Weeki Wachee River System Recommended Minimum Flows and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

system grid is not totally orthogonal; however, there have been many applications of orthogonal grid-based models, such as the EFDC and the Princeton Ocean Model (POM), to computational grids that aren’t totally orthogonal with satisfactory results. The length of grid cell sides in the horizontal dimension ranges from about 100 – 200 feet (30.5 – 61 meters, m). In the estuarine portion of the grid, there are 3 cells across the river’s channel. The middle cell represents a central portion of the channel that is on the order of 6.6 – 9.8 feet (2 – 3 m) deep; whereas, the two lateral cells on either side represent shallow areas on the order of 3.3 feet (1 m) or less. The EFDC employs what is called a “sigma stretched grid” in the vertical dimension. This is a model grid where the top of the top layer follows the water surface and the bottom of the bottom layer follows the estuary’s bathymetry. Four sigma layers were used in the model’s application to WWRS. The period from November 1, 2003 through February 28, 2004 was used in the calibration of the numerical model. Water surface elevation, salinity and temperature data were available to drive the Gulf boundary of the grid. Water discharge and temperature of the Weeki Wachee Spring were specified at the head of the river. In addition, a constant discharge of 45 cfs and a constant temperature of 73.4 ºF (23 ºC) were specified at Mud Spring. Although salinity at Mud Spring can often be quite high (e.g., 20 parts per thousand salt, ppt, or about 57% seawater salinity), there is no discussion in the ATM report about an assumed or measured salinity boundary condition at Mud Spring. If the modelers assumed that artesian groundwater discharges from Mud Spring were fresh, then this could be a serious error. Interior data for comparison with model results were available at 3 stations. Water surface elevation, salinity, and temperature were available at Station No. 02310551 (river kilometer 2.3 = R km 2.3). At Stations Nos. 02310545 (R km 3.6) and 02310530 (R km 7.3) only water surface elevations were available. In the ATM report, Figure 3.12 clearly shows that the tide is essentially damped out at Station No. 02310530, 4.5 miles (7.3 km) above the river’s mouth, which is expected from the river’s slope over the distance inland from the Gulf of Mexico. Figures 4.11 and 4.12 in the ATM report show the comparison of computed water elevations with the observed data at R km 3.6 and R km 2.3, respectively. Although it is difficult to see the 18
comparison very well in these plots because of the compressed time scale, the comparison does not appear to be very good. In addition, the ATM report states, without explanation, that at R km 7.3 (Station No. 02310530) the model still computes a strong tide, although the tide at this point should be essentially damped out. Figure 3-2 in the ATM report shows the bottom elevation along the river, while Figures 3.10 and 3.12 show observed water surface elevations. These graphs reveal a rather strong slope in the water surface from R km 2.3 to 7.3. This slope is on the order of 3 – 4 m (9.8 – 13.1 ft) over a distance of 5 km (3.1 miles). This significant slope in the water surface probably results in the observation that the tide is mostly dampened at Station No. 02310530 (R km 7.3). Unfortunately, the discordant bathymetries shown in Figures 3-2 and 4-2 of the ATM report suggest by comparison that the impact of this slope is not included in the EFDC model, another potentially serious error. EFDC was developed for application in estuarine and coastal areas. In those areas, when starting the model “cold,” the water surface is assumed to be flat. If the model’s application to the WWRS was set up to have a flat water surface as the initial condition, then the riverine portion will not behave correctly. The ATM report does not show a plot of the water surface elevation at the head of the river, but the Panel suspects that the model functions such that the tide propagates all the way up the river and, thus, the model’s calibration for water surface elevation is questionable. ATM report Figures 4.13a and 4.13b show comparisons of computed and observed salinities at R km 2.3 (Station No. 02310551). At this point close to the Gulf, the salinity is characteristically “spiky” as saline Gulf water moves in on flood tides and then moves out on the ebb each day. The time series plots indicate that the comparison of observed and predicted salinities is not very good in a dynamic sense, with the model under-predicting salinity levels at a point fairly close to the mouth of the river and the influence of the Gulf. The Panel believes that at least some of this problem with salinity simulation may be due to the numerical grid and the Mud Spring boundary condition. 19
Page 1:
Weeki Wachee River System Recommend
Page 4 and 5:
Conversion Table Metric to U.S. Cus
Page 6 and 7:
