Modeling Subcommittee Quarterly Review Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Annapolis, MD April 28-29, 2008 * Presentations and handouts can be accessed at: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/calendar.cfm?eventdetails=9316 DAY ONE I. Announcements and Amendments to the Agenda Linker • Lewis Linker, Modeling Subcommittee Coordinator, began the meeting at 10:00 am. Introductions were made and the meeting's agenda was reviewed. II. Chesapeake Modeling Symposium 2008 Hood PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 10 9316.pdf • Raleigh Hood provided the Subcommittee with some information on the upcoming Chesapeake Modeling Symposium, which is being held on May 12-14 at the Double Tree Hotel in Annapolis, MD. • This symposium is a venue to identify and showcase existing modeling efforts as well as promote information exchange and open modeling in the Chesapeake region. It is being hosted by the Chesapeake Community Modeling Program. • Additional information can be found at: http://www.chesapeakemeetings.com/CheMS20Q8/. III. Overview Cerco PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 13 9316.pdf • Carl Cerco provided the subcommittee with an overall review of the Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model (WQSTM) calibration activities since the January Quarterly Review. • July is the deadline. At that time, a set of questions will have been developed for the review panel and initialscoping management scenarios will commence. • Actions since January: o More than 60 model calibration runs o Wrapping up sediment transport o Calibrating WQM with emphasis on DO, chlorophyll, and light attenuation • Next Steps: o Finalize hydrodynamics o Finalize suspended solids model o Complete implementation of shallow-water monitoring in WQM o Complete calibration of SAV model o Combine results of multiple sensitivity analyses into one base run o Remaining WQM calibration issues • The most critical need is to finalize hydrodynamics based on Watershed Model flows. Tidal fresh waters and small tributaries cannot be calibrated without these loads. 1 ------- IV. Water Quality Model Assessment of DO and Chlorophyll Cerco PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 14 9316.pdf • Carl Cerco presented the Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model (WQSTM) simulations of DO and chlorophyll within the context of a fully operational model with an initial calibration. • The group viewed distribution plots of seven years of paired observations and model results for DO, chlorophyll, and light extinction. • The chlorophyll simulation as a whole looked good, but the oxygen simulation was not nearly as good and the light extinction simulation was somewhere in the middle. For light extinction, maybe there is a tradeoff between degrees of freedom and accuracy. • The group also viewed plots of bottom DO, light extinction, and chlorophyll in the Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River in the summer of 1994, 1996, and 1999. • It was suggested that the ratio of silt to clay in the upper fall line load be altered to see if this helps with the discrepancy of light extinction in the Potomac in 1994. Right now this ratio is coming from the watershed model, but Lewis said it can be altered if need be because the WSM calibration of silt and clay is based of little available observed data. • It may also be beneficial to see if the presence of microcystis blooms has something to do with this discrepancy in light extinction. Amanda Flynn agreed to provide Carl with information on the blooms so that he can check and see if the bloom years coincide with the years that have the largest discrepancies. • Something is lacking in how anoxia is modeled in the lower Bay and lower Potomac. • Carl adjusted several of the model parameters to see if he could get a better simulation of DO and hypoxia/anoxia. These adjustments included: o Multiplying vertical diffusion by 1/3- resulted in little change in oxygen levels o Performing sensitivity runs with and without nitrification- showed how relatively insensitive the bottom DO was to nitrification o Immediately routing 75% of the algal metabolism to DOC- resulted in a V2 mg/L difference, but didn't solve the whole problem o Added different amounts of carbon- if 1.0 g C/sq m/d was added, the simulated oxygen levels matched levels in the Bay almost perfectly o Subtracted 3.0 mg/1 from the oxygen "seen" by the diagenesis model- resulted in more ammonium and more production, basically