Water Water R R esour esour c es Ac tion Plan c es Ac tion - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Water R esour c es Ac tion Plan Water R esour c es Ac tion Plan ( ) d d i d ( ) d d i d (WR AP) Hydr

• dynamic and Water

(WR AP) Hydr

• dynamic and Water

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 26 2010

EVEREST

May 26, 2010

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

EVEREST

results for “hotspots”

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

*

EVEREST

• Metals*

*Parameters compared

Calibration Locations Calibration Locations Calibration Locations Calibration Locations

salinity TSS and Metals

EVEREST

Salinity Comparison Salinity Comparison – HW24 HW24 Salinity Comparison Salinity Comparison HW24 HW24

EPA Model WRAP Model EPA Model WRAP Model

EVEREST

Salinity Comparison Salinity Comparison – HW47 HW47 Salinity Comparison Salinity Comparison HW47 HW47

EPA Model WRAP Model EPA Model WRAP Model

EVEREST

TSS TSS – Overlying 2006 Sites Overlying 2006 Sites TSS TSS Overlying 2006 Sites Overlying 2006 Sites

EPA Model WRAP Model EPA Model WRAP Model

EVEREST

TSS Time Series TSS Time Series TSS Time Series TSS Time Series

EPA Model WRAP Model EPA Model WRAP Model

EVEREST

Inflows Inflows Inflows Inflows

LAR and SGR Flow Nearshore Watershed Flow LAR and SGR 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

Obj i Objective:

• 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 ) di i

EVEREST

2005) conditions

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

Th k Y Th k Y Thank You Thank You

EVEREST