5.2 FISH ..........................
Page 8 and 9:
Figure 3-2 Location of Bathymetric
Page 10 and 11:
LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Rule-of-Th
Page 12 and 13:
Table 8-1 Summary of Weeki Wachee M
Page 14 and 15:
Executive Summary Minimum Flows and
Page 16 and 17:
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE & BACKGROUND OF
Page 18 and 19:
1) flood flows that determine the b
Page 20 and 21:
the area." What constitutes "signif
Page 22 and 23:
Table 1-1 Rule-of-Thumb Estimates f
Page 24 and 25:
this report identifies specific res
Page 26 and 27:
1.6 Content of Remaining Chapters I
Page 28 and 29:
CHAPTER 2 - WATERSHED CHARACTERISTI
Page 30 and 31:
# # # circular vent 1.8 meters in d
Page 32 and 33:
Figure 2-5 1970s Aerial with 1999 U
Page 34 and 35:
is a variation of the Seminole word
Page 36 and 37:
Figure 2-6 Hurricane Tracks near Ba
Page 38 and 39:
varied by period. The variation was
Page 40 and 41:
2.3.2 Baseline Period Figure 2-10 i
Page 42 and 43:
found (ktau p=0.06) between total g
Page 44 and 45:
similarly across the springsheds ex
Page 46 and 47:
Figure 2-15 Wavelet Filtered Discha
Page 48 and 49:
Figure 2-16 INTB Groundwater Model
Page 50 and 51:
2.6 Seasonal Blocks As described in
Page 52 and 53:
Table 2-6 Median (cfs) Flow by Bloc
Page 54 and 55:
# # # Surface waters in this stretc
Page 56 and 57:
3.1.3 Segmentation Segmentation was
Page 58 and 59:
Figure 3-5 Dominant SAV and Median
Page 60 and 61:
Figure 3-6 Sediment Characteristics
Page 62 and 63:
Figure 3-7 Shoreline / Buffer Veget
Page 64 and 65:
CHAPTER 4 - TIDE, SALINITY & WATER
Page 66 and 67:
Two additional harmonic pairs were
Page 68 and 69:
Figure 4-5. Median Bottom Salinity
Page 70 and 71:
Figure 4-7 Salinity Range (1984-200
Page 72 and 73:
uncovering in response to strong wi
Page 74 and 75:
E) Salinity = β o + β 1 *Flow 2 +
Page 76 and 77:
Additional exploratory attempts usi
Page 78 and 79:
86 = 186 cfs, SWFWMD 1994-96 = 167
Page 80 and 81:
A regression of the form below was
Page 82 and 83:
Table 4-8 Median Water Quality of W
Page 84 and 85:
Figure 4-10 Nitrate Concentration a
Page 86 and 87:
CHAPTER 5 - BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIST
Page 88 and 89:
Figure 5-1 Principal Component Anal
Page 90 and 91:
measured volume sampled which was t
Page 92 and 93:
5.2.2 Relation to inflow Response t
Page 94 and 95:
Table 5-7 Location Response (km u )
Page 96 and 97:
Table 5-9 Abundance Response to Inf
Page 98 and 99:
animals can survive chronic exposur
Page 100 and 101:
Figure 5-3 Number of Aerial Manatee
Page 102 and 103:
Figure 5-5(a) Molluscan Presence /
Page 104 and 105:
Table 5-11 Rank Order of Mollusc Ab
Page 106 and 107:
Figure 5-5 Polymesoda caroliniana A
Page 108 and 109:
Figure 6-1 Plankton Tow Flows Compa
Page 110 and 111:
In application, a baseline area and
Page 112 and 113:
6.1.4 Benthos Protection for benthi
Page 114 and 115:
Figure 6-3. Location of the Three P
Page 116 and 117:
7.2 Manatee Approach Establishing a
Page 118 and 119:
Figure 7-2 Joint Probability of Occ
Page 120 and 121:
Figure 7-3 Maximum Day Manatee Usag
Page 122 and 123:
Figure 7- 6 Example Calculations fo
Page 124 and 125:
Figure 7- 7 Estimation of Flow Redu
Page 126 and 127:
Figure 7-8. Summary Results for the
Page 128 and 129:
The reductions in flow that meet th
Page 130 and 131:
probably accounts in part for the d
Page 132 and 133:
Postel, S. and B.Richter. 2003. Riv
Page 134 and 135:
Stanford, J.A., J.V.Ward, W.J. Liss
Page 136 and 137:
Culter, J.K. 1986. Water Chemistry.