forcing the bottom nutrient dynamics to behave as if the bottom was anoxic. It helped oxygen levels, but still didn't get us where we need to be. • Carl proposed that the "sediment drift" concept be used to help address DO in the lower Bay and Potomac. This process would help move carbon from the shoals into the channel. • There is no easy way to incorporate this concept into the model. One particle mechanism to do this would require that organic particles be deposited in the sediments and then moved towards the channel with an assigned velocity. • Carl performed exploratory model runs that incorporated this process in the lower Bay and Potomac. The 100 m/d runs enabled us to get low DO levels in the Potomac and in the deep trench of the Bay. 2 ------- • An enormous amount of development and examination remains before the "sediment drift" concept can be incorporated into the model, including verification with observed sediment carbon. "Sediment drift" will also have substantial impacts on nutrients, chlorophyll, and other substances and may force major adjustments in model calibration parameters. • Vic Bierman mentioned that "sediment focusing" is a well-known phenomenon in lakes. Since he does not think that this process would be that fundamentally different in an estuary, maybe we could call this process "sediment focusing" rather than "sediment drift". • It was pointed out that extreme events result in the movement of carbon. Although extreme events are in the model simulation, the model doesn't resuspend carbon. • Carl agreed to have some better budgets (sediment, carbon) for the next MDSC meeting. • Vic suggested that some database numbers for FOC be applied to the transport model. This could help with some very rough carbon budgeting. V. Refinements to the Filter Feeder Simulation Cerco PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 15 9316.pdf • Carl Cerco went over the refinements that have been made to the filter feeder simulation. • We have the 2004 starting population and distribution for oysters from the demographic model. Useful information on mortality and catch is also available. • Issues: o The demographic model uses multiple size classes, o The biomass and distribution are substantially different from the previous numbers that were used. • Mortality (as per Versar) is based on box counts and is presented as an annual value, but is applied only June through October. • 33% of market size oysters are harvested in Maryland and no harvest estimate is available from Virginia. This converts to a 0.0017/d daily rate during months with "R". • Total mortality (harvest + disease) from this model is much less than the previous value (0.028/d). • Next Steps: o Try to get better information on harvest, o Assign harvest to segments with largest biomass. o Calibrate mortality to bring computed biomass into agreement with observations. VI. Sediment Transport Model Kim PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 12 9316.pdf • Sung-Chan Kim provided an update on the Sediment Transport Model. • Another fine sediment class has been added to the model. This class was added because there was a problem in simulating TSS in the lower Bay and tributaries. • The hypothesis is that surface TSS is dependent on sediments from loading whereas bottom TSS reflects the erosion/deposition dynamics of the bed. 3 ------- • The new class is a clay class in the "sediments from loading" category. It has a lower settling velocity than clay in the initial bed and lower critical shear stress. • Sung-Chan showed several sensitivity runs to the group: o Base Case o Case 1: Lower erosion rate o Case 2: Higher Wfs for new clay & higher xc for clay o Case 3: Higher xc for silt and clay o Case 4: Higher Wfs for clay and silt See the PowerPoint presentation for additional information on the results of each of these runs. VII. Simulation of Shallow Water and the SAV/Clarity Water Cerco Quality Standard PowerPoint presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 16 9316.pdf • Carl Cerco presented information on the shallow water simulation for the Subcommittee to review. • Most of the shallow-water monitoring falls outside of the model calibration period (1994-2000). • The 1994-2000 application will concentrate on mean behaviors and trends. • Clear comparisons of turbidity and light attenuation are needed in the channel versus shoals. To do this, Carl suggests the following: o One-to-one comparison of simultaneous measures o Mean and variance of the one-to-one measures o Statistical