• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Figures
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Tampa Bay characterization
 Circulation and transport...
 Water quality model
 Seagrass model
 Application of the circulation...
 Calibration of the water quality...
 Calibration of the seagrass...
 Conclusion and Recommendations
 Appendix A: Numerical solution...
 Appendix B: Modeling sediment...
 Appendix C: Dissolved oxygen saturation...
 Appendix D: Light model equati...
 Appendix E: Contour plots for the...
 Appendix F: Sensitivity tests of...
 References
 Biographical sketch






Group Title: Technical report – University of Florida. Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Program ; 113
Title: Integrated modeling of the Tampa Bay estuarine system
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075485/00001
 Material Information
Title: Integrated modeling of the Tampa Bay estuarine system
Series Title: UFLCOEL-TR
Physical Description: xxii, 395 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Yassuda, Eduardo Ayres, 1963-
University of Florida -- Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Dept
Publisher: Coastal & Oceanographic Engineering Dept., University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1996
 Subjects
Subject: Water quality -- Mathematical models -- Florida -- Tampa Bay   ( lcsh )
Estuarine pollution -- Mathematical models -- Florida -- Tampa Bay   ( lcsh )
Estuarine sediments -- Florida -- Tampa Bay   ( lcsh )
Estuarine plants -- Florida -- Tampa Bay   ( lcsh )
Seagrasses -- Florida -- Tampa Bay   ( lcsh )
Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering thesis, Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1996.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 377-393).
Statement of Responsibility: by Eduardo Ayres Yassuda.
Funding: This publication is being made available as part of the report series written by the faculty, staff, and students of the Coastal and Oceanographic Program of the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00075485
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 36803763

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Acknowledgement
        Acknowledgement 1
        Acknowledgement 2
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents 1
        Table of Contents 2
        Table of Contents 3
        Table of Contents 4
    List of Figures
        List of Figures 1
        List of Figures 2
        List of Figures 3
        List of Figures 4
        List of Figures 5
        List of Figures 6
        List of Figures 7
        List of Figures 8
        List of Figures 9
    List of Tables
        List of Tables 1
        List of Tables 2
    Abstract
        Abstract 1
        Abstract 2
    Introduction
        Background
            Page 1
            Page 2
        Water quality modeling
            Page 2
            Page 3
        Integrated modeling approach for estuarine systems
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
            Page 7
        Objectives
            Page 7
    Tampa Bay characterization
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Climate
            Page 11
        Tides
            Page 12
        Salinity distribution
            Page 12
            Page 13
        Rainfall and wind
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
        Bathymetry and Freshwater Inflow
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Hillsborough River
                Page 18
                Page 19
            Alafia River
                Page 19
                Page 20
            Little Manatee River
                Page 20
                Page 21
            Manatee River and Rocky Creek
                Page 21
            Lake Tarpon Canal, Sweetwater Creek, and Non-Point sources
                Page 22
                Page 23
        Nutrients distribution and loading
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
        Sediment type and distribution
            Page 26
            Page 27
            Page 28
            Page 29
    Circulation and transport model
        Previous work
            Page 31
            Page 32
        Circulation model
            Page 33
            Page 34
            Page 35
            Page 36
            Page 37
        Sediment transport model
            Page 38
            Page 37
        Model equations in curvilinear boundary-fitted and sigma grid
            Page 38
            Page 39
        Boundary and initial conditions
            Page 40
            Page 41
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
    Water quality model
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Development of the numerical model
            Page 50
            Page 51
            Page 52
        Mathematical formulation
            Page 53
            Page 52
        Nutrient dynamics in estuarine systems
            Page 53
            Page 54
            Page 55
            Page 56
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
        Sorption and desorption reactions
            Page 63
            Page 64
        Phytoplankton dynamics in estuarine systems
            Page 64
            Page 65
            Page 66
        Oxygen balance in estuarine systems
            Page 67
            Page 66
            Page 68
            Page 69
        Light attenuation in estuarine systems
            Page 70
            Page 71
            Page 69
            Page 72
            Page 73
        Model coefficients
            Page 74
            Page 75
            Page 76
            Page 73
            Page 77
            Page 78
    Seagrass model
        Using seagrass as a bioindicator of the estuarine system
            Page 79
            Page 80
        Seagrass ecosystems
            Page 80
            Page 81
            Page 82
        Previous work
            Page 83
            Page 84
            Page 85
        Development of the numerical model
            Page 86
            Page 85
            Page 87
        Mathematical formulation
            Page 88
            Page 89
            Page 90
            Page 91
            Page 92
            Page 93
            Page 94
            Page 95
            Page 96
            Page 97
            Page 98
    Application of the circulation and transport model
        Design of Tampa Bay Grid
            Page 99
            Page 100
            Page 101
            Page 102
            Page 103
            Page 104
        Forcing mechanisms and boundary conditions
            Page 105
            Page 106
            Page 107
            Page 108
            Page 109
            Page 110
            Page 111
            Page 112
            Page 113
            Page 114
        Modeling strategy
            Page 115
        Results of the barotropic simulation
            Page 115
            Page 116
            Page 117
            Page 118
        Results of the baroclinic simulation
            Page 119
            Page 120
            Page 121
            Page 122
            Page 123
            Page 124
            Page 125
            Page 126
            Page 127
            Page 128
            Page 129
            Page 130
            Page 131
            Page 132
            Page 133
            Page 134
            Page 135
            Page 136
            Page 137
            Page 138
            Page 139
            Page 140
            Page 141
            Page 142
            Page 143
            Page 144
            Page 145
            Page 146
            Page 147
            Page 148
            Page 149
            Page 150
            Page 151
            Page 152
            Page 153
            Page 154
            Page 155
            Page 156
        Validation of the model
            Page 157
            Page 158
            Page 159
            Page 160
            Page 161
            Page 162
            Page 163
            Page 164
            Page 165
            Page 166
            Page 167
            Page 156
        Residual circulation
            Page 168
            Page 169
            Page 170
            Page 171
            Page 172
            Page 173
            Page 174
            Page 175
            Page 176
            Page 177
        Results of the suspended sediment simulation
            Page 178
            Page 179
            Page 180
            Page 181
            Page 182
            Page 183
            Page 184
            Page 177
    Calibration of the water quality model
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Initial and boundary conditions fo the water quality model
            Page 188
            Page 189
            Page 190
            Page 191
            Page 192
            Page 193
            Page 194
            Page 195
            Page 196
            Page 197
            Page 198
            Page 199
            Page 200
            Page 201
            Page 202
            Page 203
            Page 204
            Page 205
            Page 206
            Page 207
            Page 208
            Page 209
            Page 210
            Page 211
            Page 212
            Page 213
            Page 214
            Page 215
            Page 216
            Page 217
            Page 218
            Page 219
            Page 220
            Page 221
            Page 222
            Page 223
        Simulation of the Summer 1991 condition
            Page 224
            Page 225
            Page 226
            Page 227
            Page 228
            Page 229
            Page 230
            Page 231
            Page 232
            Page 233
            Page 234
            Page 235
            Page 236
            Page 237
            Page 238
            Page 239
            Page 240
            Page 241
            Page 242
            Page 243
            Page 244
            Page 245
            Page 246
            Page 247
            Page 248
            Page 249
            Page 250
            Page 251
            Page 252
            Page 253
            Page 254
            Page 255
            Page 256
            Page 257
            Page 258
            Page 259
            Page 260
            Page 261
            Page 262
            Page 263
            Page 264
            Page 265
            Page 266
            Page 267
            Page 268
            Page 269
        Load reduction simulations
            Page 270
            Page 271
            Page 269
        Comparison with AScI (1996) study
            Page 272
            Page 271
            Page 273
            Page 274
        Comparison with Coastal Inc. (1995) study
            Page 275
            Page 274
        Advantages and limitations of this integrated modeling approach
            Page 275
            Page 276
    Calibration of the seagrass model
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Initial conditions
            Page 280
            Page 281
        Sensitivity analysis
            Page 282
            Page 283
            Page 284
            Page 285
            Page 286
            Page 287
            Page 288
            Page 289
            Page 290
            Page 291
            Page 292
            Page 293
        Simulation of the Summer 1991 condition
            Page 294
            Page 295
            Page 296
        Load reduction simulation
            Page 297
            Page 296
            Page 298
            Page 299
            Page 300
            Page 301
            Page 302
    Conclusion and Recommendations
        Page 303
        Page 304
        Page 305
        Page 306
        Page 307
    Appendix A: Numerical solution of the equations
        Page 309
        Page 310
        Page 311
        Page 312
        Page 313
        Page 314
        Page 315
        Page 316
        Page 317
        Page 318
        Page 319
        Page 320
        Page 321
        Page 322
        Page 323
        Page 324
        Page 325
        Page 326
        Page 327
        Page 328
    Appendix B: Modeling sediment dynamics
        Page 329
        Page 330
        Page 331
        Page 332
        Page 333
        Page 334
        Page 335
        Page 336
        Page 337
        Page 338
    Appendix C: Dissolved oxygen saturation and reaeration equations
        Page 339
        Page 340
    Appendix D: Light model equations
        Page 341
        Page 342
    Appendix E: Contour plots for the summer of 1991 simulation
        Page 343
        Page 344
        Page 345
        Page 346
        Page 347
        Page 348
        Page 349
        Page 350
        Page 351
        Page 352
        Page 353
        Page 354
        Page 355
        Page 356
        Page 357
        Page 358
        Page 359
        Page 360
        Page 361
        Page 362
    Appendix F: Sensitivity tests of the seagrass model
        Page 363
        Page 364
        Page 365
        Page 366
        Page 367
        Page 368
        Page 369
        Page 370
        Page 371
        Page 372
        Page 373
        Page 374
        Page 375
        Page 376
    References
        Page 377
        Page 378
        Page 379
        Page 380
        Page 381
        Page 382
        Page 383
        Page 384
        Page 385
        Page 386
        Page 387
        Page 388
        Page 389
        Page 390
        Page 391
        Page 392
        Page 393
        Page 394
    Biographical sketch
        Page 395
Full Text




UFL/COEL-TR/113


INTEGRATED MODELING OF THE TAMPA BAY
ESTUARINE SYSTEM







by




Eduardo Ayres Yassuda


Dissertation


1996















INTEGRATED MODELING OF THE TAMPA BAY ESTUARINE SYSTEM


By

EDUARDO AYRES YASSUDA

















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1996















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


First, I would like to express my gratitude to the CNPq Conselho Nacional de

Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnol6gico (Brazilian Research Council) for the financial

support during my graduate program at the University of Florida. Several University of

Florida research projects provided the opportunities for me to gain experience in

hydrodynamics and water quality modeling and field work. These projects include the Lake

Okeechobee Phosphorus Dynamics Study funded by the South Florida Water Management

District, the Sarasota Bay Field and Modeling Study funded by the Sarasota Bay National

Estuary Program and United States Geological Survey, the Tampa Bay Circulation Modeling

Study funded by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, the Roberts Bay Water Quality

Modeling Study funded by the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program, and the Indian River

Hydrodynamics and Water Quality Modeling Study funded by the St. Johns River Water

Management District.

My appreciation is extended to my advisor and chairman of the supervisory

committee, Prof. Peter Sheng, for his guidance, financial support, and patience throughout

this study; to Prof. A. Mehta, and Prof. R. Thieke from the Coastal Engineering Department

for their comments and advice; to Prof. K.R. Reddy from the Soil and Water Science

Department for helping us bridge the gap between experimentalists and modelers; and to

Prof. C. Montague from the Environmental Engineering and Science Department, for his









unconditional support and high motivation. Two former students deserve special

acknowledgment: Steve Peene and Xinjian Chen.

I also want to thank my professors at the Oceanographic Institute of the University

of Sao Paulo, specially Prof. Joseph Harari, Prof. Luiz B. de Miranda, and Prof. Moyses

Tessler for their invaluable contributions to my career.

It would not be possible to complete this work if not for the technical guidance and

help of the following scientists and researchers: Mr. Richard Boler, Dr. Kate Bosley, Mr.

Michael DelCharco, Dr. Kent Fanning, Dr. Peggy Fong, Ms. Holly Greening, Dr. Kurt Hess,

Mr. Ronald Miller, Dr. Gerold Morrison, and Dr. David Tomasko.

Grateful thanks goes to my buddies in room 429, H.K. Lee, Yang, Justin, Liu, and

Kevin, in our quest for "bugs," and for reviewing the manuscript. I would like to express my

gratitude to Sidney Schofield, "Professor" Mark Gosselin, and "Wally" Yigong Li for bailing

me out in a great number of opportunities throughout this program. Life would not be the

same without the Coastal Lab and its staff. Acknowledgment goes to all of them. Deserving

special honors also are Subarna Malakar, Becky Hudson, Sandra Bivins, Lucy Hamm, Helen

Twedell, and John Davis.

My most sincere appreciation is extended to the DelCharco family, for adopting and

taking us as one of their own during all family occasions.

I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my parents, because only now, as Daniel's

father, do I realize how much effort they had to spend educating me.

Finally, I want to thank Monica for being there for me all the time, sharing the ups

and downs of this never-ending challenge.













TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................... iii

ABSTRACT .................................... .................... xxi

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1

B background ....................................................... 1
Water Quality Modeling ..............................................2
Integrated Modeling Approach for Estuarine Systems ...................... 4
O objectives ........................................................7

2 TAMPA BAY CHARACTERIZATION ................................9

Climate ......................................................... 11
Tides ....................................................... 12
Salinity D distribution ............................................... 12
Rainfall ......................................................... 13
W ind ............. ....................... ..................... 13
B athym etry ...................................................... 16
Freshw ater Inflow .................................................16
Hillsborough River .......................................... 18
Alafia River ................................................... 19
Little Manatee River ........................................... 20
M anatee River ................................................. 21
Rocky Creek ................................................. 21
Lake Tarpon Canal ............................................ 22
Sweetwater Creek ............................................. 22
Non-Point Sources ............................................. 22
Nutrients Distribution and Loading ................ .................. 23
Sediment Type and Distribution ..................................... 26

3 THE CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORT MODEL ..................... 31

Previous W ork ................................................ 31
Circulation Model ................................................ 33
Continuity Equation ............................................ 33










X-component of Momentum Equation .............................. 34
Y-component of Momentum Equation ............................. 34
Hydrostatic Pressure Relation .................................... 34
Salinity Equation .............................................. 35
Equation of State ......................... ...................... 36
Conservative Species Equation .................................. 36
Sediment Transport Model ......................................... 37
Curvilinear Boundary-Fitted and Sigma Grid ............................ 38
Boundary and Initial Conditions ..................................... 40
Vertical Boundary Conditions .................................... 40
Lateral Boundary Conditions ..................................... 42

4 THE WATER QUALITY MODEL ................................. 45

Previous Work ................................................... 45
Development of the Numerical Model ................................. 50
Mathematical Formulation ......................................... 52
Nutrient Dynamics in Estuarine Systems .............................. 53
Ammonia Nitrogen ............................................ 55
Dissolved Ammonium Nitrogen ................................. 56
Nitrite+Nitrate Nitrogen ........................................ 58
Soluble Organic Nitrogen ....................................... 60
Particulate Organic Nitrogen ..................................... 61
Particulate Inorganic Nitrogen .................................... 61
Algal Nitrogen ................................................ 62
Zooplankton Nitrogen .......................................... 62
Sorption and Desorption Reactions .................................. 63
Phytoplankton Dynamics in Estuarine Systems .......................... 64
Oxygen Balance in Estuarine Systems ................................ 66
Light Attenuation in Estuarine Systems ................................ 69
Model Coefficients ............................................... 73

5 THE SEAGRASS MODEL ......................................... 79

Using Seagrass as a Bioindicator of the Estuarine System .................. 79
Seagrass Ecosystems .............................................. 80
Previous Work ................................................... 83
Development of the Numerical Model ............................... 85
Mathematical Formulation ......................................... 88
Light ....................................................... 88
Temperature .................................................. 89
Density-dependent Growth Rate ............... ................. 89
Growth Rate Dependence on Light ............................... 91









Growth Rate Dependence on Salinity ............................. 93
Growth Rate Dependence on Temperature ........................... 96
Growth Rate Dependence on Sediment Nutrients ...................... 98

