Download - Modeling in Baltimore Harbor
Modeling in Baltimore Harbor
Technical OutreachPrepared by
MDE/TARSAPrepared for the
Baltimore Harbor Stakeholder Advisory GroupSeptember 10, 2002
Harbor Toxics Modeling Program Estimate Nonpoint Source Loads -
Model the watershed - estimate loads from the land to the water Provide inputs to the Harbor Models Uses a Storm Water Management Model (SWMM)
Simulate Fate of Toxics in Baltimore Harbor – Harbor Models Management/Screen (Box Model) - UMCES
Hydrodynamics (water transport) and Sediment Transport Toxic (Dissolved/Particulate) Food Web
Detailed Assessment (Upper Bay Model) - VIMS Models entire Upper Bay to include exchange between the Harbor and
the Bay Hydrodynamics (water transport) and Sediment Transport Toxic (Dissolved/Particulate)
Harbor Toxics Modeling FrameworkWatershed
Model
Box Model
Upper Bay Model
Point Source and other Loads
Appropriate Scenarios
Toxic Water Quality Prediction
Baltimore HarborNon-Point / Point Source Comparison
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Non-Point Source 181,408 44,617 3,433 101,292 17,411
Point Source (C(max)*Flow (avg)) 55,454 7,795 22,097 29,389 3,153
Point Source (C(avg)*Flow (avg)) 55,454 4,468 6,749 19,802 2,780
Flow (MG/yr) TSS (ton/yr) Cr (lb/yr) Zn (lb/yr) Pb (lb/yr)
UMCES – Toxic Box Model
Model Status Hydrodynamic/Sediment Transport
Linking Nonpoint Source and Point Source Loads – Completed Mass Balance Check - Completed Transfer Coefficients Sediment Transport Calibration
Toxic Box/Foodweb Linking Nonpoint Source and Point Source Loads – Completed Sensitivity Test Linking Hydrodynamic/Sediment Transport Model
Tate&Lyle
Beth-steel 014
Millennium1,2,3Grace Davison
Erachem-Comilog
Patapsco POTW
Baltimore Harbor Point Source to UMCES Toxic Model
Cox Creek WWTP
MTA -W
Beth 101 Beth 17Beth 17
US-Gypsum
CSX
CSG+TSGLocke
Carr-L G
GF+770+790
JF+810+800
820
PR+780+910+920
830
840+850+860
880+890
900/3
900/3
900/3
Baltimore Harbor Non-point Source Inputs to UMCES Toxic Model
Data : Time varying sea level at the Harbor mouth and time-varying winds to predict the temporal evolution of currents, sea-surface elevation, and water properties within the Harbor for 4 observed months.
May 1995 October/November 1999 – CHARM 1 March/April 2000 – CHARM 2 July/August 2000 – CHARM 3
Grid size : Horizontal – 360m * 360m Vertical – 6 layers (Sigma Coordinate)
UMCES – Hydrodynamic/Sediment
UMCES – Hydrodynamic/Sediment Mass Balance Checkup
Model run >>> dissolved Slow Intermediate Fast AllMstart (10^6 kg) 0.436 2.789 0.039 0.000 3.265Mboundaryflux (10^6 kg) -0.023 -0.144 -1.520 -0.246 -1.932Meroded (10^6 kg) 0.000 0.000 114.653 1482.040 1596.693Mdeposited (10^6 kg) 0.000 1.152 114.215 1481.770 1597.137Meroded-deposited (10^6 kg) 0.000 -1.152 0.438 0.266 -0.449Mflux3r(10^6kg) 0.000 0.648 0.648 0.000 1.296Msumfnps(10^6kg) 0.000 0.105 0.105 0.000 0.209Msumfps(10^6kg) 0.000 0.300 0.300 0.000 0.599Mremain (10^6 kg) 0.414 2.546 0.009 0.020 2.989Mend (10^6 kg) 0.414 2.550 0.013 0.000 2.977Mabsolute (10^6 kg) 0.000 -0.004 -0.004 0.020 0.012Percent error (%) 0.408
October/November 1999 – CHARM 1
Harbor Toxic Modeling FrameworkVIMS – Upper Bay Model
Model Status Hydrodynamic/Sediment Transport - Final Stage
Incorporating Nonpoint and Point Sources
ToxiWasp (simulating fate of toxic) – In Progress Incorporate the numerical Quickest Scheme into the toxic model –
Completed Implementation of Toxic Model cell mapping structure - Completed Code testing for sediment toxicant transport - Completed Conduct the simulation for lead - Completed Incorporating Nonpoint and Point Sources
Harbor Toxic Modeling FrameworkVIMS – Upper Bay Model
Hydrodynamic Model
coupled
Sediment Transport Model
Interface
Toxic Model
Interface
Harbor Toxic Modeling FrameworkVIMS –Hydrodynamic/Sediment Model Calibration stations
Toxic Toxic
;;
;
;;
;
;;;
; ;
;;
;;;;
;
;
;
;
;
;
;
CLGCLG
WRGD
BS14BS17
BS101
MIHMIHMIH
TASRTASR
USGUSG
CSGCSGCSGCSG
EC
LI
P-W WTP
CC- WWTP
MTA-W B
CSX
MI-H PP
N
Toxic Point Source Loading to VIMS Model
Note: Point Source loadings from each outfall of the listed industries. They are distributed to the closest model cells.