Page 138 and 139:
CHAPTER 10 - APPENDICES 10.1 Append
Page 140 and 141:
The wavelet used is the symmlets wa
Page 142 and 143:
explains, the energy plot shows the
Page 144 and 145:
0 if no significant withdrawal Z =
Page 146 and 147:
One advantage of using this regress
Page 148 and 149:
Technical Memorandum January 22, 20
Page 150 and 151:
Lecanto 1 & 2 #S Well Site Descript
Page 152 and 153: Figure 4. HSPF subbasins in the INT
Page 154 and 155: Most of the limestone mines located
Page 156 and 157: 3.1.3 Septic Tank Recharge in the S
Page 158 and 159: Figure 10. Groundwater grid in the
Page 160 and 161: Basso, R.J., 2004, Hydrogeologic Se
Page 162 and 163: 10.2 Appendices - Chapter 3 Appendi
Page 164 and 165: 10.3 Appendices - Chapter 4 Appendi
Page 166 and 167: Appendix 4-2 Data Sources Water qua
Page 168 and 169: Appendix 4-3 Water Quality Trend Gr
Page 170 and 171: Water Quality Trend Graphics, conti
Page 180 and 181: United States Department of the Int
Page 182 and 183: October 8,2008 Florida Fish and Wil
Page 184 and 185: Martin Kelly, Ph.D. Page 3 October
Page 186 and 187: Scientific Peer Review of the Propo
Page 188 and 189: Determining a low flow need during
Page 190 and 191: Current state water policy, as expr
Page 192 and 193: Spring, Twin Dees Spring and possib
Page 194 and 195: under varying flow regimes. The fir
Page 196 and 197: Weeki Wachee Rainfall, Springflow a
Page 198 and 199: 6.0 Discharge:Precipitation (cfs/in
Page 200 and 201: Nevertheless, a major concern with
Page 204 and 205: In a hydrodynamic model study, one
Page 206 and 207: analysis was rather cursory. The Di
Page 208 and 209: (taxa) richness in the WWRS. If the
Page 210 and 211: Freshwater Habitats Approximately 1
Page 212 and 213: ERRATA and EDITORIAL COMMENTS Page
Page 214 and 215: Page Paragraph Line Comment 14 Some
Page 216 and 217: Page Paragraph Line Comment 21 The
Page 218 and 219: Page Paragraph Line Comment 26 The
Page 220 and 221: REFERENCES Alber, M. 2002. A Concep
Page 222 and 223: Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner,
Page 224 and 225: the regression equation used to pre
Page 226 and 227: and the three independent approache
Page 228 and 229: The Southwest Florida Water Managem
Page 230 and 231: the model in terms of tides, salini
Page 232 and 233: Attachment 1 - Comparison of salini
Page 234 and 235: Figure 1. Predicted drawdown (feet)
show all

Weeki Wachee River System Recommended Minimum Flows and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?