6 APPLICATION OF THE CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORT MODEL ..... 99

Design ofTampa Bay Grid ......................................... 99
Forcing Mechanisms and Boundary Conditions ......................... 105
Modeling Strategy ............................................... 115
Results of the Barotropic Simulation ................................ 115
Results of the Baroclinic Simulation ..................................... 119
Tides ................................................... 121
Currents ................................................. 128
Salinity ... ................................................. 148
Validation of the Model ................ ......................... 156
Residual Circulation ............................................. 168
Results of the Suspended Sediment Simulation ......................... 177

7 CALIBRATION OF THE WATER QUALITY MODEL ................. 185

Initial and Boundary Conditions of the Water Quality Model .............. 188
Water Column ............................................... 188
Sediment Column ............................................ 201
Modeling Strategy ............................................ 212
Sensitivity Analysis ............................................ 212
Simulation of the Summer 1991 Condition ............................. 224
Dissolved Oxygen ............................................ 225
Phytoplankton ............................................. 238
Nitrogen Species ............................................. 250
Tidal Exchange ...............................................261
Nutrient Budget .............................................. 265
Load Reduction Simulations ......................................... 269
Comparison with AScI (1996) study ................ ................ 271
Comparison with Coastal Inc. (1995) study ............................ 274
Advantages and Limitations of this Integrated Modeling Approach .......... 275

8 CALIBRATION OF THE SEAGRASS MODEL ...................... 277

Initial Conditions ................................................ 280
Sensitivity Analysis .............................................. 282
Simulation of the Summer 1991 Condition ........................... 294
Load Reduction Simulation ......................................... 296










9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 303

APPENDICES

A NUMERICAL SOLUTION OF THE EQUATIONS .................... 309

B MODELING SEDIMENT DYNAMICS .................... .......... 329

C DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION AND REAERATION
EQUATIONS .................................................. 339

D LIGHT MODEL EQUATIONS ................................... 341

E RESULTS OF THE SUMMER 1991 SIMULATION .................... 343

F SENSITIVITY TESTS OF THE SEAGRASS MODEL ................... 363

REFERENCES ..................................................... 377

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................ 395













LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2.1 Tampa Bay Estuarine System subdivisions as defined by
Lewis and Whitman (1985) (from Wolfe and Drew, 1990)................ 10

2.2 Monthly rainfall in Tampa Bay (Wooten, 1985). ........................ 14

2.3 Seasonal wind pattern in Florida (Echternacht, 1975) .................... 15

2.4 Tampa Bay watershed (Wolfe and Drew, 1990). ....................... 17

2.5 Surface Sediments in Tampa Bay (Goodell and Gorsline, 1961). .......... 28

2.6 Mud zone in Hillsborough Bay (Johansson and Squires, 1989). ........... 29

5.1 Seagrass species commonly found in west Florida
(from Phillips and Mefiez, 1987) .................................. 82

5.2 Structure and components of the numerical seagrass
model used for this study. ....................................... 86

5.3 Epiphytic algae model flow chart. ................................. 87

5.4 Seagrass model flow chart. ....................................... 87

5.5 Seagrass density-dependent maximum growth rate:
Thalassia (dotted line), Halodule (solid line),
and Syringodium (dash-dotted line). .............................. 90

5.6 Seagrass growth rate dependence on light: Thalassia (dotted line),
Halodule (solid line), and Syringodium (dash-dotted line). ............... 92

5.7 Seagrass growth rate dependence on salinity: Thalassia (dotted line),
Halodule (solid line), and Syringodium (dash-dotted line). ............... 95

5.8 Seagrass growth rate dependence on temperature: Thalassia (dotted line),
Halodule (solid line), and Syringodium (dash-dotted line). ............... 97









6.1 NOAA's TOP station locations in Tampa Bay. ....................... 101

6.2 A boundary-fitted grid for the Tampa Bay Estuarine System. ............. 102

6.3 Tampa Bay bathymetric contours. ................. .............. 103

6.4 Bay segments (Sheng and Yassuda, 1995)............................. 104

6.5 Tidal forcing for the 1990 simulation .......................... .. .106

6.6 Tidal forcing for the 1991 simulation. .............................. 107

6.7 Initial salinity distribution (surface) for the 1990 simulation. ............. 108

6.8 Initial salinity distribution (surface) for the 1991 simulation. ............ 109

6.9 Rainfall data for the 1990 and 1991 simulations ....................... 111

6.10 River discharges for the 1990 and 1991 simulations ................... 112

6.11 Wind velocity for the 1990 simulation. ............................. 113

6.12 Wind velocity for the 1991 simulation. ............................ 114

6.13 Surface elevation at Egmont Key and St.Petersburg
(September 1990)............................................... 117

6.14 Surface elevation at Davis Island and Old Tampa Bay
(September 1990)............................................... 118

6.15 Spectra of water surface elevation for the 1990 simulation ............. 123

6.16 Simulated and measured bottom velocity at Egmont Channel -
September/1990. .............................................. 130

6.17 Simulated and measured surface velocity at Egmont Channel -
September/1990. .............................................. 131

6.18 Simulated and measured bottom velocity at Skyway Bridge -
September/1990. ................. ............................ 133

6.19 Simulated and measured mid-depth velocity at Skyway Bridge -
September/1990. .............................................. 134










6.20 Simulated and measured surface velocity at Skyway Bridge -
September/1990 ............................................135

6.21 Simulated and measured bottom velocity at Port of Manatee Channel -
September/1990. .............................................. 137

6.22 Simulated and measured surface velocity at Port of Manatee Channel -
September/1990. .............................................. 138

6.23 Simulated and measured bottom velocity at Port of Tampa Channel -
September/1990 ............................................ 139

6.24 Simulated and measured bottom velocity at Port of Tampa Channel -
September/1990. ........................................... .141

6.25 Energy density spectra of bottom currents at Skyway Bridge -
September/1990. ............................................... 144

6.26 Energy density spectra of surface currents at Skyway Bridge -
September/1990. .............................................. 145

6.27 Tidal current ellipses for the semi-diurnal components September/1990. 149

6.28 Tidal current ellipses for the diurnal components September/1990. ...... 150

6.29 Near-bottom salinity (solid line) and temperature (dashed line) at NOAA
station S-4 starting at Julian Day 150 in 1990. ...................... 151

6.30 Simulated and measured near-bottom salinity at NOAA
station C-21 September/1990 .................................153

6.31 Simulated and measured near-bottom salinity at C-23 -
September/1990 ............... ............................ 154

6.32 Simulated and measured near-bottom salinity at C-4 -
September/1990. .............................................. 155

6.33 Surface elevation at St.Petersburg and Davis Island -
"Marco" Storm October/1990. .................................157

6.34 Surface elevation at St.Petersburg and Davis Island July/1991........... 158










6.35 Simulated and measured bottom current at Skyway Bridge -
"Marco" Storm (October/1990) ....................................161

6.36 Simulated and measured surface current at Skyway Bridge -
"Marco" Storm (October/1990) ................................... 162

6.37 Simulated and measured near-bottom salinity at station S-4 -
(July/1991). .................................................. 163

6.38 Simulated and measured near-surface salinity at station S-4 -
(July/1991). ...................................................164

6.39 Relative flushing for several bay segments September/1990 ........... 167

6.40 Residual circulation after 30 days September/1990 .................. 169

6.41 Simulated velocity field representing maximum ebb currents -
September/29/1990 18:00. ..................................... 171

6.42 Simulated velocity field representing maximum flood currents -
September/29/1990 10:00. ..................................... 172

6.43 Velocity cross-section at Skyway Bridge looking up the Bay. Vertical
scale in meters, and horizontal scale in computational grid j-index ....... 174

6.44 Salinity cross-section at Skyway Bridge looking up the Bay. Vertical
scale in meters, and horizontal scale in computational grid j-index ........ 175

6.45 Longitudinal distribution of salinity along the navigation channel. Vertical
scale in meters, and horizontal scale in computational grid i-index. ....... 176

6.46 Location of the USGS station in Old Tampa Bay
(Schoellhammer, 1993). ........................................ 180

6.47 Wind speed and direction, and suspended sediment concentration at
USGS station during tropical storm "Marco" (Schoellhammer, 1993). ..... 181

6.48 Simulated significant wave height and period during tropical storm
"Marco" (October/1990). .......................................182

6.49 Simulated wave-induced bottom shear stress and suspended sediment
concentration at the USGS station for October 10 and 11, 1990. ......... 183









6.50 Simulated suspended sediment concentration at 6:00am -
October 11, 1990............................................... 184

7.1 Water quality monitoring stations of the Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) (Boler, 1992). ............ 189

7.2 Measured near-bottom dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/L) in
Tampa Bay (June 1991) ......................................... 190

7.3 Measured near-surface dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/L) in
Tampa Bay (June 1991). ........................................ 191

7.4 Measured organic nitrogen concentration (mg/L) in
TampaBay (June 1991) ........................................ 192

7.5 Measured dissolved ammonium-nitrogen concentration (mg/L) in
Tampa Bay (June 1991) ........................................ 193

7.6 Measured nitrite+nitrate concentration (mg/L) in
Tampa Bay (June 1991). ........................................ 194

7.7 Measured chlorophyll-a concentration (pg/L) in
Tampa Bay (June 1991). ......................................... 195

7.8 Measured color (Pt-Co) in Tampa Bay (June 1991). .................. 196

7.9 Measured turbidity (NTU) in Tampa Bay (June 1991). ................. 197

7.10 Water quality zones in Tampa Bay used in the model simulations of the
summer of 1991 conditions ..................................... 200

7.11 Total organic nitrogen (dry weight %) in the surface sediments of
Tampa Bay during 1963 (Taylor and Saloman, 1969) .................. 204

7.12 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (dry weight %) in Tampa Bay sediments,
1982-86 (Brooks and Doyle, 1992) ................................ 205

7.13 Sedimentary nitrogen (dry weight %) in Hillsborough Bay
in 1986 (COT, 1988). .......................................... 206

7.14 Location of the NOAA sediment sampling stations in 1991 (phase 1) and
1992 (phase 2) (NOAA, 1994)..................................... 207










7.15 Total sediment nitrogen (dry weight %) obtained from NOAA
(1994) data. .................. ................................208

7.16 Dry density profile for water quality zone 1 in Tampa Bay
(Sheng et al., 1993). ................ ......................... 209

7.17 Water quality parameters after 30 days for a simulation using the lower
limit of the mineralization constant rate. ............................ 221

7.18 Water quality parameters after 30 days for a simulation using the higher
limit of the mineralization constant rate. ............................ 222

7.19 Near-bottom dissolved oxygen levels after 30 days for the mineralization
constant rate tests. ............................................. 223

7.20 Near-bottom dissolved oxygen concentration in Tampa Bay for
June 26, after 30 days of simulation. ............................. 226

7.21 Near-bottom dissolved oxygen concentration in Tampa Bay for
July 26, after 60 days of simulation. ............................. 227

7.22 Near-bottom dissolved oxygen concentration in Tampa Bay for
August 25, after 90 days of simulation. ............................ 228

7.23 Near-bottom dissolved oxygen concentration in Tampa Bay for
September 24, after 120 days of simulation ........................... 229

7.24 Model results for segment-averaged near-bottom DO (solid line),
segment maximum and minimum (dashed line), and the EPC
data inside Hillsborough Bay. ................................... 231

7.25 Model results for segment-averaged near-bottom DO (solid line),
segment maximum and minimum (dashed line), and the EPC
data inside Old Tampa Bay .................................... 232

7.26 Model results and measured data for near-bottom DO at
EPC stations 70 and 8. ......................................... 233

7.27 Model results and measured data for near-bottom DO at
EPC stations 73 and 80. ............... ........................ 234









7.28 Model results for segment-averaged near-bottom DO (solid line),
segment maximum and minimum (dashed line), and the EPC
data inside Middle Tampa Bay. .................................. 236

7.29 Model results for segment-averaged near-bottom DO (solid line),
segment maximum and minimum (dashed line), and the EPC
data inside Lower Tampa Bay .................................... 237

7.30 Near-surface chlorophyll-a concentration in Tampa Bay for
June 26, after 30 days .......................................... 240

7.31 Near-surface chlorophyll-a concentration in Tampa Bay for
July 26, after 60 days .... .............. ........................ 241

7.32 Near-surface chlorophyll-a concentration in Tampa Bay for
August 25, after 90 day ......................................... 242

7.33 Near-surface chlorophyll-a concentration in Tampa Bay for
September 24, after 120 ...................................... 243

7.34 Model results for segment-averaged near-surface chlorophyll-a (solid line)
and the EPC data inside Hillsborough Bay. .......................... 245

7.35 Model results for segment-averaged near-surface chlorophyll-a (solid line)
and the EPC data inside Old Tampa Bay ........................... 246

7.36 Model results for segment-averaged near-surface chlorophyll-a (solid line)
and the EPC data inside Middle Tampa Bay ......................... 248

7.37 Model results for segment-averaged near-surface chlorophyll-a (solid line)
and the EPC data inside Lower Tampa Bay.......................... 249

7.38 Near-surface Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration in Tampa Bay for
June 26, after 30 days of simulation ............................... 251

7.39 Near-surface Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration in Tampa Bay for
July 26, after 60 days of simulation .............................. 252

7.40 Near-surface Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration in Tampa Bay for
August 25, after 90 days of simulation ............................ 253

7.41 Near-surface Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration in Tampa Bay for
September 24, after 120 days of simulation .......................... 254











7.42 Model results for near-bottom segment-averaged Kjeldahl nitrogen
(solid line) and the EPC data inside Hillsborough Bay.................. 256

7.43 Model results for near-bottom segment-averaged Kjeldahl nitrogen
(solid line) and the EPC data inside Old Tampa Bay. ................. 257

7.44 Model results for near-bottom segment-averaged Kjeldahl nitrogen
(solid line) and the EPC data inside Middle Tampa Bay. ............... 258

7.45 Model results for near-bottom segment-averaged Kjeldahl nitrogen
(solid line) and the EPC data inside Lower Tampa Bay ................ 259

7.46 Measured and simulated transport across the mouth of Hillsborough Bay,
along with the Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration (mean and standard
deviation) presented by Rines (1991). ........................... 263

7.47 Measured and simulated transport across the entrance of Tampa Bay,
along with the Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration (mean and standard
deviation) presented by Rines (1991). ......................... . 264

7.48 Simulated nitrogen cycle for the summer of 1991 conditions:
(a) Loading, (b) biogeochemical processes in the water column,
(c) biogeochemical processes in the sediment column. ................. 268

7.49 Near-bottom dissolved oxygen concentration in Tampa Bay, after
60 days of the load reduction simulation. ........................... 272

7.50 Near-surface chlorophyll-a concentration in Tampa Bay, after
60 days of the load reduction simulation. .......................... 273

8.1 Extent of seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay. (a) corresponding to 1943,
and (b) to 1983 (Lewis etal., 1985). .............................. 278

8.2 Initial seagrass distribution in the computational grid. Dark areas indicate
seagrass meadows (100 gdw/m2). ................................ 281

8.3 Simulated seagrass biomass in Tampa Bay. .......................... 283

8.4 Growth rate dependence on temperature ........................... 285

8.5 Growth rate dependence on light. ................................. 286









8.6 Growth rate dependence on salinity................................ 287

8.7 Growth rate dependence on sediment nutrient concentration. ............. 288

8.8 Simulated seasonal distribution of Thalassia. ........................ 290

8.9 Simulated Thalassia biomass in Tampa Bay for July 26,
after 60 days of simulation....................................... 297

8.10 Simulated Halodule biomass in Tampa Bay for July 26,
after 60 days of simulation....................................... 298

8.11 Simulated Syringodium biomass in Tampa Bay for July 26,
after 60 days of simulation...................... ................. 299

8.12 Near-bottom light levels in Tampa Bay for July 26,
after 60 days of simulation........................................ 300

8.13 Comparison between simulated light levels for the Present Condition
simulation (solid line) and the 100% Load Reduction (dashed line) ....... 301


xvii













LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2.1 Area of the subdivisions in Tampa Bay (Lewis and Whitman, 1985).......... 11

2.2 Surface water discharges to Tampa Bay (Lewis and Estevez, 1985). ........ 18

2.3 1991 annual average water quality of eight point sources discharging
into Tampa Bay (Boler, 1992) and (USGS, 1991) (mg/L). ............... 23

2.4 Mean annual total nitrogen loading into each segment of Tampa Bay
(Coastal, 1994) ................................................26

4.1 Description of the coefficients used in the water quality model ............ 74

4.2 Literature ranges and values of the coefficients used in the water
quality model. ................................................... 75