tests for significant differences • Ping Wang is working on extending the model to 2005 and making comparisons with shallow water monitoring. For these comparisons of water attenuation, he paired shallow water stations with deep water stations, computed the means of the paired observations, and looked for differences in the means using a t-test and a wilcoxon test. • A third of the analyses showed no difference between shore and non-shore cells and none of the differences were large enough to be significant. • In the model, there is a tendency for solids and light attenuation in shore cells to be slightly lower than non-shore cells. • Potential next steps: o Examine and refine the data set on which comparisons are based, o Try to compare exact locations rather than regional averages o Look at wind events rather than seasonal averages • Recommendations: o Compute and report the distance between the deep and shallow water monitoring station. o Obtain detailed maps of the station locations. Try to relate differences to physical characteristics such as embayments and SAV. o Try to formulate rules about when stations can be compared. • Carl also presented information on the SAV simulation and calibration. 4 ------- • Our original SAV areas came from a GIS analysis of the bathymetry (within 2 m contour, at 0.5 m intervals). These computed SAV areas greatly exceeded the observed areas. • In order to help remedy this, restoration goals were obtained from the Bay Program. These goals represent the largest SAV area ever observed and are usually much less than bathymetric areas. The area within each of the 0.5 m contours was then multiplied by the ratio of restoration goal : bathymetric area. When the modeled SAV grows out to the 2 m contour, the restoration goal is met. • It was pointed out that it may be overly conservative to just look at the SAV restoration area. • Carl showed the group graphs comparing observed and simulated SAV area. Computed SAV area tends to exceed observed. • The SAV model is reasonably well calibrated, although it may need some touch-up in the tidal fresh segments. • Since the unit model is reasonable, excess area may be due to computed light attenuation. This needs to be further examined. Another option may be that epiphytes are undercomputed in the model, allowing more light to reach the leaves. VIII. Comments from the Sediment Transport Model Review Team • The Sediment Transport Model Review Team provided comments on the progress that has been made thus far on the Sediment Transport Model. • Chris Sherwood o Based on today's presentations by Carl and Sung-Chan, the model has been substantially improved since the last MDSC Quarterly Review, o He liked Carl's more statistical approach to looking at the results and suggested that they continue to look at cumulative statistics, o The only thing that seems like a major loose end is the problem of assigning the loading to the various sediment size classes. In response, Lewis said that he doesn't think that we have a better understanding beyond what is in the current data set. Additional research into this topic would be useful, o It seems like the physical processes needed for the "sediment drift" concept would be in Sung-Chan's model. Maybe his model could be used to help guide the speed and direction of the particles in the Water Quality Model. Chris would be happy to discuss the "sediment drift" concept further offline. • Allen Teeter o Some of Carl's plots were by average and some were by median. Allen suggested that it might be better to look at median optical depth rather than average. o He liked the idea of using the restoration goals for SAV area, o He was a little bit uneasy about how the sediment model classes are currently separated. The settling characteristics of silt vary quite a bit. o Based on the way that the classes are separated now by the given settling velocities, it is not clear if it is clay or silt. He suggested having a gradation in settling velocities across the whole range, o In regards to "sediment drift", he suggested that the slope be included in a z- plane model. 