Long Island Sound is a large macrotidal estuary. Connecticut River as the primary freshwater source enters near the sound's mouth. The summertime pathways of river water under low discharge and mild wind conditions are studied through both numerical simulations with a passive dye pulse and field surface drifter observations. Within the 19‐day modeling analysis period a third of the river dye pulse remains in the eastern sound; another third of the pulse moves up‐estuary with the near‐bottom dense inflow into the central and western sound with a spring‐neap tidal modulation; and another third leaves the sound with the near‐surface outflow toward the continental shelf through Block Island Sound. The latter pathway is confirmed by field surface drifter tracks. Three scenarios of wind forcing are tested: a WRF‐ROMS Coupled case, a NARR data forcing case, and a No‐Wind case. The results show though that the sound is tidal mixing dominated, mild winds still alter the position and strength of the estuarine exchange flow, and either enhances by the cross‐estuary winds or lateral straining. On the shelf, winds play a more important role on the fresher estuarine water distribution. The sensitivities of circulation, salinity, and numerical drifter tracks to different atmospheric forcings also are studied. The results suggest that the coupled model has better performance to simulate surface drifter tracks.

Accurately estimating the probability of storm surge occurrences is necessary for flood risk assessments. This research models Long Island Sound using a coupled coastal circulation and wave model (FVCOM-SWAVE) to hindcast the 44 highest storms between 1950–2018 and fitted Poisson-GPD distributions to modelled water levels and wave heights. Floodwater elevations and significant wave heights for 10% (1/10), 3% (1/30), 2% (1/50), and 1% (1/100) annual exceedance probabilities are provided for all Connecticut coastal towns. The results show that both water levels and their corresponding return intervals are higher along the western coast of Connecticut than the eastern coast, whereas significant wave heights increase eastward. Comparing our model results with those from the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (NACCS) shows that the mean NACCS results are higher for water levels and lower for significant wave heights for longer return periods. Likewise, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) results in large errors compared to our results in both eastern and western coastal Connecticut regions. In addition to evaluating historical risks, we also added a sea-level height offset of 0.5 m for 2050 estimates in order to examine the effect of rising sea-levels on the analysis. We find that sea-level rise reduces the return period of a 10-year storm to two years. We advise periodically updating this work as improved sea-level rise projections become available.

The Connecticut River plume is influenced by energetic ambient tides in the Long Island Sound receiving waters. The objectives of this modeling study are (a) characterizing the spatial heterogeneity of turbulent buoyancy fluxes, (b) partitioning turbulent buoyancy fluxes into bottom‐generated and interfacial shear contributions, and (c) quantifying contributions to plume‐integrated mixing within the tidal plume. The plume formed during ambient flood tides under low river discharge, spring tides, and no winds is analyzed. Turbulent buoyancy fluxes (B) and depth‐integrated B through the plume (Bd) are characterized by pronounced spatial heterogeneity. Strong mixing (Bd ∼ 10⁻⁵‐10⁻⁴ m³/s³) occurs near the mouth, in the nearfield plume turning region, over shoals, and nearshore shallow areas. Low to moderate mixing (Bd ∼ 10⁻⁸‐10⁻⁶ m³/s³) occupies half the plume. Buoyancy fluxes are first partitioned based on the depth of the shear stress minimum between plume‐generated and bottom‐generated shear maxima. Four other tested partitioning methods are based on open channel flow and stratified shear flow parameterizations. Interfacial and bottom‐generated shear contribute to different areas of intense and moderate mixing. All methods indicate a significant plume mixing role for bottom‐generated mixing, but interfacial mixing is a bigger contributor. Plume‐integrated total and interfacial mixing peak at max ambient flood and the timing of peak bottom‐generated mixing varies among partitioning methods. Two‐thirds of the mixing occurs in concentrated intense mixing areas. A parameter space with the ambient tidal Froude number and plume thickness to depth ratio as axes indicates many tidally modulated plumes are moderately to dominantly influenced by bottom‐generated tidal mixing.

This study builds on Huntley and Ryan (2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC012748) and related prior works on channels and estuaries by considering solutions for the same subtidal dynamics but with alternative integral flow constraints. Prior solutions do not have a truly two‐dimensional (2‐D) flow field, as axial changes in the axial flow are implied. Three constraint types are considered: the Constant case with spatially constant density gradients constrained with section‐integrated flow (as in prior works), Semi‐Variable case with a constant axial density gradient and laterally variable lateral density gradient constrained with depth‐integrated lateral flow, and Variable case with spatially variable density gradients in both directions constrained with depth‐integrated axial and lateral flows. The Semi‐Variable and Variable cases can produce solutions with truly 2‐D flow if the depth‐integrated lateral flow is set to zero everywhere. Differences among solutions are illustrated with idealized and realistic applications from Huntley and Ryan (2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC012748). For the idealized application, the Constant case and the Semi‐Variable case with 2‐D flow have clear differences in axial velocity and stark contrasts in lateral flow (and density gradients). For the Nares Strait application, the Variable case with observed depth‐averaged axial and lateral velocities is best able to represent the fastest observed down‐channel velocities, the weak reversed flow on one side of the channel, and the observed lateral flow structure. Overall, selecting different integral constraints on flow conspicuously changes the subtidal flow, opens up new possibilities for truly 2‐D flow solutions, and provides additional flexibility for representing observed conditions in realistic situations.