6.1 The rms error (Erms) between measured and simulated
water surface elevation September/90 ............................. 121

6.2 The distribution of tidal energy for water surface elevation -
September 1990. ............................................... 124

6.3 Major tidal constituents in Tampa Bay September/1990. ............... 127

6.4 The rms error between measured and simulated bottom (b) and
surface (s) currents September/1990 .............................. 142

6.5 The distribution of tidal energy for bottom (b) and surface (s) currents -
September 1990................................................. 146

6.6 The rms error between measured and simulated salinity -
September 1990................................................. 156

6.7 The rms error between measured and simulated water surface elevation
October/1990 and July/91. ........................................ 159


xviii









6.8 The rms error between measured and simulated bottom (b) and
surface (s) currents "Marco" Storm. .............................. 160

6.9 The rms error between measured and simulated salinity July/1991. ....... 165

7.1 Estimated total suspended solids concentration (TSS), and calculated
water column partition coefficients for particulate organic nitrogen
(pcon) and adsorbed ammonium (pcan). ............................ 201

7.2 Estimated dry density for the sandy zones of Tampa Bay ................ 210

7.3 Initial nitrogen concentration in the sediment (Ae) aerobic layer, and
(An) anaerobic layer for each water quality zone. (SON) soluble organic
nitrogen, (NH4) dissolved ammonium nitrogen, (N03) nitrite+nitrate. ..... 211

7.4 Model coefficients in the (W) water column, (Ae) aerobic layer, and
(An) anaerobic layer for each water quality zone. ...................... 211

7.5 Parameters, baseline values, and range used in the sensitivity analysis. ..... 214

7.6 Sensitivity tests description. ............ ........................... 215

7.7 Sensitivity analysis results............. ...... ..................... 217

7.8 Nitrogen budget between July 1 and August 31, 1991. .................. 267

8.1 Sensitivity tests description....................................... 291

8.2 Simulated and reported seagrass biomass in the Tampa Bay area. ......... 294















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

INTEGRATED MODELING OF THE TAMPA BAY ESTUARINE SYSTEM

By

Eduardo Ayres Yassuda

December 1996

Chairperson: Dr. Y. Peter Sheng
Major Department: Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering

Integrated modeling of the Tampa Bay Estuarine System is conducted in an attempt

to further the understanding of estuaries as integrated systems, and to provide quantitative

assessment of various management practices. The primary objective is to use models and

field data to produce a detailed characterization of the hydrodynamics and water quality

dynamics within the system. To test the hypothesis that seagrass is a bioindicator of the

overall health state of the estuarine system, a conceptual seagrass model is coupled to the

hydrodynamics and water quality models. The integrated model is then used to study the

effect of anthropogenic inputs to the estuarine system.

This study combines the enhanced versions of a 3-D hydrodynamics model (Sheng,

1989), a 3-D water quality model (Chen and Sheng, 1994), and a seagrass model (Fong and

Harwell, 1994) to simulate the circulation, transport, water quality, and seagrass dynamics

in Tampa Bay. The hydrodynamics component of this integrated model has been

successfully calibrated and verified using Tampa Bay data provided by the National Oceanic

xxi









and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS).

The effects of hydrodynamics have been incorporated into the water quality model by using

the same grid spacing and time step, hence eliminating the need for ad-hoc tuning of

advective fluxes and dispersion coefficients. The water quality component has been tested

using monthly water quality data provided by the Hillsborough County Environmental

Protection Commission (EPC), although a more comprehensive data set is needed to fully

validate the water quality model. Results of previous statistical and mass-balance models

were used to determine the relevant biogeochemical processes, and to test causal

relationships among state variables. These simple models also proved to be useful tools for

calibration of the water quality model coefficients in the absence of process-specific data

(e.g., remineralization, nitrification, denitrification). Incident-light data provided by USGS

allowed the calibration of a light model of the MacPherson and Miller (1994) type. The

seagrass model has been used to investigate the ecological relationships between nutrient

loading, water quality dynamics, and the response of seagrass.

Once validated, this integrated model can be used to determine nutrient loading

reduction targets required to maintain and expand seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay.

Simulated load reduction scenarios indicate that water quality can respond quickly (within

2 months), while seagrass responds more slowly (more than 6 months) to load reduction.

Nevertheless, the results indicate that integrated modeling is a viable approach to provide

quantitative assessment of various management practices for restoring estuarine systems.


xxii














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION



Background



Historically, an estuary has been defined as "a semi-enclosed coastal body of water

which has a free connection with the open sea and within which the sea water is measurably

diluted with fresh water derived from continental drainage" (Cameron and Pritchard, 1963 -

p. 306). In order to assess environmental problems along the entire coastal zone, the

classical definition of estuary was revised by the National Research Council (1977) to

include not only the estuary from the classical definition, but also all coastal environments

characterized as transitional zones. Following this new definition, an estuarine system

comprises bays, coastal lagoons, inlets, deltas, and salt marshes; all affected by different tidal

regimes and freshwater discharges.

In an estuarine system, the region characterized by accentuated gradients of some

specific properties is defined as the mixing zone (Harleman, 1971). It is usually located

between two stable zones, the freshwater and the oceanic ecosystems, wherein these

properties are treated as "reservoirs," with relative slower temporal variations.

Salinity is the primary physical property that presents a markedly longitudinal

gradient. Upstream from the tidal portion of the river, salinity is usually constant and nearly









2

equal to zero. In the coastal zone beyond the region of freshwater influence, salinity is equal

to the "oceanic reservoir" condition.

In a cross-section, the mixing zone reveals important vertical gradients. The most

evident is the intertidal zone, which is periodically flooded and exposed. In the intertidal

zone, there may be salt marshes, mangroves, beaches, and oyster banks. To overcome the

stresses originated by flood and dry conditions, organisms living in this zone have developed

special adaptations. Human presence is visible through structures like seawalls, piers, and

harbors.

According to Day et al. (1989), a second important vertical gradient is light

attenuation, going from a lighted, euphotic zone to a light depleted, aphotic zone. Where the

euphotic zone reaches the bottom, submerged aquatic vegetation like seagrasses is able to

thrive. Usually, water clarity also increases towards the ocean side. Another extremely

important gradient for biogeochemical processes is the redox potential in the sediment layer,

ranging from oxidized to reduced conditions. In a healthy estuarine system, the water

column is usually aerobic, but the bottom sediments become anaerobic in a very short

distance (order of few centimeters) from the water-sediment interface.


Water Ouality Modeling



The primary requirement in any estuarine water quality modeling is a thorough

understanding of the circulation and transport processes. Differently from freshwater

systems, where uni-directional flow and steady-state conditions may be applied in a variety









2

equal to zero. In the coastal zone beyond the region of freshwater influence, salinity is equal

to the "oceanic reservoir" condition.

In a cross-section, the mixing zone reveals important vertical gradients. The most

evident is the intertidal zone, which is periodically flooded and exposed. In the intertidal

zone, there may be salt marshes, mangroves, beaches, and oyster banks. To overcome the

stresses originated by flood and dry conditions, organisms living in this zone have developed

special adaptations. Human presence is visible through structures like seawalls, piers, and

harbors.

According to Day et al. (1989), a second important vertical gradient is light

attenuation, going from a lighted, euphotic zone to a light depleted, aphotic zone. Where the

euphotic zone reaches the bottom, submerged aquatic vegetation like seagrasses is able to

thrive. Usually, water clarity also increases towards the ocean side. Another extremely

important gradient for biogeochemical processes is the redox potential in the sediment layer,

ranging from oxidized to reduced conditions. In a healthy estuarine system, the water

column is usually aerobic, but the bottom sediments become anaerobic in a very short

distance (order of few centimeters) from the water-sediment interface.


Water Ouality Modeling



The primary requirement in any estuarine water quality modeling is a thorough

understanding of the circulation and transport processes. Differently from freshwater

systems, where uni-directional flow and steady-state conditions may be applied in a variety









3

of cases, estuaries are complex systems where the circulation dynamics are driven by tides,

wind, river discharges, waves, Coriolis force, and density gradients, which give the estuarine

circulation an unsteady, multi-dimensional character. The baroclinic effect in estuarine

circulation has been studied by various investigators, including the classical works of

Pritchard (1956), Cameron and Pritchard (1963), and Hansen and Rattray (1965).

Weisberg and Williams (1991) demonstrated that horizontal salinity gradients in

Tampa Bay are capable of creating a density-driven circulation, through the generation of a

baroclinic forcing. Galperin et al. (1991) refuted the barotropic residual circulation pattern

obtained by Goodwin (1987) and Ross et al. (1984) in Tampa Bay, showing that when

baroclinic effects are included, the residual circulation changed substantially.

Models with a limited resolution (spatial and time scales) are useful tools to depict

a general trend in the overall circulation pattern or to study the response of the system to a

specific forcing mechanism. However, estuarine processes are not in steady state, and they

often present a three-dimensional distribution. Biogeochemical and ecological processes

occurring inside an estuarine system are primarily driven by physical factors with an

unsteady, multi-dimensional character. To implement an integrated hydrodynamics, water

quality and ecological model, it is essential to fully understand the coupling among the

hydrodynamics, water quality and ecological processes.









4

Integrated Modeling Approach for Estuarine Systems



Competitive demands for natural resources in estuarine systems can lead to a serious

deterioration of the environment. Solutions to environmental problems have been attempted

by resources management agencies to support a holistic approach to environmental

management. For example, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has been

emphasizing that ecosystem management is an integrated, flexible approach to manage

Florida's biological and physical environment.

An efficient strategy to prevent or reverse the degradation of important estuarine

systems makes use of numerical models in conjunction with monitoring programs. Through

monitoring, not only the present state of the system can be obtained, but it is also possible

to evaluate the effectiveness of past management efforts.

Numerical models can be used to study management options and the corresponding

response of the system. In estuarine systems, numerical models can be applied to study the

hydrodynamics, sediment dynamics, water quality dynamics and system ecology.

Hydrodynamics and sediment dynamics models have been significantly advanced

during the past decade (e.g., Sheng, 1994). The developments in numerical techniques and

computer technology have been fully capitalized. Also, advancement in instrumentation and

basic understanding has led to the development of process-based models rather than

empirical lumped-process models.

On the other hand, applications of traditional water quality models (e.g., Ambrose et

al., 1994) are often based on coupling the hydrodynamics and water quality dynamics on an









5

intertidal basis (i.e., tidally averaged). This simplification was supported by high

computational cost of robust multi-dimensional models and the large time scale of the

kinetics in water quality models. But, by doing so, several hydrodynamic processes (e.g.,

wave actions) and sediment dynamics (e.g., resuspension, deposition) which can significantly

affect the water quality dynamics are not accurately represented. Chen and Sheng (1994)

developed a coupled hydrodynamics-sediment-water quality model and applied it to Lake

Okeechobee. A coupled hydrodynamics-water quality model has been used to study the

response of Chesapeake Bay to various loading scenarios (Chesapeake Bay Program, 1994).

The primary prerequisite in the implementation of a reliable water quality model is

the development of a budget for the specific pollutant of interest. In the case of Tampa Bay,

where eutrophication is one of the issues of greatest concern, nutrient loading levels have to

be defined. To develop a nutrient budget it is essential to quantify the sources of (Sheng et

al., 1993): (i) external nutrient loading from tributaries and non-point sources, (ii) nutrient

fluxes into and from the connecting ocean, and (iii) benthic nutrient fluxes. The most

difficult source to quantify is the benthic flux, due to measurement techniques, and the

competing influences of molecular diffusion, resuspension, and groundwater seepage.

Consequently, it is common to find nutrient budgets that consider the net benthic flux to be

simply the difference between the external loading and flux to the ocean. However, the

oceanic flux, induced primarily by tidal forcing is also difficult to estimate; hence,

subtracting tidally-averaged oceanic flux from the external loading may not give the correct

benthic flux. Results of McClelland (1984) nutrient box model of Tampa Bay shows that

nitrogen benthic flux can be as much as twice the external loading of point and non-point









6

sources. The author suggested that the supply of nitrogen through sediment resuspension and

biogeochemical reactions in the water column are likely important. Results of Johansson and

Squires (1989) nutrient budget for Tampa Bay suggest that the internal loading of nitrogen

associated with sediment resuspension events can be quite significant.

Ecological models are the primary tool in developing an overall picture of the system.

Using energy flow and Emergy concept (Odum, 1994), it is possible to identify the main

forcing functions that drive the system, and the causal relationships between state variables.

The conflicts between the "apparently" adversarial uses of an estuarine system can be better

mediated when they are evaluated on a common measure. System ecology models can be

used to connect environmental products with human use. The Emergy of the system

measures both the work of nature and that of humans in generating products and services.

By selecting choices that maximize Emergy production and use, policies and judgments can

favor those environmental alternatives that maximize real wealth, the whole economy, and

the public benefit (Odum, 1971).

In estuarine systems where seagrass has declined due to anthropogenic effects,

restoration of seagrass beds can be linked exclusively to environmental quality. In this sense,

seagrass provides a more direct assessment of the restoration processes (Dennison et al.,

1993). Seagrasses serve as habitat for fish and benthic invertebrates. Seagrass leaves provide

substrate for many epiphytic organisms. Herbivores such as manatees, fishes, sea turtles, and

sea urchins graze directly on seagrass blades. Dead leaves can constitute the majority of the

detritus pool. Seagrass also interacts with the physical components of the estuary by slowing

down the currents and enhancing the deposition of organic and inorganic material from the









7

water column. Their presence also inhibit the resuspension of sediments, which also affects

the nutrient cycles. Therefore, seagrass is a crucial indicator of the state of the estuary.



Objectives

Recognizing the important relationships among the various ecological components

(including hydrodynamics, sediment dynamics, water quality, aquatic vegetation, etc.), it is

now appropriate to take advantage of the advancement in computer resources and scientific

understanding to integrate models with multiple dimensions, more robust and coupled

processes. The purpose of this effort would be to further the understanding of estuaries as an

integrated system, and to provide a quantitative evaluation of various management practices.

The goals of this study are to develop a comprehensive model of the Tampa Bay

Estuarine System, and to produce a detailed characterization of the hydrodynamics and water

quality dynamics within the system. In order to test the hypothesis that seagrass is a

bioindicator of the overall health state of the Tampa Bay Estuarine System, a conceptual

seagrass model is coupled to the hydrodynamics and water quality models. This integrated

model will then be used to provide mechanisms for relating anthropogenic inputs to the

overall health of the estuary. The following questions have to be addressed in order to

accomplish these goals:

1) How important are the three-dimensional characteristics of the estuarine

circulation in the overall dynamics of the system?

2) What are the most important environmental parameters and biogeochemical

processes in the water quality dynamics of the estuarine system?

3) Can the integrated modeling provide a quantitative assessment of various

management practices for restoring the estuarine system?









7

water column. Their presence also inhibit the resuspension of sediments, which also affects

the nutrient cycles. Therefore, seagrass is a crucial indicator of the state of the estuary.



Objectives

Recognizing the important relationships among the various ecological components

(including hydrodynamics, sediment dynamics, water quality, aquatic vegetation, etc.), it is

now appropriate to take advantage of the advancement in computer resources and scientific

understanding to integrate models with multiple dimensions, more robust and coupled

processes. The purpose of this effort would be to further the understanding of estuaries as an

integrated system, and to provide a quantitative evaluation of various management practices.

The goals of this study are to develop a comprehensive model of the Tampa Bay

Estuarine System, and to produce a detailed characterization of the hydrodynamics and water

quality dynamics within the system. In order to test the hypothesis that seagrass is a

bioindicator of the overall health state of the Tampa Bay Estuarine System, a conceptual

seagrass model is coupled to the hydrodynamics and water quality models. This integrated

model will then be used to provide mechanisms for relating anthropogenic inputs to the

overall health of the estuary. The following questions have to be addressed in order to

accomplish these goals:

1) How important are the three-dimensional characteristics of the estuarine

circulation in the overall dynamics of the system?

2) What are the most important environmental parameters and biogeochemical

processes in the water quality dynamics of the estuarine system?

3) Can the integrated modeling provide a quantitative assessment of various

management practices for restoring the estuarine system?















