View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Lower Cape Fear River Estuary
Model Progress Report
Jim Bowen, UNC Charlotte
August 15, 2007
Raleigh, NC
Description of Model Application
Open Boundary
Elevation Cond.
Lower Cape Fear River
Estuary Schematic
Black River,
FlowBoundary Cond.
Cape Fear R.
Flow Boundary Cond.
NE Cape Fear
Flow Boundary Cond.
DO Conceptual Model
BOD Sources
Sediment Sediment O2 Demand
Cape Fear
BOD Load
NECF & Black R.
BOD Load
Muni & Ind.
BOD Load
decaying
phytopl.
DO Conceptual Model
BOD Sources, DO Sources
Sediment Sediment O2 Demand
Cape Fear
BOD Load
NECF & Black R.
BOD Load
Ocean Inflows
Surface
Reaeration
Phytoplank.
ProductivityMuni & Ind.
BOD Load
decaying
phytopl.
MCFR Inflows
BOD
Consumption
DO Conceptual Model
BOD Sources, DO Sources & Sinks
Sediment Sediment O2 Demand
Cape Fear
BOD Load
NECF & Black R.
BOD Load
Ocean Inflows
Surface
Reaeration
Input of NECF &
Black R. Low DO
Water
Phytoplank.
ProductivityMuni & Ind.
BOD Load
decaying
phytopl.
MCFR Inflows
Modeling Developments
(Hydrodynamic model)
1. Moved model boundary for NECF up to
Burgaw monitoring station
2. Created flow boundary conditions for
2003-2005 for Black and NECF using
station pairs (Tomahawk and Currie,
Chinquapin and Burgaw)
3. Created calibration database of all
available hydrodynamic data (DWQ
Ambient, LCFRP, special study, USGS)
More model developments (Hydro)
4. Created scripts and monitoring data filesto compare long-term daily and short-termhourly hydrodynamic data
5. Created new shortwave solar radiation fileusing observed to replace data estimatedfrom meteorological forcings
6. Delineated NECF watersheds in estuary toimprove placement of freshwater loadings
1. Added new cells to extend model
to Burgaw monitoring station
• 950 horizontal cells in old grid, 1004 cellsin new grid
• 8 vertical layers
• Average cell dx = 300 m, dy = 400 m
• Separate cells for channel and adjoiningmarshes
• ** show grids w/Google Earth
2. Created new Black R. and
NECF R. flow boundary
conditions• Needed flows at model boundary for Black
and NECF rivers
• Had two stations in each watershed for
approximately one year
• Used lagged and scaled flows (@
Tomahawk, Chinquapin) to estimate
missing data for model boundaries
Flows at Burgaw
• High flow event from Hurricane Charlie seen Q3,2004
5. Created new short-wave solar
radiation file• Had previously used estimated short-wave solar
using met data (cloud cover, day of year) forestimation
• Previous data set produced overpredictions oftemperature during summer
• Discovered a Wilmington short wave data setexisted from NWS
• Found these data gave much improvedtemperature predictions
Example temperature time series
• Predicted temps near 40 deg C much higher thanobservations
6. Added new freshwater sources
for NECF, Black, Cape Fear
• Area between Burgaw and mouth of NECF
includes a signficant portion of watershed
drainage area (approx. 10% of total)
• Need to add additional water inputs to correctly
account for location of freshwater inputs
• Also made corrections for Black and Cape Fear
Rivers (show w/ google earth)
• Estimated flows by scaling NECF flows at
Burgaw
Example: 6 additional NECF
sources added
River Watershed I J
Estimated
Area (sqmi)
QSER
multiplier multiplier addition #
NECF 10 43 93 329.0 0.347 0.347 3
NECF 9 43 89 44.5 0.045
NECF 11 43 87 32.4 0.033 0.110 4
NECF 8 43 86 32.3 0.032
NECF 7 43 82 6.3 0.007
NECF 12 43 81 72.7 0.078
NECF 6 43 79 1.5 0.002 0.118 6
NECF 13 43 78 27.3 0.028
NECF 5 43 73 4.7 0.005
NECF 14 43 50 36.6 0.040
NECF 1 43 47 19.7 0.020 0.211 5
NECF 2 43 45 142.5 0.151
NECF 3 43 38 3.0 0.003
NECF 4 43 35 3.5 0.004 0.007 2
NECF 15 43 22 4.4 0.005
NECF 16 43 21 10.8 0.012 0.034 1
NECF 17 43 17 17.2 0.018
NECF Total N/A N/A 788.4 0.826
NECF Total N/A N/A 790
Additional Estuary Sources:
Summary
Northeast Cape Fear 6 760 10.0
Cape Fear below NECF 3 260 3.5
Cape Fear above Navassa 3 250 3.3
Black River 2 120 1.6
Total 14 1390 18.4%
River # Srcs Sq. Mi. DA%
More model developments (Hydro)
7. Developed new downstream boundaryelevation file NOAA measured elevationsat Southport
8. Created downstream boundary salinity datausing Marker 12 salinity continuous monitoring
9. Calibrated hydrodynamic model by runningmodel w/ various bottom roughnesses andassumed bottom elevations
Hydrodynamic Model Results
• Show temperature and salinity time seriescomparisons
• Also show statistical measures of model fitto data
• Use all available salinty and temperaturedata sources (LCFRP, USGS, DWQ)
• Use 2003 model startup, make comparisonfor April - November 2004
