st. johns river water supply impact study by getachew belaineh ph. d., p.h. 1 brian mcgurk p.g. 1...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study
byGetachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H.1
Brian McGurk P.G.1
Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E2
Follow up Review meeting March, 2010
1 St. Johns River Water Management District2 University of Florida, (Expert assistance)
Investigation of the interaction between St Johns River and the underlying aquifers in
the Middle Basin
![Page 2: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The National Academies Follow Up Remarks
1. Show the stability of chloride concentration more explicitly and for more locations.
2. What is the criteria used to determine whether the change due to density gradient is significant or not?
3. (a) The committee is looking forward to further analysis that might rule out the need for transient
groundwater model.
(b) How is the steady state assumption considered conservative?
![Page 3: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Remark #1Factors used in evaluating the stability of chloride concentration in the aquifer
![Page 4: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
SJR Basin Location of
Hydrogeologic Cross-Section & Data Points
04/19/23 B. McGurk, GWP WSIS support
![Page 5: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Ground Water Flow System: Orlando through USJRB(figure 25 from Tibbals, 1990 {USGS Water Supply Paper 1403-E})
04/19/23 B. McGurk, GWP WSIS support
![Page 6: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Methods used to estimate chloride loading to SJR
• Data obtained from monitoring wells and chloride
concentration map produced by the District.
• GIS was used to create a raster and calculate chloride concentration for each ECF model grid.
• Chloride loading to SJR was estimated as a product of the flux calculated by ECF and chloride concentration calculated by the above method.
![Page 7: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Verification of stability of chloride concentration in the aquifer
• Data from eight monitoring in the upper and middle basins used.
• Period of record mostly 1990 - 2009
![Page 8: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Location of monitoring wells from which data was obtained for the analysis
![Page 9: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Chloride concentration in one of the monitoring wells, S-0025
![Page 10: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Chloride concentration in one of the monitoring wells, L-0032
![Page 11: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Statistical analysis resultsData mostly covers 1990-2009
Well ID
Mean Concentration
(mg/L)Variability about
mean (%)
BR-1526 1722 1.9S-0025 5235 1.6V-0083 3198 1.7L-0032 753 0.7V-0818 663 0.8S-1397 42 1.5V-0165 28 1.3L-0455 9 2.2
![Page 12: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Data showed noticeable spatial variability, but temporal variability is consistently insignificant at all the locations the test was conducted. Temporal variability about the mean ranges between
0.7 and 2.2%.
Laboratory uncertainty ± 10 – 15%. (Discussion with staffs of District Laboratory and Columbia Analytical Service, Inc. )
Tibbals (1990) documented chloride concentration in Floridan in the SJR area is temporally constant.
(U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-E)
Summary on the stability of chloride concentration in the aquifer near SJR
![Page 13: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Remark #2Factors used in evaluating the significance of the impacts resulting from potential density stratification effects
![Page 14: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Calculated effect of density stratification using monitoring wells data
(calculation procedure presented in the previous meeting)
Well ID
Well Depth
(m)
Average Concen. (mg/L)
Potentiometric surface elevation (m_NGVD29) Flux –m3 s-1
Uncorrected Corrected Uncorrected Corrected
S-0025 47 5220 2.3 2.4 0.15
0.16
V-0083 132 4047 2.0 2.3 0.08 0.10
BR-1526 91 1689 6.4 6.5 0.02 0.02
![Page 15: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Summary on salinity change due to density stratification
Salinity change due to density stratification in
Lake Harney area, which is one of the areas
with highest Cl concentration, is less than
0.012 psu (6.6 mg/L Cl).
![Page 16: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Remark #3Factors used to evaluate the difference between steady-state and transient ground water discharge and loading to
the Middle St. Johns River
![Page 17: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Since the primary purpose of the groundwater model is to provide boundary condition to the MSJR hydrodynamics and salinity model, sensitivity of the model is considered as the best indicator whether or not transient flux is needed.