CHAPTER 2
TAMPA BAY CHARACTERIZATION


Tampa Bay, classified as a subtropical estuarine system (Lewis and Estevez, 1988),

is the largest coastal plain estuary in the state of Florida. It is located on the west central part

of the Florida peninsula, between coordinates 270 30'and 280 02'N, and 820 20'and

820 50'W. The Y-shaped bay is approximately 60 km long, 15 km wide, covering

approximately 1,000 km2, and having a shoreline 1450 km long (Lewis and Whitman, 1985).

It is a highly complex system composed of numerous basins and subdivisions (Figure 2.1).

Some of them (e.g. Hillsborough Bay) are bordered by highly industrialized and urbanized

areas and others are bordered by mangroves, bayous, and seagrasses (e.g. Boca Ciega Bay).

Table 2.1 shows the morphometric features of each subdivision (Lewis and Whitman, 1985).

Major anthropogenic modifications that have altered the natural evolution of the system are

the four causeways (Sunshine Skyway Bridge, Courtney-Campbell Parkway, W. Howard

Frankland Bridge, and Gandy Bridge), an extensive network of dredged channels, turning

basins, and spoil islands.




















Mobbly


- 2D00'


City of
St. Petersburg


P9 ^?S LII Maote Rver
Cockroach &OaLI ~l --
Bay Subdivisions of Tampa Bay
( ---- Demarcation Line)
1. Old Tampa Bay
as 2. Hillsborough Bay
r3. Middle Tampa Bay
4. Lower Tampa Bay
5. Boca Clega Bay
6. Terra Cela Bay
S77. Manatee River
8. Anna Maria Sound

SManatee Re


Bradenton


- Tampa Bay Estuarine System subdivisions as defined by Lewis and Whitman
(1985) (from Wolfe and Drew, 1990).


S30
UZ 0U


Hillborough Rver


%0





a










- 2f 30'


Figure 2.1









11

Table 2.1 Area of the subdivisions in Tampa Bay (Lewis and Whitman, 1985).
Subdivision Area (km2)

Old Tampa Bay 201

Hillsborough Bay 105

Middle Tampa Bay 310

Lower Tampa Bay 247
Boca Ciega Bay 93

Terra Ceia Bay 21

Manatee River 55

Total 1032



Climate



The Tampa Bay Estuarine System is located in a zone of transition between a

temperate continental climate and a tropical Caribbean one (Lewis and Estevez, 1988). The

climate of the Tampa Bay area generally consists of a warm humid summer and a relatively

dry cool winter. Lewis and Estevez (1988) suggested three weather regimes for the Bay: the

warm, dry period between late April to mid-June, the warm, wet period during summer and

early fall, and the dry cold period between November to April. Based on four decades of

records, the mean annually averaged temperature in Tampa Bay is 22.3 C, with a low mean

of 16.0 Cin January and a high mean of 27.8 C in August (Lewis and Estevez, 1988).

Annual variation in water temperature ranges from 16 to 30 oC, with a vertical stratification

of no more than 2 C(Boler, 1992).









11

Table 2.1 Area of the subdivisions in Tampa Bay (Lewis and Whitman, 1985).
Subdivision Area (km2)

Old Tampa Bay 201

Hillsborough Bay 105

Middle Tampa Bay 310

Lower Tampa Bay 247
Boca Ciega Bay 93

Terra Ceia Bay 21

Manatee River 55

Total 1032



Climate



The Tampa Bay Estuarine System is located in a zone of transition between a

temperate continental climate and a tropical Caribbean one (Lewis and Estevez, 1988). The

climate of the Tampa Bay area generally consists of a warm humid summer and a relatively

dry cool winter. Lewis and Estevez (1988) suggested three weather regimes for the Bay: the

warm, dry period between late April to mid-June, the warm, wet period during summer and

early fall, and the dry cold period between November to April. Based on four decades of

records, the mean annually averaged temperature in Tampa Bay is 22.3 C, with a low mean

of 16.0 Cin January and a high mean of 27.8 C in August (Lewis and Estevez, 1988).

Annual variation in water temperature ranges from 16 to 30 oC, with a vertical stratification

of no more than 2 C(Boler, 1992).









12

Tides



Tides and currents in the Gulf of Mexico are classified as mixed type, with K,, O1,

and P, the major diurnal and M2 and S2 the major semi-diurnal components. The strong

diurnal components are attributed to the interaction between co-oscillating tides propagating

from the Florida Straits and Yucatan Channel and the natural frequency of the Gulf of

Mexico basin. The average tidal range is 0.67 m, while typical current speeds range from

1.2 to 1.8 m/s at the entrance (Egmont Channel), to much smaller values in the upper reaches

of the Bay (NOAA, 1993). The tidal wave takes approximately three hours to travel from

the mouth to the upper reaches of Hillsborough Bay, and approximately 4 hours to upper Old

Tampa Bay. Harmonic analysis of year-long tidal records at St. Petersburg (NOAA, 1993)

yielded amplitudes of 37 constituents, which indicated that the shallow water components

are relatively small, and overtides are not significant in the overall circulation pattern of the

Bay.


Salinity Distribution



As in any other typical estuarine system, Tampa Bay generally exhibits significant

horizontal gradients in salinity. The higher salinity values in the adjacent Gulf of Mexico

fluctuate around 36 ppt, whereas the lowest salinity levels occur near the mouth of creeks and

rivers. Generally, the salinity distribution follows the annual precipitation pattern (Boler,

1992). Higher salinity tends to extend further up into the Bay during the dry winter and









12

Tides



Tides and currents in the Gulf of Mexico are classified as mixed type, with K,, O1,

and P, the major diurnal and M2 and S2 the major semi-diurnal components. The strong

diurnal components are attributed to the interaction between co-oscillating tides propagating

from the Florida Straits and Yucatan Channel and the natural frequency of the Gulf of

Mexico basin. The average tidal range is 0.67 m, while typical current speeds range from

1.2 to 1.8 m/s at the entrance (Egmont Channel), to much smaller values in the upper reaches

of the Bay (NOAA, 1993). The tidal wave takes approximately three hours to travel from

the mouth to the upper reaches of Hillsborough Bay, and approximately 4 hours to upper Old

Tampa Bay. Harmonic analysis of year-long tidal records at St. Petersburg (NOAA, 1993)

yielded amplitudes of 37 constituents, which indicated that the shallow water components

are relatively small, and overtides are not significant in the overall circulation pattern of the

Bay.


Salinity Distribution



As in any other typical estuarine system, Tampa Bay generally exhibits significant

horizontal gradients in salinity. The higher salinity values in the adjacent Gulf of Mexico

fluctuate around 36 ppt, whereas the lowest salinity levels occur near the mouth of creeks and

rivers. Generally, the salinity distribution follows the annual precipitation pattern (Boler,

1992). Higher salinity tends to extend further up into the Bay during the dry winter and









13

spring, and the entire Bay becomes less saline, specially in the upper parts, during the wet

summer and fall. Vertically, salinity generally shows a homogeneous profile, with vertical

difference rarely exceeding 2 ppt.


Rainfall



Mean annual precipitation is approximately 140 cm (Heath and Connover, 1981),

which on an annual basis balances with evapotranspiration (Palmer, 1978). Dry season rains

vary from 5 to 6.5 cm per month. Wet season rainfall is much more variable, both

temporally and spatially, ranging from 13 to over 20 cm (Palmer, 1978). Figure 2.2

illustrates the monthly rainfall pattern for Tampa Bay.


Wind



The annual average wind speed is 3.9 m/s from the east. The four seasonal wind-field

patterns are shown in Figure 2.3. In the winter months, the easterly trade winds dominate

the region south of latitude 270 N, while the westerlies dominate the area north of latitude 29

N. Spring and Summer generally exhibit more southerly winds, and Fall is characterized by

easterly or northeasterly winds. Wind speed can exceed 10 m/s during the passage of winter

storms or during summer squalls, hurricanes and tornadoes (Wolfe and Drew, 1990).









13

spring, and the entire Bay becomes less saline, specially in the upper parts, during the wet

summer and fall. Vertically, salinity generally shows a homogeneous profile, with vertical

difference rarely exceeding 2 ppt.


Rainfall



Mean annual precipitation is approximately 140 cm (Heath and Connover, 1981),

which on an annual basis balances with evapotranspiration (Palmer, 1978). Dry season rains

vary from 5 to 6.5 cm per month. Wet season rainfall is much more variable, both

temporally and spatially, ranging from 13 to over 20 cm (Palmer, 1978). Figure 2.2

illustrates the monthly rainfall pattern for Tampa Bay.


Wind



The annual average wind speed is 3.9 m/s from the east. The four seasonal wind-field

patterns are shown in Figure 2.3. In the winter months, the easterly trade winds dominate

the region south of latitude 270 N, while the westerlies dominate the area north of latitude 29

N. Spring and Summer generally exhibit more southerly winds, and Fall is characterized by

easterly or northeasterly winds. Wind speed can exceed 10 m/s during the passage of winter

storms or during summer squalls, hurricanes and tornadoes (Wolfe and Drew, 1990).























Historical Monthly Rainfall in Tampa Bay


30



20 --


I

I\ I
I\ /

I \i




\I


/


--A-.--.. Minimun
- Average
---'-- Maximum










<^C-.


01 A A A A I I I I ,, A
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec


Figure 2.2 Monthly rainfall in Tampa Bay (Wooten, 1985).


E


r
















































Figure 2.3 Seasonal wind pattern in Florida (Echternacht, 1975).












Bathymetry



Tampa Bay is a relatively wide and shallow estuarine system, with an average depth

of 3.7 m (Goodwin, 1987). Depth generally does not exceed 10 m, except along the 96-km-

long navigational channel, which has been dredged to about 15 m. The navigational channel

extends parallel to the shorelines from the mouth to the upper reaches of Middle Tampa Bay,

where it splits into two branches, one connecting to the Port of Tampa in Old Tampa Bay,

and the other one entering Hillsborough Bay.


Freshwater Inflow



Unlike other well-studied estuarine systems in the U.S. (e.g. Chesapeake Bay,

Delaware Bay, etc.), Tampa Bay is not associated with any large river. All tributaries

flowing into Tampa Bay originate in the Florida peninsula, and therefore are relatively small

(Figure 2.4). The Bay receives drainage from a watershed that covers approximately 5700

km2, which delivers an average annual discharge of about 63 m 3/s (Lewis and Estevez,

1988). The analysis of existing and historical freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay (Coastal,

1994) demonstrated that inflows have not changed significantly in the past fifty years.

Table 2.2 shows the historical average discharge values for seven rivers or streams

flowing into Tampa Bay. The primary source of freshwater are the four major tributaries

(Hillsborough River, Alafia River, Little Manatee River, and Manatee River) which supply

about 70% of the total discharge. It has been estimated that Hillsborough Bay receives 63

to 77% of the total freshwater inflow to Tampa Bay (Lewis and Estevez, 1988).
























0
SO


Figure 2.4 Tampa Bay watershed (Wolfe and Drew, 1990).









18

Table 2.2 Surface water discharges to Tampa Bay (Lewis and Estevez, 1985).
.r Period of Record Average annual
(years) discharge (m3/s)
Hillsborough River 39 17.0
Alafia River 45 14.0
Little Manatee River 38 6.0
Manatee River 11 11.0
Rocky Creek 24 1.3
Lake Tarpon Canal 3 0.8
Sweetwater Creek 26 0.6
Others 12.3
Total 63.0



Hillsborough River


Draining a highly urbanized area, the Hillsborough River watershed collects the

discharge from most of Tampa, Temple Terrace, the eastern Interbay Peninsula, and Davis

Island. A dam constructed in 1945 (approximately 16 km from the mouth of the river in

Hillsborough Bay) separates two distinct water quality and hydrological environments:

upstream of the dam, the river is a freshwater reservoir, which provides freshwater to the

City of Tampa; and downstream of the river proper, which is tidal and brackish. Freshwater

discharges are controlled by the dam and range from 3.5 m 3/s in the dry season to 48 m /s

during the wet season, averaging 17 m 3/s (Dooris and Dooris, 1985). Tidal action can be

found at 16 km upstream the mouth (Wolfe and Drew, 1990). The salt wedge can penetrate

as far as 13 km into the river during low-flow conditions (< 3 m3/s), or it can be flushed

downstream to near 4 km from the mouth when the flow exceeds 25 m 3/s (Wolfe and Drew,









19

1990). Low flow rates and upstream salt wedge location seem to be well correlated with low

dissolved oxygen (DO) value and high nutrient concentrations inside the Hillsborough River.

A report from the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) (Boler,

1992) shows DO levels in the bottom saltier layer inside Hillsborough River below 4.0 mg/L,

with lowest values (< 2.0 mg/L) in May and June when flow is minimal. Surface values of

DO are generally above saturation (7.9 mg/L). BOD is reported to be less than 2.0 mg/L

throughout the year.

Ammonia and nitrate concentrations generally show a well mixed vertical distribution

upstream the salt wedge location, where the saltier water contains higher concentrations,

specially ammonia. Combined ammonia and nitrate values in the river range from 0 to 0.7

mg/L. In the dry season ammonia concentrations vary from 0.05 mg/L close to the dam to

0.2-0.3 mg/L towards the Bay. Nitrate concentrations vary from zero to 0.4 mg/L, and

organic nitrogen ranges from 0.38 to 5.60 mg/L (Wolfe and Drew, 1990).

Alafia River


The Alafia River watershed drains about 105 km2, south of the Hillsborough River

watershed. Flow in the Alafia River averages 14 m 3/s and ranges from 5.4 m 3/s in the dry

season to 28.3 m3/s during the wet season (Dooris and Dooris, 1985). Tidal action is

present up to 18 km upstream from the mouth. Johansson and Squires (1989) found that the

Alafia River, a major source of dissolved material to the Bay, can supply 51% of the Bay's

phosphate uptake for phytoplankton growth, and sediment flux rates are sufficient to meet

140% of the uptake. The authors attributed the high phosphate concentrations to leaching









19

1990). Low flow rates and upstream salt wedge location seem to be well correlated with low

dissolved oxygen (DO) value and high nutrient concentrations inside the Hillsborough River.

A report from the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) (Boler,

1992) shows DO levels in the bottom saltier layer inside Hillsborough River below 4.0 mg/L,

with lowest values (< 2.0 mg/L) in May and June when flow is minimal. Surface values of

DO are generally above saturation (7.9 mg/L). BOD is reported to be less than 2.0 mg/L

throughout the year.

Ammonia and nitrate concentrations generally show a well mixed vertical distribution

upstream the salt wedge location, where the saltier water contains higher concentrations,

specially ammonia. Combined ammonia and nitrate values in the river range from 0 to 0.7

mg/L. In the dry season ammonia concentrations vary from 0.05 mg/L close to the dam to

0.2-0.3 mg/L towards the Bay. Nitrate concentrations vary from zero to 0.4 mg/L, and

organic nitrogen ranges from 0.38 to 5.60 mg/L (Wolfe and Drew, 1990).

Alafia River


The Alafia River watershed drains about 105 km2, south of the Hillsborough River

watershed. Flow in the Alafia River averages 14 m 3/s and ranges from 5.4 m 3/s in the dry

season to 28.3 m3/s during the wet season (Dooris and Dooris, 1985). Tidal action is

present up to 18 km upstream from the mouth. Johansson and Squires (1989) found that the

Alafia River, a major source of dissolved material to the Bay, can supply 51% of the Bay's

phosphate uptake for phytoplankton growth, and sediment flux rates are sufficient to meet

140% of the uptake. The authors attributed the high phosphate concentrations to leaching









20

of Florida's phosphate beds, fertilizer drainage from agricultural lands, and industrial and

sewage inputs. Phosphate concentration ranges from 4.8 mg/L in the upper reaches of the

river, decreasing to 1.2 mg/L near the Bay (Wolfe and Drew, 1990).

The salt wedge penetration depends on the river discharge and tidal regime, ranging

from 16 km during high tide and low flow condition to 4 km during low tide high flow

situation (Giovanelli, 1981).

Dissolved oxygen exhibits a vertical stratification near the mouth, ranging from

below 4.0 mg/L at middle and bottom layers to saturation levels (7.9 mg/L) at the surface

(Boler, 1992), where chlorophyll-a averages 24.1 pg/L.

The Alafia River tributaries exhibit high levels of nutrients. The poor water quality

in the North Prong is due to mining activities, and a greater number of phosphate and

chemical dischargers (Wolf and Drew, 1990). High levels of ammonia can reach as much

as 85-120 mg/L, and nitrate values as high as 3.0 mg/L. Dissolved oxygen remains below

5 mg/L 50% of the time.

