
0.5
Mussels
0.4
Living Shoreline
0.3
0.2
0.1
M
2.
75
M
2.
5
M
2
M
1.
75
M
1.
5
M
1.
25
M
1
k
75
0
k
50
0
k
0
25
0
Utility
0.7
$
43
Agenda
 Context
 Stakeholder
Analysis
 Problem Statement
 Scope
 Design Alternatives
 Method Analysis/Simulation
 Project Plan/Budget
 Risk Mitigation
44
Budget
Estimated Budget: $98,910
Planned Value: $34,650
Earned Value: $34,364
Actual Cost: $33,390
CPI: 1.03
SPI: 1.04
45
Project Plan
September October November December January
February
March
April
May
Management
Scope
Requirements
Value Hierarchy
Design Alternatives
Modeling Research
#1
Utility Weights
#2
Model V/V
Final
Modeling
Model Building
VIMS
Cost Research
Analysis
Final Proposal
Abstract
5-yr plans
Poster
Paper
Competition Prep
46
Agenda
 Context
 Stakeholder
Analysis
 Problem Statement
 Scope
 Design Alternatives
 Method Analysis/Simulation
 Project Plan/Budget
 Risk Mitigation
47
Project Risk Mitigation
Risk:
• VIMS Model
• 2D Tidal
Modeling
Mitigation Strategy:
• Move earlier in schedule
• Trial runs early
• Contingency plan
• Start predecessor tasks
(utility weights,model V/V,
cost analysis) earlier
48
References
Cerco, Carl F and Marc R. Noel. "Evaluating Ecosystsem Effects of Oyster Restoration in Chesapeake Bay." September 2005. Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. 3 October 2010 <http://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/oysters/mtgs/ 111807/Cerco_Noel_final.pdf>.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. "Air Pollution." 2010. 3 October 2010 <http://www.cbf.org/ Page.aspx?pid=519>.
Chesapeake Bay News. "2010 Chesapeake Bay Blue Crab Advisory Report." 2 July 2010. 3 October 2010 <http://www.chesapeake-bay.org/index.php/072010/02/ 2010-chesapeake-bay-blue-crab-advisory-report/>.
Chesapeake Bay Program. "Air Pollution." 20 August 2009. 3 October 2010 <http:// www.chesapeakebay.net/airpollution.aspx?menuitem=14693>.
—. Bay History. 23 December 2009. 3 October 2010 <http://www.chesapeake bay.net/bayhistory.aspx?menuitem=14591>.
—. Dissolved Oxygen. 30 July 2009. 3 October 2010 <http://www.chesapeake bay.net/dissolvedoxygen.aspx?menuitem=14654>.
—. Eastern Oyster. 2 November 2009. 3 October 2010 <http://www.chesapeake bay.net/oysters.aspx?menuitem=19368>.
—. "MSX/Dermo." 2 November 2009. 3 October 2010 <http://www.chesapeake bay.net/oysterdiseases.aspx?menuitem=19507>.
—. Nutrients. 19 August 2010. 3 October 2010 <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ nutrients.aspx?menuitem=14690>.
—. "Oyster Harvest." 2 November 2009. 3 October 2010 <http://www.chesapeake bay.net/oysterharvest.aspx?menuitem=14701>.
—. "Sources of Nitrogen Loads into the Bay." 1 September 2009. 3 October 2010
<http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_nitrogensources.aspx?menuitem=19797>.
—. "Sources of Phosphorus Loads to the Bay." 1 September 2009. 3 October 2010 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/status_phosphorusloads.aspx?menuitem=
19801>.
—. "Stormwater." 10 February 2009. 3 October 2010 <http://www.chesapeake bay.net/stormwater.aspx?menuitem=19515>.
—. "Wastewater Treatment." 19 May 2010. 3 October 2010 <http://www. chesapeakebay.net/wastewatertreatment.aspx?menuitem=14747>.
Environmental Defense Fund. "Press Release: Environmental Groups Point the Way to Mercury Pollution Reductions." 18 December 2008. 3 October 2010
<http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=8990>.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources Glossary. 3 October 2010
<http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/glossary. htm#a>.
49
References
—. "Status of the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea Virginica)." 5 March 2007. 3 October 2010
<http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/statusreviews/ easternoyster.pdf>.
Project Oyster West River. "Project Oyster West River Final Report." April 2006. 3 October 2010
<http://www.westriveroyster.org/FinalReport2006.pdf>.
Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce. Geukensia Demissa. 1 October 2008. 3 October 2010
<http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Geukensia_demissa.htm>.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Clean Air Act." 22 September 2010. 3 October 2010 <http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/>.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. About. 2010. 3 October 2010 <http://www.vims. edu/about/index.php>.
—. About BasinSim 1.0. 3 October 2010. 3 October 2010 <http://web.vims.edu/ bio/models/bsabout.html>.
Waterkeeper Alliance. "Our Mission." 3 October 2010 <http://www.waterkeeper.org/ht/ d/sp/i/187/pid/187>.
West Rhode Riverkeeper. "West & Rhode River Report Card." April 2009. 3 October 2010
<http://www.westrhoderiverkeeper.org/images/stories/PDF/ReportCard-2009.pdf>.
—. "West and Rhode River Report Card." April 2010. 3 October 2010 <http://www.
westrhoderiverkeeper.org/images/stories/PDF/reportcard2010_online.pdf>.
50
5
51
1
Backup Slides
52




Determine which configurations will be modeled in the
VIMS model
Accurately predict state variables over time
Predict the effects of filter feeders on the concentration
of nutrients and sediments
Quickly optimize the placement and amount of filter
feeders

Determine the residence time for the sub-estuary

A user-friendly tool for sponsor use
53

Nutrient, sediment, and salinity concentrations are
uniform throughout each cell

Wind shear is negligible

Rain water volume is negligible

Tide flow into each cell occurs instantaneously

Tide completely flows into cell A before flowing into cell B
54