5 ------- Sanford The settling velocity of the sediment is what counts. Right now the sediment is divided into setting velocity classes. It would not do any good to take sediment samples and break them up into sand/silt fractions. It's how these particles behave that counts. The last results that Carl presented were for the model without the new fine sediment class. This new class is going to change attenuation quite a bit, perhaps even leading to an increase in near shore attenuation. It will be interesting to see if this happens when another model run is performed. He is a little uncomfortable with incorporating the "sediment drift" concept into the model. One of the reasons is that he has a PhD student who is looking at lateral transport of sediment in estuaries. This student is running a very simplified model, but in every case except for one, the transport of sediment has been up the slope from the channel to the shoal under regular tide conditions. The only time that the opposite occurs and sediment is transported from the shallows to the deep is during big events, particularly big wind events. IX. TroSim Simulation Fulford PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 11 9316.pdf • Rich Fulford reviewed the advances that have been made in the Chesapeake Bay Trophic Simulation Model (TroSim). • TroSim is a multi-species bioenergetics model that was built on the CASM framework. It focuses on mid-trophic level responses and is a link between WQL and fisheries models. • Using this model, they looked at the decline of oysters and the potential impact that this could have on the sea nettle and ctenophore populations. • The period of peak oyster filtration rate occurs later in the year than peak phytoplankton biomass. • They also looked at how oyster restoration compares to nutrient reduction as an ecosystem management tool. To do this, they performed tributary and mesohaline mainstem simulations that looked at 10, 25, and 50 fold increases in current oyster biomass. • Assumptions used in this analysis: o Assumed threshold relationship between oysters and sea nettles o Assumed linear relationship between oyster density, reef-associated fish, and on-reef invertebrates o Assumed no relationship between oyster density and off-reef invertebrates • They wanted to look at a comparison of responses on a seasonal basis and between the main stem and the tributaries. For information on these results, see the PowerPoint presentation. • Future work (based on available funding): o Link TroSim to CBWQL model o Stratified model runs (hypoxia) o Examination of other system changes (menhaden biomass, ctenophore biomass) • Larry o o 6 ------- o Comparisons between Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries X. Adjourn • The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 pm. DAY TWO I. Announcements and Amendments to the Agenda Linker • Lewis Linker began the meeting at 10:00 am. Introductions were made and the meeting's agenda was reviewed. II. Shallow Water Assessment with the WQSTM Wang PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 5 9316.pdf PDF 1: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 6 9316.pdf PDF 2: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MQDSC 04-28-08 Presentation 7 9316.pdf PDF 3: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MQDSC 04-28-08 Presentation 8 9316.pdf PDF 4: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MQDSC 04-28-08 Presentation 9 9316.pdf • Ping reviewed his findings on the metrics that can be used to compare the shallow water monitoring observations with output from the Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model (WQSTM). • See the PDF files for a comparison of DO simulated by 13k WQM with P4 load and 57k WQSTM with P5 load (in 1994) and a comparison of observed Ke and simulated Ke in shallow water in 2000-2005. • DO o In the simulations, there is often not enough hypoxia/anoxia in the deep waters, but occasionally too much is simulated in the shallows. This is consistent with the sediment drift approach will apply to move more organics from the shoals to the deep water regions. Future assessments will investigate the causes of deviation in the DO simulation and the effects of mixing, transport of VSS, and fresh water input, o After the completion of DO calibration in the 57k model, their differences will be re-assessed and the differences in the attainability of the DO standard between P4-13k and P5-57k will be analyzed. • Ke o The model overestimates Ke in a few places, but underestimates Ke in more places. o The errors in Ke estimates may mainly be related to sediment transport, o In some places where there is a good simulation of Ke, there is an underestimate of TSS or turbidity, o Next steps could include reassessing the model calculation of Ke, ensuring that the freshwater input and the hydrodynamics are correct, and trying to calibrate TSS and chl prior to examining Ke. • The model seems to simulate better in the mid-channel compared to shallow water. • One of the next steps will be to try to understand the characteristics of each of these modeling stations and to see how that information relates to this analysis. • It would be useful if the next presentation included descriptions of the process and the calculations so that the audience can better understand what they are comparing. 