Little Manatee River


The Little Manatee watershed is the least urbanized of the four major rivers, and it

generally exhibits the best water quality conditions (Flannery, 1989). Flow averages 6 m3/s

and ranges from 1.7 m3/s in the dry season to 17 m3/s during the wet season (Dooris and

Dooris, 1985). Tidal action is found up to 25 km upstream the mouth (Wolfe and Drew,

1990). Salinity close to the mouth averages 9.0 to 12.0 ppt (EPC, 1984). Flannery (1989)

presented some water quality data for a station 25 km upstream from the mouth, which









20

of Florida's phosphate beds, fertilizer drainage from agricultural lands, and industrial and

sewage inputs. Phosphate concentration ranges from 4.8 mg/L in the upper reaches of the

river, decreasing to 1.2 mg/L near the Bay (Wolfe and Drew, 1990).

The salt wedge penetration depends on the river discharge and tidal regime, ranging

from 16 km during high tide and low flow condition to 4 km during low tide high flow

situation (Giovanelli, 1981).

Dissolved oxygen exhibits a vertical stratification near the mouth, ranging from

below 4.0 mg/L at middle and bottom layers to saturation levels (7.9 mg/L) at the surface

(Boler, 1992), where chlorophyll-a averages 24.1 pg/L.

The Alafia River tributaries exhibit high levels of nutrients. The poor water quality

in the North Prong is due to mining activities, and a greater number of phosphate and

chemical dischargers (Wolf and Drew, 1990). High levels of ammonia can reach as much

as 85-120 mg/L, and nitrate values as high as 3.0 mg/L. Dissolved oxygen remains below

5 mg/L 50% of the time.

Little Manatee River


The Little Manatee watershed is the least urbanized of the four major rivers, and it

generally exhibits the best water quality conditions (Flannery, 1989). Flow averages 6 m3/s

and ranges from 1.7 m3/s in the dry season to 17 m3/s during the wet season (Dooris and

Dooris, 1985). Tidal action is found up to 25 km upstream the mouth (Wolfe and Drew,

1990). Salinity close to the mouth averages 9.0 to 12.0 ppt (EPC, 1984). Flannery (1989)

presented some water quality data for a station 25 km upstream from the mouth, which









21

showed the following average concentrations: 0.63 mg/L of nitrate+nitrite, 0.09 mg/L of

ammonia, 1.3 mg/L of BOD, 0.60 mg/L of organic nitrogen, and 7.0 mg/L of DO.

Manatee River


The Manatee River is impounded 38 km upstream from the Bay. Downstream of the

dam, the Manatee River and its major tributary, the Braden River, collect drainage from the

cities of Palmetto and Bradenton before discharge into the Bay. Flow averages 11 m 3/s and

ranges from 1 m 3/s in the dry season to 25 m3/s during the wet season (Dooris and Dooris,

1985). Tidal action is present up to 31 km upstream from the mouth. Nutrient levels are

high and generally decrease from the dam to the river mouth (Wolfe and Drew, 1990).

Salinity ranges from 14 to 26 ppt in the dry season to 2 to 19 ppt during the wet season (Heyl,

1982). Close to the mouth, dissolved oxygen levels are low during summer months, ranging

from 2.0 to 4.0 mg/L. Concentrations of total nitrogen, mostly in the organic nitrogen form,

varies between 0.1 to 4.4 mg/L (Heyl, 1982).

Rocky Creek


The Rocky Creek drainage area is approximately 115 km2. The discharge 9.5 km

upstream from the river mouth averages 1.3m3/s, ranging from 6.9 (wet season) to

0.05 m 3/s (dry season) (USGS, 1991). In its upper reaches, water quality is generally good

with pockets of high concentrations of ammonia and total phosphorus (Wolfe and Drew,

1990). Dissolved oxygen is usually below saturation.









21

showed the following average concentrations: 0.63 mg/L of nitrate+nitrite, 0.09 mg/L of

ammonia, 1.3 mg/L of BOD, 0.60 mg/L of organic nitrogen, and 7.0 mg/L of DO.

Manatee River


The Manatee River is impounded 38 km upstream from the Bay. Downstream of the

dam, the Manatee River and its major tributary, the Braden River, collect drainage from the

cities of Palmetto and Bradenton before discharge into the Bay. Flow averages 11 m 3/s and

ranges from 1 m 3/s in the dry season to 25 m3/s during the wet season (Dooris and Dooris,

1985). Tidal action is present up to 31 km upstream from the mouth. Nutrient levels are

high and generally decrease from the dam to the river mouth (Wolfe and Drew, 1990).

Salinity ranges from 14 to 26 ppt in the dry season to 2 to 19 ppt during the wet season (Heyl,

1982). Close to the mouth, dissolved oxygen levels are low during summer months, ranging

from 2.0 to 4.0 mg/L. Concentrations of total nitrogen, mostly in the organic nitrogen form,

varies between 0.1 to 4.4 mg/L (Heyl, 1982).

Rocky Creek


The Rocky Creek drainage area is approximately 115 km2. The discharge 9.5 km

upstream from the river mouth averages 1.3m3/s, ranging from 6.9 (wet season) to

0.05 m 3/s (dry season) (USGS, 1991). In its upper reaches, water quality is generally good

with pockets of high concentrations of ammonia and total phosphorus (Wolfe and Drew,

1990). Dissolved oxygen is usually below saturation.











Lake Tarpon Canal


The Lake Tarpon Canal is a man-made canal which was completed in 1971 to control

flooding. A saltwater-barrier/flood-control structure is located midway between Lake Tarpon

and Old Tampa Bay. Discharges from the canal average 0.8 m 3/s, ranging from 22m3/s

in wet season to no flow in dry season (USGS, 1991). DO levels are usually high (7.0 to 8.0

mg/L) in the canal, pH is neutral (7.0), and nutrient concentrations are low (Dooris and

Dooris, 1985).

Sweetwater Creek


Sweetwater Creek is 17 km long and drains about 65 km2 of a primarily urban region.

The discharge at 6 km upstream from the river mouth averages 0.6m3/s, with a range

between 4.4 (wet season) to 0.03m3/s (dry season) (USGS, 1991). In the tidal portion of the

creek, DO (3.7 mg/L), BOD (6.0 mg/L), and nutrient concentrations (Ammonia

concentration ranging from 0.1 to 0.4 mg/L) indicate poor water quality (Wolfe and Drew,

1990).

Non-Point Sources


Coastal, Inc. (1994) developed a statistical model for the Tampa Bay National

Estuary Program (TBNEP) to support the preparation of the "Pollutant Load Reduction

Goals" (PLRG) for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids for Tampa

Bay. They used measured data to develop regression relationships to describe the response

of the watershed to flow and loadings from non-point surface water sources, given a set of









23

rainfall and land use conditions. Results of that study indicate that non-point sources can

have a significant contribution to the total nutrient loading. Moreover, the study showed that

groundwater and nutrient inflow to Tampa Bay represent a smaller fraction of the total

loading. Table 2.3 summarizes the water quality of the seven point sources discharging into

Tampa Bay.



Table 2.3 1991 annual average water quality of seven point sources discharging into Tampa
Bay (Boler, 1992) and (USGS, 1991) (mg/L).
Near-Bottom Soluble Nitrate
Ammonium
River Dissolved Organic rogen +
Nitrogen
Oxygen Nitrogen Nitrite

Hillsborough River 5.0 0.66 0.07 0.04
Alafia River 4.3 0.68 0.06 0.36
Little Manatee River 5.3 0.75 0.05 0.11
Manatee River 7.1 0.52 0.01 0.08
Rocky Creek 3.0 0.93 0.07 0.02
Lake Tarpon Canal 4.4 0.89 0.10 0.04
Sweetwater Creek 4.7 0.85 0.14 0.35






Nutrients Distribution and Loading



Tampa Bay has high phosphate levels in both water column and sediment layer,

especially in Hillsborough Bay. Tiffany and Wilkinson (1989) reported that 20% of world's

phosphate production and 80% of all United States phosphate output take place in the area.

Approximately 50% of all tonnage leaving Tampa Bay is composed of phosphate related









23

rainfall and land use conditions. Results of that study indicate that non-point sources can

have a significant contribution to the total nutrient loading. Moreover, the study showed that

groundwater and nutrient inflow to Tampa Bay represent a smaller fraction of the total

loading. Table 2.3 summarizes the water quality of the seven point sources discharging into

Tampa Bay.



Table 2.3 1991 annual average water quality of seven point sources discharging into Tampa
Bay (Boler, 1992) and (USGS, 1991) (mg/L).
Near-Bottom Soluble Nitrate
Ammonium
River Dissolved Organic rogen +
Nitrogen
Oxygen Nitrogen Nitrite

Hillsborough River 5.0 0.66 0.07 0.04
Alafia River 4.3 0.68 0.06 0.36
Little Manatee River 5.3 0.75 0.05 0.11
Manatee River 7.1 0.52 0.01 0.08
Rocky Creek 3.0 0.93 0.07 0.02
Lake Tarpon Canal 4.4 0.89 0.10 0.04
Sweetwater Creek 4.7 0.85 0.14 0.35






Nutrients Distribution and Loading



Tampa Bay has high phosphate levels in both water column and sediment layer,

especially in Hillsborough Bay. Tiffany and Wilkinson (1989) reported that 20% of world's

phosphate production and 80% of all United States phosphate output take place in the area.

Approximately 50% of all tonnage leaving Tampa Bay is composed of phosphate related









24

products. The mean annual water column phosphate concentration in Hillsborough Bay can

be as high as 1.28 mg/L (Fanning and Bell, 1985).

Nitrogen, however, is probably the single most important macro nutrient that limits

primary production in Tampa Bay. Assuming that phytoplankton assimilates N and P in

proportion to the Redfield C:N:P atomic ratios of 106:16:1, if N:P is higher than 16, the

system is primarily phosphorus limited. Otherwise, the system is considered to be nitrogen

limited. Fanning and Bell (1985) reported that the N:P ratio in Tampa Bay ranged from 0.3

to 1.3 in 1981, and concluded that phytoplankton have been historically nitrogen limited.

According to Simon (1974), municipal sewage treatment plants are the primary

source of nitrogen to Tampa Bay. The Alafia River provides the highest annual loading of

nitrate to Tampa Bay (about 3.9 x 105 kg/yr), followed by the Manatee and Hillsborough

Rivers (each about 9.0x104 kg/yr). In terms of organic nitrogen, the Manatee and Alafia

Rivers have the highest loadings ( 2.5 x 105 kg/yr), followed by the Hillsborough River

with 2.0 x 105 kg/yr (Dooris and Dooris, 1985). High levels of organic nitrogen in the

Manatee River have been related to the Bradenton sewage treatment plant and pulp effluent

from citrus processing plant (DeGrove, 1984). McClelland (1984) reported municipal

sewage treatment plants elsewhere around the Bay as significant nitrogen sources. Goetz and

Goodwin (1980), summarizing data collected between 1972 to 1976, obtained a mean

organic nitrogen concentration ranging from 0.5-1.0 mg/L in Old Tampa Bay, around 0.5

mg/L in upper Tampa Bay, and the same level or below in the Lower Bay. In all three areas,

seasonal and year-to-year variation was low. On the other hand, mean organic nitrogen

concentration in Hillsborough Bay ranged from 0.75 to 1.25 mg/L, and temporal variation









25

was greater. Nitrite and nitrate concentrations were similarly low and steady everywhere in

the Bay, except in Hillsborough Bay. Ammonia levels were variable in all zones. Seasonal

minima were less than 0.1 mg/L in most places but more than 0.1 mg/L in Hillsborough Bay.

Fanning and Bell (1985) reported a mean ratio of ammonia to inorganic nitrogen of 0.84

(ranging from 0.54 to 0.99) in Hillsborough Bay. Seasonality was evident for total inorganic

nitrogen, which decreases substantially after rainy seasons, without an apparent reason

(Lewis and Estevez, 1988).

In a preliminary nitrogen budget for Tampa Bay, Ross et al. (1984) suggested a

nitrogen storage of 3.87 x 107kg, an input from rainfall and anthropogenic sources of

21,470 kg/day, and a benthic release of 55,750 kg/day. Exports would occur in tidal

exchange (16,100 kg/day), biological losses (8,140 kg/day), and benthic uptake (53,000

kg/day). Fanning and Bell (1985) estimated a turnover rate for nitrate and nitrite of 42 days,

due to runoff, and that benthic releases of ammonia could replace the overlying ammonia in

14 days.

Coastal, Inc. (1994) developed estimates of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total

suspended solids loading, as well as total freshwater inflow, to Tampa Bay. Two scenarios

(existing and "benchmark" conditions) were presented for the major seven segments of the

Bay. In order to account for ungaged areas, the Coastal, Inc. study used a statistical model

that related watershed characteristics to streamflow. Table 2.4 summarizes the mean annual

total nitrogen loading into each segment of Tampa Bay.









26

Table 2.4 Mean annual total nitrogen loading into each segment of Tampa Bay (Coastal,
1994).
Bay Segment Loading (tons/year)
Old Tampa Bay 600

Hillsborough Bay 2100

Middle Tampa Bay 1100

Lower Tampa Bay 500

Boca Ciega Bay 300

Terra Ceia Bay 80

Manatee River 600





Sediment Type and Distribution



Goodell and Gorsline (1961) studied the surface sediments composition and

distribution from all major areas of the Bay. They reported that Tampa Bay sediments are a

mixture of eroded quartz sands from Pleistocene terrace deposits and carbonates from shell

fragments produced within the system. The present sediment distribution is related to tide

generated currents, while sedimentary types correspond with bathymetric features. In sand

and grass flats less than 2 m deep, mean grain size was determined as 0.132 mm and

sediment was 2.7% carbonate. In deeper natural channels (> 6 m), mean grain size was 0.241

mm and sediment was 25.2% carbonate, whereas mangrove areas contained no carbonate.

Mean grain size decreased from 0.218 mm at the mouth to 0.109 mm at the upper reaches

of the Bay. Mean carbonate content decreased from 16% to 2% over the same distance.









27

Figure 2.5 shows the surface sediment distribution for Tampa Bay. According to Johansson

and Squires (1989), the descriptive work of Goodell and Gorsline (1961), conducted thirty

five years ago, did not intend to map fine grained sediments specifically, so the areal

coverage of these sediments was not well defined as the mud zone delineated in later studies.

Figure 2.6 shows the mud zones in Hillsborough Bay delineated by the Bay Study Group of

the City of Tampa Sanitary Sewer Department in 1986.

















- 28oo00 City of
Tampa






Pinellas inter- NaR Rier
Peninsula Bay
Peninsula


City of
St. Petersburg








O




0 0



Maatge Rier






[ Very coarse-coarse sand Fine sand Silt
Medium sand Very fire sand
Figure 2.5 Surface Sediments in Tampa Bay (Goodell and Gorsline, 1961).
















































Figure 2.6 Mud zone in Hillsborough Bay (Johansson and Squires, 1989).















CHAPTER 3
THE CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORT MODEL



Previous Work



Circulation and sediment transport models for estuaries have been significantly

advanced during the past 30 years. Sheng (1994) provided a comprehensive review on

circulation models for shallow waters. Sheng (1986) and Sheng et al. (1991) presented

comprehensive reviews of sediment transport models for estuaries and lakes.

Circulation in Tampa Bay has previously been modeled by Ross et al. (1984),

Goodwin (1987), Galperin et al. (1991), Sheng and Peene (1992), Peene et al. (1992), and

Hess (1994). The Ross et al. (1984) modeling system consisted of an integrated set of a 2-D

vertically-averaged circulation model, and box models for water quality and particulate

transport. Goodwin (1987) used a 2-D vertically-averaged model to study the effects of the

dredged navigation channel and dredged disposal sites on the circulation of Tampa Bay. The

residual circulation obtained from both studies (Ross et al., 1984 and Goodwin, 1987)

showed a complex pattern of numerous gyres, that were assumed to be responsible for poor

flushing conditions. Galperin et al. (1991) demonstrated that the barotropic residual

circulation pattern, obtained by Ross et al. (1984) and Goodwin (1987) in Tampa Bay, can

be completely overwhelmed by baroclinic effects. The baroclinic residual circulation









32

obtained by Galperin et al. (1991) exhibited a classical two-layer flow, with the surface layer

flowing out of the Bay and the saltier bottom layer flowing into the Bay. Sheng and Peene

(1992), studying the circulation and transport in Sarasota Bay, used a coarse grid (grid

spacing on the order of 1 to 2 km) to describe the circulation in Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay was

added to the Sarasota Bay grid of that study to evaluate the importance of Manatee River

discharge on the residual circulation of Anna Maria Sound. Peene et al. (1992) simulated

the tide- and wind-driven circulation in the Sarasota and Tampa Bay system during the

passage of Tropical Storm Marco in October 1990 using an earlier version of the three-

dimensional boundary-fitted grid model used in this study. Hess (1994) developed a three-

dimensional orthogonal curvilinear model with seven sigma grid layers for Tampa Bay,

based on the Princeton University ocean model (Blumberg and Mellor, 1987). The main

goals of Hess (1994) were to update the NOAA tidal current atlas for Tampa Bay, and to

synthesize the extensive observational data set obtained during the survey performed by

NOAA in 1990-91.