Evaluation Approach
![Page 18: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Transient interflow, Q(i,t), between SJR and Floridan was estimated using the following relationship:
Q(i,t) = conductance (Hriver (i,t) - Haquifer (i,t))
Where …. Hriver (i,t) = River stage near monitoring well i at time t. Haquifer (i,t) = Aquifer head in monitoring well i at time t. conductance = Aquifer property from ECF model.
Conceptual Model of Surface & Ground Water Interaction
![Page 19: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Location of monitoring wells from which data was obtained for the calculation
![Page 20: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Comparison of surface and groundwater discharges at the southern EFDC model boundary
![Page 21: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Middle St. Johns River system was simulated with EFDC for the period of 1995 – 2005 to compare the effect of steady state and transient groundwater fluxes on water level and salinity using the following conditions:
1. Steady state groundwater flux (from ECF).I. With 155 MGD withdrawalII. Without withdrawal
2. Transient groundwater flux (estimated using data).I. With 155 MGD withdrawalII. Without withdrawal
Hydrodynamics and salinity simulations
![Page 22: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
The river response, water level and salinity, were evaluated at the following five locations in the river.
• SR46 Bridge south of Lake Harney• Lake Jesup• US17 Bridge north of Lake Monroe• SR44 Bridge near DeLand• SR40 Bridge near Astor
Model outputs
![Page 23: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Model output locations
![Page 24: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Difference between response of the river to steady state and transient fluxes without the proposed withdrawal
![Page 25: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Difference between response of the river to steady state and transient fluxes
with the proposed 155 MGD withdrawal
![Page 26: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Histogram showing water level difference between the steady state and transient fluxes
with the 155 MGD withdrawal
μ = 0.03038 cmσ. = 0.20159 cm
![Page 27: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
μ = 0.02775 cmσ. = 0.20742 cm
Histogram showing water level difference between the steady state and transient groundwater flows
without withdrawal
![Page 28: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Histogram showing bottom layer salinity difference between the steady state and transient fluxes
with the 155 MGD withdrawal
μ = 0.00000 psuσ. = 0.01440 psu
![Page 29: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
μ = 0.00000 psuσ. = 0.01440 psu
Histogram showing top layer salinity difference between the steady state and transient fluxes
without withdrawal
![Page 30: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Response of the river to the steady state & transient groundwater flow match.
• Water level: 95% of the time differences ≤ 0.489 cm• Salinity: 95 % of the time differences ≤ 0.035 psu
Steady state results capture the temporal variability adequately.
The correlation between the steady state and transient responses of the river exceeds 0.95; significant at 0.01 level.
Summary of the response of SJR to steady state and transient
groundwater flows
![Page 31: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
What makes steady state a conservative estimate?
• In three of the four wells the mean of the transient groundwater flow estimate was lower than the steady state estimate for the cells the wells are located. Well S-1397 is the exception.
![Page 32: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Conclusions
1. Chloride stability: Data showed although there exists noticeable spatial variability, temporal variability is negligible.
2. Density stratification effect: Considering the highest Cl concentration data, the correction for density gradient did not show noticeable change in the river salinity.
![Page 33: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Continued….conclusions
3. (a) Steady state/Transient Analysis: Statistical analysis of the results of EFDC model sensitivity test showed the assumption of steady state is valid for the purpose of the groundwater model.
(b) Estimation of groundwater flow under steady state assumption is not always higher than transient condition. In this study comparisons showed the steady state groundwater flow for the 1995 hydrologic condition higher than the average transient flow for the period of 1995 – 2005 at three out of four locations.
![Page 34: St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Study by Getachew Belaineh Ph. D., P.H. 1 Brian McGurk P.G. 1 Louis Motz Ph. D., P.E 2 Follow up Review meeting March,](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062407/56649d7e5503460f94a61005/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
THANK YOU