7 ------- • Ping also described a preliminary analysis that is being conducted to examine the primary sources of sediment loads and light attenuation in shallow waters. • This analysis uses a quasi-tracer simulation to analyze relative effects of regional ISS loads on ISS in shallow model cells. III. Sediment Fate and Transport in the Piedmont Smith PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 17 9316.pdf • Sean Smith, MD DNR, discussed sediment fate and transport in the Piedmont and how to close the gaps between sediment budgeting and watershed modeling. • Stream channels up to 3rd-4th order streams are a blind spot in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. They are considered in land surface simulation, but not the drainage network. • Sean discussed the process that they are using to try to develop a sediment yield ratio from the 1st order streams to the reservoir (5th order). Their study area was in the Maryland Piedmont. o Step 1: Identify headwater channels ¦ Determine source areas to channel initiation ¦ Evaluate network channel lengths, by order ¦ Measure outlet watershed areas o Step 2a: Characterize 1st order watershed sediment yields by land cover types o Step 2b: 5th order watershed sediment yield o Step 3: Watershed simulation • The results presented by Sean seem to match up to Stan Trimble's Coon Creek study results. • Landscape sensitivity: o Sediment yield from hill-slope areas in the Piedmont Plateau is alive and well, o There has been, and continues to be, a lot of activity (erosion) in 0 and 1st order waterways, even in forested areas, o Alluvial valleys are regulating the delivery of sediment yielded from hill- slopes. o The SCS sediment delivery factor seems insufficient. "Drainage area" does not offer enough information. • Watershed Model Considerations: o Partition watersheds into "process zones" that independently consider hill- slopes and alluvial valleys, o Invest in new stream maps that include 0 and 1st order waterways and have quantifiable uncertainty, o Use 1st order basins as a start-up approximation of hill-slope process zones o Evaluate trib-based sediment yield ratios o Evaluate 15 minute vs. hourly time steps • The CBP modeling team will look into ways to incorporate these recommendations into future phases of the model. • This work has ramifications on where BMPs should be implemented. • Jeff Halka, Sediment Workgroup Chair, invited Sean to present the second half of his presentation at an upcoming Sediment Workgroup meeting. The second half was not 8 ------- presented at today's meeting and is focused on BMP intervention and stream restoration. IV. Refinements to Virginia Shoreline Erosion Estimates Hardaway PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 3 9316.pdf • Scott Hardaway presented work that has been done to review and potentially improve the estimates for shoreline erosion in Virginia. • The tasks of this project included: o Reviewing and assessing the overall methods and assumptions for estimating erosion rates, particularly for the VA shoreline, and providing recommendations for improving the shoreline erosion estimates, o Providing assistances in obtaining and applying additional data sets which may improve estimates of shoreline erosion, o Reviewing and assessing estimated splits of 65-35 for the fastland and nearshore (subaqueous) erosion. • Updated estimates of shoreline erosion for the entire Chesapeake Bay are needed to improve the Chesapeake Bay Program Water Quality Model simulation and to gain an understanding of the degree to which shorelines contribute to the overall sediment budget. • One problem is that consistent temporal and spatial data for erosion rates, bank heights, shoreline protection, and sediment type were unavailable for the entire Chesapeake Bay and varied greatly between Maryland and Virginia. • Erosion estimates should be updated with more recent data. • Perhaps the 65-35 fastland/nearshore split should not be applied across the board. • Procedure for determining sediment input from shoreline erosion: o Acquire and assemble historical aerial imagery o Orthorectify