The three-dimensional hydrodynamics model CH3D (Sheng, 1989) forms the basis

of the numerical simulations in this study. The model framework has been improved and

modified from earlier versions (e.g., Sheng, 1989; Sheng et al., 1991; Sheng and Peene,

1992) in order to develop an integrated model that couples hydrodynamics, sediment and

water quality dynamics. The application (model setup, calibration, and validation) of the

circulation and transport model to produce a detailed characterization of the hydrodynamics

within system constituted the most important step in the development of the integrated model

of the Tampa Bay Estuarine System. Within the scope of this dissertation, the complete









33

details of model equations in the curvilinear boundary-fitted and sigma coordinates are of

secondary interest, and are therefore presented in Appendix A.


Circulation Model



The governing equations that describe the velocity and surface elevation fields in

shallow water are derived from the Navier-Stokes equations. In general, four simplifying

approximations are applied. First, it is assumed that the water is incompressible, which

results in a simplified continuity equation. Second, based on the fact that the characteristic

vertical length scale is much smaller than the horizontal counterpart, i.e., H/L << 1, the

vertical velocity is small and the vertical acceleration may be neglected. Hence, the vertical

momentum equation is reduced to the hydrostatic pressure relation. Third, with the

Boussinesq approximation, an average density can be used in the equations except in the

buoyancy term. Finally, the eddy-viscosity concept, which assumes that the turbulent

Reynolds stresses are the product of mean velocity gradients and "eddy viscosities", is

employed. In the transport equation, this concept means that the turbulent mass fluxes are

the product of mean concentration gradients and "eddy diffusivities".

With the above assumptions, the basic equations of motion in a right-handed

Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z) are as follows:

Continuity Equation


au av aw
+- + = (3.1)
ax ay az











X-component of Momentum Equation


au + uu uv + uw 1 ap A u
-+- + -+ -- = fv +- A
at ax ay az p, ax ax ax
(3.2)
+ AH + A u
ay ( ay z az)


Y-component of Momentum Equation


av + uv + avv vw f 1 p +a AH v
-+- + -+-= -fu +- AH
at ax 9y az p, ay ax ax
(3.3)
a av ( av
+ ( AH (+ A
ay ay 9z 9z


Hydrostatic Pressure Relation


9p
ap pg (3.4)
az

where (u, v, w) are mean fluid velocities in the (x, y, z) directions, p is pressure, g is the

Earth's gravitational acceleration, po is a reference fluid density, p(x,y,z) is the fluid density,

and f is the Coriolis parameter. AH and A, are the horizontal and vertical turbulent eddy

viscosity coefficients, respectively.











Salinity Equation


In Cartesian coordinates, the conservation of salt can be written as:

as a(us) + a(vs) a(wS)
at ax ay az
(3.5)
a as a as a v as) (3
ax i ax) ay ay) az( Va


where S is the salinity, DH and D, are the horizontal and vertical turbulent eddy diffusivity

coefficients, respectively.

Since the length scales of horizontal motion in estuarine systems are much greater

than those of vertical motion, it is common to treat the vertical turbulence and horizontal

turbulence separately. It has been shown (e.g. Sheng et al., 1995) that in shallow estuaries,

the effect of the horizontal eddy viscosities on circulation is much smaller than the effect of

the vertical one. In the model, the horizontal turbulent mixing, which describes the effect

of sub-grid scale motion, is represented by a constant diffusion coefficient.

Vertical turbulent mixing is an important process which can significantly affect the

circulation and transport in an estuary. Since turbulence is a property of the flow instead of

the fluid, it is essential to use a robust turbulence model to parameterize the vertical turbulent

mixing. In this study, the vertical eddy coefficients (Av and Dv ) are computed from a

simplified second-order closure model developed by Sheng and Chiu (1986) and Sheng and

Villaret (1989).











Equation of State



P = p (T,S) (3.6)

where p is density, T is temperature.

Various forms of the equation of state can be used. In the present model, the equation

given by Eckert (1958) is used:

p = P/(a + 0.698P)

P = 5890 + 38T 0.375T2 + 3S (3.7)

a = 1779.5 + 11.25T 0.0745T2 (3.8 + 0.10T)S

where T is in C, S is in ppt and p is in g/cm3.

Conservative Species Equation


Flushing and residence time studies in an estuarine system can be carried out by

solving the conservation equation for a conservative species, cs:

ac + (uc,) (vc ) a (wc,)
at ax ay az
(3.8)

ax ax ay' Hay) az[ az )


First, the estuarine system needs to be divided into segments with similar circulation

characteristics. To study the tidal flushing, a uniform concentration is released into all the

cells of a specific segment, while the concentration in the other ones are given zero values.

As the simulation proceeds, the remaining mass of the conservative species in each segment









37

is calculated as a fraction of the original mass. The flushing capacity of each segment is then

defined in terms of the reduction in the relative mass (Sheng et al., 1996).


Sediment Transport Model



An integrated model of the Tampa Bay Estuarine System must contain a sediment

transport model that can be used to address environmental problems related to dredging

operations in the navigation channels, and especially, the ecological problems related to the

adsorptive capacity of fine sediments to carry particulate forms of nutrients, heavy metals,

PCB's, and other organic pollutants.

The suspended sediment model includes the advection-diffusion processes, which

are computed by the hydrodynamics model, as well as such processes as erosion, deposition,

flocculation, settling, consolidation, and entrainment (Sheng, 1986; Mehta, 1986).

The governing equation that represents the transport of suspended sediments is given

by:


c uc+ avc + a(w-w)c
at ax ay az
(3.9)
a a Dac a H ac
ax ax) ay9 ay) az z )


where c is the suspended sediment concentration, w, is the settling velocity of suspended

sediment particles (positive downward), DH is the horizontal turbulent eddy diffusivity, and Dv

is the vertical turbulent eddy diffusivity.









38

Three simplifying approximations are implied in Equation (3.9). First, the concept

of eddy diffusivity is valid for the turbulent mixing of suspended sediments. Second, the

suspended sediment dynamics are represented by the concentration of a single particle size

group, assuming a homogeneous distribution of sediment particles size. Third, the

suspended sediment concentration is sufficiently low ( 1000 mg/L) such that non-

Newtonian behavior can be neglected.

In this study, the determination of settling, flocculation, deposition, erosion,

fluidization, and consolidation processes is based on the previous work of Sheng and Lick

(1979), Sheng(1986), Hwang and Mehta (1989), Sheng et al. (1991), and Chen and

Sheng(1994), and is described in Appendix B.


Model Equations in Curvilinear Boundary-Fitted and Sigma Grid



In three-dimensional modeling, complex bottom topographies can be better

represented with the application of a-stretching (Sheng, 1983), since it is possible to obtain

the same vertical resolution for the shallow coastal areas and the deeper navigation channels.

The vertical coordinate z is transformed into a new coordinate a by (Phillips, 1957):

z ((x,y,t)
a = (3.10)
h(x,y) + (x,y,t)

where is the surface elevation, and h is the mean water depth.

With this transformation, the numerical grid in the computational plane becomes

constant in space and time. However, in the physical plane, since the water surface is

constantly changing in time due to dynamic forcing conditions, the sigma grid is time









37

is calculated as a fraction of the original mass. The flushing capacity of each segment is then

defined in terms of the reduction in the relative mass (Sheng et al., 1996).


Sediment Transport Model



An integrated model of the Tampa Bay Estuarine System must contain a sediment

transport model that can be used to address environmental problems related to dredging

operations in the navigation channels, and especially, the ecological problems related to the

adsorptive capacity of fine sediments to carry particulate forms of nutrients, heavy metals,

PCB's, and other organic pollutants.

The suspended sediment model includes the advection-diffusion processes, which

are computed by the hydrodynamics model, as well as such processes as erosion, deposition,

flocculation, settling, consolidation, and entrainment (Sheng, 1986; Mehta, 1986).

The governing equation that represents the transport of suspended sediments is given

by:


c uc+ avc + a(w-w)c
at ax ay az
(3.9)
a a Dac a H ac
ax ax) ay9 ay) az z )


where c is the suspended sediment concentration, w, is the settling velocity of suspended

sediment particles (positive downward), DH is the horizontal turbulent eddy diffusivity, and Dv

is the vertical turbulent eddy diffusivity.









38

Three simplifying approximations are implied in Equation (3.9). First, the concept

of eddy diffusivity is valid for the turbulent mixing of suspended sediments. Second, the

suspended sediment dynamics are represented by the concentration of a single particle size

group, assuming a homogeneous distribution of sediment particles size. Third, the

suspended sediment concentration is sufficiently low ( 1000 mg/L) such that non-

Newtonian behavior can be neglected.

In this study, the determination of settling, flocculation, deposition, erosion,

fluidization, and consolidation processes is based on the previous work of Sheng and Lick

(1979), Sheng(1986), Hwang and Mehta (1989), Sheng et al. (1991), and Chen and

Sheng(1994), and is described in Appendix B.


Model Equations in Curvilinear Boundary-Fitted and Sigma Grid



In three-dimensional modeling, complex bottom topographies can be better

represented with the application of a-stretching (Sheng, 1983), since it is possible to obtain

the same vertical resolution for the shallow coastal areas and the deeper navigation channels.

The vertical coordinate z is transformed into a new coordinate a by (Phillips, 1957):

z ((x,y,t)
a = (3.10)
h(x,y) + (x,y,t)

where is the surface elevation, and h is the mean water depth.

With this transformation, the numerical grid in the computational plane becomes

constant in space and time. However, in the physical plane, since the water surface is

constantly changing in time due to dynamic forcing conditions, the sigma grid is time









39

dependent. A a-grid formulation is suitable for simulating flow and salinity transport in

regions of gradual bathymetric variations and gives a more accurate estimation of bottom

stress than a z-grid model, which resolves the depth with "stair-step" grids. Nevertheless,

recent studies (Sheng et al., 1989a; Haney, 1991) showed that a a-grid model is accurate only

when there are sufficient grid points across regions of sharp bathymetric gradients. In the

case of insufficient grid points, Sheng et al. (1989a) suggested a direct evaluation of the

horizontal density gradient terms along constant z-plane, and avoiding higher-order advective

schemes along the sharp bathymetric variation, to reduce numerical error.

Using non-orthogonal boundary-fitted horizontal grid, it is possible to better represent

the circulation and transport processes in estuarine systems with complex geometries.

Thompson (1983) developed a method to generate 2-D boundary-fitted grids in complex

domain by solving a set of elliptic equations. These equations relate the generally non-

orthogonal curvilinear coordinates in the physical plane x and y with the uniformly-spaced

coordinates in the transformed plane, and il.

The spatial coordinates in the physical plane, (x, y, z), have dimensions of length,

while the coordinate system in the computational plane, ( Cr,, a), is dimensionless. In this

new coordinate system ( et, a), the velocity vector are expressed in terms of contravariant

components, with dimension of [t'] (Sheng, 1989). The equations of motion in the ( 77, a)

coordinates are shown in Appendix A.









40

Boundary and Initial Conditions



In order to numerically solve the set of equations presented, boundary conditions are

required for the dependent variables.

Vertical Boundary Conditions


The boundary conditions for Equations (3.1), (3.2), (3.3), (3.5), and (3.9) at the free

surface ( a = 0) are:

P, Av u v' \

SS
0 (3.11)


+=0
a c

az



At the free surface, wind velocity is converted to stress by:


(s s) Pa Cds. + (u+ V)2 V) (3.12)


where sx, and cy are the components of the wind stress, p. is the air density

(0.0012 g/cm3), uw and vw are the components of wind speed measured at some height

above the sea level. C,, the drag coefficient, is given as a function of the wind speed

measured at 10 meters above the water surface by (Garrat, 1977):

Cds = (0.075 + 0.067 W) 0.001 (3.13)


where Ws is the wind speed magnitude in m/s.









41

The vertical velocity is obtained from the kinematic boundary condition imposed at

the surface:


w + u + (3.14)
at ax ay



The boundary conditions for Equations (3.1), (3.2), (3.3), (3.5), and (3.9) at the

bottom

(a = -1) are:


p. Av a aV = (vbx 'by
az az ) 'by

= Cdb 2 V2 1/2 (U1,V
as (3.15)
a S
-0
ao

S(w + wc + D, = Vd c E


where vd is the deposition velocity, E is the rate of erosion, Av, and Dv are vertical turbulent

eddy coefficients. Cdb is the bottom friction coefficient, and u,, v, represent the velocity

components at the first grid point above the bottom. Taking z, as half of the bottom layer

thickness (which starts at the bottom roughness height, z,), Cdb, for a hydraulic rough flow,

is given by (Sheng, 1983):


2iI ZI 1-2
Cdb = K2 In (3.16)
zo


where Kis the von Karman constant.












Lateral Boundary Conditions


Along the shoreline where river inflow or outflow may occur, the conditions are

generally:


u = u(x,y,z,t)


v = v(x,y,z,t) (3.17)


w = 0

Along a solid boundary, the normal velocity component is zero. In addition, the

normal derivatives of salinity and suspended sediment concentration are assumed to be zero.

Along an open boundary, the surface elevation, ;, is given by either a time series of

measured data or specified through harmonic constituents using the following equation:


"max 2 r t
C = (x,y,t) = Ancos + d)n (3.18)
n=1 Tn


where An, T and (n are the amplitude, period, and phase angle of the astronomical tidal


constituents.

When open boundary conditions are given in terms of ;, the normal velocity

component is assumed to be of zero slope while the tangential velocity component may be

either zero, of zero slope, or computed from the momentum equations.

The salinity and suspended sediment concentration along an open boundary or river

entrance is computed from a 1-D advection equation during the outflow. During the inflow,

the concentration takes on a prescribed value.









43

Contravariant velocity components provide lateral boundary conditions similar to

those in the (x, y) system. Along solid boundaries, the normal velocity is zero. When flow

is specified at the open boundary, the normal velocity component is prescribed.

To initiate a simulation, the initial spatial distributions of C, u, v, S and c need to

be specified. When initial data are unknown, the simulation starts with zero initial fields.

When initial data are known at a limited number of locations, an initial field can be

interpolated. For salinity simulations, the "spin-up" time is longer and sufficient time should

be allowed in model simulations.


















CHAPTER 4
THE WATER QUALITY MODEL



Previous Work



Considerable effort has been expended in the past 20 years to develop water quality

models for freshwater and marine systems. In freshwater systems, Streeter and Phelps (1925)

were the first researchers to introduce a set of equations for predicting the biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD) and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. Since then, simple zero-

and first-order exponential decay, dilution and sedimentation terms have been added to

predict other conservative and non-conservative species. Sheng (1994) provided a

comprehensive review on water quality models for shallow waters. Jorgensen et al. (1996)

provided the most recent review of environmental models developed in the last two decades.

Water quality models can be classified in terms of the approach undertaken for

solution and analysis. Steady-state models are usually simpler and require less computational

effort than dynamic models. On the other hand, multi-dimension, robust models can provide

more detailed and comprehensive information on the water quality. Stochastic models

require more data for calibration and validation than deterministic models. Water quality

parameters simulated by deterministic models are expressed in terms of expected values,

while simulations performed by stochastic models explicitly take into account the uncertainty









46

of physical and biogeochemical processes. Validation of stochastic models is particularly

difficult due to the quantity of observational data required to compare probability

distributions of variables rather than just their expected or mean values (Loucks, 1981).

Moreover, it is more meaningful, in terms of interpretation, to estimate biogeochemical

parameters like growth and nitrification rates than empirical parameters like autoregressive

and moving average coefficients (Solow, 1995).

