1 / 23

GIS Analysis of Sediment Transport in Humboldt Inlet, California Joshua L. Caulkins

GIS Analysis of Sediment Transport in Humboldt Inlet, California Joshua L. Caulkins. Importance. Engineering 2001 US Spent $867,760 and dredged 268,465 yd 3 Mitigation Options Dredging is not cost effective. Rationale. Ultimate Goals.

ima-hess
Télécharger la présentation

GIS Analysis of Sediment Transport in Humboldt Inlet, California Joshua L. Caulkins

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. GIS Analysis of Sediment Transport in Humboldt Inlet, California Joshua L. Caulkins

  2. Importance Engineering 2001 US Spent $867,760 and dredged 268,465 yd3 Mitigation Options Dredging is not cost effective Rationale

  3. Ultimate Goals • Better understanding of complex sediment transport processes within the coastal zone • Development of new methods with new technologies allow a focus on field studies over lab studies • Eventual quantification of sediment transport Rationale

  4. Background

  5. FLOW Background

  6. Study Site

  7. Winter Summer Humboldt Inlet Characteristics 0.7 km 1.8 km 0.8 m/s 1 m/s

  8. Peak Ebb Peak Flood Study Site

  9. Data is spatially and temporally correlated within the channel. No Channel Survey No Channel Survey No channel overlap No Post-Dredge Data Time Line Channel Widening August 1999-March 2000 Dredging March-May (3/98 – 5/98) Dredging April-May (4/99 – 5/99) Dredging April-May (4/00 – 5/00) 1999 2000 2001 1998 7/98 1/00 5/00 8/00 1/ 98 4/99 Post-Dredge Survey (5/98 – 12/98) Pre-Dredge Survey (1/99 – 4/99) Post-Dredge Survey (5/99 – 12/99) Pre-Dredge Survey (1/00 – 4/00) Post-Dredge Survey (5/00 – 12/00) then second Condition Survey

  10. Dredging Records for Humboldt Bay (Unable to graph data)

  11. Methodology: • Imported point bathymetry data into ArcMap GIS. • Created a Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) from depth values. • Produced a value grid from the TIN and clipped the grid to the appropriate study area. • Calculated a difference map from the clipped grids of each data set. • Calculated a difference volume from the difference map.

  12. Net Sediment Gain of 38,642 m^3 (or 50,542 yd^3)

  13. Net Sediment Loss of 798,997 m^3 (or 1,045,049 yd^3)

  14. Net Sediment Loss of 113,877 m^3 (or 148,945 yd^3)

  15. Limitations of Current Analysis: • Lack of spatially and temporally correlated data limits depth of study. • The small study area does not allow for correction of material removed via dredging. • High shoaling areas are known but “reactionary logistics” still dominate maintenance of inlet.

  16. Conclusions & Implications of Current Analysis: • Methodology is sound (Ham, Maguire) and cost effective. • Quantification ability at this scale is still in the early stages. More exploration into SHOALS or LIDAR data (remote sensing) would enable a more comprehensive analysis.

More Related