photos and create mosaics o Digitize shoreline o Quantify shoreline change o Utilize appropriate models/procedures to determine volume o Determine bank composition through literature o Search and bank sampling o Determine gradient of ravinement surface and nature of overlying sediments • See the PowerPoint presentation for draft results from this project's statistical analysis. ACTION: A small group will meet via conference call to determine what can be done in the model with this shoreline erosion information in the short period of time remaining. Group members will include Lewis Linker, Jeff Halka, Scott Hardaway, and Larry Sanford. V. Estuarine Hypoxia Responses to Climate and Nutrients Kemp PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 2 9316.pdf • Michael Kemp described the initial work that has taken place on a long-term project to examine Chesapeake hypoxia responses to climate and nutrients. This work is supported by NOAA's Coastal Hypoxia Research Program (CHRP). 9 ------- • The goal of CHRP is to provide research results and modeling tools which will be used by coastal resource managers to assess alternative management strategies for preventing or mitigating the impacts of hypoxia on coastal ecosystems. • This program is an outgrowth of the long-term Gulf of Mexico hypoxia program. It supports research on hypoxia in a range of systems, including the Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware Inland Bays. • CHRP's structure consists of complementary data analysis and forecasting. Types of studies that can be conducted include retrospective analyses, diagnostic analyses, forecasting studies, and habitat evaluations. • An example of a retrospective analysis is the examination of hypoxia trends in relation to climate. • They would like to create ways for this program to interact directly with the Chesapeake Bay Program. • CHRP will provide updates to the MDSC approximately every six months. • CHRP is holding a workshop this summer. ACTION: The MDSC will receive an update on the Chesapeake Bay/Delaware Inland Bays portion of the CHRP program at their fall quarterly review meeting. VI. Potomac Algal Speciation Modeling Bierman PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 4 9316.pdf • Victor Bierman, LimnoTech, presented information on the progress that they have made thus far in a project to simulate algal speciation in the Potomac River. This is the third project in a series of three projects that are being conducted to update the Potomac portion of the Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model. • The objectives of this study are to refine and improve the representation of dominant algal groups in the Potomac and to calibrate the revised Potomac portion of the 57K Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model (CBWQM). • So far, they have just decided what they want the new algal speciation sub-model to look like. • The existing algal sub-model has three algal groups: spring diatoms, greens, cyanobacteria (blue-greens). They would like to expand this to five algal groups: freshwater diatoms, marine diatoms, greens, dinoflagellates, and total blue-greens. These five groups currently capture about 98% of the biomass in the tidal fresh and about 94% in the lower estuary. Each group will be calibrated individually. • Cryptophytes and "others" are included in the data world, but not in the model world. If these groups become a substantial portion of the biomass in the future, the "greens" group could potentially be renamed so that it becomes an "others" group. • It was suggested that the freshwater diatom and marine diatom groups be renamed spring diatoms and summer-fall diatoms. It may be more appropriate to have the labels refer to seasonality rather than salinity. • Model calibration issues: o How to parameterize freshwater and marine diatom groups and compare with observations? o How to handle "unaccounted" biomass from cryptophytes and others? 