1 / 24

Modeling in Baltimore Harbor

Modeling in Baltimore Harbor. Technical Outreach Prepared by MDE/TARSA Prepared for the Baltimore Harbor Stakeholder Advisory Group September 10, 2002. Harbor Toxics Modeling Program. Estimate Nonpoint Source Loads - Model the watershed - estimate loads from the land to the water

michael-beard
Download Presentation

Modeling in Baltimore Harbor

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Modeling in Baltimore Harbor Technical Outreach Prepared by MDE/TARSA Prepared for theBaltimore Harbor Stakeholder Advisory Group September 10, 2002

  2. 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)

  3. Harbor Toxics Modeling Framework Watershed Model Point Source and other Loads Box Model Appropriate Scenarios Upper Bay Model Toxic Water Quality Prediction

  4. 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

  5. Baltimore Harbor Point Source to UMCES Toxic Model Tate&Lyle Beth-steel 014 CSG+TSG Locke MTA -W Carr-L G Beth 17 Patapsco POTW Beth 101 CSX US-Gypsum Millennium1,2,3 Grace Davison Erachem-Comilog Cox Creek WWTP

  6. Baltimore Harbor Non-point Source Inputs to UMCES Toxic Model 830 JF+810+800 820 840+850+860 GF+770+790 PR+780+910+920 900/3 900/3 880+ 890 900/3

  7. UMCES – Hydrodynamic/Sediment • 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)

  8. UMCES – Hydrodynamic/Sediment Mass Balance Checkup • October/November 1999 – CHARM 1

  9. Harbor Toxic ModelingFrameworkVIMS – 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

  10. Hydrodynamic Model coupled Sediment Transport Model Interface Interface Toxic Model Harbor Toxic ModelingFrameworkVIMS – Upper Bay Model

  11. Harbor Toxic Modeling FrameworkVIMS –Hydrodynamic/Sediment Model Calibration stations Toxic Toxic

  12. M T ; ; T A S R ; T A S R ; ; ; ; C C C C S S S S G G G G C L G ; ; L I C L G ; ; P - W W T P ; B S 1 4 ; ; B S 1 7 U S G ; ; ; B S 1 0 1 ; U S G W R G D M I H ; ; M I H ; M I H ; ; E C ; C C - W W T P Toxic Point Source Loading to VIMS Model A - W B C S X M I - H P P N Note: Point Source loadings from each outfall of the listed industries. They are distributed to the closest model cells.

  13. Toxic Nonpoint Source Loading to VIMS Model J o n e s F a l l 8 1 0 G w y n n s F a l l 7 9 0 8 0 0 8 2 0 7 8 0 7 7 0 8 3 0 9 1 0 9 2 0 P a t a p s c o R i v e r 8 6 0 8 4 0 8 5 0 8 9 0 9 0 0 8 8 0 8 7 0 N Note: Non-point source loadings from the watershed segments. They are evenly distributed to their adjacent model cells.

  14. Progress/Future Actions 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

  15. 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

  16. Harbor Eutrophication Modeling Framework Watershed Model HSPF Hydrology (flow, TSS) Hydrodynamic Model CH3D Velocity, Diffusion, Surface Elevation, Salinity, Temperature Water Quality Model CE-QUAL-ICM Temperature, Salinity, Total Suspended Solid, Cyanobacteria/Diatoms/Algae, Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, COD, DO, Silica Watershed Model HSPF nutrients, sediments Sediment Diagenesis Model Sediment initial condition, Sediment settling rate Point Source and other loads Water Quality Prediction

  17. Current Eutrophication Model Status • Watershed (HSPF) – Completed (Internal/External Review Completed) • Hydrodynamic Model – Completed • Water Quality Model – Final Stage (Internal Review Completed)

  18. Progress/Future Actions 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

  19. Scenario Runs (Decision Criteria and Procedure) Draft – For Discussion Purposes

  20. Scenario Runs (Decision Criteria and Procedure) Calibrated Model No impairment 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 Delisting/ Monitoring Impairment Identify critical condition Dry, wet and average year, worse water quality, etc.

  21. Scenario Runs (Decision Criteria and Procedure) Identify critical condition Dry, wet and average year, worse water quality, etc. External vs. Internal Source Remove and/or double both point and non-point source to see if internal source (sediment) is significant Internal important Natural Recovery Time line Use model to test the natural recovery time Internal & External equally important External important Point vs. Nonpoint source in Harbor Remove or double ps to see if nps is significant Remove or double nps to see if ps is significant External vs. Hydrodynamic in the Harbor Remove or double individual subwatershed point and non-point sources to see if the hydrodynamic transport from other region is significant External important Hydrodynamic important

  22. Scenario Runs (Decision Criteria and Procedure) Point vs. Nonpoint source in Harbor Remove or double ps to see if nps is significant Remove or double nps to see if ps is significant External vs. Hydrodynamic in the Harbor Remove or double individual subwatershed point and non-point sources to see if the hydrodynamic transport from other region is significant External important Point vs. Non-point source in subwatershed Remove or double ps to see if nps is significant Remove or double nps to see if ps is significant Hydrodynamic important Do subwatershed reduction scenarios Do entire harbor reduction scenarios

More Related