From: Lu, Silong
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 1:24 PM
To: Sawyer, Charles
Cc: Beeson, William; Schmidt, Michael F; Wagner, Richard; McClelland, Scott; Cook, Charles; Martin, W. Kirk; Bacca-Cortes, Gabriel
Subject: RE: Draft HSPF/EFDC hydrodynamic sections for Caloosahatchee

Attachments: Statistics Evaluation for TMDL.pdf
Charles,
 
I did not have enough time to make a complete of model run, but I checked the input files and the report.
 
Regarding the model input files, I found that in the aser file, the rainfall conversion factor is still WRONG. Rainfall needs to be included in the model as discussed last time.
 
Here is my comments for the EFDC model report section:
  1. In general, the figure and table numbers called out in the text do not match the actual numbers in the table captions and figure titles. A consistent method in numbering figures and tables should be used thorough the report. Please use consistent and reasonable font sizes thorough the report.
  2. A paragraph of general description of the system is needed. That should include physical characteristics of the system, such as lenght of the river, average depth of the river, depth variation, peak, low, and average freshwater inflow from upstream, drainage area, and a description of hydrodynamics of the system including salt water intrusion and stratification during the low vs high tides, low vs high freshwater inflow, dry season vs wet season, etc.
  3. Is there any decimal point in the legend shown on Figure 7 in Section 5.3? The number does not look right.
  4. In Section 5.3.1.3, Table 2 should show more than  two parameters. If it is for hydro, water elevation should be included. If it is for wq, more parameters should be listed in the table.
  5. In Section 5.3.1.5.1 (page 84), need to explain why the constant salinity of 0.25 ppt for all freshwater flows was used. Any data to support that?
  6. A map showing water surface elevation stations should be included in the report. Plots of the simulated versus measured water surface elevations are needed. Statistical tables for the stations should be provided, accordingly.
  7. Do not know if Ft. Myers wind stick plots for both 2003 and 2004 actually add any value to the product and can be used to illustrate how the wind direction, magnitude, and temperature affect the model results.
  8. The statistic table for the validation of salinity was never mentioned and discussed in the text.
  9. As mentioned in the report, the HSPF model over-predicting flow at S-79 during March through May may result in under-predicting salinity at BR31. The significant over-predicating flow during the dry season can be an issue for a TMDL development in the main stem. Is there any flow withdrawal from the upstream of the S-79 that was overlooked?
  10. Besides RMS, more statistics for water level, temperature, salinity should be included. It will be very useful to include 5, 50, and 95 percentile of the observed vs the modeled, standard deviation of both measured and observed, and correlation coefficient. For water surface elevation, harmonic analyses of the observed and simulated should be conducted to show mangnitudes and phases of M2, S2, N2, K1, and O1 components. A good reference of statistical evaluation for TMDL development is attached.