Toxic Nonpoint Source Loading to VIMS Model
900
880
830
870
820
810
840
790
890
920
800
860
780
910
850
770
N
Jones F all
Gwynns Fall
Patapsco River
Note: Non-point source loadings from the watershed segments. They are evenly distributed to their adjacent model cells.
August 2002 Complete CHARM point source sampling – finalize data report Finalize watershed model report Continue working on calibrating hydrodynamic and toxic components Work with Stakeholders
December 2002 Finalize hydrodynamic calibration Preliminary Toxic Model calibration Sensitivity test of Nonpoint Source/Point Source load reduction using
UMCES Box Model. Work with Stakeholders
Progress/Future Actions
Harbor Eutrophication Modeling Program Estimate Nonpoint Source Loads - Watershed Modeling
Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF) - Completed
Simulate Water Quality in Baltimore Harbor – Harbor Modeling – Final Stage
A 3-D Hydrodynamic Model - Curvilinear Hydrodynamic 3-Dimension (CH3D)
A 3-D Comprehensive Water Quality Model - CE-QUAL-ICM
A Sediment Diagenesis Model
Harbor Eutrophication Modeling Framework
Watershed ModelHSPFHydrology (flow, TSS)
Hydrodynamic ModelCH3D Velocity, Diffusion, Surface Elevation,Salinity, Temperature
Water Quality ModelCE-QUAL-ICMTemperature, Salinity, Total Suspended Solid, Cyanobacteria/Diatoms/Algae, Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, COD, DO, Silica
Watershed ModelHSPFnutrients, sediments
Sediment Diagenesis ModelSediment initial condition, Sediment settling rate
Point Source and other loads
Water Quality Prediction
• Watershed (HSPF) – Completed (Internal/External Review Completed)
• Hydrodynamic Model – Completed• Water Quality Model – Final Stage (Internal Review Completed)
Current Eutrophication Model Status
August 2002 Watershed Model Completed Finalize Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model Calibration Work with Stakeholders
December 2002 External Technical Review Meeting Sensitivity Test of Nonpoint Source/Point Source Load Reduction Preliminary Scenario Strategies Work with Stakeholders
Progress/Future Actions
Scenario Runs (Decision Criteria and Procedure)
Draft – For Discussion Purposes
Identify critical conditionDry, wet and average year, worse water quality, etc.
Current Progress case
Do hydrology/flow analysis to choose a representative year and use that year hydrology with current loading data to run the model
Scenario Runs (Decision Criteria and Procedure)
Calibrated Model
Delisting/Monitoring
No impairment
Impairment
Scenario Runs (Decision Criteria and Procedure)
Identify critical conditionDry, wet and average year, worse water quality, etc.
External vs. Internal SourceRemove and/or double both point and non-point source to see if internal source (sediment) is significant
Natural Recovery Time lineUse model to test the natural recovery time
External vs. Hydrodynamic in the HarborRemove or double individual subwatershed point and non-point sources to see if the hydrodynamic transport from other region is significant
Point vs. Nonpoint source in HarborRemove or double ps to see if nps is significantRemove or double nps to see if ps is significant
Internal important
External important
Internal & External equally important
Hydrodynamic important
External important
Scenario Runs (Decision Criteria and Procedure)
External vs. Hydrodynamic in the HarborRemove or double individual subwatershed point and non-point sources to see if the hydrodynamic transport from other region is significant
Point vs. Nonpoint source in HarborRemove or double ps to see if nps is significantRemove or double nps to see if ps is significant
Hydrodynamic important
External important
Point vs. Non-point source in subwatershedRemove or double ps to see if nps is significantRemove or double nps to see if ps is significant
Do entire harbor reduction scenarios
Do subwatershed reduction scenarios