10 ------- o How to represent potential nitrogen-fixation under conditions of low dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentration? • Next steps: o Complete Gunston Cove biomass determinations o Develop model calibration targets o Develop upstream/downstream boundary conditions o Develop carbon:chlorophyll conversion factors o Revise model code to include two additional algal state variables o Set up model post-processing algorithms o Begin preliminary calibration runs • Q: How are boundary conditions going to be handled? o A: This has not been fully resolved. They were not asked to do any scenario work within the scope of this project; however, this will need to be figured out if this model is going to be used for scenario work in the future. • LimnoTech is interested in seeing all of the relevant data, even if they cannot incorporate it into their model at this time. • This project will be completed in the fall. VII. Phase 5 Peer Review Shenk PowerPoint Presentation: http://archive.chesapeakebav.net/pubs/calendar/MODSC 04-28-08 Presentation 1 9316.pdf • Gary Shenk, EPA CBPO, presented information on the second peer review of the Phase 5 model that was recently conducted by STAC. • The review team consisted of Larry Band, Theo Dillaha, Chris Duffy, Ken Reckhow, Claire Welty, and Saied Mostaghimi (STAC representative). • The review team was asked to address the following questions: 1. Are the model structure, dynamics, calibration, segmentation, land uses, and ancillary software sufficient for management purposes at the regional scale? 2. Are they sufficient for management purposes at the local scale? 3. Are the data inputs sufficient? 4. What should Phase 6 look like? • In addition, the review team came up with a list of immediate (in the next year), intermediate (in the next three years), and long-term (beyond Phase 5) needs. • Many of their recommendations appear to be limited by the level of funding available. • For an overview of the review team's comments, see the PowerPoint presentation. • The Chesapeake Bay Program must develop a response to these comments. ACTION: A draft response to the second Phase 5 peer review will be sent out to MDSC members for review in two weeks. VIII. Adjourn • The meeting was adjourned at 3:30. The next Modeling Subcommittee Quarterly Review is scheduled for July 1-2 in the Fish Shack at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office in Annapolis, MD. 11 ------- Participants DAY ONE Bill Ball Rich Batiuk Vic Bierman Sally Bradley Amanda Flynn Carl Cerco Jim Collier Rich Fulford Jeff Halka Raleigh Hood Sung-Chan Kim Lewis Linker Ross Mandel Kenn Pattison Diana Reynolds Tim Rule Larry Sanford Kevin Sellner Gary Shenk Ron Shi Chris Spaur Jing Wu Xia Xie On the phone: Arthur Butt Chris Sherwood Allen Teeter JHU EPA/CBPO Limno Tech CRC/CBPO Limno Tech US Army ERDC MD Geol. Survey UMCES ERDC EPA/CBPO ICPRB PA DEP MDDNR MDE UMCES CRC/STAC EPA/CBPO MDE USACE UMCES/CBPO DEDNREC VADEQ USGS bball@ihu.edu batiuk.richard@epa.gov vbierman@limno.com sbradlev@chesapeakebav.net aflvnn@limno.com carl.f.cerco@usace.army.mil i imrcollier@hotmail .com ihalka@dnr.state.md.us rhood@hpl .umces. edu sung-chan.kim@erdc.usace.army.mil linker.lewis@epa.gov rmandel@icprb.org kpattison@state.pa.us drevnolds@dnr. state.md.us trul e@mde. state. md. us 1 sanford@hpl. umce s. edu sellnerk@si.edu gshenk@chesapeakebav.net rshi@mde. state, md. us chri stopher. c. spaur@usace. army. mil iwu@chesapeakebav.net xia.xie@state.de.us aibutt@deq.virginia.gov csherwood@usgs. gov cht allen@canuflv.net DAY TWO Rich Batiuk Mark Bennett Steve Bieber Vic Bierman Sally Bradley Carl Cerco Keely Clifford Jim Collier Lee Currey EPA/CBPO USGS COG Limno Tech CRC/CBPO US Army ERDC EPA/CBPO MDE batiuk.richard@epa.gov mrbennet@usgs.gov sbieber@mwcog.org vbierman@limno.com sbradlev@chesapeakebav.net carl.f.cerco@usace.army.mil Clifford.keelv@epa. gov i imrcollier@hotmail .com lcurrev@mde. state, md. us 12 ------- Olivia Devereux UMD/CBPO devereux®, umd. edu Hala Flores Anne Arundel Co. (MD) hal a. fl ores® aacountv. or« Amanda Flynn Limno Tech aflvnnffl),limno.com Scott Hardaway Bill Keeling VADCR william.keelinsfaidcr. virsinia.sov Michael Kemp UMD kemD®,hpl .umces. edu Sung-Chan Kim USACE-ERDC suns-chan.kim®,erdc.usace.armv.mil Mary Ley USGS/CBPO ml ev® chesaoeakebav.net Lewis Linker EPA/CBPO 1 inker, lewis® epa.yov Ross Mandel ICPRB rmandel®,icprb.ors Kenn Pattison PA DEP kpattison®state.pa.us Russ Perkinson VADCR russ.Derkinson®,dcr.virsinia.sov Diana Reynolds MDDNR drevnolds®,dnr. state.md.us Tim Rule MDE trul e® mde. state. md. us Kevin Sellner CRC/STAC sellnerk®,si.edu Gary Shenk EPA/CBPO sshenk®chesaDeakebav.net Rou Shi MDE rshi (a),mde. state.md.us Sean Smith MDDNR ssmith®,dnr. state, md.us Chris Spaur USACE chri stopher. c. spaur®, usace. armv. mil Peter Tango USGS/CBPO Dtanso®,chesaoeakebav.net Ping Wang UMCES/CBPO pwans®,chesapeakebav.net Jing Wu UMCES/CBPO iwu®,chesaoeakebav.net Xia Xie DEDNREC xia.xie®,state.de.us On the phone: Julie Herman VIMS herman®,vims. edu Larry Sanford UMCES 1 sanford®hoi. umce s. edu 13 ------- |