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
April - November 2004 Temperature
Statistical Measures of Fit (units of deg C)
mean(pred-obs) =0.10046
ME_norm =0.0043473
RMSE =0.96224
MAE =0.71269
MAE_norm =0.030841
RMSE_norm =0.041639
r_squared =0.97272
num data comparisons = 4150
r2 adjusted for bias = 0.96465
April - November, Hourly
Temperatures
April - November, Hourly
Temperatures
April - November, Hourly
Temperatures
April - November, Hourly
Temperatures
Fit Statistics (units are deg C)
mean(pred-obs) =-0.075693
ME_norm =-0.0032593
RMSE =0.88541
MAE =0.64122
MAE_norm =0.027611
RMSE_norm =0.038126
r_squared =0.97935
num data comparisons =
13718
r2 adjusted for bias = 0.96956
April - November 2004 Salinity
April - November 2004 Salinity
April - November 2004 Salinity
April - November 2004 Salinity
April - November 2004 Salinity
April - November 2004 Salinity
April - November 2004 Salinity
April - November 2004 Salinity
April - November 2004 Salinity
April - November 2004 Salinity
Statistical Measures of Fit (units of PSU)
mean(pred-obs) =-0.25797
ME_norm =-0.043321
RMSE =2.6493
MAE =1.6424
MAE_norm =0.27581
RMSE_norm =0.4449
r_squared =0.87049
num data comparisons = 3517
1-mse/var(obs) = 0.84804
July 2004 Salinity, Hourly Data,
Bottom
July 2004 Salinity, Hourly Data,
Bottom
July 2004 Salinity, Hourly Data,
Bottom
July 2004 Salinity, Hourly Data,
Bottom
July 2004 Salinity, Hourly Data,
Bottom
Fit Statistics (salinity units)
mean(pred-obs) =1.5808
ME_norm =0.11916
RMSE =3.2932
MAE =2.4755
MAE_norm =0.1866
RMSE_norm =0.24824
r_squared =0.79945
num data comparisons = 1557
1-mse/var(obs) = 0.67269
July 2004 Salinity, Hourly Data, Top
July 2004 Salinity, Hourly Data, Top
July 2004 Salinity, Hourly Data, Top
Hydrodynamic Calibration -
Summary
• Calibration essentially complete
• Excellent agreement w/ temperature and
salinity
• Elevation agreement (not shown) still needs
some work to get predicted tidal amplitude
attenuation to match observed attenuation
More Model Developments
(Water Quality Model)
1. Reviewed long-term BOD data to
determine organic matter decay rates
2. Created new point source load files w/
additional NECF sources and variable
organic matter decay rates
Long-term BOD measurements,
data sources
1. IP long-term BOD tests (BOD vs. time)
2. Wilmington long-term tests (BOD vs.
time)
3. DWQ special study data (BOD30/BOD5
ratio)
4. LCFRP data (BOD20/BOD5 ration,
partial data set)
IP and Wilmington long-term
BOD measurements
• Multiple measurements, BOD exerted vs.
time
• Fit data to determine ultimate BOD and
BOD decay rate
IP Measurements,
7/20: BODU = 110 mg/L, K = 0.03 day-1
7/27: BODU = 90 mg/L, K = 0.03 day-1
Wilmington Measurements
Wilmington NS: BODU = 32 mg/L, K = 0.05 day-1
Wilmington SS: BODU = 118 mg/L, K = 0.13 day-1
DWQ and LCFRP long-term
BOD data
• Have BOD 5 + BOD20 or BOD30 data
• Have multiple times and locations
• Use ratio of BOD’s to determine BOD
decay rates
BOD exerted for 2 decay rates
Ratio decreases as k increases
BOD30/BOD5 ratio
Given BOD30/BOD5 ratio, k can be found
from curve
LCFRP data
• Based on July ‘02 - June ‘03 monthly data at 3boundary stations (NC11, B210, NCF117) = 36measurements w/ BOD5 and BOD20
• Mean = 0.054 day-1
• Expect to get additional data for later years
DWQ Special Study Data
• 7 stations, 2 measurements during July 2004
• BOD 30 and BOD 5 measurements
• Use BOD30/BOD5 ratio to determine K
(data not shown)
Average k = 0.07 day-1
Standard deviation = 0.01 day-1
Long-term BOD data - summary
• IP WW has lowest decay rate (0.03 day-1)
• River water has intermediate decay rates
(0.05 - 0.07 day-1)
• Wilmington WWTP decay rates quite
variable (0.05 - 0.13 day-1)
• Using two DOC types, labile (k = 0.1 day)
and refractory (k = 0.03 day)
• Most sources will have some of both labile
and refractory
DO model results so far
DO model results so far
DO model results so far
DO model results so far
DO model results so far
DO model results so far
DO model results so far
DO model results so far
DO model results so far
DO model results so far
DO model results so far
Fit statistics (units are mg/L)
mean(pred-obs) =0.97071
ME_norm =0.16725
RMSE =1.5
MAE =1.1671
MAE_norm =0.20109
RMSE_norm =0.25846
r_squared =0.49312
num data comparisons = 3660
1-mse/var(obs) = 0.025191
Upcoming Work
• Finish assigning decay rates and redefining loadsonce additional BOD data are available
• Work on incorporating SOD data in a moredetailed way
• Do additional model/data comparisons w/ DWQspecial study data
• Plan to finish water quality calibration by end ofSeptember and begin to consider how to doscenario tests
Recommended