1. Sensitivity study of St Andrew Bay rapid response system for Naval applications LCDR Patrice Pauly, French Navy Thesis Advisor:Pr. Peter C. Chu,NPS Second Reader:Steven D. Haeger,NAVOCEANO

2. Outlines  Geographic location  Hydrodynamic model used in this study  Forcing mechanisms and Sensibility study  Hydrochemical model and naval applications  Conclusion and recommendations

3. Geographic location - overview  Northeastern Gulf of Mexico  Part of the Intracoastal highway  Fed by Deer Point Lake dam Deer Point Lake dam

4. Geographic location - bathymetry Panama City Beach Panama City West boundary East boundary West Pass East Pass Point A Point B

5. Geographic location - bathymetry Panama City Beach Panama City West boundary East boundary West Pass East Pass Point A Point B City Beach

6. Geographic location - bathymetry Panama City Beach Panama City West boundary East boundary West Pass East Pass Point A Point B West boundary East boundary

7. Geographic location - bathymetry Panama City Beach Panama City West boundary East boundary West Pass East Pass Point A Point B West Pass East Pass

8. Geographic location - bathymetry Panama City Beach Panama City West boundary East boundary West Pass East Pass Point A Point B A B

9. Hydrodynamic model – WQMAP General equations:  Momentum equations  Continuity equation  Transport equation Stability condition (1) (2) (3) (4)

10. Hydrodynamic model – grid generation

11. Hydrodynamic model – bathymetry smoothing effects

12. Hydrodynamic model – WQMAP Approximations:  Shallow waters  Boussinesq  Incompressibility Boundary conditions:  No flow through surface or bottom  No flow perpendicular to the shoreline  No transport of salt at closed boundaries Study configuration:  3D-version with 10 layers  Rectangular 550m-wide cells grid  2m-minimum cell depth applied after bathymetry smoothing  Time step of 0.1min

13. Sensibility study - methodology The control run featured with:  Tidal time series at all open boundaries  Tidal residual time series at Gulf entrances  Wind time series  Fresh water supply from drainage sub-basins  21˚C constant water temperature  Constant salinity values of 22, 20 and 35 psu at West Bay, East Bay and West Pass open boundary respectively 293 214 151 642 476 257 242 55 All values in m 3 /s

14. Data analysis – fresh water supply Bay county sub-basins flow numberflow [m 3 /s] 10.5 20.8 3------ 41.3 51.4 60.4 71.4 81.7 91 101.2 111.2 121 133.8 14------- 150.7 160.9 1738.1

15. Salinity impact and steady state Model is featured with salinity only Surface layerBottom layer

16. Hydrodynamic model – steady state

17. Fresh water impact This case was featured with a doubled river runoff. -8 +4 -28 +21 -7 +55 Flux differences (m 3 /s) between this case and the control run West Bay (top) – West Pass (middle) – Point A (bottom)

18. Data analysis – sea surface temperature  Data set collected at  Panama City Beach  Panama City Station  Averaged between2000-2004  Varies from 15˚C in winter up to 30˚C in summer  Well-mixed through the water column

19. Data analysis – wind 2004 average: 0.12m/s northwesterlies May through September average: 4m/s from 155. Can easily reach 20m/s and more during hurricane events Wind values (m/s) averaged over the past 60 years.

20. Wind impacts 25m/s 20m/s 09/16 at 05:00 AM09/16 at 01:20 PM

21. West Pass West BayEast Bay Wind impact We featured two cases:  wind removed  a normalized error (μ=0, σ=1m/s) applied on both u and v- components. 0 -24 +21 -49 -24 -6 -23 0 Flux differences (m 3 /s) between this case and the control run Surface layer Bottom layer

22. -9 0 -3 -2 -4 -5 -13 0 Flux differences (m 3 /s) between this case and the control run West Bay West Pass Wind impact We featured two cases:  wind removed  a normalized error (μ=0, σ=1m/s) applied on both u and v- wind components. Surface layer Bottom layer East Bay

23. Data analysis – tides from NOAA NOAA website provides:  Tidal gauge time series  Tidal constituents Panama City Beach station: amplitude in cmphase in deg. K1:15.89(0.3)296.2(1) O1:15.84(0.3)284.8(1) Q1:3.4 (0.3)270.7(5.5) M2:3.4 (0.1)287.4(1.5) S2:2(0.1)303.1(2.5)

24. Data analysis – tides from NOAA NOAA website provides:  Tidal gauges time series  Tidal constituents Panama City Beach collected data studyNOAA prediction data amplitude [cm]phase [deg]amplitudephase K115.89 (0.3)296.2 (1)14.5286.7 O115.84 (0.3)284.8 (1)14.1284.5 Q13.4 (0.3)270.7 (5.5)3.1273.4 M23.4 (0.1)287.4 (1.5)3.4277.1 S22 (0.1)303.1 (2.5)2274.5 form ratio5.90---5.30---

25. Data analysis – tides from Wxtide32 Embedded tidal software Wxtide32  Uses open data only  Almost Worlwide Provided time series for all open boundaries Panama City Beach NOAA prediction dataTide and current software amplitude [cm]Phase [deg]amplitude [cm]Phase [deg] K114.5286.715.53 (0.1)313.9 (1) O114.1284.515.95 (0.1)302.3 (1) Q13.1273.43.5 (0.1)295 (4) M23.4277.12.3 (0.1)329.5 (1) S22274.50.7 (0.1)325.2 (3) form ratio5.30---10.50---

26. Tidal impact on speed West Pass West Bay

27. Tidal impact on salinity East Bay West Bay

28. Tidal impact on salinity at point A Two remarks:  salt propagates trough two different processes  ebb and flood tides are not equally long

29. Tidal impact -4 0 -2 -3 -2 0 Flux differences (m 3 /s) between this case and the control run This case was featured with a modified K1-coefficient amplitude (14.5cm in stead of 15.5) at West Pass.

