Development of a HAB Model for the James River Estuary Chesapeake Modeling Symposium Williamsburg, VA Jim Fitzpatrick1, Nataliya Kogan1, Jian Shen2, Nikolai Gurdian3, and Dave Jasinki4, 1-HDR 2-VIMS 3-TetraTech 4-CEC Mixed consultant/academic team

Project Goals Develop a site specific James River water quality model Re-assess attainability of chl-a criteria Revisit the James River TMDL allocations Chl-a WQS are now based on season (spring/summer) and salinity regime

Project Approach Development of Multiple Models Deterministic Models Linked watershed, hydrodynamic and conventional eutrophication and HAB models Eutrophication Model Nutrient loads Watershed Model Hydrodynamic Model QF QT, S, T HAB Model Deterministic modeling system consists of a watershed model (similar to HSPF), a hydrodynamic model (EFDC), and a conventional eutrophication model (EFDC’s HEM3) and a HAB model (RCA) Nutrient loads

Model Framework Watershed, Hydrodynamic and Eutrophication Models Watershed Model (LSPC) James River watershed and James River hydro/WQ model grid Hydrodynamic Model (EFDC)

Model Framework Watershed, Hydrodynamic and Eutrophication Models Water quality models Nutrients, phytoplankton, dissolved oxygen Sediment nutrient diagenesis/flux submodel Microphytobenthos submodel Conventional eutrophication model (HEM-3D) 3 algal species: diatoms, greens, cyanobacteria HAB model (RCA) 6 algal species: 3 freshwater: diatoms, greens, Microcystis 3 marine: diatoms, mixed, Cochlodinium HAM model has algal physiology built in: Microcystis-vertical buoyancy, Cochlodinium-vertical swimming and use of labile DON

Model Calibration Watershed Model Sample calibration of watershed model James River at Richmond, VA (1990-2005)

Model Calibration Hydrodynamic Model Sample calibration of hydro model Currents Tidal Elevation Sample calibration of hydro model

Model Calibration Conventional Eutrophication Model Sample calib results from standard eutrophication model for freshwater segment TF5.5

HAB Model Framework Freshwater and marine species – salinity impacts HAM model has algal physiology built in: Microcystis-vertical buoyancy, Cochlodinium-vertical swimming and use of labile DON

HAB Model Framework Freshwater and marine species – salinity impacts HAB species controlled by temperature, light and nutrients HAM model has algal physiology built in: Microcystis-vertical buoyancy, Cochlodinium-vertical swimming and use of labile DON

HAB Model Framework Freshwater and marine species – salinity impacts HAB species controlled by temperature, light and nutrients HAB species permitted to have vertical movement (buoyancy or swimming) to optimize access to light or nutrients HAB species also subject to reduced grazing pressure Cochlodinium permitted to access “labile” organic nitrogen Evaluated model sensitivity to HAB release from sediment vs. low threshold background value HAM model has algal physiology built in: Microcystis-vertical buoyancy, Cochlodinium-vertical swimming and use of labile DON

Model Calibration HAB Model Calibration results from HAB model showing chl-a, algal carbon and algal species for station TF5.5

Model Calibration HAB Model Repeating species model computations and comparing to long term average data for TF5.5 Egerton and Marshall, 2014

Model Calibration HAB Model RET5.2 Repeating species model computations and comparing to long term average data for TF5.5

Model Calibration RET5.2 Repeating species model computations and comparing to long term average data for TF5.5

Model Calibration HAB Model DataFlow cruises suggest that Cochlodinium blooms initially develop in the Lafayette River and then spread into the Elizabeth River and finally into the poly- and mesohaline James River DataFlow fluoresence (chl-a) data - First week of June to first week of August VECOS DataFlow, June-August 2012

Model Calibration HAB Model June 3, 2012 June 13, 2012 June 23, 2012 July 3, 2012 July 13, 2012 July 23, 2012 August 2, 2012 August 12, 2012 Model computed chl-a data - First week of June to first week of August – bloom initiation in Lafayette River then to Elizabeth River then to James River estuary

Sediment Flux/Microphytobenthos

Sediment Flux/Microphytobenthos Type of model skill assessment that was performed

Model Calibration Skill Assessment Type of model skill assessment that was performed

Scenarios 2010 TMDL: the nutrient load reductions required to meet Chlorophyll-a criteria in the James River as estimated by the USEPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO) Chesapeake Bay DO Attainment: the nutrient load allocation/reductions in the James River watershed required to meet DO criteria in the Chesapeake Bay 2009 Progress TMDL Scenario: similar to the 2010 TMDL, but based on nutrient and sediment load reductions estimated to be realized through 2009 HRSD WWTP Scenario: nutrient load reductions, as part of the HRSD watershed general permit load reduction, and agreed to by HRSD as part of the state of Virginia's WIP   Scenario Carbon Nitrogen Phosphorus 106 lb/year % Reduction Baseline 78.4 - 21.2 2.49 2010 TMDL 78.5 0.1(1) 13.0 38.7 1.61 35.3 DO Attainment 15.4 27.4 1.51 39.4 2009 Progress 15.1 28.8 1.75 29.7 HRSD 78.7 0.4(1) 20.6 2.8 2.53 1.6(1) Scenario loadings (1) % increase from baseline

Scenarios Adjustment to downstream boundary

Scenarios Station 2010 TMDL DO Attainment 2009 Progress TMDL HRSD WWTP   Station 2010 TMDL DO Attainment 2009 Progress TMDL HRSD WWTP TF5.2 1.0 1.5 1.3 0.1 TF5.2A 18.9 19.6 4.2 TF5.3 25.5 35.6 14.5 0.2 TF5.4 42.3 34.5 31.3 0.5 TF5.5 40.8 36.0 30.2 0.3 TF5.5A 45.8 38.5 34.3 TF5.6 51.3 42.7 39.6 1.1 RET5.2 41.6 41.7 LE5.1 54.7 42.2 2.6 LE5.2 54.2 33.8 41.2 LE5.3 54.5 27.9 40.1 1.4 LE5.4 55.4 23.5 39.8 2.3 LE5.5W 56.5 20.4 40.0 4.0 LE5.6 54.0 25.9 39.1 5.3 LFB01 51.0 24.1 37.4 10.4 We had hoped to provide some management scenario results, but project delays prevented us from getting those ready in time for the conference – models are too optimistic.

Acknowledgements VADEQ – Arthur Butt and John Kennedy Rico Wang and Harry Wang (VIMS) Paul Bukaveckas, Todd Egerton, Margie Mulholland, KC Filippino, Hans Paerl and Iris Anderson We had hoped to provide some management scenario results, but project delays prevented us from getting those ready in time for the conference – models are too optimistic.

Thanks ---Questions ?