Until recently, water quality models, originally developed for rivers and stream flows,

were indiscriminately used in estuarine systems. The assumption of steady or quasi-steady

state of the hydrodynamics processes justified the use of coarse grids, and models were either

uncoupled or loosely coupled with hydrodynamics models. However, even in freshwater

systems, there is increasing evidence that hydrodynamics processes have very significant

effects on water quality and ecological processes. Chen and Sheng (1994) found that the

internal loading of nutrients from bottom sediments in Lake Okeechobee could not be

accurately calculated by a water quality model using a large time step of 6 hours. During one

time step, the internal loading of nutrients from bottom sediments calculated by a

conventional water quality model may be zero, because of the zero average net flux from the

bottom sediments in this 6-hour period. In reality, the resuspension and deposition processes

can significantly affect internal loading through sorption/desorption processes. Model

simulations which include such effects produced results that agree well with field data

(Sheng et al., 1993). The water quality model developed by Chen and Sheng (1994) forms

the basis of the water quality model of the present study, although their model did not include

the dissolved oxygen balance and was limited to rectangular grid system.









47

In estuarine systems, the necessity to accurately represent hydrodynamics and

biogeochemical processes is even more relevant. Estuarine systems are physically dominated

ecosystems, where the action of the sun, tides, wind, atmospheric disturbances, river

discharges, and complex geomorphometric features interact. It is the balance of these

physical forces acting as subsidies and stresses that will dictate the water quality dynamics

of each estuarine system.

In traditional water quality box models like WASP (Ambrose et al., 1994), salinity

data is used to obtain the so-called dispersivee coefficients" during model calibration. This

salinity calibration consists of first averaging the flows over the calibration period and then

estimating tidal dispersion coefficients, assuming steady-state conditions (AScI, 1996). In

an estuarine environment, this approach is questionable since salinity is an active species.

Its concentration and gradients affect the temporal and spatial distribution of the density

field, driving baroclinic forces that completely change the hydrodynamic characteristics of

the flow.

AScI (1996) has applied WASP4 in Tampa Bay aiming at the development of a

"broad-based, management-oriented model". The primary objective of the AScI study is to

provide the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) with a modeling

tool to define eutrophication management strategies. The rationale of this approach was that

the hydrodynamic and water quality data gathered in Tampa Bay, from 1985 to 1991, was

sufficient for the determination of the dispersive and the other "ad-hoc" coefficients of the

model. In addition to the 28 model coefficients, sediment oxygen demand and benthic fluxes

were also determined for specific Bay segments during the calibration process. Another


I









48

limitation of the AScI study is the time scale (time step of one month), which prevents the

model from capturing episodic events. Schoellhammer (1993) showed that resuspension in

Old Tampa Bay is closely related to storm systems and local wind-generated waves. Sheng

et al. (1993) showed that the contribution of resuspension flux to the internal loading during

episodic events can be orders of magnitude greater than the normal diffusive benthic flux.

Coastal, Inc. (1995) developed a statistical model to investigate the relationships

among nutrient loading, water quality parameters (chlorophyll-a), and light attenuation

coefficients. Like the AScI (1996) study, the rationale supporting this simple approach was

the large amount of data gathered between 1985 and 1991. It was thought that if the

available water quality data were sufficient to calibrate and validate this empirically-based

model, it would serve as a management tool to determine external nitrogen loadings

consistent with seagrass light requirements. Using regression analysis, Coastal, Inc.

determined the relationships between total nitrogen loading, chlorophyll-a, turbidity and light

attenuation coefficients in the four major Bay segments (Old Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay,

Middle Tampa Bay, and Lower Tampa Bay). The conclusions of the Coastal, Inc. study was

that no reduction in annual average nitrogen loading and chlorophyll a concentration would

be required for the 20% near-bottom light level target for the four major Bay segments.

However, a substantial reduction in nitrogen loads would be required in order to achieve the

25% light level target.

The limitations of the Coastal, Inc. study are related to the fact that the simplifying

assumptions applied (linear correlation between cause and effect) proved deficient to explain

any correlation between external loading and nitrogen and chlorophyll-a concentrations


I









49

inside the Bay (Coastal, 1995). This limitation suggests that the internal loading has a

significant role in the nutrient budget, and consequently should be considered in the

strategies to control the eutrophication process. Furthermore, another uncertainty of the

Coastal analysis was originated from their conclusion that a three month cumulative lag

period for nitrogen loads could explain the variation in the chlorophyll-a data. Johansson

(1991), using a similar statistical approach presented evidences for a three-year lag between

external nitrogen loading and chlorophyll-a response. Again, different rates of internal

nitrogen loading may explained the lag difference between Coastal, Inc. (1995) and

Johansson (1991) studies.

These previous modeling efforts on Tampa Bay provided useful foundation for this

more comprehensive modeling study. Despite their simplified approach, these studies were

able to isolate relevant processes and determine some specific model coefficients. At the end

of this chapter, Table 4.2 presents the model coefficients used in this study, the range of each

coefficient found in the literature, and the values used by AScI (1996). In order to account

for both point and non-point sources of nitrogen loading into the Bay, the water quality

species concentration along model boundaries were determined from the nutrient loadings

presented by Coastal, Inc. (1994). Total nitrogen loadings were converted to concentrations

and used along with river discharges.

The water quality component of this integrated model for Tampa Bay focuses on the

interactions between oxygen balance, nutrient dynamics, light attenuation, phytoplankton and

zooplankton dynamics. To develop the water quality model, the mass conservation principle

can be applied to each water quality parameter related to the phytoplankton and zooplankton


I









50

dynamics, phosphorus cycle, nitrogen cycle, and oxygen balance. With regard to nutrients,

the nitrogen cycle is more important than the phosphorus cycle since nitrogen has been the

macro-nutrient limiting phytoplankton growth in Tampa Bay (FWCA,1969; Lewis and

Estevez, 1988; Johansson, 1991; Coastal, 1995; AScI, 1996). Hence phosphorus cycle is not

included as part of the water quality model for Tampa Bay.


Development of the Numerical Model



The nitrogen cycle in Tampa Bay is modeled through a series of first-order kinetics,

which start with the biogeochemical process controlling nitrogen fixation. Phytoplankton

growth controls ammonia and nitrate uptake. The uptake rate for each species is proportional

to its concentration relative to the total inorganic nitrogen content, and a preferential factor

for ammonia uptake. Nitrogen returns from the planktonic biomass pool as dissolved and

particulate organic nitrogen and as dissolved inorganic nitrogen through endogenous

respiration and non-predatory mortality. Organic nitrogen is converted to ammonia

mineralizationn) at a temperature-dependent rate, and ammonia is then converted to nitrate

(nitrification) in a temperature and oxygen-dependent rate. The stability of the dissolved

form of ammonium in water is pH dependent. It can exist in its ionic form, ammonium

(NH1,) or as ammonia (NH3), with the latter being lost from the system through

volatilization. Low levels of dissolved oxygen may induce a bacterial-mediated

transformation of nitrate into nitrogen gas (denitrification) at a temperature-dependent rate.









51

The oxygen balance couples dissolved oxygen to the other state variables. Reaeration

through the atmosphere-water interface, and phytoplankton production during photosynthesis

are the main sources for oxygen. Oxidation of organic matter and carbonaceous material,

respiration by zoo and phytoplankton, and oxygen consumption during the nitrification

process are collectively grouped into the CBOD (carbonaceous-biochemical oxygen demand)

variable, which is a sink for dissolved oxygen (Ambrose et al., 1994).

The light penetration inside water can be determined through measurements of

turbidity, color, and light penetration (Kirk, 1994). In the integrated model for Tampa Bay,

the primary concern is the availability of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), which

is influenced by the intensity of incident solar radiation, solar elevation angle, weather

conditions, water depth, tidal range, concentrations of sediments, detritus and phytoplankton

(Miller and McPherson, 1995).

Phytoplankton kinetics is the central part of this water quality model, since the

primary water quality issue in the Tampa Bay Estuarine System is eutrophication (Boler et

al., 1991). Phytoplankton population is a complex variable to obtain in the field. For single

species, a direct measurement of the population size is the number of cells per unit of

volume. However, in natural multi-species environment, it is difficult to distinguish viable

and non-viable cells and, for species that tend to colonize, counting requires an extra effort

to separate individual cells because the size of the colonies are quite variable (Ambrose et

al., 1994). An alternate solution is to measure phytoplankton population through chlorophyll

analysis, although this is not an absolute indicator of planktonic biomass. Some species do

not contain chlorophyll and when chloroplasts (chlorophyll-containing structures found in









52

algal and green plant cells) are present, they vary in number, size and pigment content per

cell (Boler et al., 1991). The conversion to phytoplankton dry weight or carbon involves

further species-dependent constants that depend on nutrient and light levels.

The rationale behind this water quality modeling effort is that planktonic organisms

have a fast response to environmental conditions. In other words, by combining chlorophyll

with nutrient levels, dissolved oxygen balance, and light attenuation, it is possible to evaluate

and quantify short and long term water quality processes such as hypoxia and eutrophication.


Mathematical Formulation



In this study, the water quality equations are derived from an Eulerian approach,

using a control volume formulation. In this method, the time rate of change of the

concentration of any substance within this control volume is the net result of (i)

concentration fluxes through the sides of the control volume, and (ii) production and sink

inside the control volume. The conservation equation for each of the water quality

parameters is given by:

+ V-((ii) = V-[D V(() )] + Q
a t (4.1)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

where (i) is the evolution term (rate of change of concentration in the control volume), (ii)

is the advection term (fluxes into/out of the control volume due to advection of the flow

field), (iii) is the dispersion term (fluxes into/out of the control volume due to turbulent









53

diffusion of the flow field), and (iv) is the sink/source term, representing the kinetics and

transformations due to sorption/desorption, oxidation, excretion, decay, growth,

biodegradation, etc. The water quality equations in the curvilinear non-orthogonal boundary-

fitted system (T, rl, o) is given by:

1 aHd 1 a (Dado
H -t H2 ao v" 9a
1 [_/(r-Hudo)\+9 I (-oHV,)] 1 9 Hodo
ao (FHu + Hdo H (4.2)
H- g, aE an

+ DH [g11 a2 +2g 12 2 + g222 ]
Wa2 2~rl ar|2


where d represents any water quality parameter, (g,) is the Jacobian of horizontal

transformation, (g g 12, g 22) are the metric coefficients of coordinate transformation, and

Q represents the biogeochemical processes.

In the following sections, the biogeochemical processes controlling the sink/source

term of Equation (4.2) will be discussed in detail for the nutrient dynamics, zooplankton and

phytoplankton dynamics, and oxygen balance in estuarine systems.


Nutrient Dynamics in Estuarine Systems



As explained earlier, the nutrient dynamics will be centered in the nitrogen cycle,

assuming it is the macro-nutrient that limits phytoplankton growth. For the present study,

the basic transformation processes for the nitrogen cycle are similar to those described in

Chen and Sheng (1994).


I









52

algal and green plant cells) are present, they vary in number, size and pigment content per

cell (Boler et al., 1991). The conversion to phytoplankton dry weight or carbon involves

further species-dependent constants that depend on nutrient and light levels.

The rationale behind this water quality modeling effort is that planktonic organisms

have a fast response to environmental conditions. In other words, by combining chlorophyll

with nutrient levels, dissolved oxygen balance, and light attenuation, it is possible to evaluate

and quantify short and long term water quality processes such as hypoxia and eutrophication.


Mathematical Formulation



In this study, the water quality equations are derived from an Eulerian approach,

using a control volume formulation. In this method, the time rate of change of the

concentration of any substance within this control volume is the net result of (i)

concentration fluxes through the sides of the control volume, and (ii) production and sink

inside the control volume. The conservation equation for each of the water quality

parameters is given by:

+ V-((ii) = V-[D V(() )] + Q
a t (4.1)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

where (i) is the evolution term (rate of change of concentration in the control volume), (ii)

is the advection term (fluxes into/out of the control volume due to advection of the flow

field), (iii) is the dispersion term (fluxes into/out of the control volume due to turbulent









53

diffusion of the flow field), and (iv) is the sink/source term, representing the kinetics and

transformations due to sorption/desorption, oxidation, excretion, decay, growth,

biodegradation, etc. The water quality equations in the curvilinear non-orthogonal boundary-

fitted system (T, rl, o) is given by:

1 aHd 1 a (Dado
H -t H2 ao v" 9a
1 [_/(r-Hudo)\+9 I (-oHV,)] 1 9 Hodo
ao (FHu + Hdo H (4.2)
H- g, aE an

+ DH [g11 a2 +2g 12 2 + g222 ]
Wa2 2~rl ar|2


where d represents any water quality parameter, (g,) is the Jacobian of horizontal

transformation, (g g 12, g 22) are the metric coefficients of coordinate transformation, and

Q represents the biogeochemical processes.

In the following sections, the biogeochemical processes controlling the sink/source

term of Equation (4.2) will be discussed in detail for the nutrient dynamics, zooplankton and

phytoplankton dynamics, and oxygen balance in estuarine systems.


Nutrient Dynamics in Estuarine Systems



As explained earlier, the nutrient dynamics will be centered in the nitrogen cycle,

assuming it is the macro-nutrient that limits phytoplankton growth. For the present study,

the basic transformation processes for the nitrogen cycle are similar to those described in

Chen and Sheng (1994).


I









54

Nitrogen comprises 78% of the atmosphere, mostly molecular N2 This form is

biologically unavailable except for fixation by procaryotic organisms containing the enzyme

nitrogenase. Considering the kinetic pathway organic nitrogen -*ammonia -4 nitrate -+N2,

fixed forms of nitrogen such as nitrate, ammonium, and organic nitrogen would gradually

be depleted from the biosphere if not for nitrogen fixation.

Nitrogen inputs to estuarine systems are related to point and non-point sources from

land, atmospheric deposition, and fixation. Additionally, internal loadings such as from

resuspended sediments containing inorganic and organic forms are also important. The

specification and quantification of each of these contributions is the first step towards the

determination of nitrogen budget in an estuarine system.

As shown in Equation (4.2), the nitrogen cycle is highly dependent on the

hydrodynamics and sediment dynamics of the estuarine system. Resuspension events,

combined with desorption processes can significantly change the input and budget of

nitrogen in the system. On the other hand, deposition and sorption may contribute to major

losses of nitrogen from the water column. The hydrodynamics not only drive the sediment

processes, but also affect the sorption/desorption reactions, through turbulent mixing.

The processes simulated in this study include:

a) Mineralization of organic nitrogen

b) Nitrification of ammonium

c) Volatilization of ammonia

d) Denitrification of nitrate

e) Uptake of ammonia and nitrate by phytoplankton









55

f) Conversion of algal-nitrogen into zooplankton-nitrogen through grazing

g) Excretion by algae and zooplankton

For the purpose of studying its cycle, the nitrogen species are first divided into

dissolved and particulate groups. This division is usually established in the laboratory using

filtering techniques. In the dissolved group, this study will consider nitrogen as ammonia

nitrogen, represented by the state variable NH3; dissolved ammonium nitrogen, represented

by the state variable NH4; nitrate+nitrite nitrogen, represented by the state variable N03; and

dissolved or soluble organic nitrogen (SON). Particulate nitrogen includes: particulate

inorganic nitrogen (PIN), and particulate organic nitrogen (PON). Zooplankton nitrogen

(ZOON), and algal nitrogen (ALGN) relate biomass to nitrogen concentration through fixed

stoichiometric ratios: zooplankton nitrogen to carbon ratio (zNc ), and algal nitrogen to

carbon ratio (ad).

In order to couple the water quality model with hydrodynamics and sediment

dynamics, Equation (4.2) needs to be modified for the particulate forms of nitrogen, so that

it includes a settling velocity. For the inorganic species, it is reasonable to assume the same

settling velocity of the suspended sediment particles. For phytoplankton, literature values

of algae settling velocity, which accounts for the limited vertical motion of these organisms

will be used.

Ammonia Nitrogen


Ammonia volatilization is a physico-chemical process where ammonium N is in

equilibrium between its gaseous and hydroxyl form:


I I












NH3(aq) + H2O NH4' + OH- (4.3)



As stated, the process is pH dependent, with an alkaline environment driving the

reaction to the left, i.e. favoring the aqueous form. Since the concentration of ammonia in

the atmosphere is very low, the partial pressure difference may produce a sink for nitrogen

in the system, according to Henry's law. The kinetic pathway for ammonia nitrogen (state

variable NH3) is represented in the sink term of Equation (4.2) as:


Q = KA pH *NH4 K l[hv'NH3 (NH3),] (4.4)
Hi + pH



where KAI is the ammonia conversion rate constant, and H, is the half-saturation constant

for ammonia conversion. KvoLis the volatilization rate constant, hV is Henry's constant, and (NH3)a.

is the ammonia concentration in the air.