30. Data analysis – tidal residuals Due to:  Wave setup  Storm surge Averages 7.73 cm with a 13.6 cm standard deviation

31. West PassWest Bay Residual impact -123 -104 -72 -392 -289 -177 -180 0 Flux differences (m 3 /s) between this case and the control run East Bay Surface layer Bottom layer This case was featured without residual time series

32. Errors overview Runoff fluctuation uvsalinity surfacebottomsurfacebottomsurfacebottom West Pass rme0.05 0.00 rmse0.00 0.160.15 ecv0.05 0.00 cor1.00 East Bay rme0.02 -0.02 0.04 rmse0.00 0.17 ecv0.02 -0.03 0.07 cor1.00 West Bay rme-0.05-0.040.050.040.10 rmse0.01 1.57 ecv-0.05 0.05 0.12 cor1.00 0.99

33. Errors overview no residualno wind uvsalinityuv Surf.Bott.Surf.Bott.Surf.Bott.Surf.Bott.Surf.Bott.Surf.Bott. West Pass rme0.630.600.640.600.01 0.090.040.090.050.00 rmse0.070.050.080.061.661.560.260.010.290.012.830.24 ecv1.261.301.29 0.05 4.590.204.650.230.080.01 cor0.960.950.960.950.690.670.211.000.211.00-0.050.99 East Bay rme0.430.44-0.44 0.05 0.070.03-0.07-0.040.190.06 rmse0.050.040.03 2.902.910.080.010.060.015.220.69 ecv0.660.67-0.66-0.681.56 1.170.14-1.17-0.151.980.30 cor0.950.740.750.740.34 -0.050.98-0.050.98-0.070.98 West Bay rme-0.56-0.540.560.540.160.15-0.01-0.030.010.030.100.05 rmse0.140.12 0.105.89 0.250.020.210.027.582.39 ecv-0.89-0.860.890.860.48 -1.53-0.161.530.160.590.20 cor0.610.62 0.55 -0.240.98-0.230.98-0.060.89

34. Errors overview Wind fluctuationTidal constituent fluctuation uvsalinityuv Surf.Bott.Surf.Bott.Surf.Bott.Surf.Bott.Surf.Bott.Surf.Bott. West Pass rme0.0020.0060.0020.0060.000 0.0070.0030.0070.0030.000 rmse0.0060.0050.0060.0050.0450.0420.0120.0090.0140.0100.0900.085 ecv0.1000.1100.0930.1110.001 0.2070.2050.2100.2020.0030.002 cor1.000 0.9990.998 East Bay rme0.0020.003-0.002-0.0030.008 0.0010.000-0.0010.0000.007 rmse0.0040.003 0.0020.140 0.005 0.0040.0030.1560.157 ecv0.0530.045-0.051-0.0470.057 0.069 -0.070 0.0500.051 cor0.9980.9990.9980.999 0.997 0.999 West Bay rme-0.006-0.0040.0070.0040.010 -0.002-0.0040.0020.0030.009 rmse0.0110.009 0.0080.405 0.0180.0150.0140.0131.0251.026 ecv-0.065-0.0600.0640.0600.032 -0.102-0.1000.1020.1000.082 cor0.998 0.997 0.995 0.981

35. WQMAP coupled rapid response models

36. CHEMMAP overview Use of Ethylene Glycol  Sinker  Highly soluble  Non volatile  10 tons released within 10 hours  Release at bottom Wind impact:  3% of wind speed  20˚ drift to the right Chemical database:  international references  physical properties (solubility, volatility, floatability) Chemical fate model:  Lagrangian approach  spreading, entrainment, evaporation, dispersion, dissolution, sedimentation and degradation  vertical velocity relies on Stoke’s Law  mass transported with wind field and WQMAP issued currents.

37. Release the 1 st of June – 12:00am Spill dispersion after 3 weeks

38. Release the 1 st of June – 12:00am

39. Wind effects on spill propagation No wind simulation Inversed wind simulation

40. Release time influence – stochastic model Run number for worst case scenario 50 cases from 1 st of June to 31 st of August

41. Release location influence

42. Time response delay Minimum time to exceed a threshold

43. Conclusion The hydrodynamic model:  shows the baroclinicity of St Andrew Bay system,  proved the fresh water input accuracy not to be essential,  proved the tidal residual to run the fluxes in the whole basin,  confirmed the wind influence on stratification,  allowed the salt diffusion process to be identified. The hydrochemical model:  enhanced the aforementioned conclusions,  emphasizes the importance of wind in driving pollution.

44. Future improvements and recommendations The hydrodynamic model:  Is underground seepage realistically modeled by river cells ?  Are the open boundaries correctly located ?  the smoothing process effects should be further investigated,  strong weather events impact should be evaluated. The hydrochemical model:  Should include vertical salinity distribution. Please offer OC 4212 – Tides.

45. Questions