1 / 13

Naples Bay / Rookery Bay Hydrodynamic Model Kick Off Meeting

Y . Peter Sheng & Vladimir A. Paramygin Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Program University of Florida. Naples Bay / Rookery Bay Hydrodynamic Model Kick Off Meeting. March 31, 2014. Scope of Work. CH3D Model Domain. M ap with Henderson Creek showing. CH3D Model Domain.

gcovington
Télécharger la présentation

Naples Bay / Rookery Bay Hydrodynamic Model Kick Off Meeting

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. Y. Peter Sheng & Vladimir A. Paramygin Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Program University of Florida Naples Bay / Rookery Bay Hydrodynamic Model Kick Off Meeting March 31, 2014

  2. Scope of Work

  3. CH3D Model Domain

  4. Map with Henderson Creek showing

  5. CH3D Model Domain

  6. Model Configuration • 3D model, baroclinic, with 4-8 vertical layers • Forcing: • Wind • Tidal constituents (10 components) • Rainfall • Flow rates at river boundaries

  7. Water Level Model-Data Comparisons NOAA station Naples, FL USGS station 02291310 Gordon River

  8. Salinity Model-Data Comparison USGS station 02291310 (Gordon River)

  9. Model-Data Comparison Statistics

  10. Additional Calibration - Data needed to reduce errors • Bathymetry data – while there is a good bathymetric dataset available for the Naples Bay, the data for the Rookery Bay is rather sparse and channels may not be represented correctly in the model, thus causing incorrect flow rates through these channels. • Flow rates at river boundaries – the data provided by Taylor Engineering is limited to annually averaged flows. Higher frequency (daily or hourly) flow rates at river boundaries could significantly improve results of salinity simulations. Data at GG-1 (>120 sq mi catchment and major urban area of BCB) is of particular importance. • Tidal boundary conditions – two of the tidal constituents, SA and SSA, with period of 12 and 6 months, respectively, are comparable to or longer than the period of simulation. Accuracy of calibration for these constituents could have significant error. A 2-4 year simulation would be desirable to calibrate and verify these constituents.

  11. Flow Scenarios to Determine the Desirable Diversion Strategy • Current Henderson Creek diversion plan: 100 cfs will be diverted to Rookery Bay • What are other alternatives? 50 cfs? 200 cfs? • Should the diverted flow be a fraction of the average daily flow? • What about during low flow or drought condition? Wet and dry season? • What is the target (desirable) salinity range inside Naples Bay and Rookery Bay? • What are the benchmark species? What are the associated target ranges? • Naples Bay - Seagrass and Oyster - 15-20 ppt • Rookery Bay - ? • How are the specific target areas? The entire Naples Bay? • How about short-term pulse releases? • How frequent? Over what period of time? • For the future – Is there a need for a real-time forecasting system to predict the need to adjust the diversion plan?

  12. Possible Scenarios *NSM - Natural System Model

  13. Metric for Evaluation of Alternatives • Specific Target Areas? Entire Naples Bay? Rookery Bay? • Target Salinity Frequency (Monthly? Daily? Hourly?) and Range? • Target Species? Oyster? Seagrass?

More Related