Modelling methods and test cases
Due to the regulatory evolution of AutoDEPOMOD, there are two
test sites for the SEPA marine fish-farm modelling tools:
- Bath and in-feed anti-parasitic chemical treatments
- Benthic impact due to solid organic wastes (site biomass)
Each requires different site set-up and current meter data,
which are available below.
Practitioners who intend to produce license recommendations
using the SEPA modelling tools should submit two modelling method
reports, one describing the assessment of bath and in-feed
anti-parasitic chemical treatments, and another describing the
assessment of benthic impact due to solid wastes for the
determination of site biomass. Furthermore, two modelling
results reports should be submitted, along with associated model
output files, and completed Marine Summary MS-Excel workbooks, as
described below.
See also the section containing Guidance on reporting
SEPA requires a CD containing the final method and results
reports, the modelling files, and the license recommendation
summaries. If file sizes permit, initial drafts may be
submitted by email to ffmodelling@sepa.org.uk.
To allow suggestions and comments on initial drafts to be made
in-line by SEPA, it is suggested that reports are submitted as
MS-Word documents (2003 format), with 'track changes' enabled.
Bath and in-feed anti-parasitic
chemical treatments
The objective of this exercise is to determine EQS compliant
license recommendations for the five chemicals commonly used to
treat infestations of sea-lice. Individuals wishing to submit
their results should produce a modelling summary report and
complete the current data summary in the 'biomass' sheet and the
'chemical' sheet of the Marine Summary MS-Excel workbook.
In addition to the modelling tools, the following site-specific
data are required:
Bathymetry:
A simplified planar bathymetry is provided to enable the model
grid to be defined for the test site. These data should be
copied into the GRIDGEN sub-directory.
Current data:
Site details:
The in-feed test case information may also be found in appendix
3 to Annex H
(2.08mb) of the 'Fish-farm
Manual'.
Benthic impact due to solid organic
wastes (site biomass)
The objective of this exercise is to determine a compliant site
biomass for the given configuration and environmental
conditions. Individuals wishing to submit their results
should produce a modelling summary report and complete the
'biomass' sheet of the Marine Summary MS-Excel workbook.
In addition to the modelling tools, the following site-specific
data are required:
Bathymetry:
A simplified planar bathymetry is provided to enable the model
grid to be defined for the test site, if you do not have access to
suitable data. These data should be copied into the GRIDGEN
sub-directory.
Current data:
These data are synthetic and do not include a pressure
record. Their spring-neap variation does not correspond to
reality, so the intermediate tide records should be identified by
inspection of the variation in current speed. Apply a
magnetic variation of 3.5oW
Site details:
Guidance on reporting
The purpose of specifying two reports each ('method' and
'results'), for chemicals and biomass, is to minimise the
supporting documentation submitted with each application. The
'method' report also demonstrates understanding of the processes
being modelled, their simulation techniques, and their link to
discharge limits; the 'method' report is therefore generic.
Consequently, the 'results' report needs only to:
- reference the 'method' and the concepts and steps in the
process it describes;
- list the site-specific input data;
- report the results;
- assess any features of the modelling that present further
environmental risk.
As such, the 'results' report should not introduce or reiterate
concepts or processes that are properly part of the 'method'
document.
Since some of the background and techniques employed in the
biomass modelling are also pre-requisite to the in-feed modelling
(e.g. preparation of bathymetric data and current data, and cage
configuration), these only need be described in one of the 'method'
reports; the description can then be referenced by the other.
Owing to the historical precedence of in-feed modelling, it has
been the norm to describe such common techniques in the chemical
modelling 'method' report.
In summary, the important features of the two reports are as
follows:
Method report:
- it is not a manual; it does not need to detail the operator's
interaction with the modelling software's user interface, i.e. not
"create a project", "go to this tab", "press that button",
etc.;
- describe the process that's being modelled (not those that are
not) and keep background information brief and pertinent;
- describe how the model simulates the processes - explain the
impact and limitations imposed by any simplifying assumptions;
- describe the process applied to achieve an optimised discharge
limit with respect to environmental protection, i.e. data
preparation, model setup, and iteration of discharge scenarios to
obtain EQS compliance.
Results report:
- reference the 'Method';
- list (tabulate) the values of the input data and identify their
sources;
- tabulate results and present model output plots;
- discuss impacts, with respect to modelled processes, model
limitations, and the specific receiving environment;
- identify, quantify the impacts of, and, where necessary,
mitigate any anomalous results;
- conclude with license recommendations and a summary of the
discussion.
The 'method' reports will represent the practitioner's standard
supporting information for license applications made under CAR and
will reside on the Public Register; as such they should be in clear
and correct English, i.e. they should comply with the standard
rules for punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, syntax,
etc. If your English technical-writing skills are rusty,
there are many useful guides on the web.
It may be useful to consider the following questions, when
reviewing the draft text:
- do the headings reflect the content of the sections?
Might they better be subdivided, under a different heading?
- does the text describe the process clearly, succinctly, and in
a logical order?
- is the phrasing open to misinterpretation?
- would it be understood by someone unfamiliar with the
process/tools?
- can the sense be improved by punctuation, rewording, or
restructuring (e.g. 'bullet-pointed' lists)?
Finally, see if you can run the model by following the
method. If, at some point in the future, someone else is
asked to undertake modelling, would they understand what to do, and
why they were doing it, from reading your method?
Links to some writing skills
resources
Some British ones:
Some American ones (well-written American English is better than
poorly written British English):