Water Water R R esour esour c es Ac tion Plan c es Ac tion Plan ( (WR (WR ( AP) Hydr AP) Hydr ) ) d d odynamic and Water odynamic and Water d d i i d d Quality Model Quality Model Ying Poon, D.Sc., P.E. Everest International Consultants, Inc Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor TMDL Technical Advisory Committee Meeting M May 26, 2010 26 2010 EVEREST
Presentation Overview Presentation Overview Presentation Overview Presentation Overview � EPA and WRAP Model Comparisons � EPA and WRAP Model Comparisons • Ports intend to use their WRAP Model for some TMDL related simulations in cooperation with TMDL-related simulations in cooperation with EPA; first step is to compare whether the WRAP Model and EPA Model produce similar calibration Model and EPA Model produce similar calibration results based on the same watershed inputs and initial harbor conditions initial harbor conditions � Preliminary WRAP Model simulation results for “hotspots” EVEREST
WRAP Model Grid WRAP Model Grid WRAP Model Grid WRAP Model Grid Bottom Elevation (m, MLLW) EVEREST
WRAP Model Calibration WRAP Model Calibration WRAP Model Calibration WRAP Model Calibration •Water Level •Water Level •Velocity •Dye •Salinity * Salinity •TSS * •Sediment Tracer •Metals * * * Parameters compared EVEREST
Calibration Locations Calibration Locations Calibration Locations Calibration Locations salinity TSS and Metals EVEREST
Salinity Comparison Salinity Comparison – HW24 Salinity Comparison Salinity Comparison HW24 HW24 HW24 EPA Model EPA Model WRAP Model WRAP Model EVEREST
Salinity Comparison Salinity Comparison – HW47 Salinity Comparison Salinity Comparison HW47 HW47 HW47 EPA Model EPA Model WRAP Model WRAP Model EVEREST
TSS TSS – Overlying 2006 Sites TSS TSS Overlying 2006 Sites Overlying 2006 Sites Overlying 2006 Sites EPA Model EPA Model WRAP Model WRAP Model EVEREST
TSS Time Series TSS Time Series TSS Time Series TSS Time Series EPA Model EPA Model WRAP Model WRAP Model EVEREST
Inflows Inflows Inflows Inflows LAR and SGR Flow LAR and SGR Flow Nearshore Watershed Flow Nearshore Watershed Flow EVEREST
Copper Copper Copper Copper EPA Model WRAP Model Overlying Sites Sites Mid-Water Sites EVEREST
Lead Lead Lead Lead EPA Model WRAP Model Overlying Sites Sites Mid-Water Sites EVEREST
Zinc Zinc Zinc Zinc EPA Model WRAP Model Overlying Sites Sites Mid-Water Sites EVEREST
Model Comparison Summary Model Comparison Summary Model Comparison Summary Model Comparison Summary � Based on the same inputs and initial � Based on the same inputs and initial conditions, the EPA and WRAP models predict similar levels of TSS and metals in predict similar levels of TSS and metals in the harbor compared to field data under dry weather conditions dry weather conditions. � The two models differ in their predictions under wet weather conditions under wet weather conditions EVEREST
Hotspot Evaluation Hotspot Evaluation – – Total Copper Total Copper � Assumptions: • No copper loadings from watershed but • No copper loadings from watershed but keeping the flows to drive the hydrodynamics • No copper in sediment bed except for hotspot � Objective: � Obj i • Isolate the release of copper from hotspot into water column and subsequent mixing into water column and subsequent mixing, transport and deposition throughout the harbor under both dry and wet weather (Jan 200 ) 2005) conditions di i EVEREST
Hot Spot Evaluation Summary Hot Spot Evaluation Summary Hot Spot Evaluation Summary Hot Spot Evaluation Summary � For the SWM and IR7 sites the resultant � For the SWM and IR7 sites, the resultant copper concentrations in the harbor water due to the release of copper from the two due to the release of copper from the two sites are many orders of magnitudes less than the ambient copper concentrations than the ambient copper concentrations under both dry and wet weather conditions EVEREST
EVEREST Thank You Thank You k Y k Y Th Th
Recommend
More recommend