Dissolved Ammonium Nitrogen


Nitrogen fixation is a biogeochemical process mediated by a variety of autotrophic

and heterotrophic bacteria, by which nitrogen gas is reduced to ammonium:


N2(g) + 8H' + 6e- 2NH4' (4.5)


In aquatic systems, this reaction is only possible in very reduced environments

(Snoeyink and Jenkins, 1980). Such an environment exists inside photosynthetic cells of

blue-green algae, and in the symbiotic association in root nodules between bacteria of the

genus Rhizobium and certain plants. It has been reported that cyanobacteria are responsible


I









57

for most planktonic fixation in aquatic environments, with a high correlation between

fixation rates and cyanobacteria biomass (Howarth et al., 1988). In most estuaries, the

biomass of these nitrogen-fixing species of cyanobacteria usually makes up a very small

percentage of the phytoplanktonic biomass (< 1%), suggesting insignificant amount of

nitrogen fixation (Howarth et al., 1988). Johansson et al. (1985) showed that, prior to 1984,

planktonic filamentous blue-green algae (Schizothrix calcicola sensu Drouet) dominated the

phytoplankton population in Tampa Bay from early summer to early winter. However,

Johansson (1991) stated that there was no information to support that this blue-green algae

is responsible for nitrogen fixation in Tampa Bay. Actually, it has been estimated that

nitrogen fixation should account for no more than 5% of the total nitrogen budget in the Bay

(Johansson, personal communication). These evidences support the hypothesis generally

accepted that many estuaries are nitrogen limited in part due to the low rates of nitrogen

fixation. Hence, nitrogen fixation was not considered in this study.

The biogeochemical transformation of organic nitrogen to ammonium is defined as

ammonification. Another source for dissolved ammonium is the release of NH4 during

mortality and excretion of algae and zooplankton, and the sorption/desorption reaction with

sediment particles. The kinetic pathway of ammonium nitrogen (state variable NH4) is

represented in the source term of Equation (4.2) by a first-order reaction (Rao et al., 1984),

and a partitioning between particulate and dissolved form regulated by the

sorption/desorption kinetics (Chen and Sheng, 1994):












DO
Q = K SON K O NH4
NM SON NN Hnit + DO

+ da(PIN pn-c-NH4)
(4.6)
Pnpa-ALGN + KC-ALGN + KZ-ZOON


K pH -NH4
SH. + pH



whereKoNu the rate of organic nitrogen mineralization is a function of water temperature,

pH, and the C/N ratio of the residue (Reddy and Patrick, 1984). KN is the nitrification rate

constant, DO is the dissolved oxygen concentration, Hkit is the half saturation constant for

oxygen limitation. d, is the desorption rate of NH4 from sediment particles, p, is the

partition coefficient between NH4 and PIN, and c is the suspend sediment concentration. P,


is the ammonium preference factor for algae uptake, Pa is the algae growth rate,

K and K, are the algae and zooplankton excretion rate constants, respectively. All

coefficients related to zoo and phytoplankton dynamics will be discussed later in this

Chapter.

Nitrite+Nitrate Nitrogen


In an aerobic environment, the mineralization of organic nitrogen proceeds with a

bacterial-mediated transformation of ammonium into nitrate. The nitrification process is a

two step process, in which the chemoautotrophic bacteria of the genera Nitrosomonas

mediate the formation of nitrite, and bacteria of the genera Nitrobacter the formation of

nitrate:












NH4' + 1.5 02 NO2- + 2H' + H20
(4.7)
NO2- + 0.5 02 NO3


Nitrification is a strictly aerobic process, occurring only in the water column and in

the aerobic layer of the sediment column. Equation (4.7) shows that the nitrification process

is a sink for dissolved oxygen in the system.

Denitrification is defined as the biogeochemical transformation of nitrate N to

gaseous end products such as molecular nitrogen or nitrous oxide (Reddy and Patrick, 1984).

Like volatilization, denitrification represents a sink for nitrogen in the system. Under

anaerobic conditions and in the presence of available organic substrate, denitrifying bacteria

(e.g. Pseudomonas denitrificans) can use nitrate as an electron acceptor during anaerobic

respiration. As an example, the oxidation of a carbohydrate substrate to CO2 and HO using

nitrate instead of oxygen can be given as:


5(CH20) + 4NO3- + 4H' 5CO2 + 2N2 + 7H20 (4.8)


This irreversible reaction is actually a two-step process in which nitrate is reduced

to nitrous oxide before being converted into molecular nitrogen. Nitrous oxide has been

related to the Earth's "greenhouse" effect because N20 reacts and breaks down atmospheric

ozone (McElroy et al., 1978). Reddy et al. (1978) showed that under carbon-limiting

conditions, the denitrification process described in Equation (4.8) can be represented by a

first-order reaction.









60

In this study, the kinetic pathway of nitrite+nitrate (state variable NO3) is

represented in the source term of Equation (4.2) as a sequence of first-order reactions, limited

by the dissolved oxygen concentration:


S Hit+DO Hno3+DO



where KD is the denitrification rate constant, and HN3 is the half saturation constant for

denitrification, which can be calibrated to only allow the denitrification process to occur

under low dissolved oxygen conditions (Ambrose et al., 1994).

Soluble Organic Nitrogen


Besides N2 the largest pool of nitrogen in estuarine systems are dissolved and

particulate organic nitrogen. The kinetic pathway of dissolved or soluble organic nitrogen

is the convention of SONtoNH4 during ammonification, and the sorption/desorption reaction

with sediment particles. For soluble organic nitrogen (state variable SON), the source term

of Equation (4.2) can be represented by:

Q = KON SON + d,, (PON Pn, c SON) (4.10)


where dn is the desorption rate of SON from the sediment particles, and pn,, is the partition

coefficient between SON and PON.











Particulate Organic Nitrogen


The kinetic pathway of particulate organic nitrogen is the release of PON during

mortality and excretion of algae and zooplankton, and the sorption/desorption reaction with

sediment particles. In estuarine systems with organic-rich sediments, benthic mineralization

of detritus can be a major recycling pathway, and account for a significant fraction of the

nutrient requirements of primary producers in overlying water column (Klump and Martens,

1981). For particulate organic nitrogen (state variable PON), the source term of Equation

(4.2) can be represented as:

Q = K ALGN + K, ZOON do (PON P c SON) (4.11)


where K is the mortality rate of zooplankton.

Particulate Inorganic Nitrogen


Sources of PIN are related to nitrogen contained in the suspended particulate matter

derived from landward and seaward origin (Keefe, 1994). There have been several studies,

at various spatial and temporal scales, of particulate nitrogen distribution in estuarine systems

(Sharp et al., 1982; Edmond et al., 1985; Wafar et al., 1989). Nevertheless, little insight is

available concerning the partitioning between the inorganic and organic fraction of these

materials (Froelich, 1988). The kinetic pathway of particulate inorganic nitrogen (state

variable PIN) is related to the sorption/desorption reaction with sediment particles, and the

source term of Equation (4.2) can be written as:


Q = -d, (PIN Pan c NH4)


(4.12)












Algal Nitrogen


Through uptake of inorganic nitrogen, algae assimilates nitrogen in proportion to its

growth rate. The particulate nitrogen recycles to the inorganic pool by means of excretion

and non-predatory mortality. Inasmuch as there is no data on excretion of zoo and

phytoplankton under field conditions, most of water quality models consider constant

excretion and mortality rates proportional to the biomass (Jorgensen, 1983; Najarian et al.,

1984; Ambrose et al., 1994; Chen and Sheng, 1994). Another sink for ALGN is due to

grazing by zooplankton, at a rate proportional to the zooplankton growth rate. Growth rates

for phytoplankton and zooplankton in estuarine systems are complex functions of the species

present, and they will be discussed later in this Chapter.

The algal nitrogen (state variable ALGN) is represented in this model by a fixed

stoichiometric ratio relating algal biomass and nitrogen concentration as:

ALGN = aN (Algal Biomass) (4.13)


where a is the algal nitrogen to carbon constant ratio.

Zooplankton Nitrogen


Similar to ALGN, the kinetic pathway of particulate zooplankton nitrogen depends

on growth, excretion, and mortality rates. In this case, the zooplankton nitrogen (state

variable ZOON) is given by:

ZOON = ZNC (Zooplankton Biomass)


where zNC is the zooplankton nitrogen to carbon constant ratio.












Sorption and Desorption Reactions



In the nitrogen cycle, sorption processes refer to the conversion from soluble to solid

phase of inorganic and organic species, while desorption reactions describe the inverse

process. Sorption/desorption processes, combined with resuspension events can significantly

alter the nitrogen cycle in the system.

The kinetics of sorption/desorption reactions are dependent on each nitrogen species

characteristics, sediment properties, pH, temperature, and dissolved oxygen concentration

(Simon, 1989). Some studies have shown that sorption/desorption processes can be more

important in marine environment than in freshwater. The primary reason has been attributed

to a six times higher adsorptive capacity of clays for organic matter in seawater than in

freshwater, due to salinity effects (Pocklington, 1977; Martinova, 1993).

The most commonly used mathematical representation of sorption/desorption

processes is the linear, reversible, isotherm (Berkheiser et al., 1980; Reddy et al., 1988):


N -Dr N, + Sr N (4.15)
at


where Dr is the desorption rate constant, Sr is the sorption rate constant, N. is the adsorbed

nitrogen concentration, and N, is the dissolved nitrogen concentration.

Equation (4.15) can be reformulated, considering that at equilibrium, the ratio

between the desorption and sorption rates gives the partition coefficient between dissolved

and particulate forms:












aN
S-Dr(Nd p N) (4.16)



where Pc is the partition coefficient.


Phytoplankton Dynamics in Estuarine Systems



The overall water quality in the Tampa Bay Estuarine System is markedly influenced

by the dynamics of the zoo and phytoplankton communities (Lewis and Estevez, 1988; Boler

et al., 1991; AScI, 1996). In a review of the phytoplankton in Tampa Bay, Steidinger and

Gardiner (1985) reported the dominance of nannoplankton (less than 20 Pm), with a head to

mouth gradient, following the salinity distribution. The authors also reported that Tampa

Bay presents more than 250 species of phytoplankton, with diatoms making up the bulk of

the distribution. However, the lack of data on each specific species prevented a more

detailed characterization, and the entire phytoplanktonic community is represented in this

study by a single state variable.

In this study, a quantitative model of phytoplankton population dynamics also uses

the conservation of mass principle, in which hydrodynamics transport plays a major role.

Phytoplankton growth is represented by a temperature-dependent maximum growth rate that

is limited by nutrient availability and light. Light limitation is formulated according to the

equation first proposed by Steele (1965). The nutrient limitation is represented by a modified

version of the Michaelis-Menton formulation. Some researchers (e.g. Jorgensen, 1976)

suggest that the nutrient-limited growth rate of phytoplankton is a function of the internal












aN
S-Dr(Nd p N) (4.16)



where Pc is the partition coefficient.


Phytoplankton Dynamics in Estuarine Systems



The overall water quality in the Tampa Bay Estuarine System is markedly influenced

by the dynamics of the zoo and phytoplankton communities (Lewis and Estevez, 1988; Boler

et al., 1991; AScI, 1996). In a review of the phytoplankton in Tampa Bay, Steidinger and

Gardiner (1985) reported the dominance of nannoplankton (less than 20 Pm), with a head to

mouth gradient, following the salinity distribution. The authors also reported that Tampa

Bay presents more than 250 species of phytoplankton, with diatoms making up the bulk of

the distribution. However, the lack of data on each specific species prevented a more

detailed characterization, and the entire phytoplanktonic community is represented in this

study by a single state variable.

In this study, a quantitative model of phytoplankton population dynamics also uses

the conservation of mass principle, in which hydrodynamics transport plays a major role.

Phytoplankton growth is represented by a temperature-dependent maximum growth rate that

is limited by nutrient availability and light. Light limitation is formulated according to the

equation first proposed by Steele (1965). The nutrient limitation is represented by a modified

version of the Michaelis-Menton formulation. Some researchers (e.g. Jorgensen, 1976)

suggest that the nutrient-limited growth rate of phytoplankton is a function of the internal









65

nutrient content. According to this approach, external nutrients are taken up by

phytoplankton and stored. Ensuing growth would then be related to this internal nutrient

content. Assuming a dynamic state of equilibrium between the external concentration and

internal content (Di Toro, 1980), it is possible to represent the nutrient limitation according

to the formulation suggested by Riley and Stefan (1988).

In this study, the phytoplankton growth rate is represented by:


S oT-20 I I NH4 + N03
o = a exp 1 ( 4.17)
Ia = (a)m 2ax I e p( H+ NH4 + N03 (4.17)



where (a)max is the algae maximum growth rate, 0 is the temperature correction factor, I is

the light intensity, I is the optimum light intensity for algal growth, Hn is the half saturation

constant for algal growth.

The phytoplankton kinetics are represented by growth, respiration, non-predatory

mortality, grazing by zooplankton, and a settling term which accounts for the limited vertical

motion. The source term of Equation (4.2) can be written as:


Q = (WSge -PHY) + (p,,- K) PHY z,' ZOO (4.18)


where wSigae is the phytoplankton settling velocity. Chen and Sheng (1994) reviewed

algal settling rate measured in eutrophic water bodies, and showed that it is not only species

dependent, but it also a function of flocculation and senescence.

Zooplankton are the lower-trophic level consumers that constitute the primary

herbivorous component of an estuarine ecosystem (Kennish, 1990). In this study,









66

phytoplankton are the object of concern, therefore, no attempt is made to investigate the

details of the zooplankton dynamics. Zooplankton is only considered as the predators of

phytoplankton, utilizing their available biomass as food supply.

Zooplankton growth is represented by a temperature-dependent maximum growth

rate, that is limited by phytoplankton availability:


z = )mx T-20. PHY
Hphy + PHY (4.19)



where (z)max is the maximum growth rate for zooplankton, 6z is the temperature limiting

function for zooplankton, and Hphy is the half saturation constant for phytoplankton uptake.

The zooplankton kinetics, influenced by growth, respiration, and mortality, is

represented in the source term of Equation (4.2) by:

Q = (Fz Kzx-K )ZOO (4.20)



Oxygen Balance in Estuarine Systems



Dissolved oxygen dynamics in aquatic systems have been extensively studied

(Streeter and Phelps, 1925; O'Connor and Thomann, 1972; Orlob, 1983; Ambrose et al.,

1994). Dissolved oxygen evolution depends on the balance between photosynthetic

production, total respiration, and exchanges with the atmosphere. Oxygen, as a byproduct

of photosynthesis, increases as a result of autotrophs' growth. Dissolved oxygen saturation

in seawater is determined as function of temperature and salinity (APHA, 1985). For









67

dissolved oxygen levels below saturation, DO diffuses into surface waters. When the water

is super-saturated, mainly as a result of primary production, oxygen will be diffused out to

the atmosphere. As any other water quality parameter, dissolved oxygen is also subject to

advective transport in the estuarine system.

In this study, the formulation of the oxygen balance is based on that in the WASPS

model, with some modifications. The rate of dissolved oxygen production is assumed to be

proportional to the growth rate of the phytoplankton in a fixed stoichiometry reaction. For

each milligram of phytoplankton carbon produced by growth using nitrate, a fixed amount

of phytoplankton nitrogen (ALGN) is reduced, and (48/14) a, (phytoplankton

nitrogen/carbon ratio) mg of 02 is produced. The dissolved oxygen fluxes on the air-water

interface are determined as a product of a reaeration coefficient multiplied by the difference

between dissolved oxygen saturation and the dissolved oxygen concentration at the surface

layer. The reaeration coefficient is assumed to be proportional to the water velocity, depth,

and wind speed (Thomann and Fitzpatrick, 1982). Details of the dissolved oxygen saturation

and reaeration coefficient calculations are presented in Appendix C.

In this model, there are two options for the kinetic pathway of DO. The first one,

describing the oxygen balance through a full non-linear equation is represented in the source

term of Equation (4.2) as:




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs