[NOTE: This document is the originally conceived Scope of Work. Aspects of this scope continued to evolve over time, however, as discussed in the meeting minutes. For readers’ convenience, major schedule updates have been addded into this document , using inserted remarks such as those used for this note.]
In 2014 Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), in cooperation with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Chesapeake Bay Program, initiated the multi-year Lower Susquehanna River Integrated Sediment and Nutrient Monitoring Program (Integrated Monitoring Program), with the following primary goals:
The original study was to target up to six storm events with flows equaling or exceeding 100,000 cfs. At the conclusion of all field efforts, the results of the Integrated Monitoring Program were to be used to update the suite of Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) Watershed and Water Quality models for use in the 2017 TMDL Midpoint Assessment. As of June 2016, two official sampling events have occurred, both of which had peak flows less than 182,000 cfs.[1][2]In late 2015, due to a lack of storm events in the target flow range and the lack of available corresponding empirical data, Program partners began discussing alternative approaches that could be implemented in early 2016 to supplement the modeling efforts associated with the Midpoint Assessment.
From these conversations, Exelon developed a two phased‐modeling approach that would enhance and complement the existing Phase 6 HSPF Watershed Model (HSPF) as well as the simulation of inputs to the Bay Water Quality and Sediment Transport Model (WQSTM). The two phased modeling approach includes developing:
As part of this modeling effort, the Exelon team agreed to work closely with the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Modeling Workgroup and Corps modelers throughout this process to ensure that all parties are in agreement on the methods used, deliverables provided, and implementation of results into the suite of CBP models (specifically Phase 6 CBP Watershed Model and WQSTM). In addition, Exelon agreed that all modeling efforts and reports will be subject to two independent reviews, including (1) interim review and guidance from an independent modeling evaluation group to be contracted and coordinated by the Chesapeake Research Consortium (CRC) and (2) final review as part of a larger review of the CBP’s Phase 6 Watershed Model that is already scheduled for 2016 as part of the activities of the CBP’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). The modeling evaluation group comprises four independent reviewers who have been collaboratively selected through consensus agreement among representatives of the Exelon team (specifically Ms. Kim Long, and Mssrs Tom and Tim Sullivan), MDNR (specifically Mr. Bruce Michael), and the CRC (specifically Dr. William Ball). The evaluation group will review the modeling methods, results, and reports and provide feedback and comments as appropriate. Comments provided by the evaluators will be taken under advisement by the Exelon team. Enclosed below is the proposed scope of work for the independent modeling evaluation group.
Schedule: Bi‐weekly, Week of March 1 – June 30, 2016 ‐ 1.5 hours/call
[UPDATE as of June 7, 2016: The end date for this task has been extended until at least August 2016.]
[UPDATE as of August, 2016: The end date for this task was extended until August 2017 owing to delays in the model development. A no-cost extension was provided to all contracts and sub-contracts.]
The independent peer reviewers will participate in up to 8 bi‐weekly, or as needed, status update calls with the Exelon Modeling team. These calls will be scheduled, arranged and paid for by the Exelon Modeling Team and will be open to attendance by all members of the CBP Modeling Workgroup and other interested parties having related technical expertise and currently involved with the CBP. Discussion will center on the current status of each model, areas of concern or issues which have arose, next steps, and other pertinent questions. The peer reviewers will provide feedback, comments, and observations to the Exelon modeling team during or following these discussions. Exelon will be responsible for drafting meeting minutes following the conclusion of each call. The minutes meetings will be subjected to review and approval (or dissent) from all four independent reviewers and Dr. Ball. The finalized meeting minutes will then be made publicly available via a web site to be maintained by the CRC.
Schedule: Monthly, April – June 2016
[UPDATE as of August, 2016: The end date for this task was extended until August 2017 owing to delays in the model development. A no-cost extension was provided to all contracts and sub-contracts.]
The peer reviewers will prepare independent interim review products following the completion of major modeling milestones. The interim review products will consist of 1‐2 page memos to be completed by each peer reviewer focused on their specific area(s) of expertise. Memos will include descriptions of the review work completed, observations, potential areas for further consideration, and other pertinent comments. It is anticipated that no more than 3 interim work products would be prepared as part of this effort. The Exelon team may prepare interim responses to these documents if it so chooses. These interim memos and associated responses will be made publicly available on the website to be maintained by the CRC.
Schedule: May‐June 2016
[UPDATE as of June 7, 2016: The end date for this task has been extended until at least August 2016.]
[UPDATE as of August, 2016: The end date for this task was extended until August 2017 owing to delays in the model development. A no-cost extension was provided to all contracts and sub-contracts.]
Following completion of all models and review of the final modeling reports, each peer reviewer will develop a final, independent report that discusses the modeling methods used and the results.
Schedule: May – June 2016
[UPDATE as of June 7, 2016: The end date for this task has been extended until at least August 2016.]
[UPDATE as of August, 2016: The end date for this task was extended until August 2017 owing to delays in the model development. A no-cost extension was provided to all contracts and sub-contracts.]
CRC will compile each peer reviewer’s final report into one final document for publication.
Schedule: March – June 2016
[UPDATE as of June 7, 2016: The end date for this task has been extended until at least August 2016.]
[UPDATE as of August, 2016: The end date for this task was extended until August 2017 owing to delays in the model development. A no-cost extension was provided to all contracts and sub-contracts.]
CRC staff, specifically including its Executive Director, William Ball, will provide support and product documentation services throughout the review process on an as needed basis. Such support will include subcontracting reviewer involvement, and the posting of final meeting minutes and review products on a web site to be maintained by the CRC. Support may also include, on an as‐needed and as‐available basis: participation in bi‐weekly calls, review of meeting minutes, and review and comment on interim reviewer products. In addition to Dr. Ball’s direct involvement in the aforementioned activities, other CRC staff and subcontractors will assist with aspects of report production and web site maintenance.
1 Sampling Event No. 1 occurred April 6-14, 2015 with peak flows of 146,000 and 182,000 cfs. Sampling Event No. 2 occurred April 22-25, 2015 with a peak flow of 125,000 cfs.
2 In addition, supplemental data were collected at Marietta, Holtwood, and Conowingo during a February 2016 high flow event (peak flows ~180,000 cfs). Although data were collected, this was not considered an official sampling event.
